Existantial Crises Is Over.

[Guest Fadi]

Why posting it here ? Well, because my answer is scientific in nature.

 

I have found my answer about why consciensnous exist. The answer is because the Universe exist, in order for the Universe to exist, an observer should exist. Without the Observer there can't be any Universe.

 

There should at least be one observer, imagine that you creat a Universe, this Universe you created exist because you were the observer of this Universe, if there is no observer, there is no Universe at all.

 

So, only the possibility that this Universe exist supposes that there is consciensnous, an observer, we as an observer make the Universe existing. Not only this, we build this Universe as an observer, the Universe is what we make of it, its past, present and future are what we make of its past, present and future, if we suppose that a photon is a particule it will act as a particule, if we suppose that it is a wave, it will act as a wave(that has been already demonstrated).

 

If you believe in God, your Universe will act like if there is a God, if you don't, it won't.

 

What does that mean ? It means that consciencenous is what makes the Universe, and the Universe what makes consciencenous. You creat consciencenous and you creat a whole new Universe.

 

If we suppose there were a big-bang, with experiments we may mesure the age of the Universe, if we support the Stady state theory of the Infinit age, the "origine" waves detected would explain not the first emusion of particules but those of full range Quazars in a wave of new galaxies creations.

 

Nothing exist before being discovered, you discover it, you creat it, what will make this "creation" possible to other humans is only because our consciencenous is collective and has the same properies. So what that means, is that what makes this Universe respect some laws, is that the properties of this Universe consciences is such a way that its creation will be the creation of its parts.

 

Suppose that there is 5 persons, one discover something, and those datas are studied by the others, all conclude that it is logical and respect those laws of physic, we suppose that it is logical, because it respect logical methodology and observations, but only the fact that thos observer has discovered the new thing has a direct consequences on the rest 4 of them.

 

Dead to special relativity long life to Quantum Mechanic, more I extrapolate based on Quantum mechanic hypotheses, and more I see how Quantum Mechanic is the GREATEST EVER !!! Thing we ever found about, in fact it is the only thing that is independent of our observations, because it is the THING in question that explain the dependency in question.

 

So those believers of Jesus, God or whatever, search God, and the Universe will act in a such a way that it exist... but the true god here is the observer, because without the observer, there is no Universe... the moment you discover a new thing you just increase the size of your own Universe, it is similair to my belief of the Universe being our brain, but now, its only more oundamental and even in some way indepdent of the brain, just the "consciencenous" that I still am trying to understand the need of the 'individuality"

 

So we are not an accident, we are what we want to be, our Universe is what our collective Universal conscience has decided it to be.

 

After thinking and thinking, I don't see any other possible explanations, and I believe this one to be the true one.

[Sip]

Dude, Domino, do you know why you exist? Cause I am going to come over and kick the crap out of you. If I didn't kick the crap out of you, then you wouldn't exist. So aren't you glad now?

[Guest Fadi]

I knew you would come with something like this.

 

I have another hypotheses, what if consciencenous was not a product of the brain, but individuality IS a product of the brain... imagine that there is only one universal conscience, that its goal is to creat the most possible and biguest Universes possible ? What would it do ?

 

Imagine you and me Sip have the same conscience, the difference between you and me is this individuality that is the product of the brain. Imagine that I take off my self awarness and put it to you, and you take your self-awarness and pu it in me, this self-awarness will think it was always Seaphahn because it will be connected to your memories... so only one Universal conscience is needed in order for any human to be self-aware and have an individuality. That would mean that you and me or whom ever else may have the same "conscience." Thats the answer, The Universe exist because there is the observer the observer exist because he is self aware of his existance, he is self-aware of his existance because he is conscient, therefore the Universe exist because conscience exist, and there is only one conscience a Universal conscience, and that each people just use this same conscience and grow it and by growing it in the same tome grow the Universe in which we exist.

 

I should write a science fiction book, with that theory I may have a better story than the Matrix.

 

BTW, how have you found the Matrix reloaded ? I think that the Matrix is the best science fiction movie ever made.

[Stormig]

Cogito, ergo sum.

[Guest Fadi]

Here an interesting reading, on the same direction I am taking.

 

http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html

[THOTH]

Good Domino - you've had us worried fer sure....I don't wish to burst your bubble with objections however...so I won't...though I must say we are somewhat poor observers - no? More often then not - our observations reflect some fancy rather then any real note on reality...we have a very long ways to go I think....but perhaps this is why we must have children and attempt to teach them to be more scientific and open minded (and to procreate and do the same)...and as well to be good people and all of that....seems you had some issues with morality and such as well - not sure your observer theory takes that into account...and consider perhaps we (may just) exsit to spawn machine life - that will be more suited to the rigours of space...and more importantly...time...to enable the next step(s)...or perhaps we are but vessels for the bacteria supermind...etc etc...no one can really say for sure (or not) can they?

