Dear Sir,
Your essay is a good analysis of various prevailing thoughts - most of them fiction than science. But we liked it for your style and depth. Till date we have not come across a precise definition of "what" an electron is - Bohr's description of an enigma notwithstanding. In our essay, we have attempted to do just that. You are recommended to go through it.
In one previous essay "Is Reality Digital or Analog" as well as in the present essay, we have defined three characteristics of reality. Two of those were knowability and describability - reality must be capable of being known (what lies beyond the universe is not real, because we can never know it) and composed in a language for communication to others. Of these, the first is confined to the observer and the second is between observers. Though both are information, their difference must be recognized. There are some 'knowledge', such as intense emotions, that cannot be communicated properly. We have classified information into 5 categories.
The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, it is a limitation on the knowledge of individual observers and not real. The collapse postulate leads to the measurement problem.
We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons and come to the same conclusion. Can you give us any reference to the experiments cited by you? We have shown that there is no quantum 'weirdness' in this experiment.
Wheeler's physical unit of quantum, like his bit, indicates a class or a set. There can be many elements conforming to this set. If we choose a jigsaw puzzle and intelligently arrange the pieces, we will get the picture right. All pieces or random pieces cannot be so arranged. Similarly, generalizing his "surprise version" of 20 questions may not be correct. Our consciousness loops back into the past (memory) to compare the present impulse with it and finds its similarity or otherwise past experience with yes-no questions. It does not create reality. We have discussed it elaborately in our essay.
The content of all observations is of a form: " 'I' see or feel or perceive 'it' as 'such' ". Here 'I' is the observer, 'it' is the observable and 'such' is the result of measurement expressed as a concept through a language for communication. In this format, 'it' and 'such' change with each perception, but the observer 'I' remains invariant. Communication proves that all 'I' perceive in the same manner (what one sees, others also see the same thing), though the concept 'such' may vary due to defects in the mechanism. Since there is no means of differentiating one 'I' from another 'I', it is one. But since we can not count or perceive all 'I' that exists, it is infinite.
The brain cells and microtubuli within the cytoskeleton of the brain, though belong to the micro world, are instruments of measurement or hardware and not conscious, because they exist as such even immediately after death. The electrochemical energy of one conscious mind that carries information in 100 billion neurons with 1000 trillion connections can channel countless sub-atomic particles like an inert super-computer, but not into a consciously assembled reality. Our body including the neural network of the brain or our eyes etc. are not the observer, but only an instrument for observation. Equating an instrument with the observer is not correct. It is because consciousness never acts, it only observes. It is the 'I' part of observation, neither the hardware nor the software. It remains invariant as 'I' in all perceptions, just like space and time - they do not interact with objects, objects evolve in them. The "conscious mind before encased in a human body, itself an assemblage of some seven octillion atoms (7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 7*1027)", does not "create physical reality", but merely observes it. The Moon continues to exist when we are not looking at it. Observation is meaningful only to the observer for his information and does not change physical reality. The cat will lead its life. Observation will only report its state, neither will it kill nor make it come alive. There is nothing like a 'undead' cat. Our ignorance of its state does not change its life history.
How do they define consciousness? If it evolved from fish like ancestors, then either the fish would have been most intelligent or the humans would have evolved out of fish - both of which do not stand scientific scrutiny.
We do not accept inflation, but have repeatedly advocated the opposite mechanism - rapid expansion leading to a bow-shock effect slowing it down till it stops at a boundary and retards - gaining momentum to repeat the process again and again within these boundaries, so that at the present rate of expansion, the positioning of galaxies would appear to be more than it could have shifted had it moved at a steady rate. We also do not accept Big Bang, but advocate the Big Bounce - a self recreating universe that is not "dependent on extra dimensions, string theory and branes, or a Multiverse with all probable outcomes".
We have also refuted the idea of singularity by showing here in various threads and elsewhere that division by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. We derive the Big Bounce from simple laws of conservation and inertia and not loop quantum gravity.
We have repeatedly asserted that entanglement is not an exclusive quantum phenomenon and does not continue ad infinitum. It's over in a few kilometers. A pair of socks or gloves is also entangled. We impose our ignorance to an imaginary superposition of all possible states. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. In the case entanglement, there are only two fixed states and once our observation determines the state of one, the state of the other is automatically known - it does not come out of a superposition of all possible states.
There is no proof that "ancient gods took larger-scale human forms and interbred with humans". We cannot "project our consciousness into the fabric of space". Sorry to disappoint you, but we apply our mind independently. Outside this forum, you can write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.
Regards,
basudeba