this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1445 points (98.9% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
2049 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I guess you could say it all collapses when an actual consciousness checks what state things are at, but that'd be a rediculous claim to make.

Would it? We now know with the recent experiments with Bell's inequality that quantum mechanics can't be reduced to a local hidden-variable theory, doesn't that at least in theory leave space for consciousness? Sure you could go with superdeterminism but currently that seems equally unfalsifiable as a consciousness-based theory.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sure, it leaves space for anything. It leaves space for (any) God. It doesn't make it useful to consider it though. There are literally an infinite number of things we could make up to explain it, but that doesn't make them equally likely. The most likely is the one that doesn't require strange assumptions, like the universe caring about consciousness, or that particles are conscious like another person said, or the hand of God literally reaching in to set the states exactly himself. Some hypotheses shouldn't be entertained because they require so many strange assumptions they're essentially useless and just a waste of time.

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It doesn't make it useful to consider it though.

Why not? My own consciousness is literally the one and only thing I have direct, ineffable evidence of existing. Unlike God, you actually have proof of your own consciousness existing, the same consciousness that doesn't really fit anywhere in our purely quantitative descriptions of the universe. I think that's reason enough to give the idea some credence.

Some hypotheses shouldn't be entertained because they require so many strange assumptions they're essentially useless and just a waste of time

The only "strange assumption" I'm making is that my consciousness actually exists.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

the same consciousness that doesn't really fit anywhere in our purely quantitative descriptions of the universe.

How does it not fit in our quantitative descriptions? We can measure its activity. It behaves differently when in a coma, or when thinking about different things, or when dead. We can grow neurons and form connections with them outside the brain to do computations. We can't make anything as complex as the brain yet obviously, but we understand how it functions. What part of it doesn't fit in a perfectly quantitative description.

I'd love for some mystical thing to exist, but literally every mystical thing people have believed for tens of thousands of years has been wrong. Why should we expect any different here? Lightning isn't caused by spirits in the mountains dancing, a god throwing lightning bolts, or anything else mystical. We can't fully describe the mechanisms at work perfectly, but that doesn't mean we don't understand it. We could assume it's something mystical into the gaps because it sounds cool, but theres no reason to think it isn't something material that can be learned.

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How does it not fit in our quantitative descriptions?

I mean it just kinda fucking doesn't. Our physical model of reality is a bunch of mathematical models and there's no mathematical formula for consciousness yet.

I'd love for some mystical thing to exist, but literally every mystical thing people have believed for tens of thousands of years has been wrong.

But you're literally experiencing the "mystical thing" right now. The mystical part is the part where you don't really have a mathematical equation for it and yet it exists. Think of it like "dark matter" where you know it probably exists but you can't really model it properly.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can't explain right now. People in the past have thought the same thing and been proven wrong. That's a bad method for understanding things.

[–] space_comrade@hexbear.net 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So, by your definition, mystical stuff is just things we can't explain right now.

My entire fucking point is that nobody can explain it properly and you grasping so tightly onto only one of the possible explanations is you having a strong belief system, same as religious people, not you doing a heckin good science think.