still seeking said:
Fair point, but you can't change human nature by throwing money at it. There will always be poverty until the global human conscious is changed in a radical way. I believe science is heading towards that, so money well spent.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
The Higgs field, gravity and consciousness.
- Thread starter olympus mon
- Start date
Fair point, but you can't change human nature by throwing money at it. There will always be poverty until the global human conscious is changed in a radical way. I believe science is heading towards that, so money well spent.
Nice hypothesis olympus!
Personally i don't think you can compare consciousness to the higgs field or particle. Consciousness is a personal phenomenon that is experienced individually. We all have differing experiences of consciousness. If it was something that permeated the universe wouldn't we all experience the same thing?
The idea that gravity is weakened because it extends through different dimensions is a pretty weak argument imo. Why can't gravity just be a weak force? In fact gravity may seem weak but it's what holds most of the universe together so imo it's a pretty phenomal force of nature.
Personally i don't think you can compare consciousness to the higgs field or particle. Consciousness is a personal phenomenon that is experienced individually. We all have differing experiences of consciousness. If it was something that permeated the universe wouldn't we all experience the same thing?
The idea that gravity is weakened because it extends through different dimensions is a pretty weak argument imo. Why can't gravity just be a weak force? In fact gravity may seem weak but it's what holds most of the universe together so imo it's a pretty phenomal force of nature.
Thanks Ted- I think you can, here is why. Your argument is that if something permeated throughout the universe all must be equal, such as everyone sharing the same consciousness. This is exactly why I chose to compare with the Higgs field. It does permeate the entire universe, YET does not give every particle the same amount of mass. It varies depending on other factors. The same could be said for consciousness as a field.DeMenTed said:
Keep in mind although the experience of the individual varies, it still may be within the same consciousness. In other words, there is no way to prove, as is often the case with science, that you exist beyond my subjective experience or the moon is still there when I look away BUT the evidence supports these two things. That yes you do actually exist outside and independently of me, and the moon is there whether Im looking at it or not. So we probably exist in the same consciousness but have unique experiences within it.
Maybe consciousness could be a scalar field and when particles interact with it, differing levels of consciousness are the result but its our biology and brains that give us our own subjective experience in the ocean of the same consciousness.
Why cant gravity just be a weak force, you also asked. Well that's one hypothesis and has been for a while but bothers many physicists and creates problem in the mathematics for theory's such as M and string theory. Its always stood out as a strange anomaly to cosmologist and physicists. So people a hella of a lot smarter than any of us here seem to think there must be a reason for it and when they stretch gravity across the multiverse the maths work. This is telling to many in science that at least they are on the right track.
Good explanation 
I think your theory stands up perfectly well. I just wish i had the brain of Hawking so i could have a deeper more in depth conversation on the matter 'sigh'
I'm going to get stuck into reading up on scalar fields n stuff ;D
You jumped the gun ever so slightly though when you said the higgs boson has been discovered. It hasn't actually been proven to be the higgs particle yet but it does look like it. Cheers olympus!
I think your theory stands up perfectly well. I just wish i had the brain of Hawking so i could have a deeper more in depth conversation on the matter 'sigh'
I'm going to get stuck into reading up on scalar fields n stuff ;D
You jumped the gun ever so slightly though when you said the higgs boson has been discovered. It hasn't actually been proven to be the higgs particle yet but it does look like it. Cheers olympus!
Slightly, but 99% sure is oretty damn good.DeMenTed said:Good explanation
I think your theory stands up perfectly well. I just wish i had the brain of Hawking so i could have a deeper more in depth conversation on the matter 'sigh'
I'm going to get stuck into reading up on scalar fields n stuff ;D
You jumped the gun ever so slightly though when you said the higgs boson has been discovered. It hasn't actually been proven to be the higgs particle yet but it does look like it. Cheers olympus!
Here is the explanation from CERN.
Experiments showed tentative positive signs were found at the end of 2011, and on 4 July 2012 CERN announced that two different experimental teams (the CMS and the ATLAS teams), working in isolation from each other, independently announced they had each confirmed the same result: - a previously unknown boson of mass between 125–127 GeV/c2 was proven to exist with a likelihood of error under 1 in a million in each experiment. The newly discovered particle's behaviour has so far been "consistent with" that of the theoriezed Higgs boson, however as of August 2012 it has yet to be confirmed as a Higgs boson, nor are its properties fully known.