[Guest Fadi]

The only 3 thing we are sure of, is that we are 1) unsure, 2) Foundamental mathematic, 3) that I exist. Everything should come from those 3 points, the same goes for morality, our world is what we make of it, we are order, so should morality be. That conclusion I had it with the help of Quantum mechanic and the principle of uncertainty.

 

We can do of this world, what we want to, but we have one tool, just one tool that is absolute, and that is foundamental mathematic, and everything going to that direction is the good way, the rest of science is just a question of definition, you can observe what ever you want, you will interprate it the way you want it, if this interpretation is logical, than it will work, no matter if another person has it interprated in another way, and that still it will work. For example, imagine that you think that a phton is particule, if you do the test and study the behavour of this particule, you will measure the behavour of this particule, concluding that since you have studied its behavour, therfore it is a particule, if on the other hand, you suppose it to be a wave, and study it as a wave, you will be able to measure the electromagnetic field etc... that will bring you to conclude that in fact it is a wave.

 

You will interate the resultes depending of your background, depending of your initial supposition, and in every science, when you observe something, by observing it, it means that you at first put a supposition, and depending on that, your conclusion will be alterate.

 

The problem I had first, is that I was searching an absolute truth, the sense of life, morality etc... I discovered that there is 3 certainty, and from those 3 certainty, I can build other logical consequences of those 3 certainties.

 

If we reject everything that we can't understand as being false, than we come to an interesting conclusion. Fo example, what there was before time, the time concept makes us not understand, because it presupposes questions with different answers... so what if time does not exist ? If we reject time, we don't have to understand the before and after...

 

If we suppose that there is no past, no future, and everything that happened in the past, and will happen in future, are all happening now in present, everything happened in the same time, no past and future, and that the only reason that we suppose past as past, is because of our brain constitution. There is no time line. Our brain filter informations and chose what was the past, and what is the present, and what are the expected futures from all those possible futures. Supposing that, we don,t have to answer all those questions brough by the problem of the existance of time.

 

The same goes with the Universe and conscience, why does conscience exist ? The answer could only be, because we have our Universe, if conscience there was not, there could not have been any Universe, because what makes this Universe existing is its interaction with its observers(we are part of it).

 

Suppose that you have someone suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia, his perception of reality is alterate, what makes his reality alterate ? Its because of us, his reality is not like ours, our collective reality, it is our collectivness that traces the bonderies of science, a kind of collective consciensnous, that without it the Universe could not have been, the schizophrenic is influenced by our own existance, and this is what makes him the "sick" one, that makes his world, the "wrong" one. Why does "our" reality dependent of our Universe physical laws ? It is not, it is depdent of the collective Universal consciensnous. That means that this Universe exist only because this Universal consciencenous observer exist, no observer no Universe, so only the possibility that there is a Universe supposes that there is an observer of this Universe.

 

Imagine that in a computer you creat a self-aware "pixel' and only this self-aware pixel, you don't creat a universe for this self-aware pixel. What happens ? The moment you created this self-aware pixel, you created a whole new universe, in order that this pixel be self-aware, you pressuposes that it has its own universe. This self-reflectivness could only exist in its own Universe. The Universe of this pixel will be exactlly the way the properties of the conscience is, that means, what to consider as past, as present and as an expected future... all those possibilities of past, present and future already exists.

 

Now, imagine that you creat a Universe in your computer without an observer, this Universe exist, because as the creator you are an observer, if the Universe is self-generated and that there is no observer, there is no Universe untill an observer realise the existance of this possibility.

 

Now about morality, morality will exist, when the basic needs of the observers are fullfeeled, after that, this self-aware thing will be self-aware of its complexity, and everything against the maintaining of this self-complexity will be wrong.

 

Destroy what is order(humans etc...) will be wrong, from this self complexity... I have to log-off now, I have to do few things, I will continue with that later.

[Sasun]

Domino, this is a very interesting topic, but I don't think it is a science topic. Its all philosophy, as usual, that you are trying to sell as science

The uncertainty that you and the link are pointing totally disregard the common assumption of objective reality. For example, a person A will observe in a certain way that would make the present and past of a certain thing real according to his observation. A person B will observe the same thing in a different way, so the present and past for person B will be different from that of person A. I, person C, am talking about A and B, yet the reality that I understand is different from both of their versions. So what is the reality? Doesn't that mean that what we call reality is only an illusion (oops, I should say an observation ) ?

