Science has shown the universe is Conscious in the form of Knowledge

The universe has to have knowledge of itself. This is the very definition of an observer. An observer takes in information about a system and has knowledge about that system when they interact. So an observer can be an electron, measuring apparatus, dog or conscious human. Here's Max Tegmark talking about the Physics of the observer.



So you have what I call weak observers and strong observers. A weak observer would be a measuring apparatus. It extracts information about a system but this knowledge remains stuck with the measuring apparatus unless a conscious human looks at the results or another machine reads the results. With another machine you just get a Von Neumann chain.

This is why human consciousness has to have a non physical aspect to it. Human consciousness doesn't just extract information, it can give meaning and do work with that information to build things or write books.

It's said, you need space and time to find an event. For example, if someone called and said meet me at the Subway on 2nd street off of MLK at 4:30 P.M. You need more than space and time to get there. You need knowledge. You need to know what MLK and 2nd street is, what 4:30 P.M. means and what Subway means.

The universe has to have knowledge of itself and knowledge is consciousness.

If knowledge wasn't fundamental, then how would anything exist? The universe would just be a superposition of states if an observer couldn't gain knowledge about a system.

The non physical observer can extract information from the brain. This is why humans don't need anything outside of itself to extract information like memories or a book you read. I can sit in a chair all day an extract information from the brain about memories or a book I read without the need of something outside of myself to extract this information. The immaterial self is a must!

How can the material brain tell the material brain which memory it wants the material brain to recall?

The brain can make a mistake like seeing a wheel spinning backwards or any other illusion where the brain fills in the blanks when it's not sure and the non physical brain knows it's making a mistake.

If we're just the material brain why don't we just think the wheel is spinning backwards? How can the material brain know the material brain is making a mistake if we're no more than just the material brain?

The universe has to know itself. Science tells us this. This is what an observer is whether it's an electron or a human being. It gains knowledge about a system through an interaction. If the universe didn't know itself then nothing would be here. So knowledge has to be fundamental.

How could information about a system ever reach the environment without an observer? Consciousness is knowledge.

This knowledge can be quantified when you look at things like Maxwell's Demon. The demon would generate more entropy than it could ever eliminate by gauging the speed of the molecules. So knowledge of a system increases the overall entropy of the environment. Sound familiar?

In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell's demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in which he suggested how the second law of thermodynamics might hypothetically be violated.[1] In the thought experiment, a demon controls a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, the demon quickly opens and shuts the door so that fast molecules pass into the other chamber, while slow molecules remain in the first chamber. Because faster molecules are hotter, the demon's behavior causes one chamber to warm up as the other cools, thus decreasing entropy and violating the second law of thermodynamics.

Several physicists have presented calculations that show that the second law of thermodynamics will not actually be violated, if a more complete analysis is made of the whole system including the demon.[6][8][9] The essence of the physical argument is to show, by calculation, that any demon must "generate" more entropy segregating the molecules than it could ever eliminate by the method described. That is, it would take more thermodynamic work to gauge the speed of the molecules and selectively allow them to pass through the opening between A and B than the amount of energy gained by the difference of temperature caused by this.

en.wikipedia.org...

So the universe has to have knowledge(consciousness) of self or we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

a reply to: neoholographic

I’m pretty sure none of that is right.. Mainly because you are applying anamorphic terms to things that are not people.


People “know” something..

There is no scientific law saying the universe has to know itself.

Your using words like “know and meaning” that don’t apply the way you are using them to inanimate objects.



Most importantly you are counting you and your brain as separate entities and that is not the case.

Great, you both "had to go there" didn't you?

To say say my head is hurting is an understatement.

Love it. thanks! S&F

a reply to: JoshuaCox

This is just an opinion that doesn't pertain to the thread. Refute me through Science not hyperbole.

Do you even know what an observer is?

An observer has to know the state of a system when information is exchanged. If the universe didn't have knowledge of itself nothing would exist.

How could the state of a system reach the environment if the observer doesn't know the state of the system when information is exchanged?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Science is cold logic and has little welcome for emotions and intuition, yet both are profoundly more usesful than pure science.

The brain should tell us that things like addiction and fear are illogical, yet they remain. If all I am is my brain, then what am I during meditation, between thoughts, between lives?

I observed the information in the OP, what I felt was beyond science.

The Universe is life and then some. It is our Mother. Mama knows what's going on.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

To say say

Like an electron it is there and there

a reply to: neoholographic

First there was the machine

And the machine was lonely

And so it created the Observer

And it rejoiced as it had found its worshipper

a reply to: neoholographic


If You can 'can this' You've also explained folks don't NEED to horde or overeat, so watch out for someone coming after You from the TLC™ channel because they have "Hoarders" and then "600 Pound Life" sometimes back-to-back...