Slightly off topic but thought i'd share this info ive just read. " In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced findings which seem to prove that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. The team's findings were due to be released in a journal in 2013. ". Interesting stuff
Yeah Olympus, the new particle probably is the higgs.
Yeah Olympus, the new particle probably is the higgs.
Amygdala
Rising Star
Found some quotes and videos relating to this topic (mostly)... questions posed to the 'popular' physicists of our time regarding the nature of consciousness and the mind/body problem....
- Tons of videos if you peek around, w/ Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, Michio Kaku, etc. Some interesting stuff, not necessarily re: higgs field, but I thought you might find them interesting.
A Michio Kaku quote:
"We also touched on the 'mainstream' view that human consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon of the brain - which in many respects, does not match up with the supreme importance that some branches of quantum physics accord consciousness. Professor Kaku agreed that "consciousness is one of the great problems facing science," and stated plainly that despite the mainstream view, "most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it." To illustrate how consciousness is important to quantum physics, he discussed the well-known "Schrodinger's Cat" paradox, and then explored various theories which might explain it. One of those was put forward by Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner - he assumed that consiousness is the key factor in creating reality. Furthermore, extrapolating Wigner's theory means that, as Professor Kaku put it, "eventually, we need an infinite chain of observers, each watching the other... Wigner implied that this chain was a cosmic consciousness or even God.""
MK: Consciousness is one of the great problems facing science. Some have claimed to have "explained" consciousness. But actually, most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it.
Consciousness enters quantum physics because of the Schrodinger cat problem, perhaps the greatest paradox in all of science. If we put a cat in a box, and point a gun at the cat, which in turn is connected to a geiger counter sitting next to uranium, then we physicists describe the system as the sum of two wave functions. In one wave function, the cat is dead. In the other, the cat is alive. So, before we open the box, the cat is neither dead nor alive, but exists in a nether state. Once an observation is made, the cat suddenly "chooses" one state or the other, and we can then see that the cat is dead or alive (but not both).
(Most people find this paradox silly, but it troubled Einstein for decades. He would ask his guests at night: does the moon exist because a mouse looks at it?)
There are several ways to resolve this puzzle. The standard theory is to say that observation determines existence. So opening the box and making the measurement collapses the wave function and determines the state of the cat. This assumes that the sub-atomic world is different from the macroscopic world, that there is a "wall" separating the two. In the microworld, electrons can be two places at the same time, disappearing and reappearing all the time. But in the macroworld, cats are either dead or alive. (Lately, this standard picture has fallen into disfavor because, in nanotechnology, we can smoothly go from the macroworld and microworld and we do not encounter any wall.
Another way, pioneered by Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, is to assume that consiousness is the key factor. Only conscious observers can make observations, and hence consciousness causes the wave function to collapse. But how do we know that we are alive and not dead? Hence, we need a third person to observe us to collapse our wave function. But then we need a fourth person to observe the third person and collapse his wave function. Eventually, we need an infinite chain of observers, each watching the other. Wigner implied that this chain was a cosmic consciousness or even God.
There is a third way, which is gaining popularity among physicists. And this is that the universe splits in half everytime an observation is made. In one universe, the cat is dead. In the other universe, the cat is alive. The beauty of this approach is that we do not have to introduce any "wall" or "collapsed waves." The wave function merrily splits continually, creating infinite numbers of parallel universes. (We don't see all these parallel universes surrounding us, because we have "decohered" from them. Our wave function is no longer vibrating in unison with these other universes, so we cannot easily interact with them. Otherwise, we would bump into versions of ourselves where we made different choices in life, or bump into universes where people how have died in our universe are still alive.)
- Tons of videos if you peek around, w/ Roger Penrose, Alan Guth, Michio Kaku, etc. Some interesting stuff, not necessarily re: higgs field, but I thought you might find them interesting.
A Michio Kaku quote:
"We also touched on the 'mainstream' view that human consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon of the brain - which in many respects, does not match up with the supreme importance that some branches of quantum physics accord consciousness. Professor Kaku agreed that "consciousness is one of the great problems facing science," and stated plainly that despite the mainstream view, "most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it." To illustrate how consciousness is important to quantum physics, he discussed the well-known "Schrodinger's Cat" paradox, and then explored various theories which might explain it. One of those was put forward by Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner - he assumed that consiousness is the key factor in creating reality. Furthermore, extrapolating Wigner's theory means that, as Professor Kaku put it, "eventually, we need an infinite chain of observers, each watching the other... Wigner implied that this chain was a cosmic consciousness or even God.""
