1. Assumption: The laws of physics are independent of the observer.
2. Then the global Lagrangian is invariant under exchange of conscious entities.
3. Identify the set of all conscious entities with the set {1,...,n}. The symmetry is then described by the permutation group Sn.
4. Since the number of conscious entities can vary over time, the Lagrangian must be invariant under action of Sn for all n in N.
5. Sn can trivially be embedded into Sm for m > n. Thus we can just take the directed colimit of all permutation groups in the category of groups. Let's call this group C. (Question: Does it have an established name?) The Lagrangian must be invariant under action of C.
6. By Noether's theorem every symmetry induced a conserved quantity. (inb4 "nooooo you can't do that with discrete symmetries": Yes, you can. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.)
7. Since the action consisted of an exchange of conscious observers, the conserved quantity can be identified with global consciousness which is coupled to physics.
8. Conservation of consciousness implies that reincarnation must be a physical law.
9. We therefore arrived at the following dichotomy: Either reincarnation is real or the laws of physics are not independent of particular observers, i.e. are subjective.
Constructive feedback regarding my argument will be appreciated.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Come on, IQfy. I know some of you are smart.
>IQfy
>smart
missed her
she misses you too anon, she misses you too
all you've done is asserted if n observed exist then n observed exist. much wow. reminder that not a single conservation law in all of physics holds at the universal level.
>fine then i apply it only to earth
not a closed system.
>blahblah fancy words
i don't understand what you're saying therefore you're wrong
In physics consciousness is material
Exchange the term "consciousness" in your argument with "matter"
You just proved matter/energy is conserved.
Congrats!
>In physics consciousness is material
False. In physics consciousness is essential to the collapse of the wave function.
That's fine, but noethers theorem only applies to physical systems and consciousness is nonphysical in this case
But Noether's theorem itself is nonphysical. It's a priori knowledge straight from the platonic realm.
Alright you win
There is only one ontological issue in the argument, otherwise I think it is very sound and that a conservation of consciousness is a quite rational and creative application of logic. The question is if consciousness is a discrete or continuous resource and if it is finite or infinite. Essentially, what is consciousness, can we ascribe all conscious entities with a countable set, and does the concept of conservation of consciousness really imply reincarnation
These two notions point to the Animism theory of consciousness, in that "everything" is conscious, or rather, all that collapses the wave-function is conscious. Wave-functions collapse via decoherence, and it is known that things that we do not traditionally describe as being conscious can de-cohere a superposition. This brings into question if a re-use of consciousness really is reincarnation. At the end of life, all the physical constituents of the living thing go back into the world, dust to dust and all, and if we say this dust is conscious, then the notion of reincarnation is not really poignant. Animism also introduces a "ship of Theseus" problem, and if we are to dispel of these notions we must consider consciousness as something other than "an observer".
So enters the soul, or rather, a conscious entity. The argument hinges upon a rigorous definition of a soul.
>The question is if consciousness is a discrete or continuous resource and if it is finite or infinite.
Good point, anon. Here's my opinion.
A naive approach would argue that every consciousness has to be coupled to a physical body, a physical body has to consist of at least one atom, and since the number of atoms in the universe is finite the sum of consciousness has to be finite. However, this approach assumes an upper and lower bound for the quantification of an individual consciousness. All three assumptions are questionable.
1) upper bounds
Consciousness singularities are hypothetically possible. There may or may not be one or more entities with unbounded consciousness.
2) lower bounds
This assumption is most likely false. We tend to think of npcs as beings of zero consciousness. In my experience though they significantly differ from reference materials of zero consciousness such as rocks or dust. No rock ever aggressively tried to deny free will or qualia. We must embrace the view that NPCs do in fact possess anti-consciousness. A negatively charged opposite of consciousness that aims to destroy consciousness wherever they get in contact.
3) coupling of consciousness to matter
Just as quantum field theory requires zero point energy as a reservoir for particles to be created and annihilated, we'd expect there to be some kind of free consciousness as a buffer medium to facilitate the conservation of consciousness proposed in OP when a conscious entity dies.
