Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Xaqaria, I might agree with you on a lot of that. I don't think "not exist" is the right term for something that has some kind of merely metaphysical or mathematical state that influences the material universe. Things can be real without being material.

If that is what is behind the evolution of conscious beings, then the universe is much stranger than I ever thought, and I have thought for a long time that the universe is profoundly strange. It would be interesting if biology classes started teaching that the processes of evolution went on for billions of years in on a principle form of Earth that was not really a material Earth until conscious organisms came into existence. I guess the same would apply to the big bang and the formation of Earth.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

No, as that which is part of the evolution is observing. Evolution is a fundamental process applied to consciousness, which is fundamental to reality.

Then how did conscious organisms come about?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Edit
I just realized, what you are describing is actually a description of quantum entanglement, not superpositions.

http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarge...341263,00.html

Not all interpretations of quantum mechanics require consciousness. Observer does not necessarily mean 'conscious observer'. The force of gravity also causes quantum decoherence. Even still, even if you don't believe that consciousness is part of the fundamental laws and only exists in sufficiently evolved creatures, there is no reason to believe that sentient beings didn't evolve long before we did, although it is hard to say at what point they would have started 'observing' our corner of the universe. Then again, there is the possibility that although this particular round of life has only existed for what... 4 billions years (don't feel like looking it up), perhaps life has existed in this solar system for longer than that and has since moved on or died out, over and over again.

I personally think that consciousness as a part of the universal substrate is a much more plausible explanation (if consciousness is indeed required for the collapse of the wave form) than the idea of only sentient beings being able to bring about 'real' existence.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

http://searchcio-midmarket.techtarge...341263,00.html

Right, I don't see how anything in that article is similar to a person watching tv and simultaneously playing basketball, and therefore being two different people. I assumed with that example you were describing quantum entanglement because in quantum mechanics, you can have two particles that are connected non-locally (or locally through other dimensions) and so can be considered to be the 'same' particle.

With the double slit experiment, even when only a single photon passes through the slits at a time it will create an interference pattern which is only possible if it is in a quantum field superposition after exiting the slits and intefering with itself, unless the photons can interfere with each other regardless of time (as in, one can interfere with another that has already passed through the slits and hit the plate).

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Right, I don't see how anything in that article is similar to a person watching tv and simultaneously playing basketball, and therefore being two different people.

It was an analogy I used to put particle behavior into perspective, but the article I posted talks about superpositions of objects in general, not just particles.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was of course being sarcastic, but I still await your answer. Also...

Yes I said formless. Saying "Having no exact form would be the label of its exact form" makes formlessness seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did any of evolution happen without being observed?

Why do you ask vague questions like this? First of all evolution is can be humbly contextualized as a scientific perspective on life-forms on the planet, to put it simply. "Happen" and "happenings" are also far broader terms that are intrinsically related to linear perception. However, in the non-linear reality or quantum reality, nothing happens without an observer, since objective reality disappears outside duality (I think this has already been looked at here). That is also to say that nothing is already "happening." When the observer is identical to what is observed it means that there is no linearity or duality. We are talking about quantum potentiality, which is arguably synonymous with the substrate of consciousnesses (etc), and from there we can conclude that there are no real happenings or events in existence; they're illusory.

That is such a dodge. And "vague" my ass.

Something can happen over a very long period of time, but since you want to play this silly game, tell me this... What processes led to the emergence of the first conscious organisms? Don't tell me to define "conscious". You know what I am getting at here-- the first observers. Clear up the issue I have raised.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What processes led to the emergence of the first conscious organisms? Don't tell me to define "conscious". You know what I am getting at here-- the first observers. Clear up the issue I have raised.

I don't fully see what you're getting at, but what has been discussed here seems to reflect that we can't pinpoint "first conscious organisms." I think to say such a thing is to imply a first-cause or BB universe theory. Otherwise what use does asking about "first" observers, if the universe never began? If there is no real sequence of events; let alone events at all? I don't even think you yourself fully understand what you're referencing, do you? Maybe you do have to define it.

Perhaps you're arguing against the fundamental process of manifestation in the universe? I.e. How could it exist before we did (or the first observers). As far as I know, this isn't possible without a field of consciousness, and that too doesn't require a rigid term such as "first observers", since the same process would constitute for anything to come into manifestation regardless of whether you call them "observers" or not. The timeline that you might be implying is arbitrary.

The bullshit is really getting thick in here.

Really (extremely ironic screen name), do you believe in evolution? The big bang? The formation of Earth? How did those things happen without observers?

How did the first life forms get here?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then how did conscious organisms come about?