MK: Consciousness is one of the great problems facing science. Some have claimed to have "explained" consciousness. But actually, most scientists cannot even define it, let alone explain it.
Consciousness enters quantum physics because of the Schrodinger cat problem, perhaps the greatest paradox in all of science. If we put a cat in a box, and point a gun at the cat, which in turn is connected to a geiger counter sitting next to uranium, then we physicists describe the system as the sum of two wave functions. In one wave function, the cat is dead. In the other, the cat is alive. So, before we open the box, the cat is neither dead nor alive, but exists in a nether state. Once an observation is made, the cat suddenly "chooses" one state or the other, and we can then see that the cat is dead or alive (but not both).
(Most people find this paradox silly, but it troubled Einstein for decades. He would ask his guests at night: does the moon exist because a mouse looks at it?)
There are several ways to resolve this puzzle. The standard theory is to say that observation determines existence. So opening the box and making the measurement collapses the wave function and determines the state of the cat. This assumes that the sub-atomic world is different from the macroscopic world, that there is a "wall" separating the two. In the microworld, electrons can be two places at the same time, disappearing and reappearing all the time. But in the macroworld, cats are either dead or alive. (Lately, this standard picture has fallen into disfavor because, in nanotechnology, we can smoothly go from the macroworld and microworld and we do not encounter any wall.
Another way, pioneered by Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, is to assume that consiousness is the key factor. Only conscious observers can make observations, and hence consciousness causes the wave function to collapse. But how do we know that we are alive and not dead? Hence, we need a third person to observe us to collapse our wave function. But then we need a fourth person to observe the third person and collapse his wave function. Eventually, we need an infinite chain of observers, each watching the other. Wigner implied that this chain was a cosmic consciousness or even God.
There is a third way, which is gaining popularity among physicists. And this is that the universe splits in half everytime an observation is made. In one universe, the cat is dead. In the other universe, the cat is alive. The beauty of this approach is that we do not have to introduce any "wall" or "collapsed waves." The wave function merrily splits continually, creating infinite numbers of parallel universes. (We don't see all these parallel universes surrounding us, because we have "decohered" from them. Our wave function is no longer vibrating in unison with these other universes, so we cannot easily interact with them. Otherwise, we would bump into versions of ourselves where we made different choices in life, or bump into universes where people how have died in our universe are still alive.)
Amygdala wrote:
..a scalar field has a 'value' at every point, though that isn't necessarily the same as 'physical'..
or, from another POV, 'potential' for instance isn't 'physical' but is integral in the 'composition' of physical reality..
so, 'consciousness' could emanate from a 'non-physical' Field of Potential..
..this is the dreaded Everett's Branching Tree Theory or the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics..
..a scalar field has a 'value' at every point, though that isn't necessarily the same as 'physical'..
or, from another POV, 'potential' for instance isn't 'physical' but is integral in the 'composition' of physical reality..
so, 'consciousness' could emanate from a 'non-physical' Field of Potential..
Amygdala said:
This theory totally collides with the theory that gravity permeates all the universes and dimensions resulting in gravity being a weak force. If universes were popping up everytime an observation was made the force of gravity would become weaker and weaker until gravity had no effect on matter at all.
I wonder which theory is correct, if indeed any of them are
embracethevoid
Rising Star
DeMenTed said:Amygdala said:
This theory totally collides with the theory that gravity permeates all the universes and dimensions resulting in gravity being a weak force. If universes were popping up everytime an observation was made the force of gravity would become weaker and weaker until gravity had no effect on matter at all.
I wonder which theory is correct, if indeed any of them are
Actually it intersects perfectly with entropic gravity.
If an observation splits the [observable] universe in half then assume there is an omniverse aka multiverse which stores that data i.e. both copies of that observable universe.
The the information pressure of that observation forces the observable universe to expand. On its horizon is encoded the actual observation that was made. The storage of that data on the horizon will add at least 4 planck areas to the surface area if my understanding is correct.
This consequently is observed as an expansion of the universe. It also explains the horn/funnel shape of the universe as the more permutations of observations there are, the faster the universe must expand.
Keeping in mind that the surface area expansion at present could in terms of raw area per second actually be increasing faster than when it was inflating despite the fact that inflation's expansion rate as a fraction of previous volume might have been much larger; I am not sure if this is the case but a "simple" calculation will answer that question quite "quickly".
