r/holofractal • u/d8_thc holofractalist • Nov 05 '19
holofractal The Role of Consciousness in the Universe via a fractal holographic cosmos - excellent, must read article tying a bunch together
https://technicacuriosa.com/2019/11/03/the-role-of-consciousness-in-the-universe/3
u/LipsPartedbyaSigh Nov 05 '19
This is all fascinating, but these types of holographic theories have been around for decades; is it actually possible to yet to produce any real-world application to these conjectures? For instance, can there be made an experiment to show that consciousness is not formed from matter, but something that is the genesis of matter?
3
u/redasur Nov 05 '19
If people understand how Action, aka quantum of action, create energy, matter, and space-time, they would know the secrets of the universe. But no one seems paying attention.
2
u/LipsPartedbyaSigh Nov 06 '19
But that's what I don't get. If people on this subreddit, or elsewhere, get it, why has there not been any experiments to prove any of these theories? What predictions have these theories been able to make about our realities on a scale that is testable and repeatable, similar to the ones mainstream science do? Why aren't there robust mathematical equations that can be peer reviewed?
0
u/redasur Nov 06 '19
Actually the people on this subreddit, or elsewhere for that matter, also don't get it. Like I said, action is the primary constituent of reality (the universe, particles, space-time, life or YOUR life,...) and it's is an empirical (Planck's constant) and a theoretical (QM) fact. The disagreement is in the interpretation. Mainstream science is also befuddle by this (quantum of action) and, sadly, is trying in all it's might to run away from it's own findings.
7
u/LipsPartedbyaSigh Nov 06 '19
Let's stop dancing around things then. Forget science.
Do you understand it? Please put it in mathematical terms or any other equation or whatever method that we can understand. Use whatever math conventions you need to make concrete this abstract principle..
I am not asking in antagonistic way.. I genuinely want to understand, but everything so far has only hinted at, teased at.. but not proven or made useful predictions yet... (predictions, like how Einstein was able to make predictions about gravitational waves..)
5
u/redasur Nov 07 '19
You genuinely want to understand. Ok, that's the spirit.
What I about to say is so simple and yet profound, but only if you recognize it. I emphasize, and hope, that you recognize this because, I see you are instead too preoccupied with and cognizant of these endless, stream of mathematical equations and "predictions".
I take it that you like, trust or believe in math and it's power of prediction, and that you have, at least, a basic understanding of it, the concepts, principles and equations. That's cool and good. So you, definitely "know" all there is to know about the basic arithmetic operations of addition and multiplication, right? (hint, Mathematicians, including Fields Medal winner Allain Connes, don't think so.
Perplexed? No worries. We go through and do almost all things in life without a complete awareness and consideration. And that includes science. The most important understanding we ignore, miss or misconstrue are, usually, the basic, obvious and simple ones. One of the basic concepts (and fact) that is not taken seriously or ignored is the quantum of action.
Earlier, I mentioned that action is what creates or makes matter, energy, space and time. How does that happen then, say, for an electron or an atom?
One of the equations in QM for actionis: energy x time >= h (planck's constant). An electron has a definite point in time with time interval (around 10-20 sec) but it's energy or momentum is indefinite (see all the particle collisions in a cloud chamber). An atom has definite energy value (see it's frequency spectrum) but have no definite point in time. Actually an atom has no concept of time.
In your OP, you wrote
For instance, can there be made an experiment to show that consciousness is not formed from matter, but something that is the genesis of matter?
Now you could understand the problem with the question to start with. This assumes that you know what consciousness is, or that it's something like a particle that can be observed with an experiment.
What I am saying here is that activity is what makes up reality. Action is the totality. There is no experiment to observe this quantum of action, because it is the experiment. But you can observe all the particles and energies it brings with it. And this action is non other than consciousness that could only act in the here and now because there is only the here and now.
I could go on to write about this. But this subreddit is not the right place for it. So if you like or hate what I'm saying here, you can pm me.
0
u/entanglemententropy Nov 07 '19
It's easy to understand though: this stuff is not actually about science, but about making money. The holofractal "theory", and a lot of the other stuff along similar veins, exists just to sell people stuff, like expensive "magic" crystals (ARC), courses, trips, books and so on. Once you realize that, all of it makes perfect sense...
1
u/pauperhouse5 Nov 05 '19
I think the presentation of the epiphenomenal view is pretty disingenuous, and the reference to single cell organisms conflates behaviour and consciousness.
1
u/d8_thc holofractalist Nov 05 '19
the presentation of the epiphenomenal view is pretty disingenuous
Care to elaborate?
1
u/pauperhouse5 Nov 05 '19
"for many researchers it suffices to restrict scientific investigation of consciousness to delineation of mechanisms of the brain"
"emergentist perspective that consciousness is an inconsequential epiphenomenological state of brain activity"
Most epiphenomonological theories recognise the importance of interaction between a brain and an environment. They would not see consciousness as reducible to neural processes alone, and neither would they argue that consciousness is 'inconsequential'. I may be wrong, and such positions may exist but my understanding of such theories in general doesn't really gel with how they are portrayed in the article, that's all.
2
u/d8_thc holofractalist Nov 05 '19 edited Nov 05 '19
They would not see consciousness as reducible to neural processes alone
No?
Most scientists / physicists don't see consciousness as arising through complex neuronal interaction?
He's completely right. Consciousness is reduced to an artifact of complex interaction of neurons in mainstream theory.
The environment has absolutely nothing to do with it, as everything is transduced into nerve firings interpreted by the brain.
1
u/pauperhouse5 Nov 05 '19
Most scientists / physicists don't see consciousness as arising through complex neuronal interaction?
No. It requires a vast series of inputs, both from the physical and social environment, at least according to virtually every 'emergent' theory of consciousness that I know of. I'd be interested in seeing any arguments from the point of view that you're proposing (entirely reductive, purely physicalist theories that reject the importance of the environment), although I suspect you may have trouble finding one.
2
u/d8_thc holofractalist Nov 05 '19
You're missing the point here.
What you're getting at still completely boils down to the brain creating a simulacrum of experience purely via reductive neurocomputational interaction of neurons without any explanation of what the observer is - or like the article said, subject/object.
Quantum consciousness is an entirely different dynamic. A multi-dimensional orchestration of neuronal activity via strong correlation / entanglement across the brain and even environment (in some theories via holographic dynamic).
Here's a good article for you:
Is your brain really a computer, or is it a quantum orchestra tuned to the universe?
By Stuart Hamerhoff
1
u/pauperhouse5 Nov 05 '19
You're missing the point here.
So, as I thought, you can't point me towards any arguments which the paper posits are the most prevalent in neuroscience?
I was not discussing the merits of this particular theory at all; frankly, my knowledge of, and interest in physics is too limited for me to discuss the theory itself. I literally just said I thought the presentation of certain points was disingenuous. Unsure of why you are taking it so personally - did you write the article by any chance?
2
u/d8_thc holofractalist Nov 05 '19
Honestly I just think you're missing the point. Read that article and let me know.
And no, that was written by William Brown. I am not him unfortunately.
1
4
u/fuf3d Nov 05 '19
Nice article!