Possibility of a Conscious Universe: Proving Life and Awareness

In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of whether the universe is conscious and alive. The definition of life and consciousness is debated, with some arguing that it only applies to living organisms. However, others believe that even elementary particles possess consciousness and that the universe as a whole is conscious. Ultimately, the concept of synergy is brought up, highlighting the unique properties that arise when multiple things come together. The term "Quantum Decoherence" is mentioned as a way to understand the universe's tendency towards coherence and organization.
  • #71
But what does conciousness imply? Does it imply "a will," such as with us humans?
No it does not. It implies knowledge, awareness of surroundings, of self. It does not imply an unifying will to action. A spectator is also conscious, but needs not have an universal will and purpose.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #72
Originally posted by FZ+
No, for what you are doing is instead saying that the loaf of bread itself is a manifestation of a still larger chunk of breadiness. The fact that such a relationship exists once is no implication there must be an infinite chain of them...
No, I'm saying "my consciousness" is a slice of the overall loaf, which is the "greater consciousness" as a whole.

Originally posted by FZ+
No it does not. It implies knowledge, awareness of surroundings, of self. It does not imply an unifying will to action. A spectator is also conscious, but needs not have an universal will and purpose.
Are you saying that as part of your consciousness, you don't have a will that "acts" in accord with what it perceives? Then what the heck are you doing typing at that damn keyboard then? Is it because you wish (which is of the will) to participate? Or, would you rather (which is also of the will) be a spectator?
 
  • #73
I don't leave anything behind. I cease existing at death. Ecclesiastes 9:5 (since you seem to be fond of scripture) - "The living are conscious that they will die, but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all". I'm not leaving my carcass behind, I (my conscious self) cease existing, the carcass will eventually also cease existing.
I don't doubt that this could have been the "prevailing view" at the time, but if anything, it highlights the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, which speaks of nothing but "an afterlife."
 
  • #74
No, I'm saying "my consciousness" is a slice of the overall loaf, which is the "greater consciousness" as a whole.
Nope. It means your example is ambiguous. By the mere observation of consciousness does not immediately make sense that a higher consciousness would exist above it.

Are you saying that as part of your consciousness, you don't have a will that "acts" in accord with what it perceives? Then what the heck are you doing typing at that damn keyboard then? Is it because you wish (which is of the will) to participate? Or, would you rather (which is also of the will) be a spectator?
That is not relevant to the discussion. I merely saying that one does not imply the other. Consciousness does not imply a will. Mere knowing does not neccessitate intention. A will is an optional extra, in a way. And yes, there is such a thing as an unwilling spectator.
But I might argue that I believe that all actions are due to our experiences and instincts. The fact I am typing is not because I want to, but because the sum of my memories and experiences compell me to. If my life has been different, I would not be. So my choice is really made for me. If your life has been different, you would not be disagreeing with me...
 
  • #75
Originally posted by FZ+
Nope. It means your example is ambiguous. By the mere observation of consciousness does not immediately make sense that a higher consciousness would exist above it.
Either there's a greater consciousness to the Universe as a whole or there isn't, and that's what we're discussing here.

Originally posted by FZ+
That is not relevant to the discussion. I merely saying that one does not imply the other. Consciousness does not imply a will. Mere knowing does not neccessitate intention. A will is an optional extra, in a way. And yes, there is such a thing as an unwilling spectator.
I will myself to do things all the time and that's a "conscious act."

An unwilling spectator? Do you mean someone "forces you" against your will to spectate? Usually most people spectate out of a "conscious choice" to do so. You still have to put yourself (which is of the will) in the position to where you're going to watch.

Originally posted by FZ+
But I might argue that I believe that all actions are due to our experiences and instincts. The fact I am typing is not because I want to, but because the sum of my memories and experiences compell me to. If my life has been different, I would not be. So my choice is really made for me. If your life has been different, you would not be disagreeing with me...
We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
 
  • #76


Originally posted by Mentat
But fire is a chemical reaction, and it isn't alive.

But there isn't a definition for alive. I know there is one, created by scientists for a standard classification. But there isn't a universal definition, and you can't really classify anything as alive universally.
can the essence of life (life/living things, in the context of standard definitions) be considered alive, using standard, scientific definitions?
 
  • #77
"No man is an island...

...We are part of the main."

Not an exact quote, and I don't have a clue where it's from, however...

...I think the "loaf of bread" analogy is a good one.

If the Universe, through natural processes, gave rise to physicality, might It not, through natural processes, give rise to discrete chunks of cohesive consciousness?

