Could Consciousness Forge the Universe?

"I meant a single coin could potentially, if the chosen method allowed, be seen as both outcomes simultaneously." Exactly. That is what a superposition is.

"But the single sub atomic particle can only be seen as one outcome." No. It is exactly like the coin. That is what a superposition is.

A bit only has one value AFTER something has made a decision. But prior to that decision, it has the potential to be either of two values, depending entirely on how the decision is made. That is what a superposition is - the value is a "property" of the decision process. It is not a property of the coin, particle or bit, which merely have the property of being in a superposition, which thereby enables such two-state decisions to be made.

Rob McEachern

I wrote 'can only be seen as one outcome" i.e.the result. It can't be measured twice at the same time. Re. coin: I think the outcome is in part the coin's orientation on landing and part the choice of how to call the result. Same orientation on landing could be called by exposing the coin as it lies or it can be flipped over onto the other hand and then called. With the Stern Gerlach apparatus used for particle pairs; each of the partners can not be giving a truly random outcome as it has to be opposite to its partner making half of the outcomes that could happen with superposition of all outcomes prohibited. I think the condition of the particle at outset challenged by the environment of the apparatus generates the outcome ie. not pre-existing as a superposition. How it is seen depends on the condition of the particle and choice of X Y or Z orientation of field.

Forget about "landing" - the coins and particles are drifting through space - they never land. You are confusing entanglement with Stern-Gerlach. There are no entangled pairs involved in a Stern-Gerlach experiment; There are no pairs at all - there is just a set of particles, like random-oriented coins, such that half appear "heads or up" and the other half "tails or down". They are not "paired" in any way.

Rob McEachern

But aren't two sets of the apparatus used to test each of the partners of a pair? Else how do we know they retain their opposite-ness for the same orientation test, whatever the separation?

There are no "partners of a pair" because there are no pairs. Stern-Gerlach experiments have nothing to do with entangled (paired opposites) particles. There are two SETS of unrelated particles, not one set of paired-particles, as would be the case in Bell tests and the EPR paradox.

Imagine having one set of coins that are lying on a table, with about half Heads-up and the other half Tails-up. Then ask someone to slide them around, in order to separate them into two sets; one that is entirely heads-up and the other entirely tails-up. That is the first step in the experiment. Now ask the same person to reexamine the two sets, to see if anything has changed. Nothing has; there are still two sets, one all heads and the other all tails. Now ask another person, who has never seen the coins before, to get down on his or her knees and examine the two sets from ONLY a perfectly edge-on angle, and try to "call each coin" - they are likely to incorrectly call each set as approximately 50% heads and 50% tails, since they cannot actually see what they are at all, and are consequently likely to, in effect, simply guess that they are randomly oriented. That is all that is happening in Stern-Gerlach experiments.

Rob McEachern

how are 'entangled' particles tested?

Via Bell tests, in which the two particles, in each entangled pair, are simultaneously measured at different, random (polarization or spin) angles. The correlation statistics between these pairs, are then computed, after the fact. The December 2018 issue of Scientific American has a good article describing recent experiments, along with the standard (incorrect) interpretation of why the correlations occur.

The Matlab code in my vixra paper performs exactly this type of test on 1,000,000 polarized coins, and demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the correlations can be reproduced classically, and have nothing to do with either spooky action at a distance, or hidden variables, which are usually assumed to be the ONLY two possible explanations for the correlations.

I sent a Letter to the Editors of Scientific American, about this, over two months ago. But I doubt that it will ever be published - too controversial.

Rob McEachern

This consciousness even can be ranked,it exists Indeed different groups considering this consciousness. We think so we are .....

Hello Mrs John,

Indeed the article is very well made.It is relevant also the title,our consciousness is a fascinating topic.We can rank it Inside this physicality and even correlate with an infinite Eternal consciousness creating this physicality,beyond this physicality,it is without time,space,matter,only pure infinite Energy.Must we consider a gravitational aether ?Personally I beleive that yes.Best Regards

Markus Mueller's suggestion that the world we see emerges from our observations does not appear to be that radical or new after all in view of the revelations that the universe emerges from a human being, similarly as a mighty tree emerges from its parent seed. According to that world view the universe is a human being's way of making human beings in its own image, just as a tree is the seed's way of making seeds in its own image. We have the delusion that nonlife managed to generate the universe and life, when in fact the universe is the product of life. We are being exposed to plenty of irrational babbling about life's origin from simpler forms of life, and eventually from nonlife, but the stark fact is that life's origin from anything lesser than itself has never been demonstrated. We must keep in mind science's stand on the subject of biogenesis: "The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material" (The Oxford Dictionary of Biology, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2000). This law has never been falsified.

I think a universe designed by a Mind is the best way to explain the fine tuned physics constants.

"That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the observer alone that determines those probabilities. Surprisingly, despite its solipsistic foundation, I show that the resulting theory recovers many features of our established physical worldview: it predicts that it appears to observers as if there was an external world that evolves according to simple, computable, probabilistic laws. In contrast to the standard view, objective reality is not assumed on this approach but rather provably emerges as an asymptotic statistical phenomenon."

Interesting. Kantish. I would expect though if you take a slice of external reality, being that of the observer and use algorithmic probability so associated, you absolutely must reach the said external world, otherwise, Newtonian science wouldn't work between humans. Is it any different, apart from conceptually, than taking atoms in the conception of the external world and determining the probability they comprise a brick when they indeed do.

What is Holotheism?

Holotheism is the theological system implied by logical theology. Its fundamental premise is that the Mind of God is the ultimate reality...that is, reality in its most basic and most general form. It is thus related to panentheism, but in addition to being more refined, is more compatible with monotheism in that its "mental" characterization of God implies that divine nature is more in keeping with established theological traditions.

Could the mind of God be the ultimate reality? "Ultimate reality" being the utmost generality in the form of SCSPL language?

Death is said to be an illusion of change. It was said by a friend, "We are not just a physical body having a physical experience, we are a spirit have a physical experience." There is one spirit having individual physical bodies. We are all in this together no matter the appearance. Blind nature is not the same as God.

M---->Interpretation---->R

God is the relationship between mind and matter.

This relationship exists in a dimension 90 degrees to the material world, a dimension of mind. This can be accessed through dreams and other even more limited means.

There is "our" consciousness and then there is the real consciousness that exists within matter and the cosmos. This link is the relationship referred to in the definition.

And to end with yet another of my profound revolutionary thoughts:

Reality is self-perceptual, therefore consciousness can and does exist outside of the body.

Thank you.