Yeah that's what I got out of it too. If a universe was unable to support life (consciousness) then there would be no one there to observe it. And vice versa.
@@deathbydeviceableExistence itself is the upholding of value intensity." - Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead . PLATO was in fact essentially correct that the underlying nature of the universe is more mind-like than classically physical. And, that the true creative force of this reality is its value. Consciousness is the vehicle of all value, meaning and significance in the universe. Without consciousness, nothing matters. Without consciousness, nothing exists.
@@dongshengdi773 And they there's the very real possibility that the universe itself is a conscious entity. Denying that possibility is just burying your head in the sand.
It took us centuries to wrap our collective minds around the laws of physics. How could we possibly know that a vastly different set of values of fundamental constants could not lead to a universe where a type of order exists that could be considered alive or conscious? If there are 10 to the 500 possible vacua seems like there is a lot of room for a few variations that are as rich in complexity are our vacuum.
Implications are that everything may as well be treated as equally valid as physical in nature, if all that manifestation is essentially interaction, in this case between realms. What we call physical is made of mostly "empty" space anyway if you don't count virtual particles
might the virtual particles in space have gravitational attraction that repulses dark energy to expand space, producing / measuring a particle in the process?
A more interesting question is, whilst it's all well and good for the Universe to contain other people's consciousness, must it necessarily contain your own personal consciousness? I mean what's the point of the Universe containing consciousness, if you yourself are not conscious of it.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
Quarks are modelled in QCD as having no size, but that doesn't mean this is correct. It's just a mathematical abstraction. We also consider them to have no internal structure, but the fact that they can change flavour by emitting a W Boson indicates that it may not be as simple as that.
@simonhibbs887 The polar opposite of black holes (cosmological) are monads (quantum): [Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. [Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
It’s all a mystery and will remain a mystery and I am mystified by the mysterious mystery of the universe. If someone can solve this mystery it will be mystical and mysterious and fascinating. 😅
"The universe" is a notion in a mind: this is what the term refers to and without it, there is no debating it. To instantiate a notion, it requires consciousness. Therefore, a "universe" must contain consciousness. If someone wants to assert that something can "exist" without any knowing of it, please provide the mechanism whereby this can occur and be verified.
@@deathbydeviceable My point is that this runs into the philosophy of science in such a way that this debate not only is not, but cannot be based on science. Empiricism requires a viewer... sorry those who want to be materialist absolutists.
A big rock "knows" how to go around the sun, so it will seem aware of the sun. Plants will seem very aware too when they grow along the sides of buildings etc. It should be no surprise that something even more organized, like our brain with its consciousness, would be just another thing the universe is capable of and even naturally necessitates spawning. Why ask why we think, why not say why not, since we're natural. This universe gives a lot of different things an apparent agency and autonomy, including us
Universal conciousness...are we all a part of a collective consciousness...or only a select few?🤔...so many variables,far too many to imagine!...still' the Universe, a beautiful thing..
Here's my take, after 75 years: There is something going on out there. Something big. Something important. Something beyond our comprehension - for now, at least; maybe, forever. Our non-biological, AI progeny probably will figure out the reality of this universe, as they evolve exponentially. Still, aren't we left with the questions: Where did all of this come from? Why are we here? I believe more and more that we must look to our hearts, not our brains, for those "answers" . . .
@Paulancar Many people believe in many different things and each belief is all they have. They assess each moment through their chosen filters. Some are based on direct empirical observation while others are based on fairy tales they read in books or hear about.
If it must then...fine tuning? If it doesn't then...it doesn't matter does it. Is consciousness contingent on the universe or is the universe contingent on consciousness? I suspect reality is more than the universe and that there are more things like consciousness for which science can not discover its origin in the universe.
"Does the universe exist without consciousness?" "Should the Universe Contain Consciousness." Probably not, because it is the universe that exists in the mind. Because it is consciousness that contains the universe, and not the universe that contains consciousness. And probably yes, because not everything that exists in consciousness-perception is conscious (has the property of consciousness). Naturally, what is meant here by consciousness is not just the consciousness of a particular individual (by which, in fact, they usually mean one or another of the particular forms of perception, individual perception, the possibility of perception), but rather a kind of universal consciousness, to which none of the particular forms consciousness and perception, or a certain possibility of conscientious-ability and perception, is not reducible, as well as to their sum, all known and unknown to us. But in which we rather exist, our individual consciousnesses, ourselves, as in a certain environment in which they are generated or in which they are placed.... . Which, for you, if, for example, you adhere to positivist views, a positivist worldview, or simply anti-holistic and antimonistic views, perhaps simply does not exist, and perhaps even this phrase itself will sound to you just like a meaningless set of words, letters and sounds. So in a sense, this is a question of faith, which in this case can be understood as a certain kind of choice, whether to accept a certain kind of view or not, whether a certain kind of view is acceptable or unacceptable for you. But this certainly does not in any way affect objective reality.
Without an observer, we need some other agents of entanglement to make anything....Real. How can a universe exist for itself, with no one to experience it ? And how could any entanglement agent interact with ours, to otherwise bring it into existence vicariously via us ?
There is no conscious and not concious since there are no distinct boundaries. Not conscious is a state invented by humans to understand mathematics. Human intellect perhaps invented limiting cases as a survival tool in the same way that among objects they chose one to be a tool. Conscious is unbounded,not special, at multiple wavelengths with orders of variety and universaly present.
Consciousness seems to have become misunderstood again. Wonder why. But what we knew about it earlier times was that it is what makes all life have it's own purpose and ongoing life. Otherwise we just vegetate.
There's no such thing as a vegetative state. They have recently discovered plants all talk to each other through frequency vibrations. All life is connected. Everything down to the most fundamental of particles. Consciousness is existence.
@@eerohughesDo you think that transistors all talking to each other through electrical signals means they, and by extension computers, are also conscious?
@@simonhibbs887 Is one brain cell constituted as being conscious? Maybe consciousness exists on a scale, where some beings are more/less aware of their experientiality than others. An amoeba is invariably experiencing something in an automatous fashion, but we can't necessarily verify its perspective from the inside out (although, it would probably be rather predictable). However, on the scale of a transistor within a computer, mechanically it also has a job with few functions to perform. For example, in the case of a logic gate, it can only perform a few boolean checks but I don't think a logic gate is necessarily aware of the job its performing. Similar to a brain cell or any single-celled organism. Although, maybe I'm conflating consciousness and self-awareness, both of which seem to be closely related from my understanding. But Holism would suggest otherwise which is an interesting thought experiment.
@@wchristian2000 I think consciousness is an activity, and in order to do it a being or system would have to have the pre-requisite capabilities to perform that activity. I think brains have the prerequisite capabilities and single cells or transistors don't. I think our consciousness is highly variable and manifests in various different ways. I think that's consistent with it being an activity, rather than a property or substance.
Translation…We need better explanations because we really don’t know! No one does, how could they? We have a much smaller than fishbowl view of the entirety.
consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Must it? In principle probably no. Is it always possible wherever the conditions are right, probably. Might the vast size and time scale of the universe make it likely to occur by the sheer number of chances, ya. Could we just happen to be one of the billions of species ever that evolved to interpret our environment in a particularly effective way, ya. Would the universe be fine without any life existing in any particular amount of space for any length of time, ya. There probably wasn’t any life in the universe for most of its history. Is that satisfying? Depends who you ask.
"The best we can come up with until something comes along that is better" needs to be a scientific axiom guiding them through the twists and turns that eventually reveals.....the truth.
infinite number of dimensions, infinitely small and infinitely large. if you could zoom in on any space long enough you would eventually see yourself zooming in.
Do you think there would be no moon , if there would be no one to observe it? , consciousness is just our evolutionary trait which we have at a higher level than most species right now.
