Paul Davies - Must the Universe Contain Consciousness? (Part 1)

Our universe seems fine-tuned for life, with the constants of physical laws having to be within tight boundaries. Does this mean that the universe has a goal of consciousness? Is there a directedness of the universe toward consciousness? Is consciousness entirely contingent or is it something special, even a ultimate object of universal development?



Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist.


Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[musicaangomera]

I think this is the best explanation I have heard of everything. This guy is so articulate.

[mosesexodus]

*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ...

It is curious how Max Plank's conclusions were so revolutionary in the field of science / physics (i.e. the immaterial (non-material) reality of nature and "the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind" as the ultimate force behind the fabric of reality). Yet, when microbiologists. biologists, geneticists, biochemists, other scientists, etc. come to the same conclusion (i.e. is an integral and fundamental force behind the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of biological systems), they are rebuffed as being "unscientific".

*Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Mind Exists Before Matter.*

[francesco]

Davies is always perfect nailing the problem and discarding what is silly.

[paulweston]

Consciousness is the problem that just will not go away. It will continue to vex us for the next few centuries.

[dongshengdi]

You can watch documentary films on Consciousness like :
1. I AM by famous Director, Tom Shadyac
2. Water has Memory . by French scientist Prof. Luc Montagnier 2013
Nobel prize discoverer of HIV.
3. Water - The most mysterious substance in the universe known to man.
4. Is the Universe Fined-Tuned for Consciousness?
~ by physicist Michio Kaku
Apr 6, 2021

[patmat.]

I never made the association of the Eisenberg principle and the "fundamental block" of consciousness... Awesome.

[ujjwalbhattarai]

It's very difficult to search question.
If one search question billions start to explain.

It's difficult to think too.

[TheUltimateSeeds]

What possible reason could there be for the existence of the phenomenal features of the universe ("visible" light, for example) if there was no consciousness in the universe to see, feel, hear, smell, and taste the phenomena?

[popeck]

I would be interested in a interview of Tom Campbell or french scientists as philippe Guillemant, they have very promising theories of everything, they take into account all elements we have to build a vision of the reality. They don’t stick to materialistic science which is self limited and not build to explain non physical part of our universe.

[Suggsonbass]

this is why i find the Penrose/Hameroff idea of exploring possible quantum processes in the brain so worthy of investigation

[soubhikmukherjee]

RIP Steven Weinberg. Scientific world will really miss you.

[moranplano]

If you might substitute the word SOUL for mind, and come to realize that Nothing Exists without a state of consciousness, that SOULS EVOLVE and move thru states of mineral, plant, animal and human consciousness...from primitive to modern to ENLIGHTENED STATES. Then, you should know that you have a PURPOSE in being here, and you have REASON to move on to still HIGHER STATES.

[MeRetroGamer]

Cosmos is the evolution of potential (wave function), and potential is the realm of consciousness.

Entanglement means that existence is a coherent, unsepparable whole.

Space and time are the structure that emerges from this evolution.

[soubhikmukherjee]

What I can't create, I don't understand- Richard Feynman.

[evanjameson]

even if the universe is"there'' without conciousness, who would know about it?

[Aaa-pznh]

We are the universe, you can’t separate consciousness from the universe. We can only follow the patterns and laws of the universe.

[messenjah]

Consciousness is the domain of the ego, which is the idea of separation from All That Is. The body was made to witness to this idea of separation, thus maintaining the "reality" of separation. Perception, which takes place in consciousness, must perceive "something" and with "something" (the body). You can elect to use the body to perceive separation (the body’s senses), or you can turn to your Inner Guide, Who will show you a healed perception. Consciousness will end, and you will once again know.

[neuralbrew]

Was the big bang in quantum superposition of having occurred and not occurred until astronomers came along and measured that it did occur?

[mikmop]

You could probably take this episode's question to an even further extension, by speculating that the meaning of life and the purpose of the universe is in fact, specifically to create consciousness.

Why? Is the Universe hoping to become self-aware through the creation of consciousness? Or maybe it is narcissistic and feels everything has to be about itself, due to its cosmic self-centredness, which arises from a failure to distinguish itself from external entities.

Or alternately, if it doesn't do this in an egotistically deterministic way, maybe its purpose is to unintendedly achieve this, simply through nothing more than its universal laws and constants of nature, which ensure the maximisation of entropy.

Now this may seem counter-intuitive, because according to the laws of classical thermodynamics, entropy's ultimate outcome is to facilitate a thermodynamic equilibrium, with a maximum state of cosmic disorder and subatomic randomness. A cosmic balance in which all macroscopic flows are zero. And furthermore, to do this on autopilot, without any blueprints or design. Why? Because it can!

However as it turns out, an unavoidable byproduct is the creation of little pockets of thermodynamic complexity, within the Universe's inexorable path to ultimate heat death. A bit like how a flowing river will artistically create geometrically complex eddies, like trippy little pieces of geological performance art within a streaming current.

And if you apply this analogy within the broader Universe, it would ultimately manifest itself by way of complex forms of consciousness being produced, which ostensibly would be the most complex thing the Universe can create. Conjectured supernatural forms with deities notwithstanding.

And whatever this consciousness goes on to create thereafter, be it things like; watchmakers manufacturing wrist-watches, or orbiting space telescopes, or particle accelerators, or whatever.. then this would be just another extension of the cosmic complexity of entropy. Hence, it's not "us" becoming conscious of the Universe, it's the Universe becoming conscious of itself. Because our brains are not merely part of the Universe, they "are" the Universe

If you measure or analyse the number of possible microscopic arrangements, or states of individual atoms and molecules of a system that can comply with the overall macroscopic condition of the system, then pockets of increased complexity within this system become inevitable. Even if on average, the system overall is decreasing in complexity over time.

Eddies and their psychedelically swirling and intricately complex patterns are usually caused by a random obstruction in the river, such as a rock or fallen tree. This interrupts the main flow of the river, causing the eddy, which is usually on the downstream side of the obstruction. And this increase in geometric complexity occurs, even though the river itself is heading towards maximum entropy. And likewise, consciousness being the most complex combination of matter we could imagine, could also come into existence in an analogous way.

I personally am OK with the question: "Must the Universe contain consciousness, in some generic form or another? I actually see this as being inevitable, given enough possible Universe creation outcomes, within a broader infinite Multiverse.

The one question I've never been able to get my head around however is: "Must the Universe specifically contain my own personal consciousness, as distinct from consciousness in general?"

And if the universe by default needs to contain my personal consciousness, does it necessarily have to be in my specific body, or can it be in someone else's? Like for example, I could have been born, or even just recently magically transported into... Robert Lawrence Kuhn's body? Or how about... Elvis Presley's, Brad Pitt's, or Elon Musk's body? Now that would be cool. It's a popular premise in fiction and many movies.

However these switches typically reverse after the subjects have expanded their world views )-: What a crock, I want my money back. Who gives a crap what my world view is. As as long as RLK doesn't suffer from arthritis, I'm happy to stay in his body forever.

I've always wondered, of all the gin joints and bodies that I could have been born into, why did it have to be mine? Was my body a really necessary component in this consciousness jigsaw puzzle? What's so special about my body? What about being born in Angelina Jolie's or Barbra Streisand's body? What about being born in my pet poodle's body? Or in the body of my pet mouse or pet walrus? Or my pet cockroach? Or my pet dust mite or pet bacteria?

And if I myself had never been born, would all these other conscious beings and different people in the world, (and speculatively speaking, elsewhere in the universe)... really matter?"

Assuming that all these other people and living organisms are of course genuinely conscious, and not just faking it as philosophical zombies, which react in a purely autonomous way, like biological robots. Or something physically identical to a human being, but without any subjective inner experience.

But the fact remains, that we define the Universe entirely by physicality. And if we assume that the building blocks of the Universe and our world are physically identical, (which as far as we can see, appears to be the case), then our Universe would by necessity also have to contain consciousness in others that's comparable to our own; as consciousness would by necessity be generated from any set of physical circumstances identical to our own. Therefore, my poodle and my friends actually love me for real and they're not just robotically faking it. WhooHoo 👍 ❤️

However, if I had never been born, what would be the point of... the Universe big-banging into existence? It may as well never have existed. Which of course is a pointless consideration, given that for the first 13.8 billion years of it's existence, I was not conscious. (Or at least I'm philosophicaly assuming this to be the case).

I once asked a young lady at a party who was not in the least bit interested in "Reincarnation" or "Transmigration of Souls": "Where have you been all my life". And she said: "Well... for the first half of it, I wasn't even born" )-: Ouch! She was actually quite philosophical about it. It's a good thing I didn't ask her: "Have you ever appeared on the cover of a woman's lifestyle magazine". I should have just stuck to: "Nice weather we're having. So what do you do for a living?"

Which reminds me of a joke I was once told, by another young lady in a similar environment.

Q). What do philosophers use for contraception?

A). Their personalities.

Sorry, it was the only philosophy joke I could come up with on such short notice.

And the great romantic tragedy here was, that she actually had in fact appeared on the cover of a woman's lifestyle magazine, and on a few fashion catwalks. DOH! Anyway, I have since brushed up on my knowledge of the production of raw materials used in the manufacture of textile fibres. And the third-world countries in which they're produced.

But I digress. Anyway, my point being is, that even in my absence, the Universe still had a purpose (purportedly). But here's the $64 question. Was this purpose (as coincidence would have it), to specifically give birth to me and create my consciousness? I hope that doesn't sound too self absorbed or anything. I mean from my perspective, this was the single most important event in the history of the entire universe. Does that sound narcissistic?

And if I take this concept one step further by suggesting: If the existence of my consciousness is a cosmic "proof of concept" and a "feasibility study" in the creation of my personal consciousness, does this mean that within an infinite Multiverse, I am cosmically predestined to always come into existence and become conscious at some cyclical point in time, in some random universe, within the broader Multiverse?

Or am I for all eternity just destined to be a one-off, a cosmic one hit wonder and that's it? If so, why did I have to wait an infinite amount of time to be born and become conscious, in this "once in an eternity", personally significant event? It kind of makes having an infinite Multiverse absolutely pointless, doesn't it?

What good is a Universe if it gives rise to everyone else's consciousness, except mine? Why should they have all the fun? Why does the Universe discriminate against me, and not them? This would have to make it the most useless consciousness producing machine I could ever imagine. It would be like having a local pub that gives away free beers to every man and his dog, except me )-: How depressing would that be.

However, if the creation of not only consciousness in general, but specifically my personal consciousness, existing within some random living organism, is cosmically inevitable... that must mean that my consciousness has existed before, as it exists now, and will always exist into the future. And I am he, as you are he, as you are me, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob. She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, Across the Universe.

This is like the anthropic principle, on steroids. How so you ask? Well, if I had not been born, I would not be able to ask myself this self indulgent question, or become a Beatles fan. Yet the question would still remain. Or at least if not for me, certainly for other people. And for that matter, this is a question that anyone can ask with respect to themselves.

Which just goes to show you, not everything has to be about me. So don't call me a narcissist, OK! And furthermore, I know she loves me. Everyone does! You can tell by the way I use my walk and wag my tail, blah, blah, no time talk or philosophise or theorize about fundamental issues, blah, blah, and whether you're a brother, or whether you're a mother, you're stayin' alive, stayin' alive. Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive 🐕 woof-woof

[thatpoetbobbymask]

Why

Why do the trees grow so high
Why does the breeze blow on by
And why does the wave always crash to the shore
And why does the stone only stay where it lies

Well maybe the trees long to grow
And maybe the breeze loves to blow
And maybe the wave only wishes to wave
And the stone oh so patiently waits to be thrown