Video : Fred Alan Wolf - Subjectivity may be more fundamental than material reality

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It does: What does it mean for part of the world to be nonphysical?

But you knew I was going to ask that.

~~ Paul

I am obviously speculating here - there is a small chance that I am wrong

Imagine a car - a machine whose behaviour is mainly governed my its mechanical structure and the chemistry of combustion. However, it would be useless if it were totally governed by these laws - it has controls so that we can use it.

OK, I imagine the brain is like that - mainly governed by the laws of physics, but because these have limited scope - as Alan Wolf pointed out - partially governed by our non-physical consciousness (NPC) - maybe through Stapp's scheme or something roughly similar. An NPC can only control so much, so if we have advanced Alzheimers, there is not much it can do - just as you can't do much with a car if the water pump has broken.

By analogy, your idea of consciousness would be more like a robot car without even a control panel, that would be absolutely useless!

The fundamental point is that the laws of physics are rather like the laws of the land - they forbid certain things, but they don't specify exactly what will happen.

Suppose for a moment that it was possible to simulate at the quantum level the time evolution of my brain as I sat in silent contemplation for half an hour. My guess is that the output would be an impossible blur of possibilities - no prediction worth having - so my brain is not (completely) governed by the laws of physics.

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by paqart

I did not like the way the interviewee presented himself in the video. He sounded less outlandish at the end than the beginning, but I think his perspective is too limited to understand the subject as well as I would like to find the theory compelling.

AP

Well, he is obviously coming to it from the point of view of physics - basically rubishing the idea that all the phenomena we discuss here "break the laws of physics" - rather they presumably operate in the space of possibilities that physics doesn't control.

David

[paqart]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Well, he is obviously coming to it from the point of view of physics - basically rubishing the idea that all the phenomena we discuss here "break the laws of physics" - rather they presumably operate in the space of possibilities that physics doesn't control.

David

The way I see it, the aborigines aren't far off, but the way Wolf presented it bothered me. This doesn't mean he was wrong, just that the presentation was awkward. This may be because, as you say, he is a physicist and uses that frame of reference to describe this material.

I have had a few dreams where I was shown the nature of the universe and how matter becomes animate (only with a spirit), and in those dreams, the difference between the non-material side of things and material objects was huge. Against my expectation, I was shown that non-material things are much more solid and permanent than what we call physical objects, despite how they appear from our positions in the physical universe.

While writing this I had a hard time coming up for a word to define the whatever it is that exits outside the physical universe. I call it the "mundus sublimis" in my book and my website, as opposed to the "mundus limus" that is the physical universe. I wanted to point out that the mundus limus is tiny. The entire created universe, everything that has ever been discovered or will be discovered in the physical universe, occupies a "space" no bigger than the equivalent of a small painting hanging on a big wall in a huge castle, on a big planet, in a universe that is indescribably larger than that, without boundaries, without limits. It does not grow or shrink, but is everything and always. Within that, our universe is less than an atom of a flyspeck.

My apologies to the skeptical readers here, who should feel free to skip this post to avoid queasiness. I guess the warning should have been at the start...

AP

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by paqart

Sorry, don't understand you here. Either that, or I do understand you and the first statement is incorrect and the second is unresponsive.

Does Dharma have access to the Akashic record so that he knows how he's doing in this life? You said one thing that made me think he doesn't but another that made me think he does.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Imagine a car - a machine whose behaviour is mainly governed my its mechanical structure and the chemistry of combustion. However, it would be useless if it were totally governed by these laws - it has controls so that we can use it.

OK, I imagine the brain is like that - mainly governed by the laws of physics, but because these have limited scope - as Alan Wolf pointed out - partially governed by our non-physical consciousness (NPC) - maybe through Stapp's scheme or something roughly similar. An NPC can only control so much, so if we have advanced Alzheimers, there is not much it can do - just as you can't do much with a car if the water pump has broken.

But what does it mean for consciousness to be nonphysical? I just don't get what it means for something to be nonphysical and yet interact with the physical.

By analogy, your idea of consciousness would be more like a robot car without even a control panel, that would be absolutely useless!

It would be like a robot car that can control itself.

Suppose for a moment that it was possible to simulate at the quantum level the time evolution of my brain as I sat in silent contemplation for half an hour. My guess is that the output would be an impossible blur of possibilities - no prediction worth having - so my brain is not (completely) governed by the laws of physics.

This depends on whether you treat the human as a quantum or classical system. If everything is treated quantumly, then everything is this impossible blur of superposed possibilities. Only if the human is treated classically can anything specific happen. And yet, oh how the immaterialists want the human mind not to be classical.

It's an enigma, don't you know.

~~ Paul

[Kim]

When I have needed it or had a strong desire for it, it has always come my way. The same is true of other non-monetary items.

Absolutely. I still think it has to do with having a generous spirit, but yes most religions teach that one's needs and heartfelt desires will be met, if you trust that they well. I know Christianity teaches that very clearly.

This may indicate some justification for believing "if you wish it, you will have it", but I think that is a very naive take on what is really going on. Strangely enough, I react about the same to people who ask me to dream up winning lottery numbers (and share them) and people who want me to prove psi. In both cases it is annoying, but more importantly, comes across as selfish on the part of the part of the person asking, not to mention ignorant.

