An electron is a posit?

it could mean a universe is bound to spawn consciousness since consciousness is required to make it manifest. That since the only probable universes would be ones with conscious things in them, consciousness is a must, not a miracle.

Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. In its most radical version, the Anthropic Principle asserts that "intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

This is what is suggested by The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, which says that

It is fascinating how physics lead into materialism and is now leading out of it again. Maybe it's gone clean through! The Cosmological Anthropic Principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM both clearly suggest that Mind or Consciousness is fundamental to reality. Of course knowing what that means is really difficult. But again, this is where the models suggested by various schools of idealist philosophy are relevant. These ideas might sound radical in the 20th Century, but they would not be at all that outlandish in the context of Platonic cosmology. 'Everything old is new again'.

What would be really useful and clarifying would be to consider the question, what is it that idealism implies is true about the dependence of objects on consciousness. I mean implications "in the concrete" as G. E. Moore put it.

Does, for example, idealism imply that before there was mind or consciousness in the universe as far as we know there was, that there were no stars in the universe, which astronomers and astrophysicists tell us there were?

It seems to me that only by asking a question like that can we know just what we are talking about when someone says that "consciousness is fundamental to reality". But unless a straight answer is given to that question, I don't understand what the person who says that consciousness is fundamental to reality means by that. I wonder, indeed, how many qm scientists, however idealistic (in the philosophical sense) think that the existence of stars does not predate the existence of persons? I don't think you would find a lot, to say the least. It is all very well talking about these matters in the abstract, but the crunch comes when you are forced to talk about them in the concrete. Then you have to confront the question, "What do I really mean by that?"

Very true, a good question and I thank you for it. These are of course difficult and profound questions to contemplate. I can see only certain aspects of the larger picture. You find a piece here, a piece there, and gradually build a picture. But I don't start from the premise that the idealist depiction of the matter is obviously wrong, which many do in this scientific age. Starting with Pythagoras and Plato, and continuing through Augustine, Aquinas and Scholastic Realism, I am trying to understand what the idealist - or actually the 'realist' in traditional philosophy - says about it. I did not receive a classical education, do not know Plato or the classics very well, so I am belatedly reading up on it. (Currently reading The Great Chain of Being by Arthur Lovejoy.)



Well - not as I understand it. I think this is an understandable reaction, but I don't think it is accurate. I think Kant, for example, was a realist. I don't think that Kant believed that the Universe was 'all in the mind'. But my understanding of Kant - and again, my reading is very patchy - is that the universe, as it exists in itself, is unknowable to us. Our knowledge of it is dependent (among other things) upon the primary intuitions of space and time, which are very much the operation of the human intellect. And of course, it is quite impossible to conceive of the universe without space and time. So our knowledge is not, if you like, 'perfectly objective', even if it is of 'brute realities' like stars and planets.



Very true. I do hope to be able to venture some further answers on these questions as the various dialogs progress. But as for 'straight answer' - one thing we need to recognize is that questions about the nature of consciousness (or intelligence, or awareness, or whichever of the somewhat related terms we are considering) are of a different order to questions about states of affairs in the natural world. And this is why the natural scientist will generally attempt to declare them meaningless. They are not amendable to the scientific method, in the same way that the questions of physics or cosmology are, because in this case, we are not apart from that which we seek to know. So perhaps whatever answer we seek to provide must always be somewhat elliptical. But I will keep trying.

Find a quote, from one of the philosophers in the various schools of idealistic philosophy, that states that the stars did not exist before there were minds. I bet there aren't any.

But do idealists say that? That is the whole point of this conversation. I joined this forum on March 9, 2009 and ever since then, I have noticed that you believe that idealist say that 'stars exist in the mind'. I have never agreed that this is what idealism means in the first place. I don't think it does mean that. It is something considerably more subtle than that. I have tried to explain it, to the best of my ability anyway, on a number of occasions. OK, maybe I don't understand it either, and maybe my explanations are incorrect, but in any case, I don't think I am getting through. Let's see what someone else has to say.

well perhaps, then, you might say a few words about your view of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. This is one of the items that I referred to in support of the idea that 'consciousness is fundamental'. Do you agree that it supports this proposition, or not?

When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness

I don't know enough about QM to venture to discuss it. That is hard stuff, and not something an amateur can hold any informed opinion about (IMO). I am just pointing out that I don't think that any QM scientist would hold that people predate stars. And I doubt very much that QM implies that. But, if it did, I would have strong doubts about QM. Wouldn't you?

I agree it is difficult. But what do you say about the quote I provided yesterday, by Eugene Wigner, who won the Nobel for nuclear physics:

What does "reference to consciousness" mean, though? Any idea? I don't have any idea what it means. People who win Nobel prizes in physics don't have to be philosophers. They don't even have to think clearly about anything except physics. The question remains: do people predate stars or not?

The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment

But the world-view painted by QM is completely different from the Newtonian world view.

That's the crazy thing about physics... nobody wanted to believe Einstein, but they didn't have much choice, he could prove his theories.

Obviously, people do not pre-date stars. But this does not invalidate idealism. Nor does it have any bearing on Wigner's quote.

.

I think it was Thoms Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', or was it Schopenhaer, who said something like all great truths go through the stages of first being ridiculed, then being criticized, then finally ending up as dogma.

As for the QM scientists, most of the working scientists don't say anything about the philosophical implications of QM. It is generally regarded as a big embarrasment.

To account for the demonstrated facts, quantum theory tells us that an observation of one object can instantaneously influence the behavior of another greatly distant object--even if no physical force connects the two. Einstein rejected such influences as "spooky interactions," but they have now been demonstrated to exist. Quantum theory also tells us that observing an object to be someplace causes it to be there. For example, according to quantum theory, an object can be in two, or many, places at once--even far distant places. Its existence at the particular place it happens to be found becomes an actuality only upon its (conscious) observation.