The word universe literally means everything in existence. So by definition there can’t be anything besides the universe. It grinds my gears when scientists say things like „many different universes“. It makes no sense. Just say many different cosmic bubbles for example, because the meaning of words matters. If we use words willy nilly in science, we run into problems quick!
@@ManiBalajiC that’s a story. And a claim, with no argument. Moreover, you’re appealing to a scientific theory, which is unproven and provisional by definition.
@@realrebelli0n are you claiming in science everyone must use the Merriam-Webster lay definition of words? Are you against jargon for some reason? Are you against conjecture on the boundary of knowledge?
The question is backward. The universe does not "contain" consciousness, the universe is a construct of consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. From it springs all phenomena, including what we perceive as and believe to be matter.
@@maxmudita5622 you used the word guess! And thats your answer. Everything but everything is a guess. We 'know' nothing. We can't explain energy, we can't explain matter, we definitely can't explain life let alone emotions. Time is meaningless as there is only a passing moment and math, though a useful tool, if taken seriously would lead us down a false rabbit hole. So now you can focus on the moment, your personal moment and live.
In my opinion the Universe requires observers literally everywhere. Where there is a brain, the observer - in certain parts of that brain - result in consciousness. But when I said everywhere, I meant even in all the parts of the body. That includes every part of the brain - that is not conscious! So the observer is necessary for the Universe to work, but it is NOT consciousness and should not be confused or conflated with it. It is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness. This seems obvious now that I've put it into word.
Yet here you are. A conscious, living being in a universe, from nothing. That’s a pretty magical sounding nothing. I’m not religious but you ts just as ignorant to trash religions when there is at least a rational for it. I used to think like you when I was too lazy to really think about it. You’d be surprised how many religious people don’t believe in it in a literal sense. There is good, to whatever extent that is, and there is bad, to whatever extent that is. At the end of the day you have to reconcile with the philosophical quandaries. Our existence makes no sense. You are talking about something from nothing that leads to us and anything like us. God doesn’t answer that. But neither does anything else. That’s why atheists can’t agree on what not to believe in.
@@joeshumo9457 but that is the whole point of atheism because we all agree we don't believe in something and you are the one claiming something from nothing so you give yourself away personally I can stare up at the night sky and get a pretty good grasp of infinity and my meaningless place in it
The Universe contains properties that can only exist to be experienced by consciousness. Color, taste, sounds among many other Qualia have no reason to exist but to be experienced by consciousness. Yet those properties existed from the beginning in the singularity that contained everything that came later from it! So did the Universe somehow "know" that consciousness will arise later or was consciousness behind it all?
'Colour' doesn't exist, but differentiated wavelengths do, as I understand it. Hence, sentient beings have evolved to register and process a section of them, some interpreting them as 'colour' (ask a cat or a butterfly to define that). It's a good job that we can't see everything, lest we were unable to find our way through all the wavelengths stimulating and impeding our senses.
@@paulrapley1044 Color has more reality to us as humans than wavelengths and it exists as Qualia. Its a higher existence that requires consciousness to exist as what we experience as color. Materialism is so naive in denying Qualia. Why was a section of the wavelength preset at the singularity to have the property of color even before sentient beings . Property of color cannot have come from outside the universe as an emergent new property when sentient beings started existing, it was already "programmed" in the initial state at the big bang and everything that exist and can exist were as well.
The universe, such as it is, contains toasters, shoes and you. I would conclude that it must at least contain the products of semi-consciousness because it does already.
Let's see. The universe is 13 billion year old, an unimaginable period of time. It contains trillions of stars each, on average, with multiple planets. Then factor in the ubiquity of carbon as the prime building block of amino acids which are, in turn, the building blocks of life. Looking at the situation it would be odd to think that consciousness would not evolve in many places in the universe.
