You can't change the past until it's been formed, and it isn't formed till you look. So with that picture of the universe with the eye closing for your closed circuit, the point is, in this picture, the universe doesn't properly exist, yeah, until the eye

is looking back on the universe now. Not many physicists will believe that. They will think it's too, too metaphysical, but it is in some sense an implication of the view that Consciousness collapses the wave function. But then you get into the question of what is the

consciousness collapsing the wave function because the critics will say, well look, I can see the universe. I'm looking with my space, the James Webb Space Telescope, and I'm seeing things in the universe before any human beings and possibly before any alien beings ever formed. So how is this possible if if

there was no consciousness? In other words, how could the universe have existed before uh, there were any observers? But the counter-argument is, you've got to decide what you mean by consciousness because consciousness with the little 'c' may not have existed, but what about Consciousness, the big 'C', if mind was

primary, yeah. So, and the idea of consistent history, consistent histories, which is what we are talking about, it's not as weird as it sounds. And like Bernardo was explaining, you even if we know history, we know history only at a very coarse level, characters, events. We

don't know the positions and trajectories of every elementary subatomic particle corresponding to those micro-events. So there are many, many, many possible histories, paths of, of those paths that are consistent with what we do know. Yeah, so you can imagine that a consistent history is what you

get when you take a magnifying glass and you look at the past with a microscope and then those various possibilities that are consistent with the past at a coarse level which you do know they will collapse into one of them one of those possibilities because you looked with a

microscope at them and you're not changing them into something else because you change your past. No, this is not any more crazy than the measurement problem in the present already is. It's no more crazy than that. It may be crazy, but it's no more crazy than the one that

we have in the present. How does an observation uh produce one single result if all we have is the laws of large numbers and Schrodinger's equation? Yeah, I thought that even the even the distinction between quantum and classical might be observer dependent because um in in

fact a feature of specious presence, even because you know the quantum in the we classically an electron goes around a proton, but in quantum mechanics it's the electron doesn't go around the proton, it's actually a wave around the proton. Yeah, and that's rather

reminiscent. You remember in my talk I showed this light going around and how it goes around and it's and it sort of is basically aign well this is rather like this proton which instead of being a point going around is a is a a

circle. And so I've often thought well maybe the the division between quantum and classical is something to do with the specious presence of the observer and and if that was the case for a being with a much longer specious present, then a much larger domain of the world would appear to be

Quantum, okay, because I mean, got a longer time scale. On the other hand, with a being with a much smaller species presence, a lot of the quantum world would appear classical. Yeah, again, this isn't mainstream physics, but it's often struck me there might be a link between

because that's a big issue in in in physics, what is the divide between the quantum, where does it stop, the classical realm? And uh, George Ellis made a big thing about that, so we don't really know. Because the point is that we, it's nice

to say quantum mysteries just apply in the microscopic domain, but it's not as simple as that. We do know they propagate into the macroscopic domain, possibly brains, but certainly in biological systems. So the idea that in some sense what is quantum and what is classical

depends upon the the the the nature of the observer, it doesn't sound to me completely crazy.

Is the Conscious Observer 'Creating' the Material Universe? | Prof.Bernard Carr & Bernardo Kastrup

Essentia Foundation

The Role of Consciousness in the Existence of the Universe

The universe doesn't exist until observed; consciousness collapses the wave function.

Debate on whether consciousness is necessary for the universe's existence, considering observations like those from the James Webb Space Telescope.

Question of how the universe existed before conscious observers, considering different interpretations of 'consciousness'.

Discussion of 'Consciousness' (big C) as a primary factor and the concept of consistent histories.

Explanation of consistent histories and the limitations of our knowledge of historical events at a micro level.

Consistent Histories and Microscopic Observation

Observation with a 'microscope' collapses possibilities into a single consistent history.

Comparison to the measurement problem in the present: how observation produces a single result.

Observer Dependence of Quantum vs. Classical Physics

The distinction between quantum and classical physics might be observer-dependent.

Example of electron orbiting a proton: quantum vs. classical description.

Analogy to light circling, suggesting a link between the observer's 'specious present' and the quantum/classical divide.

Hypothesis: beings with different specious presents perceive different quantum/classical realms.

The Quantum-Classical Divide and its Uncertainties

The quantum-classical divide is not fully understood, with quantum effects propagating into the macroscopic domain.

It's not simple to say quantum mysteries only apply microscopically; they might influence biological systems, possibly brains.

The nature of the observer might influence what appears quantum or classical.