Magnetic Universe

[Jim Cross]

I speculate on life and the cosmic magnetic field.

"...could there be a more direct, maybe even literal, connection between life and electromagnetism? If the fields have been growing from the early universe, couldn’t the appearance of life at the same time the shift in acceleration occurred be tied to the growing universal magnetic field? Certainly the characteristic of taping into free energy sources could be used to describe life itself as well as magnetic fields. Might there have occurred a sort of phase transition that simultaneously caused the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and enabled life to form?

The idea would be that life itself is an electromagnetic phenomenon that exists as a local perturbation in the universal magnetic field and requires a certain strength of the universal field to come into existence. If consciousness itself is an even more concentrated form of electromagnetic phenomenon, then there might have been required some additional transition or growth in the universal magnetic field for consciousness to appear".

https://broadspeculations.com/2020/07/10/magnetic-universe/

See also Quanta Magazine article:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-hidden-magnetic-universe-begins-to-come-into-view-20200702/

[Dana Lomas]

Jim ... I can dig it ... insofar as those fields are phenomenal representations of the transpersonal mentation of Mind :)

[Jim Cross]

Dana,

I'm glad you can look at it from that perspective and I would say it is a perfectly valid way to view the ideas.

[Dana Lomas]

As I recall BK has referenced a similar image as being remarkably like an image of neural inter-connectivity, and so an apt image of M@L's 'brain'...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[Jim Cross]

Actually it occurred to me to add an image like to my post. The universe at large scale looks a lot like the brain at small scale. 

I also thought about quoting Susan Pockett where she discusses our individual consciousness (alter) being like perturbation in the EM field of the universe (mind at large).

[Dana Lomas]

And if you'll forgive a bit of wooishness, the Seth Material also references electromagnetic energy units as being related to units of consciousness, which always seemed somehow enigmatic, but not so much anymore.

[Ben Iscatus]

I don't understand this - for instance, why aren't our brains powerful magnets? Wouldn't the powerful magnetic field holding in a fusion generator create a superintelligent sun? 

[David Samson]

Because electromagnetism is an expression of one form of energy & if I understand things correctly, the energy fields in physics are a manifestation out of consciousness but they are not consciousness itself. If we consider consciousness as the base of all reality, then the energy fields of physics (gravity, electroweak & strong forces)

(electroweak is the amalgam of electromagnetism & the "weak" force which governs the decay of particles)

(strong force is involved in the binding of subatomic particles in the nuclei of atoms, gravity we all think we know)

are all manifestations of a "lower" order out of consciousness. since magnetism arises out of source consciousness, it should not be surprising that it is affected by consciousness but not the other way around. Magnetism does not impart consciousness as consciousness precedes magnetism.

[Jim Cross]

Ben,

The EM fields in the brain are very weak and low frequency. 

In EM field theories of consciousness it is specific spatiotemporal forms of waves which form consciousness. So not every form of EM energy would be conscious in those sort of theories.

Of course, if we are at a point in the evolution of the universe where consciousness is just being to develop, then it is possible that billions of years in the future other forms that are more powerful could arise.

[Jim Cross]

To add something to my last comment.

The background electromagnetic field of the universe, which the Quanta articles talks about possibly existing since the beginning of the universe, could in a sense constitute an intelligent medium which has guided the development of the cosmos and, as it has strengthened, guided the formation of life and the individual consciousnesses we possess.

[Sci Patel]

And what about Psi - could this field accommodate that?

Or perhaps also an afterlife?

[Vishwa Jay]

Jim:

I'm actually working on this with both scientific and spiritual aspects. I'm a quantum physics nerd and a Buddhist master. But while I tend to shy away from quantum mysticism, I can't help but notice the connections between them.

Consider the inverse idea from science: that matter itself is a side effect of energy. This might explain why wave-matter function exists, why entanglement works the way it does, and why life seems somehow special in the quantum world. And while we can't measure any difference, there's little doubt that living matter behaves differently.

But if the universe is based in energy, and (borrowing and extending from the "holographic universe" interpretation) everything is just a projection into a zero-dimensional scalar field, why would the inverse of your idea not be the case? As a more concrete way to put it: why wouldn't consciousness be the source, and EM phenomena simply result from the presence of life energy?

I know it's a goofy idea. But consider that material mediation of energy might not be the case at all, and that matter might be the thing mediated (e.g., why we have never discovered gravitons). 

From this perspective, things like psi are just entanglement of consciousness with the energy associated with some kind of matter. 

Just some food for thought. I'm not questioning your idea, insofar as I'm asking you to consider the apposite, and how those things could fit together coherently to explain the very thing you're looking for.

[Jim Cross]

Sci,

Actually it probably could accommodate both.

However, personally I'm not keen on the idea of an afterlife. And I think Psi, if it could exist, probably is too weak at the present state of evolution to be useful.

So I don't think either would conflict with the ideas and might even blend well with them, but I have some personal reservations about both.

[Jim Cross]

Vishwa,

Isn't that sort of the view of Robert Lanza? Or similar to it?

Causality is problematic anyway. As I've tried to argue in so many of the materialism-idealism debates on this forum, sometimes mirror views are really equivalent. So the opposite of my view may not be functionally different from my view.

[Vishwa Jay]

Jim,

In this case, no. The universe is essentially a nonliving closed-loop energy system where life is merely an energetic interaction. It's the inverse of materialism, rather than the assertion that one's own consciousness is the extent of the universe.

I find Lanza's interpretation kind of opposite, within the holographic universe interpretation. Not mirror views, really. More like branches that diverge at the core of the holographic universe.

I see the biocentric idea as fascinating, but it would imply higher-order inception than is apparent, and so it's unprovable, one way or the other. This doesn't make it false; merely unprovable in the scientific sense that it was offered.

The usefulness of the apposite (rather than opposite) is actually the inverse of the circumstantial, rather than the inverse of the view itself. It's answering the question of: "What if things were the other way?"

Yes, mirror views tend to have nearly identical results, but are closer to one another than they are to the moderate between.

The problematic idea in this case is merely the thought experiment of inverting the causal relationship of matter-energy, rather than trying to go the route of idealism.

[Jim Cross]

Vishwa,

Isn't energy material?

You know E=MC2. They are interchangeable. Two sides of the same world stuff.

We can talk about causality in terms of small systems but on the largest scales the concept may no longer be useful. Whether consciousness causes the energy or energy causes the consciousness or they are aspects of the same may not be useful distinctions. 

Admittedly I still might not be grasping your idea fully.