Philosophy Now Forum

Let me begin this topic with saying that I want you to tear my arguments apart, by logical and scientific deduction and reasoning.
I want a scientific debate about this topic, not pseudoscience or crap philosophy.

That might be easy, and eventually I'd be able to do that myself just not at the moment as of writing this.

Maybe I lack some understanding of basic quantum physics, and that's very much a possibility.
So please explain my errors.

Let's start:

----

When you feel your "you-ness" - you thoughts, emotions and general personality all in one person with everything from your own thoughts, to your hallucinations and your irrational behavior to your illusion of you having a free will etc. it is because of electrical and chemical signals being transfered from one neuron to another in a complex network we call "a brain", a brain that is alive and self-conscious, that is.

We call the sum of all these activities "consciousness", even though we all know that the signals traveling from one neuron to another happens at the speed of light or below. There is a delay, so to speak.

We don't (usually) think of ourselves as being departed or having to wait for a signal to arrive from one neuron to the next before we... think.

What I'm trying to say is that we look at our consciousness as the totality of a system, inseperable elements, by which we cannot look at one element without looking at another element as well.

This is very much the same way physicists understand Quantum Entanglement: Two entangled particles share the same system, meaning when you measure one particle the other is instantly affected. No signal has traveled between the two, yet every modern experiment has concluded the same thing, which is that the particles interfere with each other over infinite distances.

To understand a quantum system of entanglement, you need to look at the system as a whole. The totality, the sum, so to speak. You cannot understand one particle in a quantum system without simultanously understand everything there is to know about the other particle.

While our brains are indeed too hot to control quantum physics (physicists has to cool down the experiment to near absolute zero to build quantum computers that are useful for calculations) we can still draw similarities between the two systems:

A biological brain where quantum physics plays no role (it does play a role as your brain is made of the same type of particles physicists do quantum experiments with, but it cannot control quantum behavior because the brain is too hot, so the quantum effects are more unpredictable and uncontrollable than in a physics lab), yet still needs to be understood the same way ie. as a system of wholeness - like a quantum system.

Now, if we were to imagine a multiverse with a very large, perhaps infinite amount of other universes, and we then imagine each universe sending a signal from one universe to another, either by traditional light travel (which may take billions of years) or as a system of entangled universes interfering with each other's properties meaning one universe depends on another, and then imagine each universe playing the same role as subatomic particles, is it then possible to have some of those universes in a network of an entangled (not neccessarily quantum entangled, just entangled in a network) system making up a pattern of behavior that is similar or even identical to a living, self-conscious human brain?

Of course it would take billions of years for this gigantic network of entangled universes to even send and recieve a signal producing a conscious feeling of "huh?" - but it has an infinite amount of time to think greater thoughts, and even more infinite amount of time coming up with the greatest idea of the multiverse, realizing it and creating an "artificial universe" with multiversal AI-self consciousness.

Am I talking nonsense? If so, please explain it to me what errors in my thinking I'm making.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm Let me begin this topic with saying that I want you to tear my arguments apart, by logical and scientific deduction and reasoning.
I want a scientific debate about this topic, not pseudoscience or crap philosophy.

That might be easy, and eventually I'd be able to do that myself just not at the moment as of writing this.

Maybe I lack some understanding of basic quantum physics, and that's very much a possibility.
So please explain my errors.

Let's start:

----

When you feel your "you-ness" - you thoughts, emotions and general personality all in one person with everything from your own thoughts, to your hallucinations and your irrational behavior to your illusion of you having a free will etc. it is because of electrical and chemical signals being transfered from one neuron to another in a complex network we call "a brain", a brain that is alive and self-conscious, that is.

We call the sum of all these activities "consciousness", even though we all know that the signals traveling from one neuron to another happens at the speed of light or below. There is a delay, so to speak.

We don't (usually) think of ourselves as being departed or having to wait for a signal to arrive from one neuron to the next before we... think.

What I'm trying to say is that we look at our consciousness as the totality of a system, inseperable elements, by which we cannot look at one element without looking at another element as well.

