The next evolution in human thought and a deeper understanding of our place in the universe. There was a time when contaminated well water was blamed on evil spirits. Sick people were bled to release the demons. Everything from plights on crops, to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, were thought to be punishments from God. At least we no longer sacrifice children or young virgins to appease the angry gods. Instead we use insecticides, antibiotics, and chlorine to quell the angry gods. So evolutions in thought matter. The author of the paper linked argues there is evidence that stars are acting intelligently. It makes me think of all of the ancient beliefs that our sun is a god. How ironic would it be if stars really are acting with intent or somehow responding in a way to preserve themselves. For me that is a bridge too far but we'll see if he has a valid argument or not. The universe is not only stranger [queerer] than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine - J. B. S. Haldane
Especially if it's open to lies, which are never in short supply. How would we know the difference between a "conscious universe" and a universe under the control of an extra-universal conscious entity?
By what mechanism, magic? The author argues that there is evidence for intelligence in non-biological entities. What is the evidence for an external influence? There is none. So you might as well just say the universe works on magic. You can propose magical solutions for anything. And that's why people did human sacrifices to appease the angry gods.
The universe is clearly conscious because it made me. All this (two finger point to myself) is def not an accident. It's magical.
Given that it's impossible to confidently exclude that from any observable phenomenon, I don't know what the problem would be.
Again, by what mechanism of action? If there was evidence for this it would be considered. But there is none. And creating explanations for which there is no evidence is just magical thinking. Occam's Razor is a principle that says the simplest solution - the one with the fewest assumptions - tends to be the correct solution. More strictly, the most popular interpretation is that "Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity". When we see action we look for a cause. And we look for the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions. We do not create assumptions without necessity. Then the most likely explanation is tested. If it fails then we look for additional variables or more complex explanations. But first we have to rule out the most likely explanations. And we then we require evidence for any solution considered. What you suggest not only introduces an unnecessary assumption, it offers no reasonable mechanism of action. It creates an entirely new concept [entity] without necessity. And there is no evidence for such an entity. It goes back to an attitude I have often encountered. For example, one man fighting to save his home in the Carr fire refused to leave so he could defend his home with water hoses. The reporter asked if he wasn't worried about dying in the flames. "When it's my time to go, it's my time to go" he responded. This suggests there is some kind of magical destiny involved. But the truth is, if he dies or died it is because he made a choice to stay when he was ordered to leave. It isn't some magical destiny. It is cause and effect resulting from the choice he made and the path of the fire. I've heard people make the same argument for not using seat belts - when it's my time it's my time. No, your time is more likely to come if you don't wear a seat belt. It isn't destiny. It is a choice to increase the odds of dying by not wearing a seat belt. We can never rule out magical explanations so there is no point in trying. We can never prove there is no God any more than I can prove there are not invisible, undetectable monsters under my bed. Beliefs as such require no logic or evidence, only faith. And that isn't science. It is religion. If a hypothesis cannot be tested, it can never be a scientific theory. There is no way to test your suggestion, even in principle, unless the external entity decides to make itself known. It is a blind alley with no exit. If you choose to believe in this entity, that's fine. It's a choice to have faith. But it isn't science and is logically indefensible.
If anybody knew, it would hardly be magical. The evidence has been available since the days of Planck, Schrödinger and Heisenberg; so get to considering, already.
Okay, now you're just talking nonsense. If you want to believe in a god, that is your business. But you can't make a scientific argument for it. And if you aren't willing to learn then don't waste my time.
No, you've just decided discretion is the better part of valor. That's why you've declared victory and run away rather than ask the obvious question. Trust me, I don't give a diddly damn what you believe in.
I don't believe that galaxies and stars and planets across the Universe who crash and burn are self-aware...
Suicide? Maybe suns get depressed! Maybe they die. Maybe they go insane. I doubt he can really support such an argument but we will see. The first time I attended a lecture in which the idea of a conscious universe was suggested, I thought he was in woo woo land. Now, not quite so much. I had a sb who was working on her degree in neurobiology. When I mentioned the idea of a conscious universe to her, she looked at me like I looked at that first guest lecturer. I once attempted to write a short story about a gaseous nebula that evolves consciousness. Eventually it started to question it's reason for existence and went insane. I suck at writing but it was one of my few serious efforts. He read it, looked at me and started to laugh and said, "You wrote a story about mindless gas?!?!"
Just an off hand guess.......... but..... you and I right now have our consciousness confined to four dimensions of space and time......... What happens when we die and our higher dimensional hard drive may all of a sudden be able to go into five dimensional space -time.... then sixth.... then seventh... then eighth.... then ningth....... on and on and on and on to at least eleven space time dimensions......... more likely at least 26 dimensions of space and time............... and probably even more than that???????? www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/
I say everyone should stick to science, talk about what we know, talk about what we theorize...makes no sense to me to use cosmos and consciousness in the same sentence? Some might as well guess there is a Gawd involved? I think we need to respect what we don't know and just have patience to find the answers...many of which we may never know...
I posted a published paper. Why don't you try reading the op before getting a tude? Not only is there a paper in a major scientific journal, I mention that I attended a guest lecture on this while studying physics at a major university. The lecturer only addressed the idea of a conscious universe, not that stars are conscious. This idea of conscious stars in the linked paper is the first I've heard of it. But the idea of a conscious universe goes back at least 30 years.
In bold above...ideas? How can you correlate science and ideas? How can 'consciousness' be tested and retested to obtain the same results using scientific method?
That is something scientists are working on. It requires understanding the roots of consciousness. It requires observation, hypotheses, experimentation, and duplication. Observation has led to hypotheses about the nature of consciousness. The paper linked argues for stars acting with intelligence. That is observation and hypothesis. Now we need a means of testing that hypothesis. And peer review offers the opportunity for other scientists to refute his hypothesis with alternative explanations, which in turn can be tested. As yet, there is no test for String Theory. But I can point to many leading physicists who work on String Theory [now M-Theory] every day. If I search Google Scholar for "String Theory", I get 352,000 references; mainly published papers. I get 3.75 million when I search "Consciousness" Science isn't about what we know. That is engineering and applied science. Science is a voyage of discovery. That means blazing new trails and exploring potentially new paradigms.
I tend to think the universe is not conscious or in any way self aware. Life.....a product of the universe...is conscious and ponders such things....sometimes....and tries to find a place in a cold and unforgiving universe. Why life? .....Don't know....is there a purpose to life?...don't know. ..but if there is a purpose.... it has to be found in conscious thought....therefore life only matters. Without life....nothing.
The beauty of science is that opinions carry no weight. Most scientist thought time was a fixed entity that ticks along with absolute invariance. Then Einstein came along and blew that out of the water. And it took nearly 50 years to prove that he was right... or to be more accurate, to show that observations agreed exactly with his predictions, to the limit of our ability to test them.
I had a late edit as well. Yes, for me there is nothing more exciting than learning something truly new. And I especially love it when it shatters the foundations of what I have always believed. Most people don't seem to like having their world rocked. But for me it is right up there with sex and tacos. That's why I went into physics.
I am eldery now and my life revolves around my garden. After years and years of study, experiment, trial and error, I am finally beginning to get it right. I hope.
I understand what you are saying, but consciousness is a human trait, and I cannot imagine how a human trait can be correlated to the behavior of stars...
