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

우주는 관찰되기 전까지는 존재하지 않으며, 의식은 파동 함수를 붕괴시킵니다.

제임스 웹 우주 망원경과 같은 관측 결과를 고려하여 우주의 존재에 의식이 필요한지에 대한 토론을 진행합니다.

'의식'에 대한 다양한 해석을 고려할 때, 의식이 있는 관찰자 이전에 우주는 어떻게 존재했는지에 대한 질문입니다.

주요 요인으로서의 '의식'(빅 C)과 일관된 역사의 개념에 대해 논의합니다.

일관된 역사에 대한 설명과 미시적 수준에서 역사적 사건에 대한 지식의 한계에 대해 설명합니다.

일관된 히스토리와 현미경 관찰

'현미경'으로 관찰하면 여러 가능성을 하나의 일관된 역사로 압축할 수 있습니다.

현재의 측정 문제와 비교: 관찰을 통해 하나의 결과를 도출하는 방법.

양자 물리학 대 고전 물리학의 관찰자 의존성

양자 물리와 고전 물리학의 구분은 관찰자에 따라 달라질 수 있습니다.

양성자 궤도를 도는 전자의 예: 양자 대 고전적 설명.

빛이 돌고 있는 것에 비유하여 관찰자의 '의심스러운 현재'와 양자/고전 분열 사이의 연관성을 암시합니다.

가설: 서로 다른 스펙트럼을 가진 존재는 서로 다른 양자/고전 영역을 인식합니다.

양자 효과가 거시적 영역으로 전파되는 양자-클래식 구분은 아직 완전히 이해되지 않았습니다.

양자의 신비는 미시적으로만 적용되는 것이 아니라 생물학적 시스템, 특히 뇌에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.

관찰자의 성격에 따라 양자 또는 고전적으로 보이는 것에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.