This is very much the same way physicists understand Quantum Entanglement: Two entangled particles share the same system, meaning when you measure one particle the other is instantly affected. No signal has traveled between the two, yet every modern experiment has concluded the same thing, which is that the particles interfere with each other over infinite distances.

To understand a quantum system of entanglement, you need to look at the system as a whole. The totality, the sum, so to speak. You cannot understand one particle in a quantum system without simultanously understand everything there is to know about the other particle.

While our brains are indeed too hot to control quantum physics (physicists has to cool down the experiment to near absolute zero to build quantum computers that are useful for calculations) we can still draw similarities between the two systems:

A biological brain where quantum physics plays no role (it does play a role as your brain is made of the same type of particles physicists do quantum experiments with, but it cannot control quantum behavior because the brain is too hot, so the quantum effects are more unpredictable and uncontrollable than in a physics lab), yet still needs to be understood the same way ie. as a system of wholeness - like a quantum system.

Now, if we were to imagine a multiverse with a very large, perhaps infinite amount of other universes, and we then imagine each universe sending a signal from one universe to another, either by traditional light travel (which may take billions of years) or as a system of entangled universes interfering with each other's properties meaning one universe depends on another, and then imagine each universe playing the same role as subatomic particles, is it then possible to have some of those universes in a network of an entangled (not neccessarily quantum entangled, just entangled in a network) system making up a pattern of behavior that is similar or even identical to a living, self-conscious human brain?

Of course it would take billions of years for this gigantic network of entangled universes to even send and recieve a signal producing a conscious feeling of "huh?" - but it has an infinite amount of time to think greater thoughts, and even more infinite amount of time coming up with the greatest idea of the multiverse, realizing it and creating an "artificial universe" with multiversal AI-self consciousness.

Am I talking nonsense? If so, please explain it to me what errors in my thinking I'm making.

First error is thinking that there are separate persons, or selfs, which 'individually' think. There is NO 'my' thinking, because there are NO 'people', which 'have' thinking. There is, however, just individual thinking, which occurs within individual separate human bodies. In other words there is NO 'you', 'person' nor 'self', which has 'its' own thinking. So, there is NO 'my' thinking. The word 'you', literally, refers to the individual thinking (and emotions), themselves, within individual human bodies.

Now, if this concept wants to be FULLY understood, then clarifying questions will be asked.

For the rest of the errors in the above thinking lets now look at them individually.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm When you feel your "you-ness" - you thoughts, emotions and general personality all in one person with everything from your own thoughts, to your hallucinations and your irrational behavior to your illusion of you having a free will etc.

Within this what can be clearly seen is confusion about who and what the 'person' is and about 'a person' can have its own thoughts or thinking and its own behaviors. If this was even slightly remotely true, then who and what 'a person' is would be KNOWN, and, if that was KNOWN, then HOW 'a person' could have its OWN thoughts and behaviors could be explained, properly and correctly.

I have yet to see a human being do this.

Next, 'free will' has been 'tried to' be passed off here as being irrefutably NOT true. There is, however, NO proof of this. Or, if there is, I have yet to see any. If there is ANY proof, then will it be brought forward?

Also, the way the idea that 'free will' is a completely false idea was brought into that sentence was just an attempt at deceitful tricking, which has NOT gone unnoticed. By adding the words "your hallucinations", "your irrational behavior", and "your illusions" before the phrase 'free will' just shows and REVEALS the BELIEFS within that brain, and the deceit that brain will use to 'try to' trick other brains into BELIEVING things, which, by the way, have NOT YET even been proven true.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm it is because of electrical and chemical signals being transfered from one neuron to another in a complex network we call "a brain", a brain that is alive and self-conscious, that is.

A brain being conscious of itself is one thing, however, this in NO WAY infers that a 'person' is conscious of itself, nor of a Universe conscious of Itself, either.

Because of what the word 'conscious' just simply means or refers to, Consciousness, Itself, is NOT something which is hard nor complex to understand, at all.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm We call the sum of all these activities "consciousness", even though we all know that the signals traveling from one neuron to another happens at the speed of light or below. There is a delay, so to speak.

