Hoffman would say that since spacetime has been mathematically shown to not be fundamental, there has to be a deeper fundamental manifestation to the universe…and thus to form as we know it.
His theory says that Consciousness is that fundamental progenitor.
Yes, we would see both a different form. The display of form is depending on the observation.
Could be… Nobody knows, of course…
I prefer the view that potentialty is energetically configured by substrate consciousness, so the potential for perception- which is a manifestation in dependance of the perceiver - is given as long as that configuration is manifested.
That resonates with me…
Now, we only have to understand consciousness 
I like the idea of “the potential for perception”.
Tying that into a quantum perspective that potential would go all the way back to…quantum foam, where the quenched disorder in the system of self annihilating proto-particles creates…random form at the subatomic level.
It’s another one of those words that we are forced to use to try to describe something that defies description, right? 
Blockquote
Hehe… maybe so…
But maybe there really is a true prospect of understanding consciousness in a practical, insightful sense.
Maybe understanding really does come as a final fruit of vipshyana practice or other practices which focus on the nature of mind… and could explain phenomena like dissolution of matter, like the rainbow body.
Yeah, it could be like with the tree in Alaska (or @_Barry says Minnesota, I think) which is not perceived by anyone:
I prefer the view that, if no one perceives the tree, then that phenomenon we think pf as tree does not exist, but, that there is something: tje potentiality of configured quantum foam which will be perceived in specific dependence of any introduced perceiver.
So, there is „something“ but it’s not an object, it is a configured pontentiality.
Perhaps.
But I’m thinking that true substrate consciousness will be even more fundamental than mind and matter. It will exist at a nascent level that we are not yet able to comprehend.
I think that quantum mechanics actually may explain phenomena such as the dissolution of matter and the rainbow body. We need to look deeper than quantum mechanics, I think, to understand substrate consciousness.
It would seem that there are two processes happening in the formation of phenomena. I don’t need to be constantly observing it, for a seed to become a sprout. The causal seed connects with the conditional soil, water, and sunlight to produce the appearance of a sprout. But when I do see it, that sprout becomes an object of cognition, which is a further transformation of its character. This is the second process happening. The mere appearance is reified thru conventional context into an objectified, solidified form.
The seed becoming the appearance of a sprout is in agreement with the laws of karma. The potential of the seed to become a sprout is imprinted in the seed. The imprint is there from a previous seed that produced the plant that produced the present seed that produced the present sprout.
If you divide phenomena into those which are mental phenomena and those which are physical, both arise from the potential encapsulated in causal and conditional imprints and the interdependence of these connections. When I see the sprout I recognize it by calling up the imprint from my ground consciousness. That imprint was created by having previously seen a similar appearance of a sprout. The present sprout appearance, the eye consciousness that perceives it and the stored imprint connect to produce the reified form.
If you ask yourself what was there before the Big Bang, there has to be something, because such a great phenomenon cannot arise from nothing. The same is true of any phenomenon. Something cannot arise from nothing. What was there before the Big Bang was the potential for the Big Bang. The imprints in the seed and in the recognition of sprout are examples of the quanta of potential. What we call emptiness is filled with such potential. We know the Big Bang is just a construct of linear thought from minds that need the world to have a beginning. In a reality beyond beginnings, the Big Bang is happening all the time. It’s there as potentiality becomes actuality from the infinite quanta of imprints. It’s the bang of birth of every phenomenon and the bang of its transformation into something else with the next interaction. With every birth there is a pattern of energy that produces an imprint with the potential to arise anew when conditions ripen.
When we speak of the imprints in the 8th consciousness it’s the same stuff. These imprints will manifest in future thoughts, feelings, perceptions and all other varieties of mental phenomena.
yes, the sprout becomes an „object“ of (conditioned) cognition, but - I would argue - not by solidifying physically as an object, but as a conceptual entity in the mind of the perceiver.
„solidity“ of objects is an illusion, arising in dependence of conditioned sense cognition. Objects are themselves an illusion and seem to become an entity in dependence of if a perceiver can perceive it.
But there‘s still something there nevertheless: energetic, fluctuating potentially.
The rest of your analysis is pretty consistent with my view.
I like all of that…with this excellent caveat:
I like that even more…as a jumping off point for a deeper understanding of what is being called today the Multiverse.
Btw…the prediction that the universe is expanding from a single cosmic birth was first introduced in 1927 by a Belgian physicist, who was also a priest, named George Lemaitre. He wanted to call that birth either the “Primeval Atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”. Neither name stuck.
I bring that into the discussion as a way of pointing out that our understanding of reality is completely underpinned by perception that is conditioned…by the seeds of previous understanding of reality. We exist, physically, in a universe that is perfectly tailored…for our very existence. If there was a tiny bit more “dark energy” in this universe, we would not be able to exist. It has been shown to be mathematically precise in that respect.
Some would go so far as to say that this universe is of our own making…a creation of Consciousness…a dream?
And…there is evidence of other “Universes” that exist concurrent with ours, “realities” with slightly or even radically different precepts. I have seen evidence of this…in the waking state.
I am interested in going…beyond the dream…in search of a true substrate consciousness, one that transcends even the boundaries of light.
