Saul Perlmutter – Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?

36 thoughts on “Saul Perlmutter – Must the Universe Contain Consciousness?”

1. Why scientists ignore category 4 which is the fine tuning forced artibatary from higher entity… I personally see it the most probably… may be introducing higher entity comes with its own questions but I don't see other categories providing certain explanations either

2. Fine Tuning is a misnomer because it implies a "Tuner."

3. The current state of the emotional brain is NOT ready and you will only indanger others with your arrogance…

4. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that life is the attempt of the universe to understand itself?

5. Guest repeats himself…ALOT.

6. We are a brain…in a vat called the universe. 🤕
   I'm a lost complex and simple bunch of stuff trying to make sense of something beyond comprehension.
   And I'm emotions: what are they for?

7. What is the problem they are trying to solve?

8. "The universe must contain consciousness because, without it there would be no way to identify it's existence."

   – Me

9. it just looks fine tuned to us because it was fine tuned to produce living matter.

   that doesn't mean there is a god is just means that nothing must evolve to living matter for anything to happen. then when it does happen it looks fine tuned for us to be created.

   it's an evolution but for this to happen living matter must pop up at some point. a universe must contain consciousness at some point or else you stay at a blank.

   you could say that we randomly selected few caused this one. we caused it by coming into existence later

   we randomly come later but we cause a beginning. universe was allowed because the probability of living matter is guaranteed.

   presumably thee universe goes back to nothing after we die…. until some solution is found to resurrect you if that is even possible. but you never know what is possible when consciousness is gone,

   being dead deff ain't like sleeping if you've ever seen a dead body. not even close. that person truly is no more in our bubble of time. but that doesn't mean that are gone forever it just means they are not longer around with us here.

10. 🔵 you know the most logical explanation is the one that a false scientific conclusion too often seeks to extinguish: the universe was created by Consciousness , God , for conscious beings , man , for self awareness and awareness of God❕✝️

11. 'an' ultimate object! lol! But… what is, is!

12. I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments proving that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain. Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property

    of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is

    inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible

    to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of

    concepts used to describe how an external object appear

    to our conscious mind, and not how it is.

    In other words, they are ideas conceived to describe or classify,

    according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view,

    certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are

    intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary

    choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other

    aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes.

    Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, as well as subjectivity,

    implies the existence of a conscious mind, who can choose a specific

    point of view and arbitrary criteria. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a

    preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent

    property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which

    presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to

    explain the existence of consciousness.

    Here comes my second argument: our scientific

    knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of

    ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property

    of elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes

    cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the

    process and analyze it moment by moment, and in every moment

    consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any

    consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes.

    Here comes my third argument:

    It must also be considered that brain processes consist of billions

    of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different

    points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property

    of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions

    of different consciousnesses, that is billions of personalities, each

    with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct

    experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is

    able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own

    will.

    Here comes my forth argument:

    Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate

    intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler

    elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself

    as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions

    of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of

    brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of

    elementary incoherent quantum processes. From the physical point of

    view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a

    coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of

    speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have

    different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an

    important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a

    necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness.

    So if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a

    whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to hyotehsize

    that such system can have or generate consciousness, since

    consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence

    of any arbitrary choice.

    Based on these considerations, it would be completely unreasonable to

    assume that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an

    emergent property of the brain

13. What is the measured energy of inflation and gravitational energy of dark matter?

14. The restrictions of mathematics lead to reality. There is nothing more than the finite platonic world.

15. The decisive question is: Does our dramatic gaining of scientific knowledge come into Play creating upcoming universes? And has the current universe come into existence by gaining of knowledge. To point Out: Not in a religious sence. Does knowledge accumulate, to achieve the start of a new fine tuned universe? As an inevitable happing, in a Well defined fraqtal platonic world. This approach solves many of the Open question. One rough try is the Ring traps theory. Traps that lead inevitably into a mathematical informational being

16. Same weak Arguments over and over again. No physical explanation for consciousness. Physical measurement of dark Energy and Matter will make no new Milestones. Where is the different intellectual approach,???? Listen to the Outsiders and newcomers. We have very good Puzzle pieces from science, but so weak philosophy putting them together. Always riding the old horses, the old non solving ideas. "Ring traps theory "offers a new approach

17. You just try so hard to deny God

18. You have a 72 percent chance of one number repeating out of a 1000 rolls when playing with three numbers.

19. 0.75x this one

20. Can either of you let the other finish?

21. this guy triggers rlk to speak faster than his normal pace

22. The notion that the universe is fine-tuned for the purpose of humankind and other life forms is self-centered thinking, perhaps akin to the belief, many centuries ago, that Earth was the center of the universe. It may be possible, alternatively, that life forms on Earth evolved as a matter of the particular conditions of this universe. So if there is any fine-tuning, it is we ourselves who have done so, in order to adapt optimally for our universe.

23. los ateos imbéciles nunca vieron un experimento con robotitos , un solo robotito recogía una piedra y luego la soltaba
    y el movimiento era caótico , pero con 100 robotitos aparecía una especie de movimiento inteligente , si 100 programas bobos de robotitos producen algo que parece inteligencia , que decir de las cantidades gigantescas de partículas siguiendo unos ' programas ' mucho más complicados que el de los robotitos , y los ateos como buenos imbéciles dicen ' Dios no existe porque no ha conversado conmigo '

24. Is that Marty Feldman's brother?

25. a few generations ? people have wondered what consciousness is forever, and we havent gotten past square one. shouldnt that tell us something ?? instead of stating that the brain creates consciousness ?

26. after the end of the game ? LOL… as if anyone can know when we are at the end of the game ?? i definitely suspect that there are things about this universe that are not knowable. i also even more highly suspect that we will never be able to prove that. so if you cant prove that something is unknowable, there there is no way to know that you are at the end of the game.

27. Consciousness is the Universe. In the deep sleep state, nothing exists, then there is the dream state, which seems to be real. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU'RE AWAKE NOW?

28. Ahh! The searchers; The seekers; The writers; the speakers
    Ponder & measure, wonder & plunder
    Truth hides in the clay where your consciousness lay under
    The Will of God = Nature's wonder
    Laws of Physics; God's mind & Love of Angels
    OneUniverse One Soul
    The L becomes the dream that is all for and from the One
    And so the P will always be = N
    After the Time Created and wined by the plunder
    Is ground back into the clay truth hides under

29. After all is said and done, only one person knows the correct answer to everything and that is my Aunty Fritzenella Ellenbogen. She is a large happy lady and very knowledgeable. We all love Aunty ❤️ Fritzenella.

30. We need to find "Spice"

31. This is an example of the vacuum cleaner salesman argument.
    Your carpets are dirty and are getting dirtier every day (the problem).
    But don't worry, because we have an amazing product that sweeps as it beats as it cleans.
    All you have to do is pay $10 per month and you will have clean carpets (the solution).

32. "Fine tuning" is a term that is only applicable if something needs to be tuned and there is a tuner.
    I used to own a piano that required regular tuning because with regular use, it went out of tune.
    The universe doesn't go out of tune and in any case, there is no evidence of a universe tuner.
    The universe is dying (entropy), but no amount of "tuning" can fix that problem.

33. I have received one or two posts (below) seeking further elucidation on the traditional Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo,

    What the idea is not:
    Firstly, it is definitely not to be equated with the modern day heresy of Intelligent Design theory, nor confused with modern forms of ‘creationism’. It is not an account of the physical development or origin of the universe (or multiverse, if there is such). That is the business of scientific cosmology. Neither is it an account of merely temporal beginnings, of how the misleadingly called ‘big bang’ came to happen. That also is the business of scientific cosmology. It does not describe some sort of merely initial divine push. It does not affirm that God lit the blue touch paper, stood back, watched it all go off on its own way, and that he has subsequently enjoyed only a problematic relationship with creation, adjusting knobs surreptitiously when he feels like it. (What a ridiculously quaint picture that paints.) It does not describe a process or some sort of alternative mechanism whereby the universe emerged. God is not to be understood as a kind of super-being, a kind of Big Invisible Self, situated as it were, alongside his creation. The Christian doctrine of creation – creatio ex nihilo – does a different job, it always has.