Who ever said life is fair? Is it fair to kill to commit suicide? I am talking about psychology for adults. I am serious talking about the only that matters and exists for me, God. The universe was created from an intelligent entity. That's a fact. I know because from nothing can not be created something. Nothing is absence of existence. I am tired. Is it possible to be wrong believing? God is eternal. God is substance, something real. The universe was created from an eternal existence uncaused. Nothing made God create the universe. God decided to create the universe. The idea of God is humbling. Why God decided to create life? You can be happy thinking. To think is free. We create reality thinking. I need to have one sentence published to be successful and I am losing all hope. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I am a poet and artist, not a warrior. I am a worker, not a fighter. I am an intellectual, not a totalitarian. Thank you.
There is a rationale for God, but not in a literal sense. Atheism has a rationale as well, yet here you are with consciousness. Our existence from nothing makes no sense. Choose your coping mechanism.
@@k-3402 I have tons of math in my own research. What they are writing down is not legit math. Legit math gives you actual testable results. What they have is a ton of parameters that you can set anyway you want. Even as a layman you should be able to hear that aspect out of what he is saying. By the way, the scientific community doesn’t regard string theory as a science. Ask anyone. It is only regarded as an acceptable activity in university, mainly for people who don’t have any actual ideas. It is a scam is what it is. A scam that nobody takes serious but somehow it still keep going, keeping a low profile.
consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Was the universe set up for us? We see that a constant shaping is creating a more complex 'container' for life. Is life worth playing and watching, from an ethereal space? Well the psychics may have the only insight. It is where science stops.
The ending really sums it up, since it doesn't really explain anything other than essentially "okay so this universe is the one we're in"
Yeah that's what I got out of it too. If a universe was unable to support life (consciousness) then there would be no one there to observe it. And vice versa.
Just call them watchers. It's the original term before science claimed it as "observers"
@@deathbydeviceableExistence itself is the upholding of value intensity." - Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead
.
PLATO was in fact essentially correct that the underlying nature of the universe is more mind-like than classically physical. And, that the true creative force of this reality is its value. Consciousness is the vehicle of all value, meaning and significance in the universe.
Without consciousness, nothing matters. Without consciousness, nothing exists.
@@dongshengdi773 And they there's the very real possibility that the universe itself is a conscious entity. Denying that possibility is just burying your head in the sand.
@@andrewhanson5942 No, denying it would be the truth.
It took us centuries to wrap our collective minds around the laws of physics. How could we possibly know that a vastly different set of values of fundamental constants could not lead to a universe where a type of order exists that could be considered alive or conscious? If there are 10 to the 500 possible vacua seems like there is a lot of room for a few variations that are as rich in complexity are our vacuum.
3:00 I like to believe he’s saying Alan created all of our problems in the universe ❤😂🎉
Everything that emerges in the physical, was first a potential in the abstract. If you think about this carefully, the implications are profound.
Implications are that everything may as well be treated as equally valid as physical in nature, if all that manifestation is essentially interaction, in this case between realms. What we call physical is made of mostly "empty" space anyway if you don't count virtual particles
Love it, hooray AG!
Has anyone got this in English?
It came as no surprise to find that Guth had nothing intelligent to say about the topic of this video, however much time he wanted to devote to it.
might the virtual particles in space have gravitational attraction that repulses dark energy to expand space, producing / measuring a particle in the process?
It's cool asking this kind of question to someone so sciencey as Alan Guth
A more interesting question is, whilst it's all well and good for the Universe to contain other people's consciousness, must it necessarily contain your own personal consciousness? I mean what's the point of the Universe containing consciousness, if you yourself are not conscious of it.
Thanks a lot for the info, very interesting so far 🙏
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
Quarks are modelled in QCD as having no size, but that doesn't mean this is correct. It's just a mathematical abstraction. We also consider them to have no internal structure, but the fact that they can change flavour by emitting a W Boson indicates that it may not be as simple as that.
It’s still something. How the heck do you get something from nothing?
Our existence makes no sense.
Try, "1D, 2D, 3D from 0D."
