As I asked on another post, how are you defining "consciousness" on that level? Yes, there may be interactions between the observer and the observed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a consciousness needs to exist in order for things to exist, although to us it may appear to be that way. Just because we cannot see the far reaches of the universe doesn't mean that nothing exists beyond our perceptions.




I don't think anyone can answer this yet with the assurance of somehow being correct.



Again, when it comes down to mega-matter, there seems to be some sort of "averaging" effect according to some physicists, and even the concept of parallel universes is being highly questioned at this point.

When it comes to quantum leaps, what we're dealing with are gaps between fossil finds whereas we're not certain what may fill the gaps. For example, there's at least some evidence that "Neanderthal Man" (Homo sapiens neanderthalenesis) may have interbred to a certain extent with "Modern Man" (Homo sapiens sapiens), but we still do not have sufficient information to deduce exactly what our relationship was. Another type of quantum leap is trying to find the common ancestor(s) that we likely have with others in the primate line.

However, these quantum leaps should not be confused with quantum mechanics since they're really quite different "animals".

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

You are absolutely right. Because there is no consensus on what, or even if, consciousness is, I should explain how I employ the term. Consciousness is that what is be-able. It has experiential and evaluative properties: I.e., it localizes information, self-organizes through resonance, and feeds back processed information into the larger changeable or Newtonian system. (Never heard that one before, I'll bet )

Absolutely! No disagreement on this point at all.

The point is that the way of doing physics has been to “shut up and calculate.” Case in point: When Murray Gell-Mann accepted his 1976 Nobel Prize, in his speech he remarked that Niels Bohr brainwashed generations of physicists into believing the observer problem had been resolved by sweeping it under the rug--which is exactly what the “averaging” does. But Bohr himself expressed disappointment at the turn of events: he originally pushed for the Copenhagen interpretation as a stopgap measure until something better came along, not as a final explanation.


That's just it: they are not "different animals" at all. They are both derived from the same physics, the same reality. There may be some correlation between the discontinuity we see in quantum mechanics and what we see in the larger world.

__________________
"Esse est percipii."

When I used the term "different", this was not to imply that there's no relationship. With quantum leap, as used by those of us in anthropology, implies is that there appears to be a relationship, but exactly what that relationship is cannot necessarily be established until there is more evidence to consider.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

If human beings always waited for the evidence to be in before making conclusions, we'd still be living in caves.

__________________
"Esse est percipii."

Depends on how we may deal with "conclusions". Let me give an example to clarify my point:

Let's say I'm taking my daily walk and I'm walking towards a tree. But then I go through a process of asking myself whether the tree is a mirage, or maybe I'm just dreaming, or maybe... So, my experience is that I'll undoubtedly make the decision to walk around the tree, while at the same time realizing that my perception of the tree or even its location may not be entirely correct or maybe not correct at all.

So, if we apply this to what we do in science, we are far more likely to talk about "evidence" than "facts". The word "fact" tends to imply that it's all slam-dunk, case closed. But in science, nothing is "case closed". All hypotheses, theories, and even axioms are under continuous scrutiny, and nothing is so sacred where it is somehow beyond questioning or altering if new evidence indicates our earlier evaluations were not correct.

So, we can draw some "conclusions" as long as we always keep in mind that these are not "final answers".

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

You idealize science and its practitioners too much IMO, but there is no real disagreement. It's called "rational inference."

I suggest reading The Psychic Grid by Beatrice Bruteau.

__________________
"Esse est percipii."