Unified Field

[SLushhYYY]

Okay, I'll break this up set by step, if you care to investigate on my chosen topic of discussion please refute with any discoveries of faulty logic.

The universe, or nature for those who cant comprehend the universe, is the product of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and other types of physics related to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the study of the physics dealing with nature at the atomic level. I hope most are already aware of this.

All these features of quantum mechanics, whether they be atomic physics, nuclear physics, quantum electrodynamics etc.. are all different features of nature, which all behave by their own unique predetermined (or determined) physical laws.

Features of nature, act in accordance to their own laws. Whether that be nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, human life, bacterial life, electronics, electrons, atoms, light, thermodynamics, computer science etc. There is an underlying "consciousness" which by things exist and act accordingly to themselves.

Just as we as humans portray our ability to see and act as humans through our ability to be "conscious" so goes the same for electrons. The pauli exclusion principle is a prime example of this, which states that no 2 fermions ( ie. electrons) may occupy the same energy level (atomic state). Fermions are in constant interaction with each other through some sort of "conscious" understanding. Without this underlying "understanding" how would an electron behave? With no laws? It would do nothing, in essence.

The proposition is, consciousness is a field. Not just any field however, it is a field of grand unification between all aspects of nature. It is the core of what is everything, it is why nature behaves. It is why anything "happens". Without fundamental laws of nature, nothing would be.

Opinions?

 

[Polaris]

Interesting.

I'm just wondering what you mean by 'conscious understanding' between fermions? Are these terms accepted in the physics field? (<----oops, pun). Just curious.

Aren't electrons in constant interaction through electromagnetic forces? Could electromagnetic forces be said to represent 'consciousness'?

Excuse my ignorance....I would very much like your more knowledgeable elaborations.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Opinions?

Yes (though it extends beyond quantum mechanics into as of yet unknown physics).

Now, in that context...

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrBDcQq2DM

^Serious question.

Also, can you apply a hierarchical structure to the whole mess and produce at least a mental model of infinite regress (universes inside of atoms and such)? What might it look like? Where are its borders?

 

[Coolydudey]

You could explain everything with consciousness, not to say that it is the correct thing to do, just possible.

 

[SLushhYYY]

Consciousness isnt the right word, the phrasing is too confusing for most to understand.

 

[walfin]

This is like saying the number 1 is conscious because it does something when added to another number.

 

[SLushhYYY]

This is like saying the number 1 is conscious because it does something when added to another number.

The number 1 is not a fundamental aspect of nature. It exists because of our perception. Unless you want to discuss the positive +1 charge of a hydrogen atom that is aware of its ability to bond with oxygen to form water, or whatever else nature feels like doing.

Try again.

 

[walfin]

The number 1 is not a fundamental aspect of nature. It exists because of our perception. Unless you want to discuss the positive +1 charge of a hydrogen atom that is aware of its ability to bond with oxygen to form water, or whatever else nature feels like doing.

Try again.

How do you know the hydrogen atom doesn't exist (at least exist as we know it) because of our perception?

Remember this? Twin particles.

We don't understand particles very much yet.

In any case, you're essentially claiming that something has "consciousness" if it does something. The number 1 also does something, in a system (either the system of real numbers, or complex numbers or whatever).

I wouldn't say a little packet of energy somewhere has any "consciousness" at all; it's like saying your red blood cell is conscious just because you are (which from a biological perspective seems rather silly; it doesn't even have a nucleus).

 

[SLushhYYY]

That article entitled "Twin particles" would matter if we could actually determine the position of a particle in space. Remember that a certainty in position corresponds to an infinite uncertainty in momentum, whereby particles can pop in and out of space, across the universe etc.

Im claiming that just as humans obey by their laws, just as planets, stars, glaxies abide by their own laws, so does the electron. So does the photon, so does the electromagnetic force. Everything works in accordance with each other, everything is connected based off of the awareness of the fermions to abide by the pauli exclusion principle. The universe alone is made up of ALL the complicated factors of nature, yet it too abides by the theory of inflation, it too abides by black holes, and quantum fluctuations. What provokes any of this to happen? The only reason matter even exists, is because of the higgs field. We don't even know what dark matter, or energy is. Yet at the deepest level, everything in existence in the universe is uniformly composed of the underlying foundation of existence. There is a unified field. Therefore it must be a field capable of allowing anything to exist, in a way time, but the field allows for intelligence to come about.

I find it of extreme illogic to suppose that intelligence did not exist if no humans or aliens existed. Its just another natural selfish human viewpoint.

 

[GodOfOrder]

If I interpret you correctly, your definition of consciousness means reactiveness?