The answer is very hard to understand, if you are not familiar with the concepts and terminology in the theory of everything (My Big TOE).

When you write conscious organism, do you mean purely physical (from our viewpoint) and biological?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Not all interpretations of quantum mechanics require consciousness. [....]
I personally think that consciousness as a part of the universal substrate is a much more plausible explanation (if consciousness is indeed required for the collapse of the wave form) than the idea of only sentient beings being able to bring about 'real' existence.

I am well aware of the different interpretations of QM, however the interpretations are based on the physical being fundamental, and consciousness not, while it is the opposite in reality. This information changes everything about why the collapse of the wave function occurs.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, I wrote a paper about a modified double slit experiment. By using inductive logic, one can conclude that consciousness is more fundamental that the current paradigm think it is.

Spoiler for The abstract:

This project investigates the possibility of consciousness being the key-concept to understanding the nature of wave-functions and why they occur. It explains the principles of quantum mechanics and reveals that the Double-slit experiment tells us interesting information about how our reality works, and the apparently mystic nature of quantum-mechanics. It gets even weirder when this paper goes in depth with a variant of the Double-slit experiment that resolves the problem of what causes the wave-function to collapse. By studying various interpretations of quantum mechanics and exploring the possibility of a Big TOE, a TOE that encompasses physics, philosophy and metaphysics, it was apparent that it was worthy of rigorous thinking and examining. The research done by physicists showed that consciousness indeed may have a strong link to the collapse of the wave-function, and based on that fact, a whole new realm of possibilities emerged. This paper glances at Thomas Campbell’s “My Big TOE” and how consciousness is modelled. This paper explores the limits of knowledge and the importance of personal experience. This paper is a ladder to a whole new spectrum of discussions and insight; it gives the opportunity for the reader to intellectualize of the possibility that reality might be very different than initially thought.

Unfortunately it is only the abstract that is English.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

The answer is very hard to understand, if you are not familiar with the concepts and terminology in the theory of everything (My Big TOE).

When you write conscious organism, do you mean purely physical (from our viewpoint) and biological?

Sure. Is there another kind of conscious organism? I'm talking about animals that can observe. That is what is relevant. Observers. How did the observers get here?

That is another thing about quantum physics that I think is profoundly absurd. There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars each, and many of those stars have planets moving around them. On one of those planets in this insanely big universe, there is a very thin layer of crust. On that crust are zillions of objects. Some of those objects are organisms that qualify as "observers". Quantum physics treats those little specs as if the whole fucking universe revolves around them and depends on them. That is astoundingly preposterous.

Give it a fucking break. Jesus.

Originally Posted by Lucidness

Give it a fucking break. Jesus.

Give what a break, Buddha?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Give what a break, Buddha?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Your picture/post is somewhere between orange and red.

Determinism is a very interesting topic which I was not familiar with until I read this thread. Thanks to the OP for bringing such a cool concept to my attention.

Originally Posted by AbstractAsylum

Your picture/post is somewhere between orange and red.

That's cute. I posted the picture in response to a smart ass comment that I and the other person both knew was not true. I was supposed to give a long, thoughtful counterargument to it? If you do that in response to such posts, then you are a tool. I suggest you read posts that lead up to posts you respond to so you can know what you are talking about.

Since you are such a counterargument enthusiast, counter my major points in this thread. So far, all you have done is insult one of my many, many posts by putting a label on it from some triangle you found on the internet. Is that the best you can do?

Originally Posted by AbstractAsylum

Determinism is a very interesting topic which I was not familiar with until I read this thread.

Wow, that's shocking. I didn't notice. Hey, I have an idea. Learn about determinism by reading this thread, and then post something worth a shit. Do you think you can manage that?

To be honest I was being candid even if blunt.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The bullshit is really getting thick in here.

Really (extremely ironic screen name), do you believe in evolution? The big bang? The formation of Earth? How did those things happen without observers?

How did the first life forms get here?

Still don't know what you're getting at. You do a good job of dodging everything I say.

I believe in evolution, the formation of the earth, and to an extent the Big Bang. But I also believe that the universe, or at least its potentiality, has always existed outside of time and space. All potentially manifests in the same way it always has. These things came about because it merely was destined to, according to the field of consciousness.

Can you not see how it is irrelevant to ask about first observers, then? I dare you to answer the question and elaborate. Please.

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest I was being candid even if blunt.

It was an honest mischaracterization? That would be even more disappointing, but I don't believe you.

Originally Posted by really

Still don't know what you're getting at. You do a good job of dodging everything I say.

Originally Posted by really

I believe in evolution, the formation of the earth, and to an extent the Big Bang. But I also believe that the universe, or at least its potentiality, has always existed outside of time and space. All potentially manifests in the same way it always has. These things came about because it merely was destined to, according to the field of consciousness.

According to the field of consciousness? How? Are you saying there was consciousness observing all of it? Please explain.

Originally Posted by really

Can you not see how it is irrelevant to ask about first observers, then? I dare you to answer the question and elaborate. Please.

No, I don't see how irrelevant it is to ask about first observers. If you say observers are necessary for events, then I am completely on point in asking you about what observers had to do with events that apparently had no observers. I am completely certain that you understand that point. Don't pretend you don't get it.

Please explain what observers were there when the big bang, the formation of our galaxy, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution took place. Instead of acting like a prick, just explain. This doesn't have to be a personally bitter wrestling match. I just don't know what you are talking about. Explain and be clear.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

According to the field of consciousness? How? Are you saying there was consciousness observing all of it? Please explain.

Consciousness does not "observe things" as if it is separate. It is part of everything. It exists within all things and is the very essence of life and intelligence for any manifestation to take place in existence. It doesn't require observing, that seems to be your own way of thinking. That events only exist through observation doesn't mean they never happened outside observation, but that in such a case they dissolve into a greater context of both "happened" and "did not happen".

I think a similar, but limited analogy is that question of: Does a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound if nobody is around? You can get two different answers such as:

Yes - because sound is formed out of compression and rarefaction of particles; in this case it is exists in forces of energy in the air being transferred as waves. No doubt this phenomena takes place whether I was there or not.

No - because sound requires an "observer" that can hear to be interpreted.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I don't see how irrelevant it is to ask about first observers. If you say observers are necessary for events, then I am completely on point in asking you about what observers had to do with events that apparently had no observers. I am completely certain that you understand that point. Don't pretend you don't get it.

Thank you for outlining your point. I think I get it now. The events may or not have had observers, but that is not the point. YOU are an observer that has theorized about those supposed events. This happens now, not then. The point is that the events only appear to take place through perception, yet without perception those events are not perceived to occur. Reality is not perception. What really happened includes our perception of events, but is also re-contextualized so that those perceptions seem to dissolve. To the mind this creates many paradoxes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please explain what observers were there when the big bang, the formation of our galaxy, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution took place.

Most of these observers are today living on a planet we call Earth. Of course there could be flaws, but these "events" can be said to be observed or perceived. This goes back to what I said about nothing in the universe ever actually happening. Things that happen are just perceptions of seeming events stripped of a non-linear context.

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness does not "observe things" as if it is separate. It is part of everything. It exists within all things and is the very essence of life and intelligence for any manifestation to take place in existence. It doesn't require observing, that seems to be your own way of thinking. That events only exist through observation doesn't mean they never happened outside observation, but that in such a case they dissolve into a greater context of both "happened" and "did not happen".

Requiring observing is not my own way of thinking. It is common among people who argue in favor of quantum physics theories. The concept of "dissolve into a great context of both 'happened' and 'did not happen'" involves a contradiction.

Originally Posted by really

I think a similar, but limited analogy is that question of: Does a tree that falls in a forest makes a sound if nobody is around? You can get two different answers such as:

Yes - because sound is formed out of compression and rarefaction of particles; in this case it is exists in forces of energy in the air being transferred as waves. No doubt this phenomena takes place whether I was there or not.

No - because sound requires an "observer" that can hear to be interpreted.

The first answer is correct. Sound waves are created, but the experience of hearing sound does not happen.

Originally Posted by really

Thank you for outlining your point. I think I get it now. The events may or not have had observers, but that is not the point. YOU are an observer that has theorized about those supposed events. This happens now, not then. The point is that the events only appear to take place through perception, yet without perception those events are not perceived to occur. Reality is not perception. What really happened includes our perception of events, but is also re-contextualized so that those perceptions seem to dissolve. To the mind this creates many paradoxes.

The big bang, the formation of our galaxy, the formation of Earth, and the early stages of evolution happen now and did not happen before we existed? Then how did we get here?

Originally Posted by really

Most of these observers are today living on a planet we call Earth. Of course there could be flaws, but these "events" can be said to be observed or perceived. This goes back to what I said about nothing in the universe ever actually happening. Things that happen are just perceptions of seeming events stripped of a non-linear context.

Again, how did we get here? How did the first microbes get here?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Requiring observing is not my own way of thinking. It is common among people who argue in favor of quantum physics theories.

