Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
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.
Reality am simply visible. Unrealistic complex artificial intelligence concerns only that which am invisible.
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
Quantum Darwinism is a basic notion that there are perturbations or information, what I like to call quantum phase noise, from the environment that determine quantum action. Therefore quantum Darwinism is a way to make quantum action deterministic by introducing a quantum phase noise that comes from the environment.
A process of natural selection then determines the future from many possible futures and as long as all observers use the same process, an objective reality then exists that all observers can agree with.
Not unlike pilot waves, continuous spontaneous collapse, and other Bohmiam hidden variable schemes, quantum Darwinism supposes that quantum phase noise is knowable since it encodes all of the information of the universe.
However, the observers are all subject to the same quantum phase noise as are the sources and so ultimately, it is impossible for an observer to know certain things about the universe. The only way to address all of quantum phase noise, quantum gravity, and consciousness is to have a theory that brings these three disparate notions into coherence.
This works proposes bringing quantum phase noise into consciousness and so does address two of the three. As soon as the theory also includes quantum gravity it will have a chance of success. Without quantum gravity, all of these notions simply invent a parameter for quantum phase noise.
Note that quantum gravity states are very, very numerous and therefore store correspondingly large amounts of information with very little energy. Quantum gravity also provides the perturbation known as quantum phase noise without any additional parameters...but quantum gravity does mean that the universe works somewhat differently from current assumptions...
Infinite visible surface cannot possibly contain any sort of finite invisible quantum perturbation.
Joe Fisher, Realist
...oh yeah, I forgot to mention quantum Bayes or QBism, which is another way to parameterize wavefunction collapse with a perturbation parameter. And Weinberg's recent paper attempting to use the Lindblad equation, which is yet another hidden parameter way to collapse wavefunctions. This time with atomic clock decoherence known as the Allan deviation.
"We're interested in what distinguishes the behaviour of particles in the microscopic world from ordinary objects in our macroscopic world"
There are distinguished by their very low information content.
See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0129v1.pdf
Rob McEachern
Attempting to account for complex finite invisible particles will not help you to understand, or deal with the simple reality of there being only one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.
Joe Fisher, Realist
[deleted]
Searching for a Quantum connection to your consciousness? Search no more, the 'business knows best' Congress has just passed legislation which allows your Internet Service Provider to sell your algorithmic profile to Gucifer 2.0,
including but not limited to your social security number which you provide when filing your taxes electronically. Oh! you are an independent entrepreneur! My apologies, we mustn't have 'stifling' regulation get in the way of your genius! Just let anybody steal what you have worked on so diligently. How about your Employer ID number, that let's anybody into your tax filings. How about your health records, that let's anybody into the insurance racket that is so heavily subsidized with an exponential increase in demand for money supply while at the same time costing you more for less actual health care. Science will not survive this onslaught if there continues the fallacious hubris that 'if it's math or science it's okay for technocrats to use it to make MONEY'
The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from the same source, that observer cannot then know that those spin states always existed for each particle and were simply hidden. This means that before observation, quantum spin states exist as a superposition of both spin states and not just one no matter how far apart the two particles are.
Classical spin states represent revealed knowledge in that once revealed by observation, the observer knows for certain that the spin states existed even before their measurement. In the absence of perturbations, measuring a classical spin state coming from a source necessarily means that spin state existed prior to the measurement.
Bell's theorem uses a particle pair correlation to test whether a spin state existed prior to its measurement. Quantum and classical correlations agree at certain fixed angles; 0, 90, 180, 270, and 360, but at other angles, the probability is a product of the entangled superposition states. This quantum product is what results in the quantum cos(angle) correlation instead of the classical linear correlation shown in the figure.
This is a model of correlated particle pairs that are polarized either spin up or spin down by degrees from 0 to 360. Therefore all of this spin information exists and is just hidden until revealed by the plots and there are no quantum superposition states in the model. Angles from 90 to 270 are +1 and 270 are -1. The model reports polarization correlation between those particle pairs and in the absence of any noise, what the result is perfect correlation. Even with 6% noise added, the correlation remains very good since 6% noise flips very few spins. When the model adds ever larger amounts of noise, though, more and more spins flip and randomize the polarization of selected spin pairs.
Therefore the noise function seems to have some kind of role, but the noise seems a little odd. The noise function maximizes at 90 and 270 and minimizes at 0, 180, and 360 and so that means spin pairs with increasing noise amplitude will randomize around 90 and 270 before 0, 180, and 360. Thus, the model noise function is wired to randomize spins around 90 and 270 before spins at 0, 180, and 360. It is not clear how this noise is physical since the noise at 90 and 270 should be the same as the noise at 0, 180, and 360.
When you add just enough noise to flip ~28% of the spins and truncate the measurement, you lose 28% of the spins preferentially around 90 and 270 and so rescale +/-1 and therefore match the cos(angle) of quantum correlation. Classical realism measures perfectly correlated spin states as +/-50% for all angles since each particle can only be either +1 or -1. However, quantum superposition entangles the particle pairs and makes the likelihood +/-71% (1/sqrt(2)).
If the model noise function were flat with angle instead of peaked, the model would simply reveal its hidden classical values even down to one bit of information. There are many ways for the classical noise of chaos to resemble quantum phase noise by selecting populations of particles. This model has selected a subpopulation of particle pairs that happens to then average to the quantum result of Bell's theorem under particular conditions. When the model applies a polarization to its random noise, the noise is weighted by the slope of that angle...i.e., but the cos(angle). Therefore the model is built with the cos(angle) dependence by weighting the noise.
