I would disagree with Mr. Donald Hoffman and would actually inverse his statement to read: “nature … rewards us for perceiving ultimate truth.”
This is why we get miracles. This is why the placebo effect works. This is why observation changes particles. This is ultimate truth of reality— that many have fought to make sure this stays hidden.
As we know, quantum physics is actually modern science discovering what the ancient knew: the ultimate truth. Today, we call those, the esoteric, or occult. But we can learn more from them
To close, Jung spoke on synchronicity and mind-matter. I actually put a deep dive on this topic and how synchronicity works as part of a larger series. Here’s the piece on synchronicity, but always excited to discuss the ultimate truth of reality: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/synchronicity-when-reality-responds
Yes, I have always contended that without a sentient creature capable of high awareness, the Universe cannot fully observe itself and continue to evolve.
The Penrose-Hameroff thread here is the part I know best, and the photosynthesis rebuttal to the "too warm and noisy" objection is exactly the evidence I lean on too. Where I'd add a piece: even if microtubule collapse survives decoherence, there's still a scale-leap problem — a single collapse event is nanometers and milliseconds, while a conscious moment feels enormous and slow by comparison. In The Quantum State of the Mind I try to close that specific gap with self-organized criticality in neural avalanches as the amplifier, which explains how a quantum-scale event gets loud enough to become a conscious moment rather than just why an observer should matter, which is more what von Neumann's move gives you.
The article’s consciousness-first framing connects with a different route from first-person knowledge rather than quantum interpretation.
New Argument from Consciousness
This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness
I would disagree with Mr. Donald Hoffman and would actually inverse his statement to read: “nature … rewards us for perceiving ultimate truth.”
This is why we get miracles. This is why the placebo effect works. This is why observation changes particles. This is ultimate truth of reality— that many have fought to make sure this stays hidden.
As we know, quantum physics is actually modern science discovering what the ancient knew: the ultimate truth. Today, we call those, the esoteric, or occult. But we can learn more from them
To close, Jung spoke on synchronicity and mind-matter. I actually put a deep dive on this topic and how synchronicity works as part of a larger series. Here’s the piece on synchronicity, but always excited to discuss the ultimate truth of reality: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/synchronicity-when-reality-responds
Thanks for this work!
As a spiritual seeker I fully believe our consciousness creates our reality. Change our conscious and reality must change.
We are all part of God Conscious
Yes, I have always contended that without a sentient creature capable of high awareness, the Universe cannot fully observe itself and continue to evolve.
100%. Consciousness creates reality. No fear!!
You will likely get more traction with these enquiries with aether physics.
We must tap into the Monad - the only way to do this is with The Teacher .
www.ommeditation.org
The Penrose-Hameroff thread here is the part I know best, and the photosynthesis rebuttal to the "too warm and noisy" objection is exactly the evidence I lean on too. Where I'd add a piece: even if microtubule collapse survives decoherence, there's still a scale-leap problem — a single collapse event is nanometers and milliseconds, while a conscious moment feels enormous and slow by comparison. In The Quantum State of the Mind I try to close that specific gap with self-organized criticality in neural avalanches as the amplifier, which explains how a quantum-scale event gets loud enough to become a conscious moment rather than just why an observer should matter, which is more what von Neumann's move gives you.
The article’s consciousness-first framing connects with a different route from first-person knowledge rather than quantum interpretation.
New Argument from Consciousness
This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness
This is my video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVvZNi0Fi8