Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum The Question

Reviewing notes I wrote to myself years ago and found one I want to foist upon the group to consider. I am going to put it here in the form of a statement of fact and then comment later after everyone has had a chance to consider it.

The universe is self-aware.

sounds like a universal version of gaia, the belief that the earth is self aware. some say there is a universal mind simular to the christian belief in god, but without the christian trappings.

Greetings DA, et al,
I should think that a feedback system involving a non-local, macro-scale 'Quantum Hologram' is, simply, causal, intuitive. Ascribing consciouness, self awareness, would seem, however, to be a leap of faith and not-quite-science;)~

It would be interesting to develope a hypothesis about a universal gaia. What type of mechanisms would be involved. Is there a way, and how would we detect it? Or detect any part of it's existance.

Lightspeed and causality. It would be a veeeeery sloooow processor. Interviews bounced off geosynchrounous satellites are notoriously choppy.

Not a criticism but my suspicion is confirmed. Given a simple statement of fact the initial reaction would be one of abandoning science and moving into an area of philosophy or theology.

That the universe is self-aware is just a simple statement of fact unless you wish to posit that the atoms/molecules from which you are constructed, are separate and apart from the universe.

If you take a scientific view and objectively examine the facts ... quarks and electrons have self-organized into atoms ... that have self-organized into molecules ... that have self-organized into lifeforms that are capable of looking at the night sky and asking questions about their existance. There is no need for philosophical or theological nonsense. The facts are quite sufficient unto themselves.

What I find fascinating is that the knee-jerk reaction of humans is to somehow see themselves as different, and apart, from every other collection of bosons and fermions.

Now who's using the forum as a psychology experiment?

I am ... given that you have already acknowledged it was an experiment.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

True. Two instructors at the University of Washington recorded anecdotal observations with respect to mammalian psychology.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Done. A hypothesis was formulated. Can't discuss it here as experimentation will continue in other web forums. But it shouldn't be hard to guess.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Done. A specific behaviour was predicted to be overwhelmingly prevelent in the sample.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions

Done. Thank you everyone.

Pure science Rose meeting the test of the scientific method?

Now how about Kate telling us what she's doing with this site? ;-)

unless I'm mistaken, its been theorised that tachyons move faster than light. Ive never heard anyone claim a speed for them. perhaps though is faster than light, tachyons even. that would allow much faster thought. then again, it would be consieveable that something like this would not notice time as we do.

Tachyons are a great science fiction device, but they've never been proved to exist.

If the universe is self aware, it probably functions with a very slow awareness, and transient beings like ourselves will not exist long enough for it to take any notice of us. The whole of human existence is like the blink of an eye compared to that of the universe.

dehammer wrote:
"unless I'm mistaken, its been theorised that tachyons move faster than light"

You are correct. And while science has never seen a tachyon they have been observed in numerous Star Trek episodes.

Consider that time stops for a photon. A tachyon might, in theory, be a photon traveling backward in time. Seen any lately?

if im not mistaken, there are a lot of things that have never been seen that have been theoriezed about, but that have not been disproven.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

(this last one includes the theory that they can go backwards in time.)

there is also the theory that some neutrinos are actually tachyons

no, i have not seen any, but niether have i ever seen a proton or electron, yet i dont see anyone argueing that they dont exist.

The universe is not self-aware.
Religion is made up by man and possibly by other intelligent beings if they exist.

dehammer wrote:
"if im not mistaken, there are a lot of things that have never been seen that have been theoriezed about, but that have not been disproven."

So far no one has disproven the fact that the invisible purple rhinoceros created the universe either. But you are as likely to find that it is so as that there are tachyons.

Lurker wrote:
"The universe is not self-aware."

Lets examine your proposition:

1. Are you saying you are not part of the universe?
and
2. That you, and other sentient life-forms, are not self-aware?

* Because if you are part of the universe
* and you are self-aware (I know I certainly am)
* Then so is at least one portion of the universe
* And my proposition stands

I will not be hurt if you are unaware that I responded or are, at least temporarily, not in this universe. ;-)

Well just because we are part of the universe doesn't mean that the entire universe is self-aware. Take a human for example. The only part of the human that is self aware is the brain. Without it functioning we would just be there. Our limbs and other organs are there to allow us to be able to interact with other objects.

Take away our limbs we can still intereact. Take away our brain and we no longer are able to.

In that sense, just because a piece of something is self-aware doesn't mean everything of the entirety is too.

perhaps, if you come up with a theory of how, why, when and where a purple rhinoceros can exist, esp without interacting with the known universe, it might be a plausible theory. Unless you are a better physicist than those who have come up with the theories, i don't think you would have the knowledge base to compare the theory with your "theory" of the existence of the pr. I can say you don't exist and have as much of a authority in the manner as a computer language teacher has of saying that a physicist theory accepted by many of his piers isn't possible. Aren't you the one that says that pier acceptance is the keystone of if something is acceptable. if your not one of his piers, i don't think your on the level needed to decide that it does not exist. Ive shown you a few of the links i found that say its an acceptable theory, so why not show me a link to someone just as reliable to say its not. Just because your only contact with the theory is from SF, this does not mean it originated there or that that is the main area it was from.

let me explain a little bit about SF (from a writers point of view as well as a hard core fan). if it does not exist in science, you can use it if it does not go against known science. IF it does exist in science, then you have to stay as close to the theory as possible. The theory of tachyons predates its use in SF. therefore any use not consistant with the theory would have rendered the story unacceptable by SF fans. I have seen stories by good writers that completely died because they tried to use things like tachyons incorrectly. SF fans will accept a lot, but not science fiction that does not follow science.

to me, that sounds like your religion talking. there is no proof that it is not self-aware, just as there is no proof that it is. a true scientist will not ignore possibly valid theories just because they sound like religious things. example, they have found something in the bible to be correct, not because it was in the bible, but because there were things that it mention that is known to have happen. a few biblical scientist, in an effort to prove the bible, have found things that might not have been found otherwise for sometime if at all. unfortunately for them, the proof of the bible did not come out of their attempts.

actually, they have found that there is some, and i do emphises some, evidence that the cells in the body do have something to do with thought. limited, but some. the fact that cutting off the brain will kill the body, only proves that the brain controls the body functions of complex systems like the heart, lungs, etc. since, unlike the brain, no one has ever been able to map out the mind, there is no way to definitively say that the cells don't have anything to do with consciousness. there has been evidence that plants respond to being talking to or shouting at, and they dont have a brain.

before you claim something is impossible, how about some proof. otherwise its just your opinion or your religion talking.

Danismyname wrote:
"Well just because we are part of the universe doesn't mean that the entire universe is self-aware"

Just because a salmon is a salmon doesn't mean all fish are salmon. Wow!

Those that know me know what I am thinking.

Dan ... education is a wonderful thing. Embrace it.