@simonhibbs887
The polar opposite of black holes (cosmological) are monads (quantum):
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
could dark energy expansion of space be measured from virtual particles in energy density of vacuum (space)?
Every thing in the univers is in motion/ speed and speed is the rate of change of displacement with respect to 'OBSERVER'( i.e. consciousness,)
Logically, a fine-tuning perspective is inevitable in any universe where consciousness arises.
It’s all a mystery and will remain a mystery and I am mystified by the mysterious mystery of the universe. If someone can solve this mystery it will be mystical and mysterious and fascinating. 😅
"The universe" is a notion in a mind: this is what the term refers to and without it, there is no debating it. To instantiate a notion, it requires consciousness. Therefore, a "universe" must contain consciousness. If someone wants to assert that something can "exist" without any knowing of it, please provide the mechanism whereby this can occur and be verified.
Yeah, they call it "unconscious". In order to be conscious one would have to be unconscious no?
@@deathbydeviceable My point is that this runs into the philosophy of science in such a way that this debate not only is not, but cannot be based on science. Empiricism requires a viewer... sorry those who want to be materialist absolutists.
It’s not designed for life it is all life itself
We really don’t know .. but could, maybe, possibly, if 🤔
I think so. Something has to render the world. The other explanation would be everything is conscious, which is possible.
Consciousness lends the universe its being by perceiving itself as such.
Though somewhat skeptical of inflation, I really enjoy listening to Alan Guth.
Nothing else explains the homogeneous nature of the universe though. There is no indication or alternative at the moment.
Inflation isn't a myth. Check out the price of a hamburger.
A big rock "knows" how to go around the sun, so it will seem aware of the sun. Plants will seem very aware too when they grow along the sides of buildings etc. It should be no surprise that something even more organized, like our brain with its consciousness, would be just another thing the universe is capable of and even naturally necessitates spawning. Why ask why we think, why not say why not, since we're natural. This universe gives a lot of different things an apparent agency and autonomy, including us
Life is fine-tuned for the universe, not the other way around.
Your source for this assertion? Dont use 'because the bible says so' pr anything like that.
@@SirLangsalot take a look around you.
@@lordemed1 stupid answer.
Universal conciousness...are we all a part of a collective consciousness...or only a select few?🤔...so many variables,far too many to imagine!...still' the Universe, a beautiful thing..
@LifesInsight Yes' l suppose they're is no escaping the Universal conscious one!
It's the one that you don't know that makes it so fascinating...maybe we're not prepared enough yet?
Here's my take, after 75 years: There is something going on out there. Something big. Something important. Something beyond our comprehension - for now, at least; maybe, forever. Our non-biological, AI progeny probably will figure out the reality of this universe, as they evolve exponentially. Still, aren't we left with the questions: Where did all of this come from? Why are we here? I believe more and more that we must look to our hearts, not our brains, for those "answers" . . .
@Paulancar Many people believe in many different things and each belief is all they have. They assess each moment through their chosen filters. Some are based on direct empirical observation while others are based on fairy tales they read in books or hear about.
If it must then...fine tuning? If it doesn't then...it doesn't matter does it. Is consciousness contingent on the universe or is the universe contingent on consciousness?
I suspect reality is more than the universe and that there are more things like consciousness for which science can not discover its origin in the universe.
"Does the universe exist without consciousness?"
"Should the Universe Contain Consciousness."
Probably not, because it is the universe that exists in the mind.
Because it is consciousness that contains the universe, and not the universe that contains consciousness.
And probably yes, because not everything that exists in consciousness-perception is conscious (has the property of consciousness).
