Permit me a brief anecdote before descending into the meat of the matter.
You may recall a certain 'Marshall McLuhan' who achieved his fifteen minutes of fame in the late sixties- one of the plethora of gurus who sprouted out of that fertile era like a field of april mushrooms.
McLuhan achieved his brief moment of glory with a small tome titled: "The medium is the message"- the essence of which was that he put everything back to front; ascerted that the 'effect was the cause' of everything. At the height of his fame he 'did lunch' at a topless restaurent with that incomparable recorder of the era Tom Wolfe, and a couple of academics.
During lunch McLuhan was wont to regale his companions with an ongoing commentary on their situation and surround. He would say things like:"That fish is about to eat you", as Tom was about to tuck into his Barramundi; and "Those waitresses breasts are all looking at me"
When Mcluhan left for a toilet break, Wolfe and his companions looked at each other with the same unspoken question leaping from each of their minds: "WHAT IF HE"S RIGHT"???
It has since become the same criteria I apply to all my mentations when confronted with ideas that dont conform to accepted theory; it was the same criteria I applied to your response to my initial question on this board Anthony.
You stated:"According to the Copenhagen interpretation.., "reality" is brought into existence by the 'act of observation'..,and..,"The only real debate particle physicist have is the nature of the 'observer'.., many consider that by observer we really mean 'consciousness'.
I would suggest that in order to postulate these concepts with any authority we have to investigate when both the first 'observer' came into being; and when 'consciousness' itself first infiltrated the universe at large. To do this we have to venture way back beyond that involuntary ejaculation we refer to coyly as 'the big bang'..,into those sleeping aeons of not quite 'nothingness'..;not quite nothingness because in that state of sublime indolence there must have been the components of all that now exist. I would designate this state as 'the great unconsciousness', but I would qualify its properties.
It had 'aspirations'...,those 'sleeping aeons' must also have been 'dreaming' aeons. And within those dreams must have been contained the seeds or the concepts of all the elements that would transform the 'great unconsciousness' into that most devoutly to be wished state 'CONSCIOUNESS'- a condition occasionally accomplished by those most ornery of critters 'homo-sapiens'[just kidding ].
While it is tempting to imagine the primary state- if one is so temerous- as a sort of all encompassing near-nothingness of endless dimensions.., this is not the only option. Imagine if you will an "EGG"..., a form of finite dimension within which is contained the seeds, the templates of all that is now in existence and will continue to come into existence. This EGG would therefore have to contain the template of 'matter'; the template of 'energy[ contained within its 'heartbeat.., which would also give it the template of time ];.., and it would also have to have the template of 'awareness'.., that would metamorphose into 'consciousness'.
So when the priomordial EGG exploded into the infinite particles of all that is one could then say with some persuasion that this is when those attributes which are so dear to us..., 'light'.; 'life'.., 'consciousness'..., etc..., also arose within the universe we now contemplate.
It does not however endow us with an original 'observer'; an overseer..., an entity which by its nature must be separate to what it observes;
or is it......, could it be that the observer becomes what is observed in the very act of observation...; thus- as McLuhan would probably have phrased it: "I have become those breasts which are looking at me".
[one other possibility..., maybe there was an observer sitting on that primordial EGG..., hatching into 'the big bang'..;
which obliges us to query:" could it- the original observer- have possibly been liquidated in that catastrophic event ]???
|"What if he's Right"?||132||obsolete||06-Apr-09 00:13|
|Re: "What if he's Right"?||44||Anthony Peake||06-Apr-09 08:01|
|Re: "What if he's Right"?||95||David Campbell||06-Apr-09 14:54|
|Re: "What if he's Right"?||82||NetWorkAngel||06-Apr-09 21:50|