Thumbs up, Sawfish. You are a gentleman.

See the cartoon.

[www.bl.uk]#

Gender roles

Ha! That's a good one, Knygatin.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson write:
>
> > Sawfish, did you want a discussion of the
> > "when"
> > > of the cosmos?
>
>
> To which Sawfish replied:
>
> > Sure, I would like that. :^)
>
> OK. I would ask anyone interested to read the
> article from Discover Magazine here:
>
> [www.discovermagazine.com]-
> biocentric-universe-theory-life-creates-time-space
> -and-the-cosmos-itself
>
> This says to me that how you date the age of the
> universe is not so straightforward a topic as it
> would seem. It's tricky.
>
> The conventional way of dating the age of the
> universe, and one with which I have no problem if
> the necessary qualification is included, deals
> with starlight, etc. and gives us something
> approaching 14 billion years. Likewise, the
> planet earth is 4.5 billion years old.
>
> The catch is that there were (on the usual
> assumption) no observers present that far back --
> no human beings or indeed any life at all. And
> Lanza and Berman point out that a phenomenal
> cosmos requires observers. When we imagine what
> "the universe" looked like before observers, we
> are imagining something being beheld by beings
> identical with ourselves, and we assume that XYZ
> is what they "would have" seen. But there were no
> observers, no human ones anyway.
>
> Physicist John Wheeler's thought is helpful here.
> The universe is irreducibly participatory. But we
> assume that, for billions of years, there were no
> consciousnesses that could exercise this
> participatory function.
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> er#Participatory_Anthropic_Principle
>
> So... how old is the universe? Evidently we can
> reckon it in one way and say about 14 billion
> years. But then, in what sense did time itself
> exist -- as a measure of whatever there "was"
> prior to the participatory universe? Is that
> actually a solecism?
>
> I would really ask anyone here to read the Lanza
> and Berman article, and the Wikipedia bit about
> Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle,
> before responding, if you don't mind.
>
>
> OK?
>
> In the meantime, if someone asks me in an ordinary
> context how old the universe is, I'm probably
> going to say 14 billion years while feeling a bit
> of mental reservation. Because actually the
> phenomenal universe must be a whole lot younger
> than that.
>
> Now, how far back do we have to go to find
> consciousnesses capable of Wheeler's
> "participation"? Maybe the smartest dinosaurs??
> I have my doubts.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> One clue might be to date stone remains that
> appear to be connected with star observation and
> timekeeping as Stonehenge is often said to be, or
> the Göbekli Tepe site in Turkey, or the like.
> But that's not going to give us millions or
> billions of years in the past.
>
>
> I would appreciate it if anyone spotting fallacies
> in my information or logic would point them out.


Does anyone want to read that article from Discover -- a secular magazine focusing on science? It does seem to me thought-provoking!

I will read the article now, Dale. It certainly does sound intriguing.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re the article:

"From this point of view, life — particularly consciousness — creates the universe, and the universe could not exist without us."

If accurate this makes "us" God.

I'll have to stew about the article a great deal but...

There's another, less human-centric, way to view quantum mechanics, and to me it implies not that there's any magic in observation, but rather than observation affecting the phenomenon, what observation is doing is "freezing" in a *subjective* snapshot one of infinitely possible outcomes. When one manifestation of an observable phenomenon is, in fact, observed, it was one of an infinite number of possibilities, the remainder of which *still* exist, but they are unobserved, un-noted by us, and hence do not exist so far as we're concerned.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it... ;^)

I'll also note at this time that contemplating reality in this fashion must certainly be the hallmark of a decadent society, for the simple reason that whatever the nature of reality might be, your only task is to survive within it long enough to reproduce. There's nothing more, really, that you need to know about reality.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....
> There's another, less human-centric, way to view
> quantum mechanics, and to me it implies not that
> there's any magic in observation, but rather than
> observation affecting the phenomenon, what
> observation is doing is "freezing" in a
> *subjective* snapshot one of infinitely possible
> outcomes. When one manifestation of an observable
> phenomenon is, in fact, observed, it was one of an
> infinite number of possibilities, the remainder of
> which *still* exist, but they are unobserved,
> un-noted by us, and hence do not exist so far as
> we're concerned.
>
> So put that in your pipe and smoke it... ;^)
>
>