Who calls the sum of all these activities "consciousness"? And, could those ones be wrong at all?

We don't (usually) think of ourselves as being departed or having to wait for a signal to arrive from one neuron to the next before we... think.[/quote]

Okay, but what is, usually, thought about in relation to "yourselves"?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm What I'm trying to say is that we look at our consciousness as the totality of a system, inseperable elements, by which we cannot look at one element without looking at another element as well.

How about instead of 'trying to' say some thing, just say what 'it' is, which you mean and want to say?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm This is very much the same way physicists understand Quantum Entanglement:

If, in the previous statement, the 'we' refers to 'you', human beings, then there is NO wonder WHY, so called, "physicists" understand 'quantum entanglement' "very much the same way.

If 'you' can NOT look at one element without looking at another element as well, then this is WHY 'you' see 'things' the way you do here. Which, by the way, is a very distorted way of looking at and seeing things.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm Two entangled particles share the same system, meaning when you measure one particle the other is instantly affected.

There is so much to question about this idea and claim. For example,

What does "two entangled particles" even mean or even refer to?

What does "the same system" even mean or even refer to?

HOW could it even be possible to measure two DIFFERENT particles instantly?

And, after how this could be possibly done is explained, then explain HOW that ACTUAL was performed.

See, unlike 'you', human beings, I do NOT just accept some 'thing' is true, just because some human being said, or claimed, "it is true".

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm No signal has traveled between the two, yet every modern experiment has concluded the same thing, which is that the particles interfere with each other over infinite distances.

REALLY?

Have 'you' done one of these experiments "yourself"? Or, have 'you' observed this, alleged, phenomena "yourself"?

Now, OF COURSE, particles interfere with each other over infinite distances. This is just simply because this is EXACTLY how thee, infinite, Universe naturally works. But, how ANY one of 'you', human beings, could perform ANY experiment over an infinite distance makes me wonder, HOW?

An error here is just BELIEVING some thing is true, just because someone says, "it is true".

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm To understand a quantum system of entanglement, you need to look at the system as a whole. The totality, the sum, so to speak. You cannot understand one particle in a quantum system without simultanously understand everything there is to know about the other particle.

This might 'sound like' you know what you are talking about, to some people. But, to me, this just 'sounds like' you would love to know what you are talking about, and to some degree even BELIEVE that you know what you are talking about. However;

What 'system' are you referring to, which you claim, "we need to look at", "to understand a quantum system"?

What is a 'quantum system'? And, what is there to understand about a 'quantum system'?

Define what 'one particle' is in a 'quantum system.

And then, define what the 'other particle' is in a 'quantum system'

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm While our brains are indeed too hot to control quantum physics (physicists has to cool down the experiment to near absolute zero to build quantum computers that are useful for calculations) we can still draw similarities between the two systems:

You just got through making the claim that;
Every modern experiment has concluded the same thing, which is that the particles interfere with each other over infinite distances.

Now you want to make the claim that the particles of the brain do not have the capability to interfere with each other, let alone over infinite distances.

Will you explain the contradictory nature of these two opposing and contrary views here?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm A biological brain where quantum physics plays no role (it does play a role as your brain is made of the same type of particles physicists do quantum experiments with, but it cannot control quantum behavior because the brain is too hot, so the quantum effects are more unpredictable and uncontrollable than in a physics lab), yet still needs to be understood the same way ie. as a system of wholeness - like a quantum system.

WHY does this, supposedly, NEED to be understood?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm Now, if we were to imagine a multiverse with a very large, perhaps infinite amount of other universes,

But WHY would we want to even begin to imagine something here, which OBVIOUSLY could NEVER to be true?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm and we then imagine each universe sending a signal from one universe to another, either by traditional light travel (which may take billions of years) or as a system of entangled universes interfering with each other's properties meaning one universe depends on another, and then imagine each universe playing the same role as subatomic particles, is it then possible to have some of those universes in a network of an entangled (not neccessarily quantum entangled, just entangled in a network) system making up a pattern of behavior that is similar or even identical to a living, self-conscious human brain?