Like the stars (and everything else) which are formed from inherent ingrediants and forces, might not consciousness "accrete" in much the same way?

"Souls" -- for want of a better word -- would be "made of " the same "stuff" from which it has risen...

...and, because it may be made of ENERGY -- not "matter" -- it might tend to hold together after the body falls away.

As to WILL...true, it doesn't HAVE TO BE part of consciousness, I guess, but there would be very little point to BEING conscious if you -- or the Universe -- weren't going to DO something with it!

I think the Universe has WILL because I speculate that INTENTION is what ACTS UPON the randomness that's part of the System of the Universe, causing certain potentialities to manifest instead of others.

The Universe does this on a LARGE scale...and we do it on a small scale...but we DO cause "things" to "happen" via our INTENTIONS...I think. And we do so by "tapping into" the "network" of which we are a part: the collective MIND.
 
  • #78
An unwilling spectator? Do you mean someone "forces you" against your will to spectate? Usually most people spectate out of a "conscious choice" to do so. You still have to put yourself (which is of the will) in the position to where you're going to watch.
What if you are born in that position, and lack the will to leave? You do not need to want to watch...

We're just preprogrammed machines then right?
In a way. Self-programmed is more like it.

Like the stars (and everything else) which are formed from inherent ingrediants and forces, might not consciousness "accrete" in much the same way?
What is consciousness? It seems to me to be an abstract, subjective concept. Can you justifiably apply the laws of physics to the nebulous state of the mind? And how do you identify what is conscious and what is not?
But that's playing the devil's advocate a bit. Personally, I believe consciousness to be a label man place subjectively, in relation to himself. Whatever behaves in a similar way to man is "conscious". Whatever behaves in a different way to man is less "conscious". In this way, everything is conscious to a degree. Really, this is the only definition we apply, we can apply. What makes you believe me to be conscious? Because I look like you, talk like you and most importantly react like you.
And life is similar. The reason why we consider ourselves to be the highest form of life is because this is our only yardstick. The rest we list in terms of complexity and similarity to us. Until we understood fire, nothing stopped us from considering fire a manifestation of life.

As to WILL...true, it doesn't HAVE TO BE part of consciousness, I guess, but there would be very little point to BEING conscious if you -- or the Universe -- weren't going to DO something with it!
Since when did everything have to have a point? In an overview, the majority of people who have lived did nothing with their consciousness, save add a bit of carbon dioxide perhaps. (and that is also done subconciously)

I think the Universe has WILL because I speculate that INTENTION is what ACTS UPON the randomness that's part of the System of the Universe, causing certain potentialities to manifest instead of others.
Hmm... like? Isn't the universe moving towards entropy and disorder, rather than the reverse?
 
  • #79
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

The universe is growing a brain in its formations of life and conscious beings.

As the universe grows more complex... each conscious being becomes a neuron of the universal brain. There is a propensity for this thin layer of living, conscious beings to communicate with one another across various distances and in various areas of the universe.

This communication is growing in complexity and in frequency.

This could be called the universal consciousness. Where the universe begins to create a neural network within its otherwise inanimate constitution.

This model is based on the book titled "The Global Brain" (author?).

In this book it is easily demonstrated how the evolution of the Earth is a close match to the evolution of the brain... starting with mud... then through many changes and stages to a position where the mud has grown a conscious brain... and comunicates with mud from around the planet.

The brain produces technological advances to facilitate this communication between conscious beings... like telegraph... like fiber optics... television... you get the picture!

This model when extrapolated on to the universal condition tends to show the direction of "inanimate substance" and that it is toward a condition of "Universal Consciousness".
 
  • #80
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Is the Universe conscious? Is It a living Entity? How might one set about "proving" It's "alive" and "conscious"?

Statistically of course. Essentially it is QM that first brought up this issue in the form of the wave/particle duality and Indeterminacy and everything in QM is studied statistically. Do photons actually "decide" which hole to go through in the double slit experiment?

In recent years this idea of everything being consciousness or awareness has lost some of its support to the concept of Quantum Decoherence which postulates that the collapse of the wave function is due to environmental noise rather than a conscious observer. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it may hesitate for a few femto seconds to make a noise and become a reality, but no longer than that. At least, that is the implications of modern experiments.

However, this still does not rule out the idea that everything might ultimately be consciousness. All it does is make it a little less likely in the eyes of physicists. Like a lot of explanations for Quantum Weirdness, this one begs for a Theory of Everything to help settle the issue. Even then, it may require centuries before the statistical experimental evidence can pretty much make a stand on the issue.
 
