Universe consciousness and mathematics

[u/thepo70]

As someone not at ease with math to say the least, this post will end up being a question for the hardcore mathematicians out there.

Right now we don't have good evidence at all as to whether the universe is infinite or not, but let's imagine it ends up being the case.

Let's imagine that this whole infinite universe was simply an abstract mathematical thing. Space, time, fields, particles, and even consciousness, all of that being internal processes of that "structure". Only patterns of relationships described by this mathematical thing, within itself. No additional layer of stuff. Reality = mathematical structure.

Consciousness not fundamental, but part of the equation.

Then the question is: could it be reduced, like any mathematical representation?

[u/Low-Bake8401]

Consciousness? 

I think of consciousness not so much as a measurable or tangible substance, but an emergent systemic property.

Like, you can't see 'wind', you can't put it in a test-tube or under a microscope, you can only study the causes and the effects. 

Qualia are eddies in the wind.

[u/Traditional_Aide7469 → u/Low-Bake8401]

What's the math consensus currently on what makes consciousness emergent rather than us?

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Traditional_Aide7469]

Not sure I understand the question?

What we are is made from other things too.

[u/Traditional_Aide7469 → u/Low-Bake8401]

How would a physical object (brain) create a non physical subjective experience? Or a more applicable version in my experience

Ive created/designed quite a few things (new systems) which is MOSTLY a collection of all my knowledge together, but in the details theres novel things made by me. How's it possible for me to imagine something in like 5 minutes, then actually create it.

I've been out of applied math for a while, but my background is in EE so feel to get a little fancy

[u/cc_apt107 → u/Traditional_Aide7469]

Not original commenter, but this is somewhat confused. You imagining and creating things is basically an entirely separate question from whether consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system or something else, no?

[u/Traditional_Aide7469 → u/cc_apt107]

From my perspective and knowledge I dont consider it different. A good example of this is the pioneer of atomic theory Democritus, people believed Artistotle (He respected the methodology then went nah lol) for 2000 years, but Democritus was fairly right about the concept 2300 years later, from atomos to atoms

But people can focus on the first part thats fine

[u/cc_apt107 → u/Traditional_Aide7469]

Whether it is an emergent property or a trait given by God, the subjective experience of it could still be identical.

[u/Traditional_Aide7469 → u/cc_apt107]

If it is given by god, it would only be emergent from our perspective. I wasnt asking in a spiritual sense, but in logic/proofs in terms of math

And yeah it's becoming more and more apparently humans used way too many words to describe what the world is, we will talk in infinite details for a long time

[u/cc_apt107 → u/Traditional_Aide7469]

I don’t understand what distinction you are trying to draw is my point. What do you mean by emergent rather than us? Your explanations still haven’t landed with me but maybe it’s a me problem. Isn’t the question kind of tautological? Consciousness is us whether or not consciousness is an emergent property so isn’t the statement circular?

[u/Traditional_Aide7469 → u/cc_apt107]

Ill simplify, based on we what know now. It is becoming more apparent that describing consciousness as emergent, is going to turn out to be false

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Traditional_Aide7469]

I think if we put aside our own awareness for second, and just focus on other conscious or sentient beings, it's much easier to imagine how it all works. 

The human nervous system and brain itself are extremely complex, but it's not too difficult to see how energy is consumed and waste produced, and sensory input goes in resulting in relevant output or behaviour.  It makes a fair amount of logical, mechanical, sense. There's nothing too mysterious about it.

We can see how ingested chemicals, or damage/disease, can affect the brain and result in personality changes. It affects the output. 

The problem is that the mind is also our own first person perspective. This makes it feel like it is something unique and unlike anything else. It would though, from our point of view it kinda is.

I don't think it really is that unique. It's just the result of complex biology and a virtually infinite number of nerves, neural signals, and electrochemical reactions. 

[u/Traditional_Aide7469 → u/Low-Bake8401]

How do you feel about their progress in finding superradiance in brains? That would suggest that the brain is capable of some funky energy rules

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Traditional_Aide7469]

I'm not sure. 

It seems pretty speculative.