You are FREE to imagine absolutely ANY thing. But what is the point of imagining these OBVIOUSLY never could exist imaginings?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm Of course it would take billions of years for this gigantic network of entangled universes to even send and recieve a signal producing a conscious feeling of "huh?" - but it has an infinite amount of time to think greater thoughts,

Was is the 'it' here, EXACTLY, which, supposedly, has an infinite amount of time to think greater thoughts?

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm and even more infinite amount of time coming up with the greatest idea of the multiverse, realizing it and creating an "artificial universe" with multiversal AI-self consciousness.

How, exactly, is the idea of a "multiverse", supposedly, "the greatest idea"?

Considering the fact of what thee Universe, Itself, IS, ANY idea of "other universes" is just plain ABSURD and ILLOGICAL to begin with.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm Let me begin this topic with saying that I want you to tear my arguments apart, by logical and scientific deduction and reasoning.
I want a scientific debate about this topic, not pseudoscience or crap philosophy.

That might be easy, and eventually I'd be able to do that myself just not at the moment as of writing this.

Maybe I lack some understanding of basic quantum physics, and that's very much a possibility.
So please explain my errors.

Let's start:

----

When you feel your "you-ness" - you thoughts, emotions and general personality all in one person with everything from your own thoughts, to your hallucinations and your irrational behavior to your illusion of you having a free will etc. it is because of electrical and chemical signals being transfered from one neuron to another in a complex network we call "a brain", a brain that is alive and self-conscious, that is.

We call the sum of all these activities "consciousness", even though we all know that the signals traveling from one neuron to another happens at the speed of light or below. There is a delay, so to speak.

1000's of time slower than light speed - chemical speed - electron speed. like very very VERY slow 1940's era computers. much slower than light.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm
This is very much the same way physicists understand Quantum Entanglement: Two entangled particles share the same system, meaning when you measure one particle the other is instantly affected. No signal has traveled between the two, yet every modern experiment has concluded the same thing, which is that the particles interfere with each other over infinite distances..

we do not assume infinate distance - might be - but not known as - we know the distancee is farther than the speed of light per the time interval of the experiment - so particals are entwined farther than the sped of light can travers between those two particles - nothing more. so no you canot assume infinate - mioght be or not - but not emprirically shonw as infinate spaced entangelment.


snipped the rest - too new agey for me to reply to.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 amFirst error is thinking that there are separate persons, or selfs, which 'individually' think. There is NO 'my' thinking, because there are NO 'people', which 'have' thinking. There is, however, just individual thinking, which occurs within individual separate human bodies. In other words there is NO 'you', 'person' nor 'self', which has 'its' own thinking. So, there is NO 'my' thinking. The word 'you', literally, refers to the individual thinking (and emotions), themselves, within individual human bodies.

Now, if this concept wants to be FULLY understood, then clarifying questions will be asked.

Individual separate human bodies with individual thinking, is my definition of persons and people.
When I refer to you or me, I mean the individual seperate bodies thinking individual thoughts and writing in this conversation.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 am

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm When you feel your "you-ness" - you thoughts, emotions and general personality all in one person with everything from your own thoughts, to your hallucinations and your irrational behavior to your illusion of you having a free will etc.

Within this what can be clearly seen is confusion about who and what the 'person' is and about 'a person' can have its own thoughts or thinking and its own behaviors. If this was even slightly remotely true, then who and what 'a person' is would be KNOWN, and, if that was KNOWN, then HOW 'a person' could have its OWN thoughts and behaviors could be explained, properly and correctly.

I have yet to see a human being do this.

We do know what persons and people are. They are biological creatures which can think. We also know what thinking is, it is a pattern of neuro-chemical signals within an individual brain. Max Tegmark (physicists) has a theory that consciousness should be thought of as a state of matter, like fluid water, ice and gas are states of matter. It has to do with pattern behavior of the individual particles making up individual bodies with individual thinking = persons.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 7ed624986d

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 am
Next, 'free will' has been 'tried to' be passed off here as being irrefutably NOT true. There is, however, NO proof of this. Or, if there is, I have yet to see any. If there is ANY proof, then will it be brought forward?