To present an analogy, a billionaire (today's universe) might make a million in a week but that's less than 1% of his income while a street sweeper (young inflating universe) could win the lottery (inflation) getting 1 million pesos, which is <1% income to the billionaire yet 50x the cleaner's income. Our humble street sweeper invests his money wisely and becomes a billionaire some 13 billion years later.
The decoherence of the wavefunction would "rotate" [for lack of a stupidly technical word pertaining to the movement of data sets in abstract spaces] the universe in the higher dimensional possibility space so as to produce this reality.
If the speed of gravity is found identical to the speed of light then this confirms a large aspect of digital physics; the fundamental statement of which is along the lines that the speed of information transfer is the rate limiting step across all space.
Entanglement is unaffected as the information is "transferred" at the point of initial entanglement.
It is also noted that first cause is negated in a partial sense by the idea of a 4D world generated by a collision of two entities in a higher dimensional space. This is the ekpyrotic theory of becoming. This does not negate the Absolute in any way shape or form. Also, one answer to the inevitable cheeky higher dimensional space first cause question is that it's turtles all the way down.
Maybe off topic here but;
What if the multi verse (splitting) theory is right;
Then all the 'Splits' would be increasing rapidly with every observation/collapse.(ie. not disappearing but cohering elsewhere in their own realm)
Could this be an explanation for the increase in expansion?
As more observations are made...expansion speeds up...
(The original 'Big Expansion' would have to have been a rather large Epiphany to account for the relatively large initial expansion rate. 'The Source gets a big idea')
All those 'Split off' verses could be existing, off axis (phase shifted), out of our realm and 'might' be 'seen' by us as Dark Matter. (Dark Energy being all the 'Split off' consciousnesses).
Just split-balling here...:?
still not sure about gravity tho
What if the multi verse (splitting) theory is right;
Then all the 'Splits' would be increasing rapidly with every observation/collapse.(ie. not disappearing but cohering elsewhere in their own realm)
Could this be an explanation for the increase in expansion?
As more observations are made...expansion speeds up...
(The original 'Big Expansion' would have to have been a rather large Epiphany to account for the relatively large initial expansion rate. 'The Source gets a big idea')
All those 'Split off' verses could be existing, off axis (phase shifted), out of our realm and 'might' be 'seen' by us as Dark Matter. (Dark Energy being all the 'Split off' consciousnesses).
Just split-balling here...:?
still not sure about gravity tho
I won't pretend that i understand your answer embracethevoid . It sounds good though!
Ok so if the universe splits everytime an observation is made does this apply to any lifeform making an observation?
Was the original universe a single entity until life came along and made observations resulting in the universe splitting? This really does sound fantastical on a par with god the creator.
I can't get my head around that kind of thinking.
Why would a lifeform have the ability to split a single universe? Oh my brain hurts lol. The universe existed before life existed as far as we know. So the big bang happens and the universe is expanding quite happily into oblivion when all of a sudden life appears, makes some observations and suddenly the universe starts splitting and dividing? Why?
. It sounds good though!Ok so if the universe splits everytime an observation is made does this apply to any lifeform making an observation?
Was the original universe a single entity until life came along and made observations resulting in the universe splitting? This really does sound fantastical on a par with god the creator.
I can't get my head around that kind of thinking.
Why would a lifeform have the ability to split a single universe? Oh my brain hurts lol. The universe existed before life existed as far as we know. So the big bang happens and the universe is expanding quite happily into oblivion when all of a sudden life appears, makes some observations and suddenly the universe starts splitting and dividing? Why?
DeMenTed said:
Mixing Science in a jar with Spirituality is a mind f**king Bogglebaffle...:surprised
Science can never know the whole truth and Spirituality won't let you know either...
(but life sure is more fun when you ask the 'out there' questions!)
And on it goes...
embracethevoid
Rising Star
Cyp: look up entropic gravity; that's exactly what entropic gravity is
A lifeform itself is the result of many universes splitting up. The very process of life is the direct splitting of universes in a very specific fashion. But this is nothing special as every movement of anything splits universes.
Imagine you're playing chess. Now imagine the next move increases the chess board aka entropy increasing. At first it's 1x1 then 2x2 etc. Each time you have a possibility space given by the number of possible chess moves. Each time, you choose the best move out of that possibility space.