Taking the three aspects above into consideration, a spacetime integral of consciousness cannot be expected to converge absolutely in general. Renormalization techniques are needed. When I find time I'll have a look into whether p-adic geometry might be a suitable approach here.
>Consciousness singularities are hypothetically possible.
>coupling of consciousness to matter
what in my frick
>7. Since the action consisted of an exchange of conscious observers, the conserved quantity can be identified with global consciousness which is coupled to physics.
>8. Conservation of consciousness implies that reincarnation must be a physical law.
I don't follow. If there is a global consciousness then that just means we're all one. That's bigger than reincarnation.
Global consciousness here just means the spacetime integral of all discrete consciousnesses. No panpsychism implied.
does this mean subconscious beings could collapse the wave function, like atoms, perhaps?
what's weird is that I think we all alive can be traced back to a single cell which suddenly split or something. I think technically we might be the very same split something
It's cool too see how inert matter gets us were we are I think personnaly biochemistry is the best study of life
According to your argument, would EVERY person have reincarnate? Or could it be reserved for particular members of consciousness?
Well, most humans are NPCs. If reincarnation is happening then it's only happening to the small number of humans who are protagonists. But it's only the consciousness being recycled, not the memories.
Would it follow that certain conscious beings (souls) could exist in purgatory for a period of time? Assuming that purgatory is a physical location which souls could inhabit.
If souls are still inhabiting spacetime then they are not being destroyed, so they could continue to exist without reincarnating. Meanwhile the protagonists could cycle through a different kind of purgatory which includes reincarnation.
Would that be feasible? Please answer, even if you just say "no", it's a serious question.
Dunno but I'd ask the same question for particles. When an annihilation operator of quantum field theory acts on a particle, where does the particle go? Is it really destroyed or does it end up in particle purgatory until it is recreated by a creation operator at a different location?
>annihilation operator
is that like the dark matter of quantum physics?
Do particles themselves exist in the platonic realm as well? or are they necessarily physical?
if you discover electricity and tell peers, build generators/bulbs, come comet hit you square wipes all, fully glass the continent. some poor fricks frm other side of world from primitive tribe evolve and discover electricity.
when first humans got wiped, did the electricity (or information about its existence) go to purgatory? was it summoned back when second group of humans rediscovered it?
it is always there, you are just missing the information about it.
me
everything that has ever existed, and everything that could have existed, along with everything that exists and everything that could exist, along with everything that will exist and also everything that could exist, all exist, since forever, and forever. they are all possibilities.
the best song/poem/symphony that you could experience with your human senses already exists. nobody put it down on paper yet, and nobody sang it. but it exists, it's there, you just need to discover it, get lucky, brute force it, whatever. but it's there, along with everybody who ever existed and never existed, but could have, and everybody who will exist. everything is there, you just need to pull it and trap it here. at least for a while, but it always exists. where? dunno. that place must be really weird.
There could be infinite infinite worlds where certain potentialities aren't actualized. If they can never be actualized and will never be, assuming that objective reality is contained within the universe in which that potentiality was never actualized, then do they really exist?
The platonic realm would be objective, it doesn't need to contain all possibilities, but would contain discoverable truths.
>then do they really exist?
yes if they are possible. at least that's what I think. I might be wrong but it perfectly explains everything that was so far.
If an action is possible, but it never happened, then it as an action doesn't exist, but only the possibility.
But if we never discovered electricity or geometry, things like that, I'd say they exist independently of our discovery
CLOCKWORK UNIVERSE CONFIRMED, BABY!
This would only be true if souls existed or consciousness was a physical thing. There can be an infinite # of conscious beings because consciousness is just electricity in the brain
what if souls are a physical thing and consciousness needs something physical to operate in spacetime?
>This would only be true if
but you dont know if your hypothetical is false
> because consciousness is just
you cant know that
Given f AG, we therefore conclude that OP f AG.
>reincarnation is real
Meaningless statement from a monistic (superior) POV
>By Noether's theorem every symmetry induced a conserved quantity. (inb4 "nooooo you can't do that with discrete symmetries": Yes, you can. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.)
Just take thermodynamic limit lmao