So if everyone is going to observe the so-called reality differently, then what is the point of ever talking about reality? Now I became more convinced that physical reality cannot be understood regardless of the brain size. Period.

Many centuries ago sages have invisioned the same thing, that is all we see is illusion. Now scientists are talking about it. Interesting...

[Guest Fadi]

Domino, this is a very interesting topic, but I don't think it is a science topic. Its all philosophy, as usual, that you are trying to sell as science

The uncertainty that you and the link are pointing totally disregard the common assumption of objective reality. For example, a person A will observe in a certain way that would make the present and past of a certain thing real according to his observation. A person B will observe the same thing in a different way, so the present and past for person B will be different from that of person A. I,  person C, am talking about A and B, yet the reality that I understand is different from both of their versions. So what is the reality? Doesn't that mean that what we call reality is only an illusion (oops, I should say an observation   ) ?

So if everyone is going to observe the so-called reality differently, then what is the point of ever talking about reality? Now I became more convinced that physical reality cannot be understood regardless of the brain size. Period.

Many centuries ago sages have invisioned the same thing, that is all we see is illusion. Now scientists are talking about it. Interesting...

Sasun, the observer A, observation has a direct effect on observer B and C, we do not know about illusions, but we have only 3 certainty like I pointed out, the rest may be right on the observers point of view, byt should depend on the collective consciencenous. Thats not philosophy, it is a domain of Quantum mechanic, the observer based on his primary beliefs before starting to run a test, will have a result depending the way he interprate those results, once you take a particule and try to learn it, it became directly difficult to observe and have a certainty, but this overall has a perfect certainty before you start measuring them.

 

I would like to talk more about that, but I have to leave my brain cool down a little.

Edited June 1, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, observer A and B are observing the same thing at the same time. They interpret it differently. So which one is correct? And what does the primary belief have to do with the obervation? If they are lead by their beliefs, then there is no need to do an experiment. They would interpret it according to their belief, anyway. I don't see how the observation of observer A would affect observer B. If that is the case, then observer B would affect observer A as well.

 

What I mean by illusion is that if we call something reality but it turns out it is incorrect then it is illusion.

 

There is some quantum mechanics in what you are saying. But overall it is more like philosophy because there is no proof, not even a clearly formulated hypothesis. Besides, let's not forget that quantum mechanics works in the microworld only. The radioactive cat is a very good demonstration of the uncertainty in the microworld, but that in no way is a realistic way of describing the macroworld.

 

In general, if we assume that there are laws in the universe then they should be the same for all observers. For the radioactive cat experiment, no matter who is the observer the observation is the same. True, the result of the experiment is unknown until the observation, but it is exactly the same for all observers. This is quantum mechanics. But what you are saying that the observation depends on the observer, or observer A affects observer B, this is not quantum mechanics. Even Wheelers hypothesis is not quantum mechanics, although one day a solid quantum theory could evolve out of it.

[Guest Fadi]

Sasun, lets say Observer A) support the theory of the Big-Bang, Observer B.) the Stady Stade Theory, two have to observe what is known as the Origine waves, Observer 1) will take that as evidence of the Big-Bang, the second, as traces of series of Qazars that gave birth to series of Galaxies. If Observer B.) was alone in his discovery, his discovery would influence Observer A) by the fact that he detected those waves, and Observer A) would inflence Observer B.), and if they are both together, they will be influenced at the same time, together from eachother.

 

Lets give the example of the rock, lets suppose that the rock is not self-aware, and that there is many observers of this rock, you observe the rock, and you know the rock exist, you are the observer, and without your observation and without the observation of anyone, this rock is just a possibility, in order that we can claim of its existance, you must be able to observe it, without its observation, it is only a pure possibility. Now, suppose that you are studying the speed and the position of a particule, once you chose the particule, you wave the possibility of any precision measure to it... but as long as you take them as an "all" you will have the most perfect measure possible. So the observer has a direct outcome on the result, because the observation will be based on the "thing" (the particule) etc... and at the second that he concentrate on the particule, than there could not be any precise measure, but only a statistical possibility.

 

Now, about belief, I gave an example with the big-bang. The belief is like the cup, the "thing" you need in order to put the observation in.

 

Think about that, science move in time, we aquire more informations, theories evolve, the "belief" evolve, but those new discoveries are made because of those instrumentations to measure "something" mesure what ? Measure something we expect could be measured, you build something to measure a possible thing that exist, if you were to build another thing, you would measure another thing, only the fact that you collect data and that you experiment, is based on the primary belief, because those belief made you to build the thing and measure what you expect. You need the cup to put the water in, without the cup you can't collect the water, the cup can have many possible forms, the only thing it should respect is that there should be no wholes in it and it should be able to contain the water, we call what it should respect "science" methodology, mathematic etc... the cup should be able to contain the water, thats all it is needed, and more and more you grow the cup, more and more you will collect water, but this does not change the fact that you can change the form of the cup, as long as it can contain the water.

