Question for Atheists...

[ppp]

Without consciousness there can, by definition, be no observable universe.

Only in a non-scientific context.

 

[ratiocinator]

Is the sphere (?) of the universe is like a bowl of water with fish (galaxies) swimming in it or there is no water or fish inside the bowl and only on its inner surface?

There is no normal 2-sphere, i.e. 3-d sphere, except for the observable universe and that is just because it's as far as we can see from Earth. It's not a real feature of the universe, it's a point of view. That is not hollow; the Earth is at the centre because it represents the point of view from Earth.

The universe may have the topology of the surface of a 3-sphere, but that is far from certain, and in that case, we don't need a literal 3-sphere floating in 4-d space, the 'surface' topology doesn't need the 4th spatial dimension; it's just a model. A way to (sort of) visualise it. The mathematics that describes it stands alone.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Only in a non-scientific context.

In any context, there has to be an observer for a phenomenon to be observable.

And in any case, there is a considerable body of opinion among scientists that any description of the universe must include a description of the consciousness of the observer;

“We are together, the universe and us. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of the universe that ignores life and consciousness.”
- Andrei Linde, Universe, Life, Consciousness 1998

 

[ppp]

In any context, there has to be an observer for a phenomenon to be observable.

An observer does not necessaryily include consciousness in a scientific context. e.g. The Observer Effect where no conscious observer is required. Which means that in that context, observer does not imply consciousness.

And in any case, there is a considerable body of opinion among scientists

Produce the peer-reviewed maintream physics journal articles that support that considerable body of opinion.

 

[ratiocinator]

And in any case, there is a considerable body of opinion among scientists that any description of the universe must include a description of the consciousness of the observer;

Apart from certain speculations about how consciousness comes about, the only place it really exists at a fundamental level is in one interpretation of quantum mechanics, the 'conciousness causes collapse' or Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation. This isn't exactly a hugely popular view either, so not sure where you get the "considerable body of opinion among scientists" from...?

 

[RestlessSoul]

An observer does not necessaryily include consciousness in a scientific context. e.g. The Observer Effect where no conscious observer is required. Which means that in that context, observer does not imply consciousness.


Produce the peer-reviewed maintream physics journal articles that support that considerable body of opinion.

Too lazy to do your own research? Maybe start here then...

Penrose - Consciousness and the foundations of physics


https://www.facebook.com/QuantumMind

 

[Aupmanyav]

Without consciousness there can, by definition, be no observable universe.

The universe will always be there. This is a universal illusion; we call it nature. Humans, animals, vegetation, seasons, all go by it.
Human consciousness is such a temporary thing, lasts only for the life of a person.

 

[ppp]

Too lazy to do your own research? Maybe start here then...

Penrose - Consciousness and the foundations of physics


https://www.facebook.com/QuantumMind

Produce the peer-reviewed maintream physics journal articles that support that considerable body of opinion.

YouTube articles and Facebook are not peer-reviewed mainstream physics journals.

 

[ratiocinator]

Too lazy to do your own research? Maybe start here then...

Penrose - Consciousness and the foundations of physics


https://www.facebook.com/QuantumMind

I'm very familiar Penrose's view. It falls into speculations about how conciousness comes about. Much as I admire Penrose, this seems to be one of the most speculative of his ideas. Certainly he hasn't found much support amongst scientists. Not sure what we're meant to make of the second link. Bohm changed is mind.

This hardly represents a "considerable body of opinion among scientists".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Apart from certain speculations about how consciousness comes about, the only place it really exists at a fundamental level is in one interpretation of quantum mechanics, the 'conciousness causes collapse' or Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation. This isn't exactly a hugely popular view either, so not sure where you get the "considerable body of opinion among scientists" from...?

Considerable, if still outside the mainstream. Self evidently, any full description of a system under observation, must account for all phenomena interacting with that system.

David Bohm, John Wheeler, Christopher Fuchs, Roger Penrose, Guilio Tononi, have all contributed insights on this subject.

 

[RestlessSoul]

YouTube articles and Facebook are not peer-reviewed mainstream physics journals.

As I said, if you are genuinely interested in anything other than point scoring, you can always do your own research.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360.pdf

 

[PureX]

The odd thing is that many theists don't learn that their supernaturalism is a set of assumptions that sabotage knowledge.

Everytime we assume we know something we sabotage our ability to learn more or otherwise. It's why real scientists, philosoohers, and even priests avoid the "belief" trap.

All critical thinkers request is that religious beliefs be understood to be dubious and more reliant on assumptions than evidence. And that reasoned conclusions are far more reliable than religious beliefs.