Also, the way the idea that 'free will' is a completely false idea was brought into that sentence was just an attempt at deceitful tricking, which has NOT gone unnoticed. By adding the words "your hallucinations", "your irrational behavior", and "your illusions" before the phrase 'free will' just shows and REVEALS the BELIEFS within that brain, and the deceit that brain will use to 'try to' trick other brains into BELIEVING things, which, by the way, have NOT YET even been proven true.

I didn't say brains trick other brains into believing anything (other than what the individual brains/"persons" might already accept, by standard slower-than-light-speed methods of communication).

Free will is proven false by various methods, one is scientific experiments which has been conducted numerous times over and over again, revealing that there is a delay between a choice being made and the sense or feeling that the choice was made.

Also see Wikipedia Article on Neuroscientific experiments on free will.

The other method to disprove free will is by logic:

If you even attempt to answer the question "why did you made [whatever] choice?", you've also proven your free will non-existent as you have provided a reason for choosing one thing over another. Then you could say "but I could've chosen otherwise" - but the reality is you DIDN'T! You've already provided a physical explanation with factors for why and how you made your choice, and since these factors were non-existent or had different values with the resulting outcome that you didn't make the alternative choice, you've actually proven - not only for scientists or logicians, but also to yourself, that you have no free will. You had a will, but it wasn't free.

The key notion here is free will in one and the same sentence, and the words free and will seperate.
Many people confuse the two, believing a will is inextricably linked to being free.
That's just a wrong assumption and a logical fallacy.

Having "free" and "will" together is a contradiction. You can be free. Free from work, free from conscription, free from whatever. You can also have a will, a will to eat, a will to sleep or a will to whatever. But free and will cannot co-exist as a word or meaning of itself, as this has been proven logically and scientifically impossible.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 am

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm We call the sum of all these activities "consciousness", even though we all know that the signals traveling from one neuron to another happens at the speed of light or below. There is a delay, so to speak.

Who calls the sum of all these activities "consciousness"? And, could those ones be wrong at all?

The sum of the specific state of matter by which Max Tegmark says is "conscious", that is.

He could be wrong, but I find his theory very compelling.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 am If 'you' can NOT look at one element without looking at another element as well, then this is WHY 'you' see 'things' the way you do here. Which, by the way, is a very distorted way of looking at and seeing things.

I assume you hold a reductionist world view, reducing stuff to individual particles, correct me if I'm wrong?

According to physicist Sean Carroll, in his book "Something Deeply Hidden", he argues why where are no individual particles, the only way to reduce our understand of the world into it's simplest form, is by looking at ONE wave function, the Universal Wave Function, evolving according to the Schrödinger equation. Gone are all particles, gone is all wierdness and gone is everything that is unexplained about the universe.

If you insist on having individual particles, then you'll have to argue HOW the universe came with THIS set of fixed number of particles in the universe.

I've yet to see an explanation for that.

Unless, of course, you invoke the multiverse and claim a "mysterious" force has created universes with different number of particles.
In any case, you cannot escape the multiverse, be it the Universal Wave Function-way of looking at the universe, or a Universe with Fixed Number of Individual Particles interacting in a classical way.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 am There is so much to question about this idea and claim. For example,

What does "two entangled particles" even mean or even refer to?

What does "the same system" even mean or even refer to?

HOW could it even be possible to measure two DIFFERENT particles instantly?

And, after how this could be possibly done is explained, then explain HOW that ACTUAL was performed.

See, unlike 'you', human beings, I do NOT just accept some 'thing' is true, just because some human being said, or claimed, "it is true".

The Bell experiments let alone the recent 2019-experiment using light from quasars, is a huge topic, too big for discussions on internet forums, unless we have a seperate topic just for this.

But there are plenty of free articles and lots of books and documentaries covering that subject, or you could perform the experiment yourself. I don't have the equipment, nor the will or knowledge to perform this kind of setup myself in my home. So I rely on what others tell me, but I'm NOT relying on ONE human, but several people with credible scientific backgrounds explaining it in various details, and I guess as a non-scientist, I'll just have to trust the scientific community of quantum physicists and trust their words on it.