  • #81
brain of universe

Humans are like a brain for the universe, but only slightly because humans are still going to care about themselves and not care about all the parts of the universe. A human displays consciousness because he cares and does things to protect and pleasure every part of himself, his brain cares about every part of his body. But humans won't be a similar brain for the universe because we will only care about the parts of the universe that affect us. If some outer region of the universe is going to break off or die, we won't care, so it seems like the universe may not be conscious in that regard. It, the universe may be more like a tree or plant that lives but doesn't really display consciousness to the extent that a human seems conscious. Although the similiarities of comparing the universe to a human do seem so high that maybe in the future the universe will behave as a conscious entity and not a vegetable-like existence.
The discussions about afterlife seem to get too religion-like so I'm going to skip speculating about that.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by Iacchus32

We're just preprogrammed machines then right?

Right. Even if we have free will, we are still pre-programmed (by genetics) machines (in that we have different parts that work together, to accomplish tasks - that's what a "machine" is).
 
  • #83


Originally posted by MajinVegeta
But there isn't a definition for alive. I know there is one, created by scientists for a standard classification. But there isn't a universal definition, and you can't really classify anything as alive universally.
can the essence of life (life/living things, in the context of standard definitions) be considered alive, using standard, scientific definitions?

Well, I mentioned one of the requirements for being considered (by biologists) to be alive. The universe doesn't create more of itself. It also doesn't take in nourishement/energy from any external source. It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings. It doesn't have an orderly structure. And it isn't composed of cells, which are considered the building blocks of life.

These requirements of living things are not necessarily right, they're just how my Biology book would have you believe. However, the universe (as a whole) doesn't meet any of them.
 
  • #84
Though I agree, I like to say that this analysis is however open to interpretation...

The universe doesn't create more of itself.
One of the present (and unconfirmed) theories, F-theory (based on M theory) proposes that big bangs are caused by branes impacting to create new ones. So universes can kinda reproduce.

It also doesn't take in nourishement/energy from any external source.
Additionally, M-theory proposes that things like gravity can be seeping in from another universe. Whether that is taking in energy is another question. But even then, living things don't eat all the time. The universe can be considered to be a stage between feeding, where it digests matter (mostly hydrogen) for energy.

It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings.
Well... yeah.

It doesn't have an orderly structure.
Galaxies and things like that do present some degree of order. But there is no apparent overall one. But is that really a criteria for life?

And it isn't composed of cells, which are considered the building blocks of life.
Well, individual planets and stars can be considered to be analogies of cells, each producing it's own energy. But the link is tenuous. Is a ball of fusing gas alive is rather similar to the old is fire alive problem.
 
  • #85
I have such a problem with people's speaking of more than one universe. It's like saying that there's everything, and then saying that there's something else, besides.

Otherwise, I can't see anything wrong with the points you bring up in your post. So, I agree, the univese does meet some of the criteria.
 
  • #86
Originally posted by Mentat
Right. Even if we have free will, we are still pre-programmed (by genetics) machines (in that we have different parts that work together, to accomplish tasks - that's what a "machine" is).
Why does my "psyche" find this so abhorrent? ... abhorrence being a sign that I have a will be the way.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why does my "psyche" find this so abhorrent? Abhorrence being a sign that I have a will be the way.

You find it abhorrent because you have continued existing in a certain way that predisposes you toward abbhorence of such a concept (by FZ+'s reasoning).

Abhorrence does not indicate will. It indicates that you are predisposed toward disliking something, and that if you had will, it would be severly limited by this predisposition.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Mentat
Abhorrence does not indicate will. It indicates that you are predisposed toward disliking something, and that if you had will, it would be severly limited by this predisposition.
If I dislike something, "presently," then that requires that I act upon it, and that would be of "the will."
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If I dislike something, "presently," then that requires that I act upon it, and that would be of "the will."

Disliking something does not require that you act on it. It only allows for it.

Besides, acting on something doesn't require will.
 
  • #90
Originally posted by Mentat
Disliking something does not require that you act on it. It only allows for it.

Besides, acting on something doesn't require will.
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!
 
  • #91
Someone, please define "consciousness"!

Then define "intellegence".

Then define "memory".

In what way are these three terms/concepts interrelated?

We can say that any entity in existence is a form of information storage. A broken piece of obsidian holds inumerable bits of information. It only takes an observant life-form to interpret the information into data that may help said life-form to understand and survive its environment better.

