Essay Abstract
Even though Quantum Mechanics is nondeterministic in nature, at first glance it does not seem to leave room for human intentions. It is suggested here that this may not be true when we consider special cases of quantum entanglement.
Author Bio
Chi Ming Hung has a Ph.D. in theoretical nuclear physics and is currently a staff member of the C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics in Stony Brook, NY. He is fond of spherical cows.
lol interesting jedi of the Sphere,
Let's make a little of humous, did you know that cats and dogs are spherical and that in fact china and usa also shall be spherised like your sciences lol
now Me I fond of the Stony Brook spherical future,
and you ,
about your papper, interesting generality about intentions and neurons and decoherences of wavefunction.
I see that Junga and freud are in you.The informations always and still and these parmaters of adaptation dancing aroundf our minds in function of environments.What abolut the universal alrruism compared to this egoist stupidity where the jealouisy and the hate are the sisters of ironies.The psychology and this collective consciousness which shows us the truths.Isn't it ? relative spherisation Jedi of Sphere, relative always and rational and deterministic and irreversible LOL I love this Platform ,not you ?
The chaos and the disorders say to harmony that in fact the pure irreversible entropical Arrow of time is a beautiful road of ,optimisation with or withjouit the approvements of us poor humans in fact.Like If I said that schizos are just illuminated forgetting the essential, the coherence converging towards this universal equilibrium.
The disorders and chaos can be harmonised .....
Thanks for your comments fellow fan of spherical things :)
:)you are welcome Jedi of the SPHERE lol
Dear Chi Ming Hung
I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.
How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.
3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.
4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?
5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....
6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.
7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.
8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.
9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.
11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".
12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.
I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.
Héctor
Chi Ming Hung
There are many concepts about which have to precisely state in terms of their physicality.
Intention is an agitation of matter due to state of shortage or surplus of something physical.
Goal-directed behaviour is multi-participant phenomenon.
The participants are to be disciplined by relationship of interconnectedness.
Dear Dr. Hung, (or Chi?)
As soon as I saw your essay, I marked it on my list as "very interesting - must read and interpret." Unfortunately, though I'm still very interested after reading it, I'm not very clear as to what you're saying. It seems that you're using "intentionality" in the philosophical sense, as when we say consciousness is always "of something." But the phrase "intended outcome" confused me, since that usually means "what we want to happen." Since you say "whenever the intention occurs, so does the intended outcome," perhaps the word "intended" here has the meaning of "perceived"?
I do have some idea of what your equations mean, but it would help if you explained a bit further "how entanglement can be built up from simpler entanglements." Especially since you call it "rather miraculous," I'd like to understand just what's special about "the right kind of quantum entanglement" represented in Eq. 1.
Likewise in section 4.1, because I'm fuzzy about the meaning of "intentionality" here in the first place, I don't know what to think about it at a "rudimentary level" where the word "has already lost a lot of its original meaning."
One of the topics of my essay is the role of measurement in QM, so I'm particularly interested in the ways systems can be correlated prior to measurement, i.e. entangled. But if "intended" means something like "perceived", it would seem to be a measurement that breaks the entanglement... hence my confusion here. I hope you can help me clear it up.
Thanks - Conrad
Dear Dr. CHI MING HUNG,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Conrad,
Thanks for taking the time to read my essay and for your thoughtful questions.
Since I'm not a philosopher, what I meant by "intentionality" is the first definition you'll find in a dictionary, namely "the fact of being deliberate or purposive", and likewise "intended" and "intended outcomes" etc. have their usual meaning.
I guess Eq.1 in my essay,
[math]
|\Psi\rangle_{world} = |Intention_1\rangle_{mind} |Intended Outcome_1\rangle_{env} the.rest
[/math]
can be best explained by looking at the simplest kind of entanglement, namely that of EPR/Bell state:
[math]
|\Psi \rangle ={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2}}}(|\rangle _{A}\otimes |-\rangle _{B}|-\rangle _{A}\otimes |\rangle _{B}
[/math]
when this entangled state collapses, either |>A and |->B happen together, or |->A and |>B would. (is there a way to type inline LaTeX equations??)
Similarly for Eq.1 above from my essay, we're entangling the mind state |...>mind with the environmental state |...>env in the specific way shown, such that when the entangled state collapses the states |Intention1>mind and |IntendedOutcome1>env should happen together.
As an example, |Intention1>mind may stand for "my mind wanting to grab an apple with my right hand", then |IntendedOutcome1>env may stand for "my body muscles are coordinated so that my right hand reaches out to grab the apple".
As for how exactly this kind of entanglement can occur in reality, it's the million dollar question I guess :). I offered a rather hand-waving example of how simple entanglements at the level of neurons may be combined into more complicated ones, though it's more an illustration than anything else. But Nature is surely more clever than us and I'm sure she has worked out exactly how to build the entanglement in question through billions of years of evolution.
What I mean by "intentionality" in Section 4.1 of my essay is a more generalized concept, where we started from identifying quantum entanglement of the proper type between mind and environmental states with intentionality at the macro scale, and then we infer that as we break down the macro entanglement state into its simpler constituents, we may still refer to these simpler kinds of entanglements as "intentions" at the simpler level ,and probably all the way down to the microscopic scale. In this sense, even the simple Bell state we mentioned above can be imbued with some rudiments of intentionality, though of a much more primitive variety.
Hope this answers some of your questions. I'll be checking out your essay shortly.
Ming.
Dear Héctor, thanks for commenting.
Dear Shaikh Raisuddin, thanks for commenting.
Dear Joe, thanks for commenting.
Ming -- thanks very much for the helpful explanation. As a philosopher maybe it should have been clear to me that your "miraculous" entanglement was overcoming the Cartesian dualism of mind and body, which makes perfect sense in the context of this contest. But in fact, I needed the apple.
So I was right that this is very interesting. Even if we don't yet have an explanation of the kind of entanglement that constitutes "intending", it's surely intriguing that we can chase it "all the way down." Your comment about evolution makes sense, and I hope you'll find in my essay a suggestion about the kind of explanation that might work here.
Conrad
Dear Chi Ming Hung,
Nice essay about intentions and neurons and decoherences of wavefunction and Spherical_Cows!
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg... "In section 3.1 we see how complex entanglements can be built up from simpler ones, but so does intentionality, since we've identi_ed intentionality with the entanglement between the mind and environmental states. This means that as we go down to the level of the neuron, and even further into the level of the elementary particles, for instance, rudimentary traces of intentionality may still be found in the entanglements among the constituents."
A Good idea, I fully agree with you, what you are doing here is going towards level of neurons, but my essay takes you upwards to the level of Galaxies in the Universe. ............
..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Best wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please................
=snp. gupta
disciplined does not mean that a person encircles this universal altruism like a torch of truth.If all people were like Jesus christ and buddhah of course we d have a better planet.The vanity also must be taken into account.I have discussed with so many people thinking thyat they were universal and humble in front of this infinite entropy but no they are not.The human interactions are complex and the psychology is a big puzzle but we have informations whih are more important than others.Personaly I never crush a bee or an insect.It is a kind of respect of créations.The rest seems vain, .....Universal love, not need of an explaination for a thing so universal and simple....
Regards
Dear Chi Ming Hung
It may surprise you to hear views that probability is not fundamental in QM but emerges from some wrong premises about duality. Gerard 't Hooft in his new book proposes that QM emerges from Cellular Automata which by definition are not probabilistic. These matters are explored in my fqxi essay where I suggest that - ironically - the whole probabilistic nonsense originated from Einstein's false description of the photon as a point in space.
In my rudimentary ToE Beautiful Universe Model there is no probability, and entanglement is enacted through a causal, linear universal lattice of node-to-node interactions.
I value your feedback and wish you all the best you all the best,
Vladimir
Vladimir Tamari
Chi,
Great essay, enjoyable to read, interesting, and free of the confused mumbo jumbo often surrounding QM. I like and agree your thesis; "complex entanglements can be built up from simpler ones". You did rather duck the key questions, but I think that was very wise. .. for a specific reason;
In my essay I identify a completely classical (if not entirely deterministic) mechanism reproducing the full predictions of QM. The words you're looking for are; 'unlikely' 'impossible' or 'ridiculous'. It's none of those, and full falsifiable. Most have run away from doing so with hands over their ears screaming, but I think your understanding of the original assumptions of Bohr etc will allow you to address this Classic QM scientifically. First we find 2 orthogonal momenta (yes, simply on a spinning sphere!), then produce the complementary inverse cosine distributions, then square those values. No maths is required (at first - as Wheeler suggests!) only dynamic geometry. Intentionality and more besides then emerges.
I greatly look forward to your comments or questions. There's also a video, showing what 'superposition', 'collapse' and 'entanglement' really are in the model and how non integer spins etc. emerge geometrically. A really fast 100sec 'glimpse' from the full video is here; Classic QM snippet video.
A top score is coming for yours. I hope you get to mine in time to score that!
very best
Peter
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
Dear S.N.P. Gupta, thanks for reading my essay and for commenting. Best wishes to your essay and model!