The Self Aware Universe

[doc benway]

I just started reading "The Self Aware Universe: how consciousness creates the material world" by Amit Goswani.

It really seems to be a worthwhile read. It's written by a physicist who finds reason to believe that the universe is a product of consciousness, rather than the other way around. He supports his ideas with Quantum Mechanics.

I think it would appeal to cultivators and physicists alike. I'll say more about it when I'm finished reading it.

[Unconditioned]

Sounds like a good read, reminds me of "The Tao of Physics" a bit (another good book but a little dated at this point).

[Whitehawk]

I read this a year or so ago. It's a little fuzzy now, but I remember really enjoying it at the time.

[doc benway]

I finished the book.

I liked it quite a bit.

 

The author looks closely at the process of Quantum Mechanics which established in modern science the unavoidable interaction of the observer and observation. Obviously the observer/observation interaction depends on consciousness. Despite this there is really no scientifically satisfying definition of consciousness.

 

In a nutshell, the universe in Quantum Theory exists as an infinite set of possible outcomes in the form of probability functions called Schrodinger equations. The process of observing the system, "causes" the probability function to collapse into a specific solution or event. So the author defines consciousness as that which collapses the Schrodinger wave function, thus creating a discrete event from a possibility function.

 

He does a pretty good job of describing Quantum experiments and paradoxes (although I've read better). He demonstrates that a potential resolution to the many paradoxes and conflicts between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is that the universe as we know it is not separate from us and made of stuff (Material Realism) but is, rather, created out of consciousness (Monistic Idealism). This consciousness being a unitive consciousness (Dao, Brahman, God, call it what you will) that is the fundamental substance of reality and inseparable from us as human beings. He uses quantum theory to show how the feeling of separateness, the individual "I" awareness, may develop out of tangled hierarchies and quantum probability.

 

He does a very good job, I think, of describing the mind-brain-universe in terms of Quantum Mechanical processes. It really was fascinating. He then applies this to Eastern Philosophical experiential knowledge. He mostly draws on Hinduism and a bit of Buddhism but many of his statements could just as easily be drawn directly from Dao De Jing. One interesting example is during a discussion of Ethics from an Monistic Idealist perspective:

"Thus in surrendering the ego to the quantum modality, one becomes truly free and creative. Strictly speaking, ethics and morality are no longer needed as guides because there no longer is any conflict. All these - ethics, morality, conflicts - dissolve into the will of the unitive consciousness. Then there is only appropriate action."

 

What better description of Wu Wei or Daoist ethics and morality?

 

Highly recommended reading but be forewarned, it's not the easiest read. Some of the discussions require some patience, particularly if you're not physics or philosophy-friendly.

 

If anyone decides to read it, please post your thoughts when you're finished.

[Encephalon]

Thanks for reviewing. I came in here looking to see if anyone was familiar with Fritjof Capra but this does seem more up to date.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Blasto

[doc benway]

Thanks for reviewing. I came in here looking to see if anyone was familiar with Fritjof Capra but this does seem more up to date.

I loved Capra's Tao of Physics and a similar work called the Dancing Wu Li Master by Gary Zukav.

This is a little different but if you like Capra, you may really like Goswami as well.

[Chang San Feng]

yeah I like this guy, im waiting to see this documentary when it comes out

 

http://quantumactivist.com/

[Birch]

Hi Steve F!

 

I'm digging around in physics books as well. I think it's great to read. There's something that keeps bothering me in all of them, however, it's that there is nothing in there that someone (and generally in physics after all the experiments "someone" becomes a "we") hasn't been the observer of.

 

I guess this might be an old argument, but if all we're ever doing is observing then the "whatever" we are observing can only ever be a product of our consciousness. Whatever it is. A supernova, a black hole, a planet, an earth, a mouse, a fruitfly, a cat, a myself.

 

I think this is not a very well drawn argument but I am not practiced enough in them and I'd rather just say it.I hope that someone will point out exactly where my argument is bad so I can learn to do it better. Maybe it doesn't matter whether my argument is bad but whether I am in fact right...? Or maybe I do need the best argument to be considered right for a while?

 

But isn't observing the universe through our consciousness and then concluding that the universe is consciousness kind of, well, weird?

[the latest freed]

Hi Steve F!

 

I'm digging around in physics books as well. I think it's great to read. There's something that keeps bothering me in all of them, however, it's that there is nothing in there that someone (and generally in physics after all the experiments "someone" becomes a "we") hasn't been the observer of.

 

I guess this might be an old argument, but if all we're ever doing is observing then the "whatever" we are observing can only ever be a product of our consciousness. Whatever it is. A supernova, a black hole, a planet, an earth, a mouse, a fruitfly, a cat, a myself.

 

I think this is not a very well drawn argument but I am not practiced enough in them and I'd rather just say it.I hope that someone will point out exactly where my argument is bad so I can learn to do it better. Maybe it doesn't matter whether my argument is bad but whether I am in fact right...? Or maybe I do need the best argument to be considered right for a while?

 

But isn't observing the universe through our consciousness and then concluding that the universe is consciousness kind of, well, weird?

 

Hi Kate!

I think your argument is valid. I haven't read the book that is the subject of the topic (so I probably shouldn't even make a comment here...), but from what little I do know about this subject--the universe and consciousness and the power of observation and quantum mechanics--mostly drawn from the film What the Bleep Do We Know? and the preview I just saw for Quantum Activist, they're not so much arguing that consciousness creates reality as much as consciousness influences reality to narrow the possibilities of what could happen, what could exist. I remember from What the Bleep... that there was a scientific study done with electrons fired at a screen of some sort and filmed on a camera; when no conscious observer was present, the electrons were scattered and disordered (which they observed later with the camera, I believe). However, when an observer was present, the electrons fired onto the screen were well-organized and formed straight lines. The observer didn't manifest the electrons or the screen or the camera, but s/he did change the way that the electrons were fired onto the screen. So I guess what I'm suggesting is that the observer (us) doesn't create reality, but shapes it. As Steve F said, quantum mechanics is about all of the possiblities that could take place. The consciousness, according to some studies, narrows those possibilities to a single action, a single path. But as for the formations of black holes and other unobservable creations, I wouldn't be able to comment. I know this isn't an entirely satisfactory--or even complete--response, but it's something I considered in response to your questions and thought I'd share.

 

Cheers!

[Birch]

Thanks for replying to this one. I was waiting for someone to do that;-)

Do you know where any of those studies are documented?

 

Thank you!

 

Kate

[the latest freed]

No problem! If you haven't watched "What the Bleep Do We Know?", you can find out about the study I mentioned in that documentary. You can also do a search on the "observer effect" and find lots of articles offering various opinions about it on the web. You might also want to do a search on the "double split experiment." Here's the Wikipedia article on it, where you can find links to various published papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

Also, Dr. Masaru Emoto wrote several compelling books on the effect of human observation on water molecules and crystallization: Messages from Water Vols. I, II, and III, among others. You can view his website here: http://www.masaru-emoto.net/

 

Hope this helps.

[Birch]

Thanks!

 

The Emoto stuff is apparently not quite as rigorous as it ought to be. The side-story goes that the photographers picked the crystals they found beautiful to take shots of, leaving aside others that weren't quite so nice and so "not showing" the effect.

 

I keep having to go back to basics with the slit experiments because I keep forgetting them.