"Critical thinkers" is just code for the scientism cult. They're only critical of everyone else's thinking. Never their own. Every time I see those words together I know they will be followed by a load of biased BS.

 

[ratiocinator]

Considerable, if still outside the mainstream. Self evidently, any full description of a system under observation, must account for all phenomena interacting with that system.

David Bohm, John Wheeler, Christopher Fuchs, Roger Penrose, Guilio Tononi, have all contributed insights on this subject.

Nobody is saying that it isn't a view held by some scientists. Actually, we should say views (plural) because, for example, Penrose's view is not to do with the importance of consciousness as an observer. He thinks that 'wave-function collapse' is a real. objective process, caused by gravity and that consciousness is produced by that process, but that you need something like certain structures in the brain that he speculates can harness this in a coordinated way to get useful 'amounts' of it.

That is an entirely different (almost the opposite, in fact) speculation from the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics, that speculates that a concious mind is needed to collapse the wave-function.

 

[ppp]

As I said, if you are genuinely interested in anything other than point scoring, you can always do your own research.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04360.pdf

1. You are foolishly assuming I have not already done my own research.
2. The burden of proof lays upon you for your claim that this "considerable opinion" even exists.
3. You should already know the specifics of at least some of the peer reviewed scientific literature before claiming that such literature exists
4. peer-reviewed mainstream physics journal

 

[F1fan]

Everytime we assume we know something we sabotage our ability to learn more or otherwise. It's why real scientists, philosoohers, and even priests avoid the "belief" trap.

"Critical thinkers" is just code for the scientism cult.

Hahaha, obviously you haven’t avoided the belief trap.

If critical thinking is a cult then what mental process do you use? And how can you call it reliable?

They're only critical of everyone else's thinking. Never their own. Every time I see those words together I know they will be followed by a load of biased BS.

To quote you “a load of biased BS”. More of your extremism at work.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nobody is saying that it isn't a view held by some scientists. Actually, we should say views (plural) because, for example, Penrose's view is not to do with the importance of consciousness as an observer. He thinks that 'wave-function collapse' is a real. objective process, caused by gravity and that consciousness is produced by that process, but that you need something like certain structures in the brain that he speculates can harness this in a coordinated way to get useful 'amounts' of it.

That is an entirely different (almost the opposite, in fact) speculation from the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics, that speculates that a concious mind is needed to collapse the wave-function.

What these views, Tononi's highly speculative (I don't know why you disparage speculation) Integrated Information Theory, QBism, John Wheeler's interpretation of the delayed choice experiment*, etc. etc. all have in common is that they each support the following axiom; that the object, the observer, and the act of observation, are inextricably linked. This issue becomes acute at the quantum level, but the principle applies universally, I think.

*"No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed." - Wheeler

 

[Heyo]

Let us see what @Subduction Zone or @Polymath257 have to say about that as to whether the sphere* of universe has something in it or does not even have space [...] The universe could be pf any such shapes or even more weird.

Don't confuse the shape of the universe with the shape of the observable universe. The later has the form of a sphere with the Earth at the center.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Don't confuse the shape of the universe with the shape of the observable universe. The later has the form of a sphere with the Earth at the center.

Depends on the perspective of the observer

 

[ratiocinator]

What these views, Tononi's highly speculative (I don't know why you disparage speculation) Integrated Information Theory, QBism, John Wheeler's interpretation of the delayed choice experiment*, etc. etc. all have in common is that they each support the following axiom; that the object, the observer, and the act of observation, are inextricably linked.

I'm not disparaging speculation, it's obviously needed, but you can't elevate speculations, especially when they're very different ones, to the level of some sort of widely accepted science.

Your 'axiom' is trivial in the way you've now presented it and it certainly doesn't mean the universe needs observers or that consciousness is fundamental. There is only some sort of fundamental effect on reality from an observation in a subset of the speculations. Certainly not Penrose, and not Integrated Information Theory to be best of my knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks @Polymath257 for giving us the current scientific view, but the query remains unanswered. Is the sphere (?) of the universe is like a bowl of water with fish (galaxies) swimming in it or there is no water or fish inside the bowl and only on its inner surface?

Well, space is 3 dimensional and the surface of a sphere is 2 dimensional. BUT space could be the 'hypersurface' of a four dimensional figure.

In fact, one way to view the 'present' is as the three dimensional hypersurface of spacetime up to now. This is somewhat analogous to the surface of the sphere being the surface of the (three dimensional) inside of the sphere.

We don't know the 'shape' of 3-dimensional space. It might be a 3 dimensional sphere (the hypersurface) or an analog of the saddle only in more dimensions or it could be flat, meaning uncurved 3 dimensional Euclidean space.