It's not, as I am also in favor of quantum theories. I think you've misconceptualized that nothing happens without an observer to imply that there has always been sentient or conscious life otherwise nothing could have "happened" in the universe?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The concept of "dissolve into a great context of both 'happened' and 'did not happen'" involves a contradiction.

That's not understanding what I mean. There is a difference between a contradiction and a paradox.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The first answer is correct. Sound waves are created, but the experience of hearing sound does not happen.

Both answers are correct in their own context. One is more scientific but the other is wiser. This is not a contradiction either.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The big bang, the formation of our galaxy, the formation of Earth, and the early stages of evolution happen now and did not happen before we existed? Then how did we get here?

My emphasis was on the illusion of time rather than the explanation of events (such as evolution). Furthermore it follows that the perception and imagination of events is initially coming from you, not somebody "out there", "before you" or even "before us".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Again, how did we get here? How did the first microbes get here?

Do you believe in the formation of the earth? Do you believe in evolution? These are scientific descriptions of "the how." In pure quantum potentiality however, there is no "how" to anything, yet at the same time the potentiality encompasses all possibilities. You can describe it as a paradox in perception or simply say that all of the linear perception is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by really

It's not, as I am also in favor of quantum theories. I think you've misconceptualized that nothing happens without an observer to imply that there has always been sentient or conscious life otherwise nothing could have "happened" in the universe?

No, that is the logical conclusion of such a premise. The fact that you don't accept the conclusion is confusing.

Originally Posted by really

That's not understanding what I mean. There is a difference between a contradiction and a paradox.

A paradox has a resolution.

Originally Posted by really

Both answers are correct in their own context. One is more scientific but the other is wiser. This is not a contradiction either.

They can't both be correct. They involve different definitions of sound. Sound does not have to be heard. It just has to exist with an amplitude and frequency that are within the ranges of human perception.

Originally Posted by really

My emphasis was on the illusion of time rather than the explanation of events (such as evolution). Furthermore it follows that the perception and imagination of events is initially coming from you, not somebody "out there", "before you" or even "before us".

Then nothing led to our existence? We only imagine things that things did?

Originally Posted by really

Do you believe in the formation of the earth? Do you believe in evolution? These are scientific descriptions of "the how." In pure quantum potentiality however, there is no "how" to anything, yet at the same time the potentiality encompasses all possibilities. You can describe it as a paradox in perception or simply say that all of the linear perception is arbitrary.

There is no explanation for human existence on Earth, but all explanations apply?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, that is the logical conclusion of such a premise. The fact that you don't accept the conclusion is confusing.

Maybe you should detail what you're arguing. You also don't seem to accept it either. Look at your questions you asked me a couple posts back and you'll see what I mean.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A paradox has a resolution.

Yes; in this case there is a paradigm shift where the paradox is resolved. Hence where I said "...in such a case they dissolve into a greater context of both "happened" and "did not happen".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They can't both be correct. They involve different definitions of sound. Sound does not have to be heard. It just has to exist with an amplitude and frequency that are within the ranges of human perception.

Well they're different contexts, as I said. Remember the question may imply to ask if it is heard, otherwise it wouldn't be such a popular riddle.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then nothing led to our existence? We only imagine things that things did?

Yes. In certain cases these imaginings are true. In others they are not. Same deal with scientific paradigms and observed processes.

Nothing "leads" to anything in the sense that time/space is illusory. Nothing really happens in the realm of the quantum potentiality.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There is no explanation for human existence on Earth, but all explanations apply?

Read what I said. Possibilities are not explanations, and I didn't say possible explanations. Unless you're including numerous scientific explanations throughout the whole spectrum of study, but of course that doesn't mean they are all correct.

It was an honest mischaracterization? That would be even more disappointing, but I don't believe you.

Okay.

Originally Posted by really

Yes. In certain cases these imaginings are true. In others they are not. Same deal with scientific paradigms and observed processes.

Originally Posted by really

Read what I said. Possibilities are not explanations, and I didn't say possible explanations. Unless you're including numerous scientific explanations throughout the whole spectrum of study, but of course that doesn't mean they are all correct.

Okay, let's focus on those that you say are correct instead of arguing about whether they are all correct. The explanations involve events (realities, circumstances, happenings, material arrangements, whatever term you find acceptable... You know what I am getting at.) that do not involve observers. I am trying to get you to explain those situations. For example, the formation of Earth. No observers are in that specific scenario. Right? I know that observers are in a very distantly following scenario, but not that one. Or, are you saying that the fact that we analyze and understand it in the current scenario makes us the observers for it? If so, then you rule out the existence of both time and randomness. Why are we not being consumed by the molten rock?