Naturally, what is meant here by consciousness is not just the consciousness of a particular individual (by which, in fact, they usually mean one or another of the particular forms of perception, individual perception, the possibility of perception), but rather a kind of universal consciousness, to which none of the particular forms consciousness and perception, or a certain possibility of conscientious-ability and perception, is not reducible, as well as to their sum, all known and unknown to us. But in which we rather exist, our individual consciousnesses, ourselves, as in a certain environment in which they are generated or in which they are placed.... . Which, for you, if, for example, you adhere to positivist views, a positivist worldview, or simply anti-holistic and antimonistic views, perhaps simply does not exist, and perhaps even this phrase itself will sound to you just like a meaningless set of words, letters and sounds. So in a sense, this is a question of faith, which in this case can be understood as a certain kind of choice, whether to accept a certain kind of view or not, whether a certain kind of view is acceptable or unacceptable for you. But this certainly does not in any way affect objective reality.
Without an observer, we need some other agents of entanglement to make anything....Real.
How can a universe exist for itself, with no one to experience it ?
And how could any entanglement agent interact with ours, to otherwise bring it into existence vicariously via us ?
The Universe doesn't need life or humanity to exist in order to exist.
@@Resmith18SRSo the Universe does this consciously?...the question remains,for what purpose🤔...intriguing,no!?
@@rochford59 Only living organisms possess consciousness. The Universe is not alive or conscious.
Only temporarily.
When the sun gets too hot, the oceans will evaporate.
The rain will stop and we will die of thirst, restoring peace on earth.
There is no conscious and not concious since there are no distinct boundaries. Not conscious is a state invented by humans to understand mathematics. Human intellect perhaps invented limiting cases as a survival tool in the same way that among objects they chose one to be a tool. Conscious is unbounded,not special, at multiple wavelengths with orders of variety and universaly present.
Consciousness seems to have become misunderstood again. Wonder why. But what we knew about it earlier times was that it is what makes all life have it's own purpose and ongoing life. Otherwise we just vegetate.
There's no such thing as a vegetative state. They have recently discovered plants all talk to each other through frequency vibrations. All life is connected. Everything down to the most fundamental of particles. Consciousness is existence.
@@eerohughesDo you think that transistors all talking to each other through electrical signals means they, and by extension computers, are also conscious?
@@simonhibbs887 Is one brain cell constituted as being conscious? Maybe consciousness exists on a scale, where some beings are more/less aware of their experientiality than others. An amoeba is invariably experiencing something in an automatous fashion, but we can't necessarily verify its perspective from the inside out (although, it would probably be rather predictable). However, on the scale of a transistor within a computer, mechanically it also has a job with few functions to perform. For example, in the case of a logic gate, it can only perform a few boolean checks but I don't think a logic gate is necessarily aware of the job its performing. Similar to a brain cell or any single-celled organism. Although, maybe I'm conflating consciousness and self-awareness, both of which seem to be closely related from my understanding. But Holism would suggest otherwise which is an interesting thought experiment.
@@wchristian2000 I think consciousness is an activity, and in order to do it a being or system would have to have the pre-requisite capabilities to perform that activity. I think brains have the prerequisite capabilities and single cells or transistors don't.
I think our consciousness is highly variable and manifests in various different ways. I think that's consistent with it being an activity, rather than a property or substance.
I don't think the topic was even addressed.
The universe is not fine tuned at all. All constants depend on each other. That is basic physics knowledge.
Why is it always about us . Perhaps it’s not for us
Yet here you are.
Translation…We need better explanations because we really don’t know! No one does, how could they? We have a much smaller than fishbowl view of the entirety.
The Intelligent Designer behind all this is not a noun. Awareness is action and is non linear
Perhaps it is consciousness that contains the universe.
Perhaps not
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Get out 👉
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
What if that dichotomy, that is, one containing the other, is itself a false dichotomy?
Guth is One.
The universe is consciousness.
Must it? In principle probably no. Is it always possible wherever the conditions are right, probably. Might the vast size and time scale of the universe make it likely to occur by the sheer number of chances, ya. Could we just happen to be one of the billions of species ever that evolved to interpret our environment in a particularly effective way, ya. Would the universe be fine without any life existing in any particular amount of space for any length of time, ya. There probably wasn’t any life in the universe for most of its history. Is that satisfying? Depends who you ask.