Thus if one fermion has a certain energy state, no other may have that same state. Therefore, if one changes, they all must change, thus making the universe cohesive.

This does not imply any sort of comprehension, nor does it imply an awareness of its results, but merely an awareness of itself. So it is therefore internally conscious, but it can not be said if it is conscious or aware of anything else.

 

[Architect]

The argument follows a similar pattern to other arguments that try to hand wave consciousness from physics, with similar results.


Start out with something that is reasonable and true, but actually doesn't say a lot

All these features of quantum mechanics, whether they be atomic physics, nuclear physics, quantum electrodynamics etc.. are all different features of nature, which all behave by their own unique predetermined (or determined) physical laws.

Now the pitcher gets warmed up ...

Features of nature, act in accordance to their own laws. Whether that be nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, human life, bacterial life, electronics, electrons, atoms, light, thermodynamics, computer science etc.

And then the throw where we break from reality!

There is an underlying "consciousness" which by things exist and act accordingly to themselves.

Logically there's a number of fallacies here I suspect but "non sequitur" will do.

Then we go into the inning. At this point we're detached from reality and into a meta-physics, hera-physics composing/decomposing triptych. The results should be judged best by the warp and weft of its fantastical nature

Just as we as humans portray our ability to see and act as humans through our ability to be "conscious" so goes the same for electrons. The pauli exclusion principle is a prime example of this, which states that no 2 fermions ( ie. electrons) may occupy the same energy level (atomic state). Fermions are in constant interaction with each other through some sort of "conscious" understanding. Without this underlying "understanding" how would an electron behave? With no laws? It would do nothing, in essence.

The wind down usually is overly declarative and predictable, a let-down after the walk through Oz that came before. Minus points if attempting to tie back into physics.

 

[SLushhYYY]

The wind down usually is overly declarative and predictable, a let-down after the walk through Oz that came before. Minus points if attempting to tie back into physics.

I'm in philosophy bruh, let me be crazy.

Obviously none of this is fact. But its a different way to look at it, I find it pretty logical, im just using the wrong words.

But im curious, do you find string theory to be a delusional view?

 

[Architect]

I'm in philosophy bruh, let me be crazy.

I'm on it

But im curious, do you find string theory to be a delusional view?

I actually don't know much about string theory. My understanding is that it's not good enough to be a theory, I like the saying "It's not even wrong".

 

[Vrecknidj]

The universe ... is the product of the interpretation of quantum mechanics...

No.

 

[SLushhYYY]

No.

What a deep, thought provoking response. Clearly you must be right, I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you during your quest to respond to this thread.

I actually don't know much about string theory. My understanding is that it's not good enough to be a theory, I like the saying "It's not even wrong".

We're incapable of building large enough accelerators to obtain an energy high enough to expose the strings. Just as 100 years ago, particle physics hardly existed. One day we'll eventually find out. But surely, all the theories are not right.

 

[Vrecknidj]

What a deep, thought provoking response. Clearly you must be right, I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you during your quest to respond to this thread.

No problem.

I was just being terse. No insult was intended.

Dave

 

[SLushhYYY]

No problem.

I was just being terse. No insult was intended.

Dave

Why do you say "no" when the quantum world essentially dictates everything?

 

[Vrecknidj]

Why do you say "no" when the quantum world essentially dictates everything?

So, I was responding ONLY to this paragraph:

The universe, or nature for those who cant comprehend the universe, is the product of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and other types of physics related to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the study of the physics dealing with nature at the atomic level. I hope most are already aware of this.

And, in particular, I excerpted a portion of the sentence without qualifiers...

The universe ... is the product of the interpretation of quantum mechanics...

There are a few other things, so, I'll continue...

The universe, or nature for those who cant comprehend the universe, is the product of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and other types of physics related to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the study of the physics dealing with nature at the atomic level. I hope most are already aware of this.

I'm not sure what it means to comprehend the universe, nor why you (or anyone else) would be a suitable judge of this, the universe is a pretty big thing, after all. But, I also find it a categorical error to equate the universe with nature.

The universe, or nature for those who cant comprehend the universe, is the product of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and other types of physics related to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the study of the physics dealing with nature at the atomic level. I hope most are already aware of this.

Actually, it's not at all clear that "the universe is the product of physics." It's entirely possible, for instance, that the laws of nature came into being while the universe came into being. It's entirely possible that the universe is, as it were, a bubble having arisen from other universes or a multiverse, or something else, and it's not clear that the physics we're familiar with is anything like the rules that gave rise to our universe. There are, also, other competing possibilities.