While I agree with the possibility of the consciousness creating the Universe, in some way, I also agree with the above perspective. All the stars, and other cosmic phenomena, are these infinite outcomes. We live by one of these stars, and only see what's going on in our tiny neighborhood. Infinite varieties are meanwhile playing out on the other stars, but we can't see it. And even if there is not other life, as we define life, there is still colors, movement, activity, crumbling, fluidity, re-arrangements, spectacular panoramas and events! Are these registered somewhere in the unconscious depths of our souls?

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> We live by one of these stars,
> and only see what's going on in our own tiny
> neighborhood. Infinite varieties are meanwhile
> playing out on the other stars, but we can't see it.
> ... colors, movement, activity, crumbling, fluidity, re-arrangements,
> spectacular panoramas and events!
>
> Are these registered somewhere in the unconscious depths of our souls?
>

Clark Ashton Smith revealed several accounts of this in his poetry and prose.

In astrology the specific energy constellations of the positions of the heavenly bodies (not just the planets, but the stars even!) are observed to reflect the energy compositions of events on Earth and also in ourselves as individuals.

In macrocosm and microcosm similar structures are observed. The atom and its circling electrons have been compared to the stars and their circling planets. In that case our bodies may be walking giant cosmoses, our skins subtly glittering with tiny stars. The thought humbly restrains me from further personal complaints.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There's a fine essay by Bill Meyers that describes
> a painting of a forest scene that he remembered
> from his younger years; there's a sort of aisle
> down through the trees with light at the end of it
> -- !
>
> Email me if you'd like me to scan Meyers' short
> essay for you. (That offer stands for the next
> few days for anyone else here too.)

I haven't checked my email in a while. But thanks for the files.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In that case our bodies may be walking
> giant cosmoses, our skins subtly glittering with
> tiny stars.


"Bow down: I am the emperor of dreams;" ... indeed!

WRT to the quantum universe, a year or two ago there was a very well done mini-series called "Devs". I watched it with eager anticipation and the fact of the matter is that I seldom watch TV series, feeling that the dramatic arc is often compromised in favor of character development. Too, there can be problems with credibility due to plot manipulation to keep central characters alive for future episodes.

Too much deus ex mechina, often.

This series dodges most of these complaints and offers as compensation a plot that involves an attempt to recapture the past and track a difference subsequent path thru the future thru means of manipulation of the multiple strands of parallel quantum existences using software.

To me, 85% of the series (6 episodes?) was extremely thought provoking in terms of conceptualizing and exploring the structure of the cosmos as it was implied in the series.

I'm aware that The Matrix did something like this (not quantum, but a novel explanation of reality) but this is a far more tantalizing mental problem, handled much better. Whereas Matrix was a sort of a standard hero film with a novel conceptual twist, Devs is something along the lines of a combination of Ahab and Faustus--deeply, deeply flawed central character.

It will take a while to watch it, but it was worth it to me. However, since I watched it weekly, as it came out I was afforded time to think about the central concept, as it was expanded with each episode. This *may* have helped my appreciation of the positive aspects.

The writer/director. Alex Garland, did several very novel films: Ex Machina, Annihilation. Wrote 28 Days Later, and Sunshine.


[en.wikipedia.org]

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Devs sounds interesting. There is another film similar to The Matrix, called Inception, though I have not seen it.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Devs sounds interesting. There is another film
> similar to The Matrix, called Inception, though I
> have not seen it.


Many people think highly of it, and I tried to like it, but it didn't click for me.

Devs is "concept driven", does not rely on having bank-able actors like DiCaprio.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote: (Post lifted from the Fritz Leiber thread.)
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... My wife returned from a
> multi-city trip by air, the day before yesterday,
> and we are going into semi-quarantine, although
> we're vaccinated. ...

Have you suffered any noticeable side-effects from the shot? Such as nerve injuries in the arm?