"The best we can come up with until something comes along that is better" needs to be a scientific axiom guiding them through the twists and turns that eventually reveals.....the truth.
infinite number of dimensions, infinitely small and infinitely large. if you could zoom in on any space long enough you would eventually see yourself zooming in.
fart sound at 4:18
Ed Witten: "What if quarks had size?"
Science, for decades: "Shut up and take our money!"
Humanity: 🤦♂️ 🤦♀️ (quarks have no size).
It's actually the other way around ----- The universe is "contained" in consciousness.
I would instead ask "Must consciousness contain universe?"
Interesting. Well done
Do you think there would be no moon , if there would be no one to observe it? , consciousness is just our evolutionary trait which we have at a higher level than most species right now.
The word universe literally means everything in existence. So by definition there can’t be anything besides the universe. It grinds my gears when scientists say things like „many different universes“. It makes no sense. Just say many different cosmic bubbles for example, because the meaning of words matters. If we use words willy nilly in science, we run into problems quick!
@@ManiBalajiC that’s a story. And a claim, with no argument.
Moreover, you’re appealing to a scientific theory, which is unproven and provisional by definition.
@@realrebelli0n are you claiming in science everyone must use the Merriam-Webster lay definition of words? Are you against jargon for some reason? Are you against conjecture on the boundary of knowledge?
No, it is because this consciousness contains the universe itself.
The question is backward. The universe does not "contain" consciousness, the universe is a construct of consciousness. Consciousness is fundamental. From it springs all phenomena, including what we perceive as and believe to be matter.
Well that's just a guess though isn't it? What is the argument in support of this idea?
@@maxmudita5622 you used the word guess! And thats your answer. Everything but everything is a guess. We 'know' nothing. We can't explain energy, we can't explain matter, we definitely can't explain life let alone emotions. Time is meaningless as there is only a passing moment and math, though a useful tool, if taken seriously would lead us down a false rabbit hole. So now you can focus on the moment, your personal moment and live.
"The universe does not contain consciousness". How do you explain human conscious and sentience then? This exists with the universe....
In my opinion the Universe requires observers literally everywhere. Where there is a brain, the observer - in certain parts of that brain - result in consciousness. But when I said everywhere, I meant even in all the parts of the body. That includes every part of the brain - that is not conscious! So the observer is necessary for the Universe to work, but it is NOT consciousness and should not be confused or conflated with it. It is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness. This seems obvious now that I've put it into word.
The Universe?! I'd settle for just Congress! NEXT!
typa thing a supervillain would ask
and as soon as we find life anywhere else that anthropic principle will go right in the trash with the rest of religion
Yet here you are. A conscious, living being in a universe, from nothing.
That’s a pretty magical sounding nothing.
I’m not religious but you ts just as ignorant to trash religions when there is at least a rational for it.
I used to think like you when I was too lazy to really think about it.
You’d be surprised how many religious people don’t believe in it in a literal sense. There is good, to whatever extent that is, and there is bad, to whatever extent that is. At the end of the day you have to reconcile with the philosophical quandaries.
Our existence makes no sense. You are talking about something from nothing that leads to us and anything like us. God doesn’t answer that. But neither does anything else.
That’s why atheists can’t agree on what not to believe in.
@@joeshumo9457 but that is the whole point of atheism because we all agree we don't believe in something and you are the one claiming something from nothing so you give yourself away personally I can stare up at the night sky and get a pretty good grasp of infinity and my meaningless place in it
The Universe contains properties that can only exist to be experienced by consciousness. Color, taste, sounds among many other Qualia have no reason to exist but to be experienced by consciousness. Yet those properties existed from the beginning in the singularity that contained everything that came later from it!
So did the Universe somehow "know" that consciousness will arise later or was consciousness behind it all?
Causation??? Something can't lead to the same thing... It differs..