 

This is how, in any way, Observer A will have an impact on observer B, or any other observer, they all have an impact on each others, the rock exist, you claim it exist, because you observe the rock, after your observation, you know this rock exist, because you observed its existance, then a new observer come while you were not there, and change the place of the rock, this has a direct impact on your own Universe, the rock that was in your Universe at the first position, is not anymore there, but is on the position where the other observer know it to be... the same goes for an observation, two observers observe the same thing at the same time, both observers have both different "cup" depending of the cup what is in will be shaped with the same form as the cup, and therfore will have a direct influence on the other observer, both have an influence on each other.

 

You have 3 rat, in a closed Universe, each one see the two others, not only this rat knows that it exist, but as well knows that the two others exist, you kill one of those rats, the rat that died does not know it exist, but the two others seing this dead rat knows that this rat exist, the existance of this rat at that time depend on the other two observers, now you kill another rat, and you are left with one rat as an observer, you then close the box,(and you do the cat experiment), the survival of this rat is just a question of statistic, there is porbabilities that he is death, and there is probabilities that it is alive, you open the box and see it is dead, you influenced its live by opening the box, because before your observation, the rat death was only a possibility, and after the death of those 3 rats, you close the box, none of the cats knows they exist, neither they know the others exist, but they exist, because you as the other observer knows of their existance.

 

So, not only as an observer we have an influence on us, but we have an influence on others, any experiement will depend on the shape and size of the cup, the cup is only there to contain the observation, the observation will have the shape of the cup, and the shape of the cup will be changed because of exterior influences, starting with the other observations, the final equilibratum shape of the cup will depend on the collective consciencenous and the Universal consciencenous, that could also mean that every laws of physics are there like this because they are the equilibratum of this Universal consciencenous that we are part of(this part is philosophical in nature, but not the rest of what I said above). From that, since the laws of the Universe were else than what our human collectivity though before some discoveries, that implies that other consciencenous played a part on this equilibratum, that means that from that logic, there is millions of advenced species around the Universe, and that we are all connected in a certain way, and the equilibratum makes what is our laws of physic, and depending on that we build our past, present and future... O.K, O.K thats only speculation, I just extrapolated on what may be the Universe to the extrem of what I presented.

 

Before rejecting that, think about it, when we believed that Earth was the center of the Universe, we still observed misterious things, such as the retrograde movement of planets, suggesting that Sun was the center of what we believed as our Universe, even if our collective human consciencenous believed and had a shape of cup, the observations were the compleat opposit of what we believed, why so ? I postulate, that it is because of the Universal Consciencenous conecting all those species, that from all their belief, we come to an equilibratum of belief, that forges the laws of physic and gives the orders that we observe now, any observer in the universe has a direct influence on the other observers.

 

I should write a science fiction book on that, the idea is better then the matrix, think about that, this explains why natural selection support the increase of brain size, even for species that does not need them.

 

I call that, the Quantum collective consciencenous, that means, that now in where we are at, 300,000 km/s as speed of light, is the equlibratum for the speed of light, because of the extsance of all those collectivities forming the Universal consciencenous, and that our past and future is still not formed, for the only reason that past and future does not really exist, everything is present, the equilibratum has made it as past and future.

 

More evolved we will become, and more we will have more influence on the Universe, and we will have a part on building the past and future.

 

Think about those, the moment you creat a self-aware being, you creat its universe... the Universe exist, because of the self-consciencenous.

 

OK, now I admit I have introduced philosophy in what I wrote, but the first part was not.

Edited June 1, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, you sound more convincing now. Still I am not convinced.

 

Quantum mechanics tells us there is a fundamental uncertainty in the microworld. We can understand that. The observer, only in a limited and specific way affects the observation. And that doesn't change any law or how the universe works. To say that it is true for the whole universe is a whole different thing.

 

If some other observer moved the rock that I had earlier observed, that doesn't change the universe or its laws. It only changes my understanding of where the rock is located. Perhaps I would expect that the rock is in its original location, but when I discover that the rock is missing, I will update my understanding of the universe, which is infinitesimally small anyway and wouldn't matter for everything that is important. The laws of the universe continue as they were before. If I don't discover that the rock is missing, I will keep believing that the rock is in its original place, but I would also allow the possibility that maybe some jackass moved it in order to change my universe OK, kidding aside, I believe that the universal laws are not affected wheter or not I know or observe them.