Okay, granted that both are different, but in principle the question remains, did something exist before it is discovered? The implication of discovery means that something has to have existed before. Invention implies that something never existed before. Maths is neither, it’s a cognitive process; at its most basic, you don’t discover nor invent “2” when you take “1” and add another “1”. Maths through cognition naturally means that you simply “arrive” at your answer. “2” is always there and so is “3” and so on to infinity.

 

How's your quantum mechanics?

 

It's not you I'm dismissing, it's your crazy idea that all of the great things that have been achieved by everyone through history who'd had an education happened either by happy accident, or in spite of the fact that they'd had an education, and conversely, that it's only as a result of being unfairly held back by a pro-education mafia that so many of the people who've lacked an education through the ages have ended up leading mundane and relatively unfulfilled lives. Grow up. None of us here are going to pretend that access to a decent education is or always has been entirely fair, or that there haven't been a few extremely successful people over the years who managed to get where they did with only quite a basic education. As with so many things though, they're the exception that prove the rule, and only serve to undermine your loony theory, not support it.

 

The 'discovered or invented' question has been debated by philosophers and mathematicians for thousands of years with no firm conclusions. The Snet intelligentsia probably won't get a handle on it either, other than reasoning it's perhaps a combination of both and getting out of it that way.

 

The Renaissance, Enlightenment and technological revolution of the 20th century bring us closer to answers and at a much greater velocity and besides, iron sharpens iron. In these exchanges I tend to learn from people like yourself, Hodgy, Jonc and Mark. Also, it's fun and keeps our minds occupied as we wade through the superficial and the mundane.

As an aside, the more I study quantum mechanics and the nature of consciousness, the more concrete my faith in an afterlife becomes.

 

Now there's a whole new field of fun When (simplistically) 2+2 doesn't equal 4, if equals 3.99999999996

 

Would the universe exist if consciousness didn't?

 

That's taking the tree falling over in the forest to it's logical extreme

Interesting train of thought though, what would the universe be like if it was devoid of all consciousness.

 

The question is whether existence is dependent on experience, and whether "conscious observation" is the only kind of experience which exists.

 

John Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is worth a google.

 

Is the world still here after you've come round

I think we know the answer

 

By making several assumptions, yes.

 

John Wheelers's experiments create more questions than answers; mind experiments are always fascinating though.

The consciousness of what is an apt question too. We tend to think of consciousness as that possessed by humans and animals. Yet in an all life extinction episode, where all sentient beings are extinguished, do the rituals of an ant then count as consciousness? Does its limited awareness maintain the existence of the universe in its entirety or just the ant’s perception of it?

 

What's your definition of consciousness, Paben? John Polkinghorne says that humans are distinct from animals because we are "conscious of consciousness" and this resonates with me. Whilst we can't dismiss entirely an ants capacity for self-awareness, I think we can say with a particularly high degree of certainty that they do not offer (to borrow from Carl Sagan) a way for the universe to know itself. Perhaps, should I make a concession, if ants were the only living creatures in the whole universe, the universe would be of a very simple structure as its complexities would be unobserved. Of course our universe was briefly simple; who observed the very early universe?

 

Again some very interesting mental gymnastics. Please show me where I've said any of that!!!!

You can't... because I haven't.... this is all happening inside your head and is in fact your "loony theory".

Like I said... most people are stupid... and you're not helping me change my opinion about that.

 

And here you are again, a self-obsessed fantasist and fool with opinions to match. You have the funny idea that others care what you think: they don't.

 

Nope... another miss... good thing you're not a real life sniper... because you'd be crap at that too.

I always find it amusing how the things people write about me actually apply to themselves... sure there was some bloke that they named that sort of thing after.

 

Its a bit like that old question:-
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Of course we all know the real answer. It was the **** that came first when he laid the chicken.

 

The egg came first within which a mutated junglefowl gradually became modern chicken. So there.

 

So if we go further say for bacteria, who "consciousness" goes so far as it only reacts to its immediate surroundings the universe would be extremely small and simple and if we took it further still to there being no living organism in the universe, there would be no universe? If the universe exists because of consciousness, what about things we're are not conscious of? For example, we are not aware or conscious of our body carrying oxygen in our blood, our liver moderating the level of glucose our bodies, etc . It doesn't mean these extremely complex and finely balanced bodily functions do not exist because we are not conscious of it. Maybe this is the subconscious, which begs the question what is the subconscious universe, if such a thing exists?

 

If you invoke the idea of mind experiments then here's one. Humans, before their demise, set up an array of cameras to explore and record the universe. The surviving ants have a much reduced view of the universe but the non conscious camera array surely records what the extinct humans would have seen. An evolving intelligent species runs the recordings. Would they see only ant universe, as ants were the only conscious creature?

 

Oh dear, textbook gaslighting. (Attempt to) wear your perceived opponents down with a barrage of off-the-wall and/or self-contradictory claims and arguments, in the hope that they'll eventually start questioning the logic of their own arguments and/or their own sanity. A technique much-favoured by one Donald J. Trump (although he's very likely too ill-educated to be aware of its name), and countless other borderline sociopaths all through history.

What would it take for you to make peace enough with the world to ease up on your defensiveness and really start dealing with whatever it is that's eating you up inside?

 

Bacteria are not conscious, bacteria do not possess a nervous system.

Depends upon to whom you are speaking. Wheeler suggests that only that which is observed exists; if we accept this hypothesis, a theist might suggest that a constant observer sustains a universe otherwise devoid of consciousness whilst an atheist would say that that universe simply didn't exist.

Dunno.

 

Nope. No idea.

 

Of course humans can detect (observe) cosmic microwave background, but only because we have evolved sufficiently to be able to do so. That really does present a chicken and the egg scenario. Unless you're a theist.

 

I’ll take a shot. I would say that the evolving species will only see in those recordings of which it can understand at that time. If the universe is a recording, we as an evolving species start to unravel more of its mysteries of the recording as our intelligence advances. For example, we know much more now of the 14billion year old universe (that we know of!) than what Galileo knew during his time.

However, there is more to it, if there is no recording, then could the universe be in all the probable states it could be in until the point it is being observed/recorded?

 

Schrödinger says yes. I think.

 

Exactly, Schrödinger Cat paradox explains that the cat locked in the box with a radioactively triggered poison could be in two probable states, alive and dead depending on whether radiation is detected. (But then I always thought that the cat is always conscious to observe of its own state if it is alive). It’s absurd to think that the cat be both alive and dead at the same time, but there is an experiment that can prove that this is possible. This involves firing a single atom one at a time through two slits to hit a sensor behind the slits. When the atoms are observed whilst passing through the slits, the atoms behave as we would expect, the atoms pass through the slits and leaves its mark on the sensor behind as two slits. However, when don’t observe the atoms they leave multiple slits on the sensor. Scientists believes it is possible for the atoms to be in two states, a particle and a wave. When it’s observed the atom behaves as a particle and when not observed it’s in wave form. It didn’t matter where and when you observed the atom, before the slits, after the slits, the atom just seems to “know” when it is being observed and behaved accordingly!! Consciousness is defined as being aware and responding to its environment and here we have an atom doing just that!! It’s a mind f*ck!!

 

If two totally unrelated creatures separately view and photograph the same thing (a distant galaxy or deserted building for instance) why are the photos identical rather than individual interpretations?

 

Who says they are?