Originally posted by black beetleFundamentally, we cannot empirically verify something without using a human consciousness at some point. On the first page of this thread I said:
I had the feeling that the wf itself is just an idea of ours, an ideal mathematical model brought up into existence solely out of our consciousness. I was sure it exists thanks to our consciousness alone, as it is not a physical entity. Also, methinks we can use this specific product of ours solely if we use our cognitive apparatus. So, kindly please ed ...[text shortened]... hat it may be found in state with probability p3" and so on
without using our consciousness😵
Humans play no role in quantum mechanics. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint than an empirical one; clearly humans can never observe something without a human interfering at some point.
It just seems odd to me that the development of consciousness would so fundamentally have altered the universe. In the end it boils down to a form of last week thursday-ism: what if the universe and all living things, memories, etc. was created last week thursday? Would we know? Well, I guess not. Is it a meaningful hypothesis? Well, not really.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCome on, KazetNagorra, I was expecting something more from you;
Fundamentally, we cannot empirically verify something without using a human consciousness at some point. On the first page of this thread I said:Humans play no role in quantum mechanics. This is more of a philosophical viewpoint than an empirical one; clearly humans can never observe something without a human interfering at some point....[text shortened]... eek thursday? Would we know? Well, I guess not. Is it a meaningful hypothesis? Well, not really.
In order to let it rain at last, let's go back to our good ole Wheeler: although Wheeler knew, of course, that the classical reality we are experiencing is always emerging from the wf by means of its collapse by our perception alone, he was well aware of the fact that the material world is not created through the perceptual activities of any kind of a specific being. I wonder why this is not clear to you too!
It follows that the “objective” wf of reality and the subjective wavefunctions of consciousness (the awareness that collapses the “objective” wf) both originate from the same mind-only ground consciousness.
Now, since ground consciousness generates (over the course of all the phenomena in flux that are contained in the observer universe) differ choices that become factual in the observer universe, which they all then take the form of the particularness we are observing herenow, these forms that sustain themselves is the exact way of existence of the “classic-like reality” we perceive as “objectively real”. Of course all these forms and objects lack of inherent existence; Our perceiving consciousness decodes falsely the classical reality (the realm of dualism) as inherently existent by means of attributing falsely inherent existence (imputational nature) to products (phenomena in flux) of probabilities that they temporary took form out of the quantum realm of existence, a non-dual realm that hovers between existence and non-existence, in which dualism, subject and object, this and that etc do not exist. Well, all the phenomena in flux sooner or later are dissolving into the quantum uncertainty.
The nature of consciousness is real; and the physical world is an illusion that we do have to take it seriously
😵
Originally posted by sonhouseThe mind-only pool of probabilities is the sole source from which the observer universe emerged into manifestation; its manifestation is observed by our consciousness alone; before its manifestation, all we have is the singularity. Without consciousness, no observation can take place and thus the observer universe would be to us lost in a singularity and hence non-existent to us
The thing about that is the universe came first and THEN minds and that only billions of years later so the universe doesn't seem to care one way or the other if minds exist in it or not.
😵
Originally posted by sonhouseUnless there were other observational minds during the development of the universe?
The thing about that is the universe came first and THEN minds and that only billions of years later so the universe doesn't seem to care one way or the other if minds exist in it or not.
5 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserthat would be a massive assumption until if or when we have evidence for such an incredible thing (incredible because conditions should be impossible for life and therefore other minds at the big bang and we don't even know for sure if there was a 'before' the Big Bang let alone if conditions where right for life 'before' the Big bang).
Unless there were other observational minds during the development of the universe?
Besides, it wouldn't solve the problem if there were minds then: who observed those minds to make them start to exist? unless they always existed but then you are talking about gods -something we have no evidence for.
7 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserAnswer: the hypothesis that something only exists when observed is not falsifiable i.e. it cannot be proven false even if, hypothetically, it was false.
And there is reason to reject it?
The big problem, of course, with any unfalsifiable hypothesis is that, being unfalsifiable, that means that you are left with not only no rational reason to think it is true or probably true but, applying Occam's razor, your default assumption should surely at least generally be that it is probably false (although, I admit, there is the thorny issue here of how Occam's razor should be applied which is not always totally clear)
To demonstrate this point: the hypothesis that there is a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars is unfalsifiable for you cannot possibly prove it false even if it is false -so do you think it is probable or even credible that there is a supernatural teacup orbiting Mars?
There is also another reason for rejecting the hypothesis that something only exists when observed; its called the measurement problem and is a serious unsolved problem with this hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
The only obvious way I can see to really resolve this problem without making one of the arbitrary sets of strange totally baseless assumptions (called 'interpretations'😉 is to simply reject the hypothesis -can you see a simpler or more convincing alternative way?
Originally posted by humyIs it possible that the validity of an unfalsifiable hypothesis lies not in it's intrinsic value, but in it's ability to provide a unique perspective, given that so many features of our universe are counter intuitive?
Answer: the hypothesis that something only exists when observed is not falsifiable i.e. it cannot be proven false even if, hypothetically, it was false.
The big problem, of course, with any unfalsifiable hypothesis is that, being unfalsifiable, that means that you are left with not only no rational reason to think it is true or probably true but, applying Oc ...[text shortened]... s to simply reject the hypothesis -can you see a simpler or more convincing alternative way?
2 edits
Originally posted by OdBodwhat do you mean by "unique perspective" in this context? I am not sure how the 'uniqueness' of the 'perspective' of an unfalsifiable hypothesis could relate to its 'validity'.
Is it possible that the validity of an unfalsifiable hypothesis lies not in it's intrinsic value, but in it's ability to provide a unique perspective, given that so many features of our universe are counter intuitive?
Originally posted by humyI often find that a solution to a problem can arise from a totally unexpected and unrelated source. Any technique that could access those sources however unreasonable might be very helpful.You only need one good idea arising from a an unreasonable hypothesis to make it worthwhile .
what do you mean by "unique perspective" in this context? I am not sure how the 'uniqueness' of the 'perspective' of an unfalsifiable hypothesis could relate to its 'validity'.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think you can reduce an idea to being incredibly unlikely or unreasonable,but total rejection is the language of absolutes,that is a dangerous root and plays into the hands of extremists who use what they believe to be "absolute truth" to justify anything.
It should be rejected for the same reason as the Last Week Thursday-hypothesis; not because it is untrue per se, but because even if it were true it does not produce any additional insights or observable predictions.