You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY - NARCISSISM AT ITS WORSE.
I consider the idea of a universal Consciousness or mind of the nature etc to be misconceptions/misinterpretations. So far technological development has given the best examples/anecdotes/allegories to explain reality. I tend to think of this mind/Consciousness/nature of universe as a smart contract.
Also the best way to describe reality IMHO is to call it a dictionary. Each word derives the meaning from a set of other words which derive their meanings from other sets of words..................ad infinitum.
Also some valuable read: https://phys.org/news/2008-08-entanglement-classical.html
I'd like to know what you guys think about it.
Actually, what you are talking about here is No1 on the 7 principles of reality that these quantum physicists have come up with.
No1; Information; Everything is information and meaning is what a symbol stands for, either by itself, such as a cube. A cube is a cube and stands for itself.
A circle is a circle and stands for itself. Meaning can also be what we ourselves give meaning. Like a heart shape for example. This shape is not in nature, we designed it, and gave meaning to it. This is where consciousness comes in.
A circle or a cube has a definition which are defined by other definitions. Here is a quote I deeply resonate with.:
My complete answer to the late 19th century question
‘‘what is electrodynamics trying to tell us’’ would simply be
this:
Fields in empty space have physical reality; the
medium that supports them does not.
Having thus removed the mystery from electrodynamics, let
me immediately do the same for quantum mechanics:
Correlations have physical reality; that which
they correlate does not.
The first proposition probably sounded as bizarre to most late
19th century physicists as the second sounds to us today; I
expect that the second will sound as boringly obvious to late
21st century physicists as the first sounds to us today.
And that’s all there is to it. The rest is commentary.
The most important part is "Correlations have physical reality; that which
they correlate does not." This is why I said that the reality is like a dictionary. No words exist; just the relationships.
This line of thinking is further elaborated in the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra. It can be difficult to wrap your head around. But please give it a read.
http://diamond-sutra.com/read-the-diamond-sutra-here/diamond-sutra-chapter-1/
About shape not being in the nature and being a conscious design: I think of it more as perceptions given labels by the mind. It's naming constellations. It's more of a labeling our perceptions IMHO.
Thanks for the info. I will give the diamond-sutra a read. I am all for expanding my knowledge and understanding where ever that may come from. I seek answers and truth that is my motivation. Cheers!
Glad to help. Here is one of the greatest QM presentations I've seen. The speaker is actually an AI and robotics researcher at the NASA who had also worked in Google.