OH I KNOW what you mean about people wanting proof, and wanting to play games. WE do not subject ourselves to parlor tricks. It's demeaning, even if it did work.

I have seen with my own eyes that some very bizarre wish fulfillment can be successful when the right conditions are present, but one of those conditions may be a level of understanding that most people haven't got, and cannot acquire by watching a video or reading a book. I've heard of spontaneous situations where this has happened during emergencies, but absent that factor, most people are too closed to the knowledge they need to accomplish this.

Exactly. That video reminded me of that old song... "Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz." That kind of thinking is just silly. To God, and/or the universe one car is as good as another as long as it runs... Just as a shirt from the dollar store is just as good as a designer blouse on that level. I don't think the spiritual powers WANT us to try to impress others with our possessions. It isn't the attitude of someone seeking enlightenment, or holiness. IT seemed just immoral.

I would like to say there is a moral component to this also, but don't think there is. People can accomplish amazing this, both charitable and selfish, just by focusing enough mental energy on the goal. The problem is that all things have a price. Using one's energy to satisfy selfish desires creates numerous debts that must eventually be repaid, and this is not painless. To my mind, it is always better to focus on one's needs, and never mind about the rest.

LOL obnoxious greedy people can sometimes be wealthy, but they are never happy. At least that is what I have observed. There are many ways to manipulate material gain, but happiness comes from giving, and benevolence.

In New York City, I attended Yoga classes with a man named Dharma Mittra. On one occasion I went with a friend of mine, who accidentally overpaid him for the lesson. As we were leaving, he realized his error, but wasn't too worried about a few dollars, so he told Dharma to forget about it. Dharma wouldn't have it. He asked us to wait, got the right change, and gave it to my friend. He said he didn't want to be forced to be reborn into another life just to repay the debt.

I like Dharma's attitude here, and am glad I had the opportunity to witness that scene as an example.

That is really nice.

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Does Dharma have access to the Akashic record so that he knows how he's doing in this life? You said one thing that made me think he doesn't but another that made me think he does.

~~ Paul

I wouldn't know, but expect that anyone who spent enough time meditating properly would have some idea, while conscious.

AP

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This depends on whether you treat the human as a quantum or classical system. If everything is treated quantumly, then everything is this impossible blur of superposed possibilities. Only if the human is treated classically can anything specific happen. And yet, oh how the immaterialists want the human mind not to be classical.

~~ Paul

Well, everything is a quantum system ultimately, but yes, if the probabilities were hugely peaked on one outcome (the classical case) then that would be true - but I would guess they are not, synapses and microtubules are pretty small structures.

But what does it mean for consciousness to be nonphysical?

It means something which is real but non-physical - a physical theory, a maths theorem, every individual's consciousness (including animals) - all these would be examples. The consciousneses interact with the physical world by making QM observations, or maybe other similar mechanisms.

I stress again - I am speculating, but I hope it is reasonably plausible.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Well, everything is a quantum system ultimately, but yes, if the probabilities were hugely peaked on one outcome (the classical case) then that would be true - but I would guess they are not, synapses and microtubules are pretty small structures.

I don't think they are small enough.

It means something which is real but non-physical - a physical theory, a maths theorem, every individual's consciousness (including animals) - all these would be examples. The consciousneses interact with the physical world by making QM observations, or maybe other similar mechanisms.

I don't really see any reason to consider these nonphysical, except in the sense that a concept is nonphysical. And even then, we never see a concept by itself.

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by paqart

As for the idea that everything is a dream of God, it is unprovable from our common perspective, but I think it is somewhat different from that. I've had dreams where I saw the record of how the universe was created by God, and it was active, rather than passive, as the word "dream" implies. This assumes that the dreams were accurate, but I'm prepared to accept they are at least as legitimate as any other unprovable theory out there.

Well I don't think Fred Alan Wolf meant 'God' in any traditional religious sense .... physicists sometimes use the word 'God' to mean laws behind creation like Einstein's 'God doesn't play dice' ... but Einstein was wrong... the laws (or God) seems to play dice which disturbs both the religious (who want an eternal unchanging, all knowing God/designer) and materialists who want eternal unchanging scientific laws Neither traditional religion or traditional, classical science seems correct ..... why should we trust either tradition?

There are various solutions ... for example Sheldrake's type of solution is that scientific laws evolve too.

I did not like the way the interviewee presented himself in the video. He sounded less outlandish at the end than the beginning, but I think his perspective is too limited to understand the subject as well as I would like to find the theory compelling.

Don't be put off by Fred's sometimes outlandish personality, at the beginning he is mocking phyisicists to some extent who refuse to consider philosophical consequences .... he understands the mathematics like other physicists do, not that anyone really understands or agrees what QM means ... at least yet ... I think he is speculating that there is a subjective like quality at the root of quantum physics ....'shimmering potentialities' (as Heisenberg put it) exist before actualizing into material like existence... speculating these might have associations with subjecitivity in nature (or dreams) is possibly less far fetched than a many (material only) worlds interpretation.