    What the idea is:
    Rather, God is that which is responsible for there being any spatio-temporal, empirical reality at all. The doctrine is in no way in competition within the same logical space as scientific cosmology. It is essentially about the utter dependency on God of all that has, does or will ever exist. It says that all that exists (whether spatially and/or temporally finite or infinite) other than God, is a part of a creation. It affirms that without God, there would be nothing – literally not anything: no gravity, no quantum systems, no things, no processes, no events, no states of affairs, and no mathematics with which to describe reality . . . . you name it and it wouldn’t exist. Nothingness, in the sense of creatio ex nihilo is complete absence, not merely empty space or empty time (even if these ideas make sense). God did not hang around for an eternity then, inexplicably decide to create, for time and space are creations, too. What exists right now, what has existed and whatever will exist, including all physical laws and constants, depends on God. Nor was God faced with a range of possibilities from which to choose how to form his creation, for properly speaking, possibilities are his creation, too.

    Some Closing Remarks
    All this is why the judgement that saying ‘God did it is lazy’ falls flat on its face. If by ‘God did it’ one is thinking of God as a cause in the same sense as physical processes or things or states of affairs are causes, one has already misunderstood the notion of creatio ex nihilo. It exposes the irrelevance of the ‘Thor’ analogy, too. (Re, remarks in someone else's post.) What it means to talk of God as a cause at all is another serious issue, since causation as we ordinarily understand it is itself something created by God. In nothingness there is no causal power – ex nihilo, nihil fit. Rogers and Hammerstein put it wonderfully in their song from ‘The Sound of Music’: “Nothing comes from Nothing”. Well said R&H; well sung Julie Andrews. Something can only come from that which is primarily the creator of all that is. This is what we call ‘God’.

    Something else that stands in sore need of initial sorting out is the matter of asking for evidence for all this. Though this request is frequently uttered as though it constitutes some humble-minded but nonetheless damming put down of various philosophical and theological ideas, it is really an instance of sheer (and often far from humble) intellectual confusion. If ‘evidence’ means empirical evidence, it should be clear by now that this cannot coherently be asked for. This because we are not dealing with an empirical issue (like finding the Higgs’ boson). Rather, we are in the territory of enquiring how there even can be an empirical world, with all its empirical evidence, in the first place. ‘Evidence’ in a quite different sense – the only possible sense in our context – either in favour of acceptance or denial of God as creator ex nihilo, the ground of all creation, is to be found in providing reasons, in giving arguments, for a position. In this sense, the whole universe is evidence for God, for it couldn't exists (in any form) without him. For reasons why we have to think in favour of such divine creatio ex nihilo consult the Argument from Contingency.

34. Intelligence and consciousness is constant

35. Because the universe is so finely tuned to allow the existence of intelligent observers on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy, at this time, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." (Genesis 1:1) seems to be a rational statement. But because God cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation, Intelligent Design will always be rejected by physicists, although it makes perfect sense to me.

36. Parts of the evolution theory has not been verified by observation and experiments, so those parts at not really scientific, but we can call it nature philosophy. This is also the case with “many universe theory” and “many worlds theory”, this is so theoretical that it seems impossible to ever verify it, it is theory and maybe it is only theory, but it may have some meaning to the real universe and world just as theory. Who knows?
    
    But then the creation history and creationism serves as nature philosophy also. According to the Bible God created everything by his Word and he looked after it as he created until he saw that it was good, step by step, day bay day, six “light-days”. So this explains the finetuning. The there came a different creation history in Genesis 2, in the first one life started in the ocean, but in this one it starting with dry ground that became wet, then God created man of the wet soil, God is spirit and he blew his spirit into his nose, so that he became a living soul. He became conscious of that he lived in society with God that is spirit and so he got to experience that God did his work with him and his surroundings. So by faith in God he got finetuning from God inside, in heart and mind.
    
    In a similar way we get finetuning by faith in Christ, for now he is the last Adam, who is from heaven and who for us has become a lifegiving spirit. We get sanctified by God’s Word and Spirit, in this way we get finetuned for eternity and for this life on earth also.
    
    How could science acknowledge such finetuning? Hardly by claiming that science shall be verified by repeatable experiments, contrary finetuning is by definition something that hardly is repeated. And if the God who has created everything does something, no “god” can do like he does.
    
    Wouldn’t he care about what he created? He loved the world so much, that he sent his only Son, so that everyone who believe in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. Everyone who received him he gave right to become Gods child. And he cares for his children and in this way he cares for his creation. That he does also by caring about scientists and science. Scientists and science need that, like any other human in their profession.

Comments are closed.