A fire stores the information that has to do with heat, combustion, light, fuel, cooling, disintegration and a number of other chemical and electromagnetic interactions. Fire is representative of these and other stored bits of information.

The fuel for fire is another, large collection of information that lends itself to the fire and its exhibition of flame, heat, light and disintegration... etc...

One could see all these combinant and re-combinant bits of information and the dynamics of their interactions as a form of consciousness and as a form of communications between elements.

But... it can only be "concsiousness" when it is labeled as such by humans or some other highly evolved form of life which sports its own language and information storage/disemination system... as well as a concept of it own that it defines as "concsiousness".

One is not going to elicit a response from a flame that suggests it is conscious of your presence. Until it happens to latch onto your pant leg, perhaps.
 
  • #92
Someone, please define "consciousness"!

I'd rather try to describe color to a blind man (LOL). Either you know you are conscious or you don't as far as I am concerned. :0)
 
  • #93
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?
 
  • #94
LOL, often I don't! I either assume they are conscious or wait to see if their behavior indicates they are or not. :0)
 
  • #95
conscious and free will

Some people are almost like plants and vegetables, that grow toward the sun but don't show much free will or decisions about future directions. Is a person conscious if they react in the same predictable way? Example, a person whose hormones push them to rage all the time, a plant grows toward the sun all the time. Hormones make some people more prone to certain reactions. A lot of us are stubborn, obsessive almost programmed to certain reactions.
We can't see things a rattlesnake can see, so maybe we seem unconscious at times to a snake. We don't react to something we don't notice but the snake sees the heat image in the dark and does react to it. We may seem unconscious in that regard to the snake.
Just watch a debate on TV and ask yourself if anyone changed their mind on that show after hearing the sides. It seems to me that everyone on those shows have the same opinion at the end of the show as they had at the beginning, it is like the democrats and the republicans at a debate, it is like the different religions at a debate, it is like I don't know, I think my brain cells ran out, bye for now.
 
  • #96
you are contradicting yourself...

Mentat, I have repeatedly brought up the possibility that this could be a sub universe (as it corresponds with p-branes and the shadow universe), and this all evidently implies that there could be an "outside" of this universe. so...

It doesn't adapt to it's surroundings

what surroundings? We can't prove there are surroundings and vice versa. Even if there where surroundings, how are we going to come to the conlusion that the universe is adapting to its suroundings?
 
  • #97
Originally posted by FZ+
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?

If that being is aware of their surroundings and has a concept of time passing.
 
  • #98
Someone, please define "consciousness"!
Awareness.

Then define "intellegence".
I guess you could say intellegence is the creation of new brain tissue/ branch-thingies (i can't quite remember what they were called...i know it...) on neurons.

Then define "memory".
Memory is yet to be defined acuratly. Anyhow, I guess it could be defined as a collection of past references.
 
  • #99
a memory

I forgot the definition of memory(someone had to say it)
Hmmm, dendrites & axions connecting stuff helps intelligence but hopefully the quality of a choice being made determines intelligence because that seems to be a better level of consciousness, so memory helps that too especially for those of us that learn the hard way (after sumthin bad happens instead of forseeing the possiblity).
If there is stuff outside this universe then maybe this universe is just a little cell-like part of a bigger system. Afterall there does seem to be a pattern of anything and everything is part of something bigger.
 
  • #100
what do you mean by choice and intelligence?
 
  • #101
dendrites & axions

Maybe our rocketships and space shuttles and satellites are like the dendrites and axions that connect neurons. Rocketships and satellites may connect and conduct intelligence or actions to other parts of the universe, making the universe a bit like a big brain.
 
  • #102
Yes, like a big brain with no central unit (purpose). I wouldn't say that the sattelites and stuff make the universelike a big brain, but rather the Earth like a big, disoriented brain.
What characteristics make something a brain? Does disorientation, or rather, division (like how the Earth is filled with divided perspectives) account to its definition?
 
  • #103
Originally posted by FZ+
But how then do you classify someone else as conscious?

That is the question... especially in philosophical sense.

In what capacity do I find myself that gives me the authority to determine whether or not someone or something is conscious or not?

As an self-directing opinion or calculation I can see the usefulness of such a determination. But to impose the opinion elsewhere would be precarious and no doubt the wrong thing to do.

I can summon the sentiment that rocks are concsious... they react to conditions (contracting in cold, expanding in heat, disintegrating or "evolving" into sand... offering support for life as soil... becoming life itself... etc...)

