DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
There is a theory among quantum mechanics scientists That suggests That the universe is pure consciousness. Everything that is physical in the universe including all life forms are Just by-products of this Consciousness. Do you agree with this?
@maxx That would mean that the senses are also made up by our conscience. In this idea when we touch something we do not actually experience feeling it, our conscience just made it up. That would be very complex for our minds to comprehend and create for ourselves.
So do I agree with the scientists? No. I feel like the real world is more straight-out and honest with us. We are not living in a dream.
I think you might be referring to an idealist universe, as opposed to a materialistic universe. Some physicists believe that our universe is influenced simply by how we perceive it. It's not a solid theory yet though. It's just that a lot of physicists believe the universe is that way, but even the most devout idealist wouldn't be able to prove the universe actually works that way. All they could do is point to a handful of experimental findings and say there's evidence that the universe is idealistic. The double slit experiment is one experiment that they will talk about because it shows that quantum particles act differently when they're being observed, and the past is influenced by how we chose to observe the present. The work of Dr. James Gates is very peculiar too. He hypothesized that the universe is made up of ones and zeros, and the computer code that makes up the universe was created in the 1940's, and is still widely used in computer programming today. He's not a fringe pseudo scientist either, he legit.
actually I was talking about the universe itself being consciousness and it pervades all material and physical objects giving life as conditions allows.@piloteer
That would also be described as an idealist universe. An idealist view of the universe can mean that we can influence the universe itself, simply based on how we view the universe. An idealist universe can also mean that the universe is just a manifestation of our, or somebody's consciousness.
I do not really see any practical implications of this. Whether the Universe is consciousness or not, the way we interact with it makes it appear as a physical reality. Is there any experiment, even in principle, that could produce different outcomes in these two cases?
Also, as I understand it, consciousness can only exist relative to something. For example, my consciousness exists relative to the Universe. Now, if the Universe itself is a consciousness, then relative to what is it such? That would require it to be a part of something bigger, and what could that something bigger be?
It seems to me that this proposed model of the Universe is more of a philosophical idea, than a physical one.
Debra AI Analytics      +   
  Considerate: 99%     Substantial: 100%     Spelling & Grammar: 98%     Sentiment: Neutral     Avg. Grade Level: 11.14     Sources: 0     Entity Sentiment Detection: different outcomes    practical implications   physical reality   model of the Universe  
Are you referring to Henry Stapp and colleagues who argued, in this forum, that the double-slit experiment and its modern variants provide evidence that “a conscious observer may be indispensable” to make sense of the quantum realm and that a transpersonal mind underlies the material world?
But these experiments don’t constitute empirical evidence for such claims. In the double-slit experiment done with single photons, all one can do is verify the probabilistic predictions of the mathematics. If the probabilities are borne out over the course of sending tens of thousands of identical photons through the double slit, the theory claims that each photon’s wave function collapsed—thanks to an ill-defined process called measurement. That’s all.
Also, there are other ways of interpreting the double-slit experiment. Take the de Broglie-Bohm theory, which says that reality is both wave and particle. A photon heads towards the double slit with a definite position at all times and goes through one slit or the other; so each photon has a trajectory. It’s riding a pilot wave, which goes through both slits, interferes and then guides the photon to a location of constructive interference.
In 1979, Chris Dewdney and colleagues at Birkbeck College, London, simulated the theory’s prediction for the trajectories of particles going through the double slit. In the past decade, experimentalists have verified that such trajectories exist, albeit by using a controversial technique called weak measurements. The controversy notwithstanding, the experiments show that the de Broglie-Bohm theory remains in the running as an explanation for the behavior of the quantum world.
Crucially, the theory does not need observers or measurements or a non-material consciousness.
Neither do so-called collapse theories, which argue that wavefunctions collapse randomly: the more the number of particles in the quantum system, the more likely the collapse. Observers merely discover the outcome. Markus Arndt’s team at the University of Vienna in Austria has been testing these theories by sending larger and larger molecules through the double slit. Collapse theories predict that when particles of matter become more massive than some threshold, they cannot remain in a quantum superposition of going through both slits at once, and this will destroy the interference pattern. Arndt’s team has sent a molecule with more than 800 atoms through the double slit, and they still see interference. The search for the threshold continues.
Roger Penrose has his own version of a collapse theory, in which the more massive the mass of the object in superposition, the faster it’ll collapse to one state or the other, because of gravitational instabilities. Again, it’s an observer-independent theory. No consciousness needed. Dirk Bouwmeester at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is testing Penrose’s idea with a version of the double-slit experiment.
Conceptually, the idea is to not just put a photon into a superposition of going through two slits at once, but to also put one of the slits in a superposition of being in two locations at once. According to Penrose, the displaced slit will either stay in superposition or collapse while the photon is in flight, leading to different types of interference patterns. The collapse will depend on the mass of the slits. Bouwmeester has been at work on this experiment for a decade and may soon be able to verify or refute Penrose’s claims.
If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.
It is a very intriguing proposition to think the entire universe might be as self-aware as we are. I think there's not really enough evidence for me to be convinced yet, but I certainly am not convinced it's impossible.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
So do I agree with the scientists? No. I feel like the real world is more straight-out and honest with us. We are not living in a dream.
Also, what does this have to do with turtles?
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: real world    idea   minds   senses  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: idealist universe    double slit experiment   lot of physicists   materialistic universe  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: physical objects    universe   consciousness   material  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
That would also be described as an idealist universe. An idealist view of the universe can mean that we can influence the universe itself, simply based on how we view the universe. An idealist universe can also mean that the universe is just a manifestation of our, or somebody's consciousness.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: idealist universe    idealist view of the universe   universe   manifestation  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why did you name this debate what you did? I don't get it.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: debate    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also, as I understand it, consciousness can only exist relative to something. For example, my consciousness exists relative to the Universe. Now, if the Universe itself is a consciousness, then relative to what is it such? That would require it to be a part of something bigger, and what could that something bigger be?
It seems to me that this proposed model of the Universe is more of a philosophical idea, than a physical one.
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: different outcomes    practical implications   physical reality   model of the Universe  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@MayCaesar
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: part of a biological being         
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
Are you referring to Henry Stapp and colleagues who argued, in this forum, that the double-slit experiment and its modern variants provide evidence that “a conscious observer may be indispensable” to make sense of the quantum realm and that a transpersonal mind underlies the material world?
But these experiments don’t constitute empirical evidence for such claims. In the double-slit experiment done with single photons, all one can do is verify the probabilistic predictions of the mathematics. If the probabilities are borne out over the course of sending tens of thousands of identical photons through the double slit, the theory claims that each photon’s wave function collapsed—thanks to an ill-defined process called measurement. That’s all.
Also, there are other ways of interpreting the double-slit experiment. Take the de Broglie-Bohm theory, which says that reality is both wave and particle. A photon heads towards the double slit with a definite position at all times and goes through one slit or the other; so each photon has a trajectory. It’s riding a pilot wave, which goes through both slits, interferes and then guides the photon to a location of constructive interference.
In 1979, Chris Dewdney and colleagues at Birkbeck College, London, simulated the theory’s prediction for the trajectories of particles going through the double slit. In the past decade, experimentalists have verified that such trajectories exist, albeit by using a controversial technique called weak measurements. The controversy notwithstanding, the experiments show that the de Broglie-Bohm theory remains in the running as an explanation for the behavior of the quantum world.
Crucially, the theory does not need observers or measurements or a non-material consciousness.
Neither do so-called collapse theories, which argue that wavefunctions collapse randomly: the more the number of particles in the quantum system, the more likely the collapse. Observers merely discover the outcome. Markus Arndt’s team at the University of Vienna in Austria has been testing these theories by sending larger and larger molecules through the double slit. Collapse theories predict that when particles of matter become more massive than some threshold, they cannot remain in a quantum superposition of going through both slits at once, and this will destroy the interference pattern. Arndt’s team has sent a molecule with more than 800 atoms through the double slit, and they still see interference. The search for the threshold continues.
Roger Penrose has his own version of a collapse theory, in which the more massive the mass of the object in superposition, the faster it’ll collapse to one state or the other, because of gravitational instabilities. Again, it’s an observer-independent theory. No consciousness needed. Dirk Bouwmeester at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is testing Penrose’s idea with a version of the double-slit experiment.
Conceptually, the idea is to not just put a photon into a superposition of going through two slits at once, but to also put one of the slits in a superposition of being in two locations at once. According to Penrose, the displaced slit will either stay in superposition or collapse while the photon is in flight, leading to different types of interference patterns. The collapse will depend on the mass of the slits. Bouwmeester has been at work on this experiment for a decade and may soon be able to verify or refute Penrose’s claims.
If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: german physicist    recent ideas   Bernard Haisch   mach  
  Relevant (Beta): 16%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is a very intriguing proposition to think the entire universe might be as self-aware as we are. I think there's not really enough evidence for me to be convinced yet, but I certainly am not convinced it's impossible.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: intriguing proposition    entire universe   enough evidence   self-aware  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra