I agree, though the word supernatural (beyond natural) is a pretty good description of quantum theory. Interesting, I differ in that I don't think the future is predetermined or known. Nor do I believe it is mapped out by a deity.
Yes, I considered this when looking at my pet theory, what if some people are more sensitive to the quantum intelligence while others suppress its effect. This would explain why some people see ghosts and others don't. And then you have to ask what is this sub conscious that fills all the gaps in the extraordinary for us. Supposedly our sub conscious is a part of the brain dealing with every day things to free up our conscious mind. These things would include little changes in our surroundings, remember directions etc. But in this century it has been given a whole new set of jobs
Only to the extent that we don't understand it. Anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics hasn't studied it long enough - Richard Feynman Why?
If the Universe or Multiverse is conscious, does it have free will and how does it manifest? And now you have to wonder if a conscious universe may be part of an infinitely greater conscious multiverse. If the multiverse is truly infinite, then we may have an infinitely complex consciousness that is constantly adding new universes; and has done so forever. Or perhaps we live in a multiverse of separate but conscious universes. Maybe our universe even has a buddy universe.
For obvious reasons this is extrapolation, but if you consider chaos theory and the number of different futures it could create, I see no reason why any of it could be pre calculated or steered. The amount of effort needed to control the minutiae of this for no obvious gain leads me to believe that even if it was possible it wouldn't be done. I hasten to add that does not preclude some sort of steering or guidance. IMO such a consciousness if it exists would compare to the consciousness of the human population. One could claim it exists, but it is not a hive mind capable of single thoughts. More likely that within the universe there is connection between intelligences at a quantum level.
Who said anything about steering or guidance? You are thinking linearly and keep trying to put a god into this. You are arguing by cause and effect. The grander notion is that the future already exists. While it may be driven by cause and effect in highly chaotic systems, the end result has always existed. You mentioned telepathy. What about precognition? How could anyone see future events if they didn't already exist? There are two opportunities for free will I see in the notion of a conscious universe. Firstly, Heisenberg tells us that in any measurement there exists uncertainty. In fact there are many conjugate pairs where the greater the knowledge of one variable, the less we can know about the other. And these uncertainties are fundamental. If we know the position of a particle precisely, the momentum is not defined. It could be anything! It could be anything the universe wants it to be. Also, as far as we know, there is no mechanism to predict when a particular particle such as a radioactive isotope will decay. It appears to be completely random. So again there would seem to be the opportunity for some hidden variable such as free will, to drive that event. Beyond that, any alleged free will would seem to require violating the laws of physics. But for conjugate pairs and radioactive decay, we would have no way to know.
Good point. I did associate predetermined with set up by some one. Though I wasn't thinking of God (I'm not a believer in any of the given gods.) Can you give any reasons why the future might already exist. Taking into consideration the number of factors that can change it (Chaos theory) I didn't mention precognition because I don't believe it exists in any meaningful way. I think it is possible that some people might be able to read events at some quantum level and "foresee" an event, but this is really no more than educated guessing. I don't understand this post, apart from anything else you open by saying "There are two opportunities" but only allude to one. The rest of your post appears to be about physics rather than will.
Sure. A great example would be a two slit photon interference experiment where only one photon is allowed to pass at a time. This was first done about 100 years ago and is part of what led to modern quantum theory. If you allow one photon at a time pass through a double slit experiment, it will apparently interact with future and or past photons that pass through the slit. We know this by the classic interference pattern it produces, which only occurs when photons interfere with each other. By letting only one pass at a time, we should eliminate any chance of photos interfering with each other. But it doesn't. That is just one example of suspected retrocausality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Well you contradict your own logic in one sentence. But you do use the word "meaningful" to mask the obvious contradiction. Either you can foresee an event due to some secret quantum level information, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. If the universe had free will and suddenly started tossing planets and suns around at will, we wouldn't be able to explain that with the laws of physics. But the universe appears to follow rules that make it predictable. This allows us to develop the sciences and in particular physics. So how could some hidden free will still manifest in reality without us noticing any violations? Both Uncertainty and Radioactive Decay in individual atoms do not follow any rules. So if they were manipulated by a universe having free will, we might have no way to know.
The alternative explanation [from QED] is that each photon follows all possible paths simultaneously and interferes with itself.
No, I don't see this as evidence of a pre programmed universe. It might say something about our understanding of time but that's all. Allow me the clarify. I meant they use an ability to see clues other people cannot see (some secret quantum level information) to predict a conclusion that is correct. Thus, an educated guess that appears to be a precognition because others cannot see the clues.
The perfect reference for this thread. I would have considered consciousness to be awareness, as plants are aware of, i.e., sense & respond to, sunlight. I would have maintained that this a sign (only one of many) that they are conscious, albeit experiencing that consciousness in a vastly different way than ourselves. So, according to your wikipedia source, it would be more accurate for me to call plants sentient. Yet what about plants' ability to evolve so as to get other creatures to service them, such as pollinators and human agriculturalists-- random selection? I hardly think so. That plants can produce fruits that will coax animals (including us) to eat them & spread their seed, create floral designs to tempt insects inside for nectar, in order to spread their pollen, produce cannabinoids, opiates, and other drugs that mimic physiological systems inherent in humans, to ensure their success, points to plants being conscious. Why else would plants that are spoken to, thrive so much better than others under the same conditions of light & moisture & soil, but which are otherwise ignored by their human roommates? And there is ample research showing the way plant root systems tactically contend with those of other plants, how tree trunks change trajectories in order to strategically maximize their share of light, vis a vis their close neighbors, and how trees actually give out warnings, to surrounding trees, when they are under insect attack. Though some could, I realize, theorize a random evolutionary process involved with all these things, how would that explain the withering of the leaves on trees miles away, when humans begin a clear-cut lumbering operation? I understand that this is not a botanical thread. But I agree with you that considering the definition of consciousness is a good place to begin thinking about this question; not just the, "meaning," though, but also its differing, potential forms.