After all, there is consensus in the entire Scientific Community that Entanglement is true.

The rest of your comment has already been answered in my replies above.

"If both A and B are systems, then A and B must have the same properties."

Obviously not.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:30 pm "If both A and B are systems, then A and B must have the same properties."

Obviously not.

I never said that.

If A and B share the same system, their properties are linked.

If electron A and B are quantum entangled, they are correlated by causation.
Meaning that A and B can have spin up or spin down, or opposite of each other. The key to understand it, is that no matter how they are entangled, when you measure one particle and get a spin outcome, both particle's spins are correlated, and not only are they correlated, according to the Bell tests, measuring one affects the other. Then you have correlation that implies causation.

My question is:

If subatomic particles can be entangled, and the entire universe is made of subatomic particles, and if Inflation Theory is correct and there are multiple universes, can multiple universes then also be entangled? Why not?

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:28 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:30 pm "If both A and B are systems, then A and B must have the same properties."

Obviously not.

I never said that.

If A and B share the same system, their properties are linked.

If electron A and B are quantum entangled, they are correlated by causation.
Meaning that A and B can have spin up or spin down, or opposite of each other. The key to understand it, is that no matter how they are entangled, when you measure one particle and get a spin outcome, both particle's spins are correlated, and not only are they correlated, according to the Bell tests, measuring one affects the other. Then you have correlation that implies causation.

My question is:

If subatomic particles can be entangled, and the entire universe is made of subatomic particles, and if Inflation Theory is correct and there are multiple universes, can multiple universes then also be entangled? Why not?

I thought your question was about consciousness?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:10 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:28 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:30 pm "If both A and B are systems, then A and B must have the same properties."

Obviously not.

I never said that.

If A and B share the same system, their properties are linked.

If electron A and B are quantum entangled, they are correlated by causation.
Meaning that A and B can have spin up or spin down, or opposite of each other. The key to understand it, is that no matter how they are entangled, when you measure one particle and get a spin outcome, both particle's spins are correlated, and not only are they correlated, according to the Bell tests, measuring one affects the other. Then you have correlation that implies causation.

My question is:

If subatomic particles can be entangled, and the entire universe is made of subatomic particles, and if Inflation Theory is correct and there are multiple universes, can multiple universes then also be entangled? Why not?

I thought your question was about consciousness?

It is. But you have to understand my arguments.

One thing follows another. Read my OP again.

To have a short version for you, the logic is as follows:

1. Consciousness arise from a state of matter/pattern behavior of subatomic particles within the universe.
2. Inflation Theory predicts multiple universes.
3. Can consciousness arise from a state of matter/pattern behavior of universes within the multiverse? (Treating each universe the same way as a subatomic particle).

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:27 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:10 pm

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:28 pm

I never said that.

If A and B share the same system, their properties are linked.

If electron A and B are quantum entangled, they are correlated by causation.
Meaning that A and B can have spin up or spin down, or opposite of each other. The key to understand it, is that no matter how they are entangled, when you measure one particle and get a spin outcome, both particle's spins are correlated, and not only are they correlated, according to the Bell tests, measuring one affects the other. Then you have correlation that implies causation.

My question is:

If subatomic particles can be entangled, and the entire universe is made of subatomic particles, and if Inflation Theory is correct and there are multiple universes, can multiple universes then also be entangled? Why not?

I thought your question was about consciousness?

It is. But you have to understand my arguments.

One thing follows another. Read my OP again.

To have a short version for you, the logic is as follows:

1. Consciousness arise from a state of matter/pattern behavior of subatomic particles within the universe.
2. Inflation Theory predicts multiple universes.
3. Can consciousness arise from a state of matter/pattern behavior of universes within the multiverse? (Treating each universe the same way as a subatomic particle).

It seems like you're saying that consciousness arises simply BECAUSE it's a state of matter/pattern of behavior of matter (which is comprised of subatomic particles).

Otherwise, what reason is there to believe that one state of matter/pattern of behavior is going to be anything like another?