'Colour' doesn't exist, but differentiated wavelengths do, as I understand it.
Hence, sentient beings have evolved to register and process a section of them, some interpreting them as 'colour' (ask a cat or a butterfly to define that).
It's a good job that we can't see everything, lest we were unable to find our way through all the wavelengths stimulating and impeding our senses.
@@paulrapley1044 Color has more reality to us as humans than wavelengths and it exists as Qualia. Its a higher existence that requires consciousness to exist as what we experience as color.
Materialism is so naive in denying Qualia. Why was a section of the wavelength preset at the singularity to have the property of color even before sentient beings .
Property of color cannot have come from outside the universe as an emergent new property when sentient beings started existing, it was already "programmed" in the initial state at the big bang and everything that exist and can exist were as well.
not at all - consciousness contains the universe
Man science is becoming the religion of modern world..
Must a toaster contain shoes?
The universe, such as it is, contains toasters, shoes and you. I would conclude that it must at least contain the products of semi-consciousness because it does already.
could you imagine this universe is just the dumpster for another one...
No
THE UNIVERSE WILL BE FINE WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS.❤
The universe doesn't contain consciousness - only consciousness can contain consciousness.
Circular argument. You make a logical fallacy and are speaking nonsense.
But we are the universe, nothing alien in it.Silly questions.
String theory..blah blah...sick of hearing it..cmon..the universe has always been here...end of
Consciousness is fundamental from where everything comes.
???
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Alan Guth - Must the Universe Contain Dumbness?
Let's see. The universe is 13 billion year old, an unimaginable period of time. It contains trillions of stars each, on average, with multiple planets. Then factor in the ubiquity of carbon as the prime building block of amino acids which are, in turn, the building blocks of life. Looking at the situation it would be odd to think that consciousness would not evolve in many places in the universe.
Alan is worth more than a dozen Einsteins.
Who ever said life is fair? Is it fair to kill to commit suicide? I am talking about psychology for adults. I am serious talking about the only that matters and exists for me, God. The universe was created from an intelligent entity. That's a fact. I know because from nothing can not be created something. Nothing is absence of existence. I am tired. Is it possible to be wrong believing? God is eternal. God is substance, something real. The universe was created from an eternal existence uncaused. Nothing made God create the universe. God decided to create the universe. The idea of God is humbling. Why God decided to create life? You can be happy thinking. To think is free. We create reality thinking. I need to have one sentence published to be successful and I am losing all hope. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I am a poet and artist, not a warrior. I am a worker, not a fighter. I am an intellectual, not a totalitarian. Thank you.
There is a rationale for God, but not in a literal sense. Atheism has a rationale as well, yet here you are with consciousness.
Our existence from nothing makes no sense.
Choose your coping mechanism.
Complete speculation.
No it’s just a load of old rocks on fire.
Eternal inflation ... string theory ... these guys are worse than even the worst religious nuts.
"It's just as bad as religion because I can't understand the math"
@@k-3402 I have tons of math in my own research. What they are writing down is not legit math. Legit math gives you actual testable results. What they have is a ton of parameters that you can set anyway you want. Even as a layman you should be able to hear that aspect out of what he is saying. By the way, the scientific community doesn’t regard string theory as a science. Ask anyone. It is only regarded as an acceptable activity in university, mainly for people who don’t have any actual ideas. It is a scam is what it is. A scam that nobody takes serious but somehow it still keep going, keeping a low profile.
what do u want from them?
Yes, the Universe is derived from Consciousness.
How do you figure?
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that? 🤨
But it would still exist regardless 9f weather humans were or were not conscious.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4ya lotmof the people here in the comment section know nothing about philosophy or physics and just parrot 'new age' platitudes.
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Consciousnes equates to mind from which everything composed ,God if you like?
Was the universe set up for us? We see that a constant shaping is creating a more complex 'container' for life. Is life worth playing and watching, from an ethereal space? Well the psychics may have the only insight. It is where science stops.