So, it’s all mind? No minds, no big bang?
Again according to Donald Hoffman, there has to be something even more fundamental than mind…more fundamental than the universe and all the “rules” of reality as we know them. He calls this “Consciousness Only”. He often times uses the metaphor of this all being a virtual reality game.
He comes right out and says that it’s almost a certainty that he is wrong…but he is offering a starting place for us to discover what truly is fundamental.
Here’s the kicker…whatever is discovered to be that fundamental starting point has to give us back relativity, gravity, the speed of light…and the Big Bang (in some form).
I think that what @Leborland and @KhyungMar are saying is that our specific perception of what we are calling “The Big Bang” is conditioned to being perceived by us in a way that we can conceptualize it.
Well, it is kind of a mind-bender koan:
I believe that there is no objects, but there‘s still something there nevertheless: energetic, fluctuating potentiality.
Depending on the perceiver, that potentially is being perceived as an object, but is not an object by itself.
@_Barry I speculate that the Big Bang was a harmonic resonance of fluctuating potentiality.
Was consciousness involved? I don’t know.
I like the idea that the Big Bang was a singularity of potentiality and consciousness in union. Mathematically like the fraction infinity divided by infinity.
Except that it may not need a perceiver for the energy of the wave function to collapse to a particle and become an object.
Couldn’t there be other forms of “measurement” happening? isn’t that the basis of co-dependent arising?
btw…is this fun…or what?
I think there might be a misunderstanding of my language. I don’t mean “solidify” to imply a substantiality of matter, but merely the perception of such. We know that all form is illusory in nature. I was attempting to delineate mere appearance, which is free of mental constructs (not dependent upon an observer) and objectified matter in which mind becomes an interactive participant in what is observed (i.e. when I perceive an appearance, it triggers a whole panoply of imprints from the 8 consciousnesses. These imprints shape the perception and my experience of the thing observed). The thing itself has no steady existence, but is in a constant state of flux dependent upon the interaction of physical phenomena responsible for its appearance, and also the fluctuating mental phenomena generated by the reflection of stored imprints and our responses to them, which is happening in the stream of the consciousness.
Wherever there is a reflection, there is a light producing it. All manifest form is dependent upon light. Andrew would say “It’s all Clear Light.” That’s still a bit abstract for me. But what I can observe is that there is the light reflecting off the object/appearance necessary to manifest our initial perception of it, an inner light reflecting off the stored imprints that alter our perception, and a light that captures the imprint of that experience, which is stored as a potential for future perceptions.
Hehe, maybe, maybe not?!
One approach could be that there is pervading conditioned consciousness (which could be archetypical forms, patterns, etc.) in all manifestations which keeps the basic “form” of the manifestation, although it is in flux on a sub-atomic particle level.
So, the individual particles flux in and out, but the general collective form is kept together by an organising “force”, which could be pervading conditioned consciousness.
Perhaps this is the needed “perceiver” for on going, fluctuating collective wave break-down (if that model of reality is correct).
Again, interesting question… a measurement makes only sense if there is a measurer which measures against a standard for measurement. The measurement has to bring “a form” into the measurement, which has meaning for the measurement…
… need to ponder further on that one…
Yes, agreed. I like to hear your take on the sub-topic, though:
When you speak of “… The thing itself has no steady existence, but is in a constant state of flux upon the interaction of physical phenomena resonspible for its appearance…”, I wonder still what keeps the rough form of the phenomenon for the time of appearance stable, in your view?
Yes, on a quantum level, we believe that particles constantly flux in and out, but what keeps the conglomarate potentiality of e.g. an apple lying on top of a table for the “life-time” of that apple in the (for a human) perceivable form of the apple, although on quantum level all particles change state all the time?
Could this be a form-achetype of consciousness?
I would disagree with that assessment based on a somewhat loose interpretation of the word “measure”. A gust of wind is “measuring” a tree as it blows through the leaves and around the trunk causing the tree to assume a form and shape.
And I like this:
…because that same tree may be assuming many differing shapes and forms depending upon how it is being measured. In the dead of a windless night the tree may be in the form of a mass of cellulose fiber to the bark beetle that has bored into it…or in the form of a protecting cave to the pileated woodpecker that is sleeping in one of its hollows.
The continuity of time, is itself an illusory phenomenon. That’s not meant in a pejorative context, because our relative existence is dependent upon time. We see an apple in one interdependent moment, and in the next we see an entirely different apple but the change is invisible to our perception and so we impute sameness upon it, as if the first perception and all subsequent perceptions are identical. From that misapprehension of phenomena we impute continuity. Consciousness in the meantime keeps streaming along, referring to a steady influx of imprints, including the mental assessment of continuously existing forms. This is a thought imprint which we access to reify our belief in continuity. Then there is conventional wisdom, which we might call collective mind, and this would play a part in what you call archetypes. We share imprints with the consciousness of other minds, and these also influence our perceptions and experiences in relative existence. All of these factors influence our mistaken view of how things exist, and none of them take into consideration the interdependence with absolute nature, which is the only steady component or base underlying all the impermanent phenomena that we experience.