Hence why I said "If both A and B are systems, then A and B must have the same properties."--it seems like you're assuming that. But that's obviously incorrect. Just because something is a state of matter and has some pattern of behavior, that doesn't imply that it has the same properties as other things that are states of matter or that have patterns of behavior, right?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:47 pm Otherwise, what reason is there to believe that one state of matter/pattern of behavior is going to be anything like another?

Hence why I said "If both A and B are systems, then A and B must have the same properties."--it seems like you're assuming that. But that's obviously incorrect. Just because something is a state of matter and has some pattern of behavior, that doesn't imply that it has the same properties as other things that are states of matter or that have patterns of behavior, right?

It is a specific state of matter that makes consciousness. A specific system.

Consciousness is a specific kind of state of matter, or a specific behavior of a specific pattern.

Currently, we only know of such pattern behaviors in biology, but my question is what's causing a conscious state of matter to be constrained to only biology? Why can't we - for example - have the same pattern behavior in other particles, or even across the (hypothetical) multiverse, treating each individual universe within the multiverse as a subatomic particle, and arranging these universes in such a way that they correspond exactly to the same pattern as subatomic particles?

Example:

You have the letters a, b, c, and d.

You have a SET (A) which consist of [a,b,c,d].

You have a SET (B) which consists of [b,a,c,d]
... and so forth.

Now you take SET(A), SET(B), SET(C) and SET(D) and arrange it in the following order:

BIG_SET(A)[SET(B),SET(A),SET(C),SET(D)]

If we then make the rule that all the letters are tileable in a seamless pattern, so that if you scale the systems or sets, they represent exactly the same as the ones scaled lower or higher, we can have multiple sets of letters representing the same arrangement and hence represent the same system and thus the same pattern, as the individual letters themselves.

Then my point is that BIG_SET(A) is identical to SET (B).

Now, replace those letters with the smallest units of the building blocks of the universe.

In-fact, you don't even need "a, b, c, d" - you only need one letter, as all the building blocks of the universe ought to be identical for the theory to be mathematically beautiful and thus true.

Like each letter you're seeing on your monitor isn't even a letter at all, it's just a collection of colored pixels, and all pixels are identical to each other. They're all the same.

(Sorry for my language skills and lack of mathematic knowledge, I'm sure there are words already invented for this sort of concept I'm trying to discuss here, but since I have no math education, I don't know which words or expressions to use, to describe this concept).

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:11 pm Currently, we only know of such pattern behaviors in biology, but my question is what's causing a conscious state of matter to be constrained to only biology?

So, we know that consciousness obtains when we have:
(1) specific sorts of matter
(2) in specific structures
(3) undergoing specific processes

We have no reason to believe that the properties in question would obtain if any of (1), (2) or (3) were different.

Could mental properties obtain if any or all of (1), (2) or (3) were different? Well, there's no reason to believe that would be impossible, but there's also no reason to believe that it's the case. It's just as possible that none of (1), (2) or (3) can be different for consciousness to obtain.

The issue is that at present, there's no good reason to believe that consciousness obtains in any other material, in any other structure, undergoing different processes.

Certainly the fact that something is some material, in some structure, undergoing some processes isn't a good enough reason to believe that consciousness would obtain with differences in (1), (2) and (3).

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 amFirst error is thinking that there are separate persons, or selfs, which 'individually' think. There is NO 'my' thinking, because there are NO 'people', which 'have' thinking. There is, however, just individual thinking, which occurs within individual separate human bodies. In other words there is NO 'you', 'person' nor 'self', which has 'its' own thinking. So, there is NO 'my' thinking. The word 'you', literally, refers to the individual thinking (and emotions), themselves, within individual human bodies.

Now, if this concept wants to be FULLY understood, then clarifying questions will be asked.

Individual separate human bodies with individual thinking, is my definition of persons and people.

Thank you for CLARIFYING. This explains WHY you are MISUNDERSTANDING.