After a few moves you've got a board that spans 4904930x4904930. Calculate & execute best move. 4904930x4904930x2. Execute best move. (4904930x4904930x2)x2. Repeat to infinity (and beyond). The present resolution of the universe is something like 10^123 pixels but probably much higher than that.
Notions of an individual self do not arise as it is perhaps a global decoherence that takes care of the whole damn thing in one sweep (i.e. a single self makes one decision which to us appears as myriad decisions happening at once). To summarise: the book of life contains "what Is" and "what could have been but is not". The first is a short story, the latter, God help you.
DeMenTed said:I won't pretend that i understand your answer embracethevoid
Ok so if the universe splits everytime an observation is made does this apply to any lifeform making an observation?
Was the original universe a single entity until life came along and made observations resulting in the universe splitting? This really does sound fantastical on a par with god the creator.
I can't get my head around that kind of thinking.
Why would a lifeform have the ability to split a single universe? Oh my brain hurts lol. The universe existed before life existed as far as we know. So the big bang happens and the universe is expanding quite happily into oblivion when all of a sudden life appears, makes some observations and suddenly the universe starts splitting and dividing? Why?
A lifeform itself is the result of many universes splitting up. The very process of life is the direct splitting of universes in a very specific fashion. But this is nothing special as every movement of anything splits universes.
Imagine you're playing chess. Now imagine the next move increases the chess board aka entropy increasing. At first it's 1x1 then 2x2 etc. Each time you have a possibility space given by the number of possible chess moves. Each time, you choose the best move out of that possibility space.
After a few moves you've got a board that spans 4904930x4904930. Calculate & execute best move. 4904930x4904930x2. Execute best move. (4904930x4904930x2)x2. Repeat to infinity (and beyond). The present resolution of the universe is something like 10^123 pixels but probably much higher than that.
Notions of an individual self do not arise as it is perhaps a global decoherence that takes care of the whole damn thing in one sweep (i.e. a single self makes one decision which to us appears as myriad decisions happening at once). To summarise: the book of life contains "what Is" and "what could have been but is not". The first is a short story, the latter, God help you.
Citta
Skepdick
Though interesting and entertaining thoughts, it is as of now dangerous to bring consciousness into physics like this when we can't even agree, or less even understand or define, what consciousness really is. Consciousness is an epic mindfuck in science; we are searching for that which is doing the searching. It's like a dog chasing its own tail.
Citta said:
I don't see any 'danger' here...moreover I feel it is imperative that physics 'hooks up' with conciousness studies so as to realise higher truths...
Amygdala
Rising Star
Citta said:
While I agree that there is tremendous difficulty even defining what we are talking about, I don't think that it lies beyond the province of the physical sciences. Somehow our experiences arise from the physical world, and I think that the principle difficulty in studying this phenomenon is that we cant get outside of it for an objective look.
In the same sense that we have a more complete picture of neighboring galaxies than we do our own milky way, the problem is that of perspective. We can't see what we are immersed in nearly as well as we can see something 'other'.
The classic analogy of a fish that is not aware of water, or a world outside of water simply because the water is so all encompassing that there is no way to remove the observer from the observed.
Any picture of the universe that does not include the observer is incomplete, and no matter how much we trust our math and our 'objective' measurements, they are still made and understood by the same observer that we are trying to study. A can of worms, this.
Regarding the original topic i gots to thinking
What if life became aware at the big bang or was created at the big bang and the expansion that we observe is actually consciousness expanding as life gains knowledge? I'm trying to implement Olympus Mons hypothesis into my way of thinking and it's actually starting to make sense
So life explodes into action (the big bang) and with every moment that life is experiencing itself it starts to build it's own environment (the universe) as more and more experience is gained by life the universe starts to expand at an ever increasing rate until infinity!! At that moment when there's nothing left to experience in this dimension life breaks through into a different dimension and expands within that dimension and so on etc... make sense to anyone? lol
What if life became aware at the big bang or was created at the big bang and the expansion that we observe is actually consciousness expanding as life gains knowledge? I'm trying to implement Olympus Mons hypothesis into my way of thinking and it's actually starting to make sense
So life explodes into action (the big bang) and with every moment that life is experiencing itself it starts to build it's own environment (the universe) as more and more experience is gained by life the universe starts to expand at an ever increasing rate until infinity!! At that moment when there's nothing left to experience in this dimension life breaks through into a different dimension and expands within that dimension and so on etc... make sense to anyone? lol
Really? Along with neuro sciences. I think physics is best chance to study and unlock the mystery of consciousness.Citta said: