3:15 PM
I don't see the point in calling an electron the universal awareness... why not photons, hydrogen, water, charm quarks, gluons?
And if you're really going to take it seriously, then the equations that dictate the behaviors of electrons dictate the behavior of awareness?
This, to me, is way too speculative... it explains neither the electron nor awareness
But you realize there's nothing special about the electron here, except that there happens to be a famous speculation about the one x universe where x is electron, right?
Anything with an anti-particle is also like its anti-particle going back in time
And there would be the same problem... there in practice appears to be a lot more "particles" than anti-particles
Not familiar with that idea... is there a proposal that you can put a positron inside a proton, or is this a proposal of the fundamental nature of protons?
If the latter, this is outside the standard model
Oh... you're still on that one
"The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, hypothesises that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time." From the
one electron universe article
Allow me to highlight "the spring of 1940" here
"The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964." From the wikipedia
Quark article
A proton is a subatomic particle, symbol p or p+, with a positive electric charge of +1e elementary charge and a mass slightly less than that of a neutron. Protons and neutrons, each with masses of approximately one atomic mass unit, are collectively referred to as "nucleons".
One or more protons are present in the nucleus of every atom; they are a necessary part of the nucleus. The number of protons in the nucleus is the defining property of an element, and is referred to as the atomic number (represented by the symbol Z). Since each element has a unique number of protons, each element has its...
A proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark. Quarks were discovered around 1964. You're referring to speculations made around 1940.
The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol e− or β−, whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. As it is a fermion, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum...
For comparison... and from this article: "Electrons [...] are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure."
So protons are made of quarks; anti-protons would also be made of quarks. Electrons are not made of quarks and are posited instead to be elementary particles; likewise, positrons (anti-electrons) are elementary.
This idea that protons fundamentally have their charge due to a positron being inside of them in this particular sense is a speculation before the development of the standard model. Up has a charge of +2/3; down -1/3. The proton's charge of +1 comes from the combination: +2/3 + +2/3 + -1/3 = +1.
""consciousness created itself as the universe" what about this? Is it true that quantum gravity implies that?"
Quantum gravity is not really a thing; it's a potential thing, and we really would like an idea of quantum gravity. The claim here is not backed by anything (except pure speculative bias; aka wishful thinking and backwards reasoning)
The problem with ideas of quantum gravity isn't coming up with the ideas... it's in coming up with a model that actually works
By "actually works" I don't mean you can make the model... I mean that it scientifically works... that we have an epistemic reason for actually thinking that idea might be true
And the problem with that isn't so much that the right idea is too complicated, as it is that gravity's fundamentally extremely weak... for various reasons, this implies we need "lots of stuff" to test a theory; i.e., a lot of energy
One does not imply the other
And this is a false comparison
I mean one can be a materialist and believe there's a hard problem
Because the speculation is not in the form of "the only theory that works implies my thing must exist" where the thing in question is the existence of my thing. The objects of materialism are already known to exist.
Or do you mean why one can be a materialist and believe there's a hard problem?
And I only really consider "the only theory that works implies my thing must exist" wishful thinking if it's trivial that there are theories that could work that don't imply my thing exists
BTW, as a nuance... the fact that matter exists doesn't really imply materialism... I'm only addressing the "wishful thinking" aspect here
In this specific case where I brought up "wishful thinking", "my thing" is a disembodied consciousness outside of the universe that specifically created it, which implies another "my thing" which is creation ex nihilo
And believing such a thing exists itself isn't wishful thinking... wishful thinking is positing, when it's trivially not true, that the only possible explanation is that these things we don't really know exist do
That's fine... but you asked me to opine on this: "consciousness created itself as the universe" what about this? Is it true that quantum gravity implies that? <-
That's fine too... doesn't matter if this is you or the video, the opinion's the same :)
And I'm not really claiming you opine this; I'm just opining on it
I'm not sure which idea you're referring to by "[my] idea"
Have you ever heard of Russell's teapot?
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, that was too small to be seen by telescopes, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell...
But I think that misses the point. I'm not claiming there is solid counter evidence against it... I'm simply raising the point that this might be the wrong question.
There needs to be something supportive about the idea; that electrons are virtually everywhere doesn't really seem to count, as electrons aren't the kinds of things that would invoke god-like properties
Generally speaking, "here's an idea... can you prove that it's wrong?"
In particular, with the god as electron idea, I find it hard to take seriously even if we grant this counts as omniscience... because if we really take the idea seriously, we say need to claim that holes in god in a wire make current
That god has negative charge; that god repels himself but is attracted to protons
The theory of one electron universe is obviously about electrons :)
If we wanted to posit a theory about photons we'd probably call it a one photon universe
But that would have to be a bit different; photons don't have anti-particles as far as I know