By the way, people are more of, and less of, a person depending on how many limbs of the body are missing, or not, correct?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:20 am

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 amFirst error is thinking that there are separate persons, or selfs, which 'individually' think. There is NO 'my' thinking, because there are NO 'people', which 'have' thinking. There is, however, just individual thinking, which occurs within individual separate human bodies. In other words there is NO 'you', 'person' nor 'self', which has 'its' own thinking. So, there is NO 'my' thinking. The word 'you', literally, refers to the individual thinking (and emotions), themselves, within individual human bodies.

Now, if this concept wants to be FULLY understood, then clarifying questions will be asked.

Individual separate human bodies with individual thinking, is my definition of persons and people.

Thank you for CLARIFYING. This explains WHY you are MISUNDERSTANDING.

By the way, people are more of, and less of, a person depending on how many limbs of the body are missing, or not, correct?

That's correct. Losing a limb makes you another person, as losing a leg or an arm, will inevitably lead to a change of personality.
You won't be the same person then.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm Let me begin this topic with saying that I want you to tear my arguments apart, by logical and scientific deduction and reasoning.
I want a scientific debate about this topic, not pseudoscience or crap philosophy.

That might be easy, and eventually I'd be able to do that myself just not at the moment as of writing this.

Maybe I lack some understanding of basic quantum physics, and that's very much a possibility.
So please explain my errors.

Let's start:

----

When you feel your "you-ness" - you thoughts, emotions and general personality all in one person with everything from your own thoughts, to your hallucinations and your irrational behavior to your illusion of you having a free will etc. it is because of electrical and chemical signals being transfered from one neuron to another in a complex network we call "a brain", a brain that is alive and self-conscious, that is.

We call the sum of all these activities "consciousness", even though we all know that the signals traveling from one neuron to another happens at the speed of light or below. There is a delay, so to speak.

We don't (usually) think of ourselves as being departed or having to wait for a signal to arrive from one neuron to the next before we... think.

What I'm trying to say is that we look at our consciousness as the totality of a system, inseperable elements, by which we cannot look at one element without looking at another element as well.

This is very much the same way physicists understand Quantum Entanglement: Two entangled particles share the same system, meaning when you measure one particle the other is instantly affected. No signal has traveled between the two, yet every modern experiment has concluded the same thing, which is that the particles interfere with each other over infinite distances.

To understand a quantum system of entanglement, you need to look at the system as a whole. The totality, the sum, so to speak. You cannot understand one particle in a quantum system without simultanously understand everything there is to know about the other particle.

While our brains are indeed too hot to control quantum physics (physicists has to cool down the experiment to near absolute zero to build quantum computers that are useful for calculations) we can still draw similarities between the two systems:

A biological brain where quantum physics plays no role (it does play a role as your brain is made of the same type of particles physicists do quantum experiments with, but it cannot control quantum behavior because the brain is too hot, so the quantum effects are more unpredictable and uncontrollable than in a physics lab), yet still needs to be understood the same way ie. as a system of wholeness - like a quantum system.

Now, if we were to imagine a multiverse with a very large, perhaps infinite amount of other universes, and we then imagine each universe sending a signal from one universe to another, either by traditional light travel (which may take billions of years) or as a system of entangled universes interfering with each other's properties meaning one universe depends on another, and then imagine each universe playing the same role as subatomic particles, is it then possible to have some of those universes in a network of an entangled (not neccessarily quantum entangled, just entangled in a network) system making up a pattern of behavior that is similar or even identical to a living, self-conscious human brain?

Of course it would take billions of years for this gigantic network of entangled universes to even send and recieve a signal producing a conscious feeling of "huh?" - but it has an infinite amount of time to think greater thoughts, and even more infinite amount of time coming up with the greatest idea of the multiverse, realizing it and creating an "artificial universe" with multiversal AI-self consciousness.

Am I talking nonsense? If so, please explain it to me what errors in my thinking I'm making.

There is change everywhere. Mind is everywhere since it is needed for any change. The mind is conscious. Therefore, the universe is conscious.

philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:08 am That's correct. Losing a limb makes you another person, as losing a leg or an arm, will inevitably lead to a change of personality.
You won't be the same person then.

All the individuals I have known who have lost limbs consider themselves the same person they were before they lost their limbs and there is no change in their personality, even after many years. You're making this up.