Observer-Participatory Universe?

[Ostronomos]

I am often known to say that the subjective world is not an illusion when debating with materialists. But back in the 1980's John Archibald Wheeler took it to a whole new level. He said that the entire cosmos is dependent on observation. This stuck me as the correct view of reality. Not only because it is logically sound, but because it is a far-fetched. I have also been known to be somewhat radical in my perspective. It is no wonder John Archibald Wheeler is hailed as a genius.

The concept of a participatory universe is a philosophical and theoretical idea proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler. It suggests that the presence of conscious observers plays a role in bringing the universe into existence. Wheeler’s ideas imply that the universe is not a static entity but one that requires the participation of observers to determine its form and structure.

Here are some key points from the web search results:

• Wheeler’s Legacy: Wheeler was a prominent figure in theoretical physics, contributing to the understanding of black holes, wormholes, and quantum mechanics1.
• Observer’s Role: Experiments have suggested that observers’ consciousness might be required for the universe to exist, supporting Wheeler’s hypothesis that the universe is participatory1.
• Quantum Mechanics: The participatory universe relates to quantum mechanics, where the act of observation can affect the outcome of events2.
• Physical Reality: Wheeler viewed physical reality as emerging from a dialogue between observers and the universe, challenging traditional notions of a passive reality3.

These points provide a glimpse into the complex and intriguing idea that our observations might be integral to the very existence of the universe.

 

[metis]

That may be possible as "spooky action at a distance", which Einstein thought was crazy but in more recent times has been shown to happen. What is quantum entanglement? A physicist explains Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’

 

[ChristineM]

These points provide a glimpse into the complex and intriguing idea that our observations might be integral to the very existence of the universe.

Except in terms of the universe it has existed for around 13.77 billion years before humans evolved to bring the existing universe into existence a mere 2.8 million years ago

Perhaps the paradox to end all paradoxes

 

[bobhikes]

Except in terms of the universe it has existed for around 13.77 billion years before humans evolved to bring the existing universe into existence a mere 2.8 million years ago

Perhaps the paradox to end all paradoxes

I would argue that the universe exists only now. Time is a construct of life to survive and not a real dimension. Though we can trace the past and predict the future they are only mental constructs you can't physically be in either.

 

[ChristineM]

I would argue that the universe exists only now. Time is a construct of life to survive and not a real dimension. Though we can trace the past and predict the future they are only mental constructs you can't physically be in either.

I wouldn't.

Entropy exists and has existed since rhe beginning of the he universe, (otherwise we wouldn't exist). Entropy is essentially a clock that counts down to zero, i.e a way of measuring time

Sure humans have created their own way of measuring time but it's subjective.

 

[bobhikes]

I wouldn't.

Entropy exists and has existed since rhe beginning of the he universe, (otherwise we wouldn't exist). Entropy is essentially a clock that counts down to zero, i.e a way of measuring time

Sure humans have created their own way of measuring time but it's subjective.

It's not just humans but all life has created its own basis for time. Take trees as an example. Movement is caused by the constant of change. The universe is and always will change. Life just measures this change to survive. It's the difference between a rock and bacterium.

 

[Tomef]

I would argue that the universe exists only now. Time is a construct of life to survive and not a real dimension. Though we can trace the past and predict the future they are only mental constructs you can't physically be in either.

Now doesn’t really exist either, just a continual passage from one state to another. If that flow is what exists, then it consists of continual change of one degree or other in what is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Except in terms of the universe it has existed for around 13.77 billion years before humans evolved to bring the existing universe into existence a mere 2.8 million years ago

Perhaps the paradox to end all paradoxes

 

[RestlessSoul]

Wheeler was once asked what was required to cause a quantum superposition to collapse, and he replied without hesitation, “Consciousness”.

But I don’t think Participatory Realism is an argument for either idealism or solipsism. Christopher Fuchs wrote a persuasive and impassioned argument for Wheeler’s interpretation of QM being anything but anti-realist.

One of the implications of QM is that, unlike with classical Newtonian Physics, it is not possible to observe a system neutrally, behaving as it would were the observer not there observing it. At the quantum level, all distinctions become somewhat arbitrary, particularly that between the object, the observer, and the act of observation.

Quantum Bayesianism and Participatory realism are attempts to address this conundrum, by acknowledging that any complete description of a system must provide a description of the entire universe: Including not only the consciousness of the observer, but also the collective consciousness of the various observers.

In the words of philosopher Julian Baggini, There is no view from everywhere; every view is a view from somewhere. Quantum Bayesianism is an attempt to provide an insight into how a both individual and collective views operate, how the collective view may be accessed, and how fundamental perception may be to the quality of human experience.

[1601.04360] On Participatory Realism

 

[metis]

Except in terms of the universe it has existed for around 13.77 billion years before humans evolved to bring the existing universe into existence a mere 2.8 million years ago

It's actually back to a bit over 6 million with the Chad find.

 

[PureX]

The probelm is that, if true, there would be no possible platform from which to demonstarate it. And yet that fact by itself could just as easily stand as proof that it is NOT true.

 

[Nakosis]

I am often known to say that the subjective world is not an illusion when debating with materialists. But back in the 1980's John Archibald Wheeler took it to a whole new level. He said that the entire cosmos is dependent on observation. This stuck me as the correct view of reality. Not only because it is logically sound, but because it is a far-fetched. I have also been known to be somewhat radical in my perspective. It is no wonder John Archibald Wheeler is hailed as a genius.

The concept of a participatory universe is a philosophical and theoretical idea proposed by physicist John Archibald Wheeler. It suggests that the presence of conscious observers plays a role in bringing the universe into existence. Wheeler’s ideas imply that the universe is not a static entity but one that requires the participation of observers to determine its form and structure.

Here are some key points from the web search results:

• Wheeler’s Legacy: Wheeler was a prominent figure in theoretical physics, contributing to the understanding of black holes, wormholes, and quantum mechanics1.
• Observer’s Role: Experiments have suggested that observers’ consciousness might be required for the universe to exist, supporting Wheeler’s hypothesis that the universe is participatory1.
• Quantum Mechanics: The participatory universe relates to quantum mechanics, where the act of observation can affect the outcome of events2.
• Physical Reality: Wheeler viewed physical reality as emerging from a dialogue between observers and the universe, challenging traditional notions of a passive reality3.

These points provide a glimpse into the complex and intriguing idea that our observations might be integral to the very existence of the universe.

The universe we perceive is not the universe that exists. It is a representation of the universe created subconsciously by our brain and presented to our consciousness. That universe, which we perceive does not exist without our brain being there to create this representation of the universe for us.

So yes, we have to participate for our "perception" of the universe to exist. The universe that we perceive is not the same universe that exists for a Dog, who sees less colors that we do, or some species of birds who see more colors than we do.

Humans are very egocentric assuming the universe must exist as we perceive it to exist.

 

[Ostronomos]

The universe we perceive is not the universe that exists. It is a representation of the universe created subconsciously by our brain and presented to our consciousness. That universe, which we perceive does not exist without our brain being there to create this representation of the universe for us.

So yes, we have to participate for our "perception" of the universe to exist. The universe that we perceive is not the same universe that exists for a Dog, who sees less colors that we do, or some species of birds who see more colors than we do.

Humans are very egocentric assuming the universe must exist as we perceive it to exist.

There's also the idea that we don't have full access to reality. I think this fits nicely with your summary.

 

[Ostronomos]

How God creates His own cause and effect: