The Quantum Reality Paradox

I really enjoyed reading this article. See a response to Jozen-Bo which I wrote in 2008:

This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement. Reality is entirely all-inclusive. It includes all the beliefs as well as the facts, all the mental and the physical sides. There is a complete absence of separation. The dark is absence of light. Light is truth and cannot be contradicted unless by lying. And information systems like the internet are consisted of elements of truth and false statements that are analogous to real and unreal. That which appears to the human eye is information and the mind creates the interpretation. As reality is an all-inclusive set containing mental and physical elements, mind and reality cannot be separated. Reality is contained in the mind via perceptual awareness all at once these processes are creating and containing information. Perception takes place and awareness is the complex network of the creative consciousness in which reality appears. Thoughts that are both true or false are governed by perception. Perception of both the inner and outer halves of the body concept or object are happening in but one reality or the monic term infocognition. Each moment the creative mind contains mental and "physical" information.

Dear Fellow,

The real unique Universe am infinite. You wrote: "This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement." All finite statements are unrealistic. Any abstract theory of any abstract information system abstractly affecting the abstract physiological function of an abstract eye is utter codswallop. You need to get real.

Joe Fisher, Realist

WHY ONE MAY NEVER SEE GOD

Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread).

If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's. One may walk around and experience one's fear rising in a pitch black room. Since mind is reality, you are transparent and your thoughts may become manifest unless one takes full control. According to Christopher Langan, we are transparent to the global conscious agency God, which means God is there in the room with us even in our most ignorant and fearful moments as God sees all. In regards to how and why God rarely responds to us I would think it is due to the fact that we must "go beyond" the everyday existence to reach Him and in return we may or may not be disappointed. I leave any further speculation on this matter to you the reader.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-one-may-never-see-god.143202/

According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space. Again, this interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist in that the space of all configurations has its existence and properties quite independent from our observations. But once again, this configuration space is perceptually inaccessible to us -- we can only see the effects it has within our much smaller three-dimensional space. The upshot, as before, is that if you really believe quantum mechanics, then you believe that the physical world outruns our perceptions of it.

Taken from: https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality

Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.

"The identity between the world and Brahman is explained. On this ground that all is known when the "one" is known is accounted for. Since all entities are real only as the effects of Brahman and as ensouled by Brahman, it has been said, "That is True". In no other way are they real. Just as, in the illustration of clay and its products, the products are real only as of the nature of clay, even so the world is only as sustained by the indwelling Brahman. [10]

The universal, omniscient backdrop of Brahman as the primary stage for all further acts and scenes of the evolutionary drama, Maya, as described in Vedanta, explains the onset of the multiple layers of differentiated Consciousness, Mind, Brain, Matter, actually in the reverse, as manifestations, that are distinct and yet one and the same as the original consciousness. A logical fallacy it would seem but defended as follows. "The signfication of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is coordinated predication. In the illustration of (say) a Purple Robe, the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a Purple Robe is established. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance." [11]

Taken from: http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2962

Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

My dear fellow,

Reality is easy to see, all you have to do is open your eyes. You mistakenly wrote: "Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread). If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's." Reality is not dependent on any abstract we abstractly working on any abstract premise so that abstract we can abstractly prevent abstractly deceiving abstract us from abstractly distinguishing the abstract differences between an abstract God's abstract work and an abstract blind abstract nature's abstract work." Please stop thinking about abstract we and concentrate on the real you.

Joe Fisher, Realist

My Dear Fellow,

You bewilderingly wrote some more abstract codswallop: "According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space" Forget about any abstract "our" abstract perception. No matter in which direction you look, you will always see a plethora of real intermeshed flattish surfaces. As only real surface can be really observed, there can be no space.

Glad to set you straight,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Hosein,

GET REAL. Please stop repeating abstract codswallop: "The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy." Only real surface is always observable by real eyes that have real surface. Real surface has no abstract fundamental starting point.

Joe Fisher, Realist

lets say we view quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (start with one because we cant start at nothingness), when going from a number to the next you can find similarity and rules etc... that govern what the next number with no duplication's. However there are events that do not have any context except that of themselves and the original starting point. in the case of counting this would be prime numbers. So as we may find ways to describe events such as odds/even multiples of 3 etc... there is nothing that can definitively define primes. Anyway if you apply what you are saying to my statement above then you are saying the starting point of your observation is the phenomenon creating this "quantum contextuality" ... i leave the rest for your own conclusion/judgment

Dear One,

Please stop offering poorly written codswallop ruminations of an: "lets (sic) say (abstract) we (abstractly) view (abstract) quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (abstractly) (start with one because we cant (sic) (abstractly) start at nothingness), Open your real eyes and take note of the fact that no matter in which direction you look, you will only always see a plethora of real enmeshed flattened partial surfaces.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Existent and non-existent are one.

