I may range into statements or conclusions that may seem offensive. They are not meant as such but are necessary to make today’s topic very clear. With that said today’s topic is manifold consciousness.
There is a trend in both science and spirituality to explore consciousness in new and previously unexplored ways. The two fields of awareness have maintained a binary and seemingly directly opposed view of consciousness.
Everyone familiar with the observer effect? I will define it as the observer after-effect tonight. The observer effect can perhaps be simply stated that time space and matter look differently depending on how you look at them, to the point where if you can define one facet of the thing firmly, you lose the ability to define others.
Now in my experience, I have not encountered, or had contact with, anything that seemed to be anything like a central or primary intelligence in the universe, anything that shows primacy over all other intelligences or that seems to serve as a model for all other intelligences. In my experience, intelligence or consciousness is not homogenous.
Maybe because there is more than one? Indeed, manifold intelligences or manifold consciousness. Even current scientific research is supporting a drive at least in organic consciousness to connect with other examples of consciousness. We have such a deep seated need to connect with other consciousness that we will even defer basic life support. Disconnect from it can be critically damaging even if no physical cause is present. Loss of context kills, to be blunt.
Hawking is on record as being in favor of the many worlds model. I myself also embrace something like this model. Perhaps his core reason for embracing the many worlds model is there had to be many “failed” universes in order for the random probability of our universe having life to come about. It still doesn’t explain why there is something, rather than nothing, even if we grant the infinite monkeys theory (which doesn’t work anyway for logical reasons).
You can have infinite potentials, but that doesn’t explain the apparent design of the universe. It is not the case that an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infinite number of years will, by random chance, produce Shakespeare’s plays. There is no way to sum those infinities and predict that result. Exactly. So an infinite number of possible universes doesn’t explain how ours seems to have a design to promote life, and human life at that.
I disagree with his theory and differ from mainstream science in this regard. I don’t believe life as they define it occurred in any universe. No life in any universe. Now to resolve such a bewildering statement, because obviously we see life all around us, don’t we?
Consider this… The universe is composed of observers, centers of the force that we describe by its behavior as awareness. In each field of awareness you have a set of potentials, and between all possible observers or fields of awareness you have effectively infinite potentials.
These observers are something like a force field and not life themselves? These observes are composed of the energy we would call life or life force, spirit or breath.
Those infinite potentials are not contained in a single observer. They form a pool across all observers, and they exist in a sort of tension or relationship of exchange between other observers of consciousness.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.