And if Your MLK is like just about every other MLK I've been in/near/around/worked in, I'll let someone else besides whomever You're typing about, unless You're 'fittin' to go heavy' hahahaha

No doubt Mother Earth is a LIVING BEING, sadly most folks can't get quiet enough to hear what She has to say... Some Man w/a little penis will come along and claim that it is "Mr. Nature" We can all chuckle as He climbs up in His BIG RED TRUCK...

Stay Hydrated...

Do you suppose there is a Singularity that governs everything that Is ? The Singular cause of all motion and properties ?

Various groups have been saying the universe is conscious for 2000 years or more . We are in our own version of Westworld , some days i am a darlek

It's always really struck me that we are a product of the universe. You cannot separate us from it. When considering that, we are the universe trying to figure itself out.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
Great, you both "had to go there" didn't you?

To say say my head is hurting is an understatement.

Love it. thanks! S&F

Thanks and when you look at something like the double slit experiment, the measuring apparatus has knowledge of which path and you get a pattern like particles going through the slits. Without the measuring device, you get an interference pattern.

Which path is known to the universe because the measuring apparatus takes in information about the state of the system.

So humans are observers but we can do so much more. We can take in information about a system and give that information meaning and use that information to do work.

For instance, a dog is an observer and a dog may extract information that the moon moves like it's chew toy or when a ball is thrown.

Human observers can extract information like the distance of the moon from the earth or from the sun, build rockets to visit the moon, write books about the moon, explain why we see a blue moon or half moon and much more.

It goes even deeper for humans and there must be an immaterial observer that can extract information from the brain. If there wasn't then we would need Von Neumann brains LOL!

Ok, I will admit, I have read your OP a couple times, and the "Science" confuses me, as science isn't my strong suit. But what I do find interesting, is that your conclusion, as your title implies, is the same conclusion that I have recently come to, through a book I am reading, that matches my "gut" feeling.

It just takes it a bit further. We have a soul. We are all connected. We are all a part of the "universe".

That is the simplified version.

a reply to: chiefsmom

I think that's a little far fetched we are not all connected although we all do share a connection to the Universe simply because we are all a part of it...
To assume the Universe is conscious is simply beyond our ability to comprehend our understanding couldn't allow us to know one way or the other...
I wouldn't be surprised if it is though, but heres the real question
Would said conciousness belong to the Universe or that which created it?

a reply to: neoholographic

It was all and will always be.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The universe has to have knowledge of itself. This is the very definition of an observer. An observer takes in information about a system and has knowledge about that system when they interact. So an observer can be an electron, measuring apparatus, dog or conscious human. Here's Max Tegmark talking about the Physics of the observer.

So you have what I call weak observers and strong observers. A weak observer would be a measuring apparatus. It extracts information about a system but this knowledge remains stuck with the measuring apparatus unless a conscious human looks at the results or another machine reads the results. With another machine you just get a Von Neumann chain.

I don't see what a conscious human looking at the results has to do with it. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the observer, let's say a video camera, can be enough to collapse the wave function. No human has to actually watch the video tape for that to happen. I don't buy your distinction, and I don't think Sean Carroll would either, here's his take on observers:


Sean Carroll, physicist: "Deep in the heart of almost every physicist is the conviction that (the observer) shouldn't really be important...that the existence of a person, which is what it sounds like when you say the word observer, that shouldn't be part of a real physical theory. There's sort of a minority of physicists who have taken up the radical point of view that no you can't even define quantum mechanics without really taking observers seriously as part of the fundamental ingredients of the theory. The rest of us are trying to say what we really meant all along by observers is something else, some part of the system that interacts with some other part of the system in another way, so I for one am happy to count video cameras, rocks, atoms and molecules in the air as quantum mechanical observers for all intents and purposes."

I think he gets the concept of observer as do most physicists, but the lay public and a few fringe physicists impart extra connotations to "observer" (such as consciousness) that are not required by theory or what we see in experiments.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Is this a form of what came first? Or is the actual observer / creator the same person? I'm just trying to open a new line on your line of thinking..its a good point for us to view it from and I bet we will come up with something that's reasonable or readiness but it will be a time passer...I think who or what ever created the universe also knew somebody would have to keep tabs on it?? Did he give it a form of intelligent awareness or did she stay to observe or create more things to watch over. Is it a self policing universe??? Kinda a cool post and your line of thinking made it interesting

Makes me think of " Childs Hoods End " The overmind




I dontknow what "video number" i need to get the youtube link to work .... anyone ? Thankyou

a reply to: stonerwilliam

I think its around 10,000 years old with the advent of moving from hunter gatherer to City states.

BTW Dalek not darlek

a reply to: neoholographic

If there wasn't then we would need Von Neumann brains LOL!

But we have.
If I'm understanding you correctly, the brain could be analogous to a Von Neumann machine. Upon injury the remaining part of the brain takes over the functions lost of the other half.

Great thread as usual...you bring fine work to ATS

S & F