See: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Is-True-Reality-the-Immaterial-Influencing-the-Material

One what?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist thus showing that a hidden variable model of QM could possibly be contextual, thus not obeying the premises of the Kochen-Specker Theorem. The definition of noncontextuality given in the reference The Kochen-Specker Theorem is :

«If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.»

Let's take a macroscopic spinning object like a pencil with a central spinning axis. It can have a clockwise or anticlockwise sense of rotation when viewed from its top.

Let's define what I call the «relative sense of rotation». Instead of refering to the topview of the pencil for the sense of rotation, we will refer to an observer's Z axis of reference making an angle with the spinning axis of the pencil. We will measure the sense of rotation relative to that axis. In that case, its value, clockwise or anticlockwise, depends upon the angle between the spinning axis of the pencil and the Z axis. Rotate suffisantly the Z axis towards or away from the pencil, as could be done with an astronaut in a weightlessness state, and you change the «relative sense of rotation» of the pencil from clockwise to anticlockwise or from anticlockwise to clockwise.

The measured sense of rotation here is a «contextual» value of the observable I called the «relative sense of rotation». We deal with a real observable with contextuality. I therefore see no reason why hidden variables models in QM should be presumed to be non-contextual. The key of the matter should lie in the three dimensional spatial behavior «perceived» by the measuring apparatus of the quantum phenomenon or particle under study. No «magic» there.

Dear Bertrand,

Could you possibly try a bit harder to write understandable English? You mystifyingly wrote: "Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist..." All observations made with real eyes are real because they are seen with real eyes. You do not need to see if any abstract context could exist, the fact that you are really looking at a real plethora of real surfaces automatically provides all the context you will need.

Glad to have been of health,

Joe Fisher, Realist

You are right. «Real observable» should be replaced with something like «an observable taken from a classical physics context». Sorry for the confusion between the word «real» and the intended idea of giving a «realist» example!

Joe,

One reality. Where reality is dual. Immaterial wavefunction and material particle. Metaphysical/ subjective and physical/ objective.

Robert,

The one spirit;

Every conscious being is one conscious being existing in parallel, experiencing themself as separate and distinct lifeforms.

See http://www.sankaracharya.org/i_am_that.php

From Article:

"God's Omniscience?

It was through these interviews that Cabello discovered that Specker wanted to study quantum reality--whether it was indeterministic, as standard quantum theory asserts, or could instead be described by a deterministic hidden-variables theory--in part, to better understand deep religious questions. Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is observed by humans?"

Sum Over Futures

Sum Over Futures (SOF) is the CTMU interpretation of quantum mechanics. In SOF, quantum phenomena are not random (acausal), but obey higher-order causal invariants. These invariants tend to maximize generalized utility as the universe evolves. Langan observes that due to quantum uncertainty,

Chris Langan said:

[T]he last states of a pair of interacting particles are generally insufficient to fully determine their next states. This, of course, raises a question: how are their next states actually determined? What is the source of the extra tie-breaking measure of determinacy required to select their next events ("collapse their wave functions")?[1]

The answer, he writes, is neither "randomness" nor distributed laws of causality, but rather higher-order causation, involving nonrandom temporally-extensive relationships not wholly attributable to distributed laws. In this picture, the universe sums over timelines to extract the utility of possible futures and selects the most utile configurations for actualization. This "sum over futures" is enabled by the Extended Superposition Principle (ESP) under the guidance of the Telic Principle.

Sum over futures involves an atemporal (existing or considered without relation to time) generalization of "process" (from past participle stem of procedure "go forward"), telic recursion (before determining the next state, Reality takes all of the past and future into account and then chooses a particular state on the basis of its own values), through which the universe (Reality) effects on-the-fly (as time passes, in other words, at every moment) maximization of a global (over all of Reality) self-selection parameter (measurement), generalized utility (what the universal Desire hopes to achieve).

http://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Sum_Over_Futures

The CTMU is based on the premise that not only does life evolve, but the universe does as well. And the collapse of the wave-function plays a fundamental role in its evolution. In other words, it is atemporally communicating between past, present and future in order to maximize a quantifiable self-selection parameter to produce the best outcomes. The Uncertainty Principle states that pairs of properties of particles such as position and momentum cannot be determined simultaneously, this then leads us to the conclusion that reality branches off into many possible futures. This is good news, because if it atemporally communicated a doomed future for mankind it can always retroactively adjust itself for the greater good. It appears that the CTMU is empirical after all.

Further reading on Sum Over Futures: https://warosu.org/sci/thread/6658825

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot have a finite whereabouts.

Joe Fisher, Realist