Perhaps this is easier to discuss if we recognise that consciousness can be seen on many levels...from leaves detecting light to whether the whole universe is clockwork or deliberate design. IMO they deserve consideration separately. Leaves and on a larger note, Gaia, is about living systems. Gaia says that all of nature work as one integrated self supporting system, something which was revolutionary 50 year ago but which is more evident now. So I give that a tick for consciousness because each element is aware of the others and reacts accordingly. The universal consciousness is not IMO so evident largely because I don't believe in a god, the only idea that can consciously design and put into motion with a purpose (consciousness) the entire universe. I here and now declare to be a humanist...one who believes that it is humans who design, control and give meaning to creation, which was self generated via scientific means. ie pure chance. IOW for the universe to be conscious requires a Controller and I don't think there is. I don't know enough about quantum except that it says you cannot locate something because if you want to measure place and time it cannot be in the same place at the same time. One cancels out the other. Please correct me if I am wrong...it is something like that. And that is why so many theoreticians say there are multiple universes, even infinitesimally small one which disappear almost instantaneously, all appearing at different places and times. (the origins of the supernatural?) So how can a consciousness within creation when so many realities all appear and disappear by chance? If true, they can't behave as cause and effect other than on a colossal scale and without design. Perhaps one instant dimension can impact another one and produce a third etc etc but it can't be by design...IMO it has to be by chance. The same chance that produced living things on earth...we are merely products of chance as are trees and plants and animals. Does that make sense?
I haven't read the book, but universal consciousness is by no means a new idea, & one that I have long given credence. If the universe could have been filled with dark matter of which, until fairly recently, we were unaware, why not dark energy, & dark consciousness as well (I have proposed as much, in a number of previous posts, if you'd care for the links)? In one such posting, I propose that we are all cells within one universal body, largely unaware of the totality, of which we are a part, & yet constantly interacting with it. To extend the metaphor, we might, within each of us, nevertheless contain knowledge of the whole, in a form of universal DNA. Maybe that is also referred to as spirit? Or perhaps it would more accurate to describe our connection to this whole in terms of blood & cytoplasm; or through hormones, steroids, & the like, and their receptors; or through a nervous system? We could all be universal cells, under the guidance of various systems in place, some of which we understand and some we don't. This brings up the concept of group-consciousness, & communal consciousness, both of which, I believe, have supporting evidence for their existence. Though DNA, along w/ RNA, are a form of communal memory, themselves, which play out, in the flesh, as a communal consciousness. A good example of this are ants, which do not go to school, nor enter apprenticeships but which, nevertheless are hatched knowing all they need in order to build complex colonies, to engage in large-scale agriculture (as by the fungus grown by leaf-cutter ants), the keeping livestock (aphids), building projects, and warfare. If you were to throw in the arts & politics, humans would have nothing on them (& who is to say some ants' chemical scent trails don't have unique touches of personal style?). All the knowledge of their society is encoded in their genes. But the question would be what type of cells we are. Are we neural cells, sharing in the control of our universe? Or are we more only serving some purpose, within it? As an aside, there are also interesting examples of a cooperative group dynamic, interaction-- dare I say, consciousness?-- in aggregates of differing, simple life forms, in the phenomenon of biofilms. .
Firstly, no one said anything about being pre-programmed. You keep trying to create a god whether you know it or not. Says something about time is right'; namely the ability for the future to change the present. How can the future affect the present if it doesn't already exist? You asked "Can you give any reasons why the future might already exist.". That is evidence. Whether you think so or not is irrelevant. That didn't clarify anything. It just dug a deeper hole. Either they are getting hidden information or not.
Consciousness is more in line with Descartes - I think therefore I am. You hardly think so? Why? Did you know that all dogs come from the wolf in recorded history? That is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Evolution happens surprisingly fast.
Well I think we are getting further off topic, here, but I assume you realize that dog breeds are wholly an artificially-orchestrated creation of mankind. But, then again, if you really think about it, this concept of perceiving something as natural, which in fact came to exist through the direction of outside forces, is really not off-topic at all.
This is not a topic I have given a lot of thought, so on which I have no partisan view. But, as a means of conceptual investigation: why could not the future being foreseen, by this hypothesized soothsayer, be only a potential future?
You beat me to the punch, there. When I read HereWeGoAgain's post, it brought to mind the post of someone with whom I'd been conversing here, who was using the double-slit experiment to prove, I think, that light is a wave (as well as a particle?). I had intended to mention to that poster an idea, to which I'd been introduced in the Crichton novel, Timeline-- somewhat similar to H.W.G.A's-- that another option was that experiment, "proved," the existence of parallel universes, wherein sympathetic occurrences take place, i.e., proof of the multiverse theory. I never did get around to that post, either...Though, like you, I think it is unwise to jump to exclusive conclusions w/ regard to phenomena which are not fully understood, it would be nice to think there is a universe, someplace, that all my intentions are actually acted upon, or where I'm at least not such a procrastinator.
I agree. I was discussing this with our sycamore this morning, but he didn't have much to say on the subject.
Why does it have to be a god that pre-programmed it? Why not a sub atomic particle or another universe or another human on a different time line of a nine headed slug for that matter. Either something is predetermined or it isn't. If it is then something needed to consider all the events that could ever happen and either control them or predict them. Far more likely that the random collision between two gas molecules is just that 'random' Bit aggressive aren't you? Considering we are discussing something that at the very most is speculation. Whether your example is evidence of your claim or something else is pure speculation at this time.