These interactions can appear as a form of communication between elements. The heat says "speed up rock electrons" and they do.

Not any different than how the sight of a beautiful woman will set into motion the endocrine system of a hetrosexual male.

The hetrosexual male gives the observer the impression that he is "aware" of the beautiful woman's presence. However... the observer has no understanding of what might be going on in the hetrosexual male's head. The male may not be aware of the woman. He may only be interested in her shoes. That may be all that set his hormones raging.

So, a reaction does not hold the key to determining awareness or consciousness. We see reactions everyday. In the wind, the sun, throughout the universe. Does this imply a universal consciousness?

I don't think so.

Consciousness is a form of communication.

It may only be an observation of a non-conscious state by a conscious state... but that is still a form of communication. In other words there has to be an INTERPRETATION made by the conscious entity and the entity makes a "concsious decision" with regard to its observation.

This "conscious decision" to observe a phenomenon results in an awareness of the phenomenon. This awareness may be correct in its understanding and may not be correct... but it is an awareness of the phenomenon.

This is when there is another conscious decision to investigate further into the details of the phenomenon and expand on the original awareness the observer gained in their first attempt.

This sort of inquiry and exploration creates a fuller understanding and a "higher form of consciousness" about any given phenomenon.

This sort of inquiry and exploration is what supports the growth of the universal brain... with each conscious individual involved in it acting as repositories of information or... neurons... all being a part of the universal neuronal network.

So far, the inhabitants of Earth seem to be sequestered to the cerebellum or brain stem... we may only be preforming autonomic functions with regard to the consciousness of the universe.

The really heady stuff might be going on further beyond us... in the outer "cortex" of this universe. Rarely do the neurons of that area need to communicate with the drone neurons of the brain stem or corpus colosum.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Originally posted by Iacchus32
In other words you have been so "pre-programmed" by the educational system that you don't believe in "free will." What a despicable thing to do!

I never said that I didn't believe in free will. You should know by now, that I don't have to believe something, in order to argue for or against it. Besides, that's not the point. The point is that you really are stuck on the belief that there is free will, and that you are not open to any argument against that belief.
 
  • #105
LOL, often I don't! I either assume they are conscious or wait to see if their behavior indicates they are or not. :0)
This is part of my point. While we may say that consciousness, awareness etc are spiritual and immaterial ideas, in reality our internal definition of it, the one that we really use, is based solely on material resemblence and behaviour pattern matching.

Majinvegeta...
If that being is aware of their surroundings and has a concept of time passing.
How can you tell that? How do you know someone is aware of their surroundings, and has a concept of time passing?

carl:
Consciousness is a form of communication.
I don't think that is the right word for what you are talking about. But I'll let it pass...
Let's see, you classify consciousness as a sense of enquiry... kinda. Acknowledgement of external data. But then how can you apply this to the universe? (the subject of this thread) How can the universe enquire, when there is (supposedly) only itself?
 
<h2>1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?</h2><p>The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.</p><h2>2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?</h2><p>The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.</p><h2>3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?</h2><p>While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.</p><h2>4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?</h2><p>If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.</p><h2>5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?</h2><p>There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.</p>

1. What is the concept of a conscious universe?

The concept of a conscious universe suggests that the universe itself is conscious and aware, rather than just being a collection of unconscious matter. This idea proposes that the universe has a purpose and that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of it.

2. How is the possibility of a conscious universe being studied?

The study of a conscious universe is a complex and ongoing process. Scientists are exploring various theories and conducting experiments to understand the nature and potential of consciousness in the universe. Some approaches include studying the brain, quantum mechanics, and the concept of panpsychism.

3. What evidence supports the idea of a conscious universe?

While there is no definitive evidence yet, some scientists argue that certain phenomena, such as the observer effect in quantum mechanics, suggest the presence of consciousness in the universe. Additionally, the complexity and order of the universe may also be seen as evidence of a conscious design.

4. What are the potential implications of a conscious universe?

If proven, the concept of a conscious universe could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also impact our understanding of consciousness and its role in the universe, potentially leading to new scientific and philosophical discoveries.

5. Is there a consensus among scientists about the possibility of a conscious universe?

There is currently no consensus among scientists about the concept of a conscious universe. Some argue that it is a valid and promising theory, while others remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to support it. As research and understanding continue to evolve, we may gain a better understanding of the possibility of a conscious universe.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
312
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
924
  • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top