You argue that once the polarization information reduces to one bit, this represents the classical noise limit of Shannon Capacity Theorem and that limit explains why quantum effects are really classical after all. I actually do not really like the Bell's theorem approach since it unnecessarily complexifies quantum superposition and therefore can be gamed by any number of ways of hiding values such as this model shows.
This model result seems to be due to a careful choice of a classical noise, not to a physical principle.Attachment #1: mceachernCorrelate.jpg
Dear Steve,
Attempting to account for complex finite invisible particles will not help you to understand, or deal with the simple reality of there being only one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.
I notified Professor Adesso that this article about invisible quantum was utter codswallop and he did not disagree with my assessment. Indeed, he wished me luck in convincing others of my unique view.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Steve,
"Classical spin states represent revealed knowledge in that once revealed by observation, the observer knows for certain that the spin states existed even before their measurement."
That is false. If the observer had looked at (measured) the spin, while situated in a position on the opposite side of the object being measured, the observer would obtain an opposite result. Hence, the spin state is not even an attribute of the object being measured. It is an attribute of the relationship between the observer and the observed. Or another way to put it, is that the measurement fails to reveal any absolute state, but only reveals a relative state. This situation is entirely different than, for example, measuring the color of Bertlmann's socks, which was discussed by Bell.
"Bell's theorem uses a particle pair correlation to test whether a spin state existed prior to its measurement." It fails to do that, since the property being measured, is not even a property of the entity being measured: you cannot measure the color of my third eye, precisely because I do not have three eyes. But that does not prevent anyone from measuring SOMETHING and then totally misinterpreting it, as the color of my third eye, which is analogous to what Bell-type tests do.
"in the absence of any noise..." there is no such thing is this cosmos.
"It is not clear how this noise is physical since the noise at 90 and 270 should be the same as the noise at 0, 180, and 360." The noise IS the same and so is the detector response to the noise. What differs, as a function of angle, is the detector response to the underlying polarization signal. When a matched filter is either parallel or anti-parallel to a coin, the detector has a very high "processing gain", i.e. in the absence of noise, all the pixel-products add up across the entire coin; this sum is so large, that it overwhelmes the noise. But when the matched filter is orthogonal to the coin, they all cancel out exactly (adding one half of the coin with positive polarity to another half with negative polarity, produces a zero value) and thus there is zero "processing gain", resulting in zero signal output. In other words, there is no signal component (no measurable polarity attribute of a coin) in the orthogonal direction. But Bell assumed that there is. That is the problem. Bell, in effect assumed that he could measure the two colors of a Cyclops's two eyes - but a Cyclops only has a single eye. So whatever the two measurement may represent, they cannot possibly represent the measurement of two independent, uncorrelated properties, which is why peculiar, seemingly non-independent correlations are observed.
Rob McEachern
This is exactly why I do not like the Bell's inequality arguments, which are easily gamed by very clever hidden variables sometimes called loopholes. The main issue is once the observer measures the two spins, the observer cannot say that those spin states existed prior to the measurement.
Your model says yes since you calculate the spin states and only reveal them in the graph. Quantum superposition says that the spin states existed in a superposition before measurement and not a single state.
Your noise function has the answer embedded and so is a hidden variable and therefore is not quantum nor is it physical. The model is very clever, but it is not quantum...
Steve,
You really need to stop and think about orthogonal functions. If you multiple a cosine by a copy of itself and then integrate over it, you will always get a positive result. But if you multiply it by an orthogonal function (a sine of the same frequency and phase) and integrate over an integer number of cycles, you will always get a zero result, because the positive and negative terms in the sum will exactly cancel each other. That is what it means to be orthogonal. The coin and the matched filter are orthogonal functions, in BOTH the geometric sense (when one is aligned perpendicular to the other) and in the "multiply and integrate sense".
There is only ONE real component to these orthogonal functions. There is no second, imaginary component; There is only cos(x), not cos(x)+i*sin(x). And when you multiply cos(x) by a 90 degree shifted copy of itself and then integrate (an orthogonal matched filter), you always get zero. but when you do this in the presence of additive noise, you get ONLY noise, not a measurement of a non-existent imaginary, second component. There is no i*sin(x) to be measured there is only cos(x). And the auto-correlation function of a cosine, is another cosine; that is why the "quantum correlations" produce a cosine curve.
Rob McEachern
Dear Robert and Steve,
Sixty physics Professors and over one hundred PhD Physics certificate holders have not disputed my claim that 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.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Joe,
It is easy to deal with reality, just as long as ignoring it remains a viable option. The dinosaurs easily dealt with the reality of asteroids - right up until the moment an asteroid ensured that there were no more dinosaurs that had to deal with either it, or anything else.
Science is no different. Ignoring all claims of a better theory, remains a viable option - right up to the moment that it isn't, and the old theory goes the way of the dinosaurs.
A single electron within a single amoeba can easily deal with reality - by ignoring it entirely, right up until the moment that reality intervenes - it all boils down to being able to detect a single-bit of information: heads - there is something that must be dealt with, tails - there is not.
Rob McEachern
Rob,
Of course that's right, and well put. However, Joe is unresponsive to the question of what could be simpler than a simple harmonic oscillation.
Tom,
If, by "simpler", you mean "capable of being specified by the least number of bits of information", then any object manifesting a single bit of information; AKA any object obeying the limiting case of the uncertainty principle. In a word, a "quantum".
Rob McEachern
Rob,
I'm fond of Einstein's model: "I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field."
Dear Robert,
It is physically impossible to ignore reality for reality consists of only one real unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Natural reality must be of the simplest reality obtainable. I am not suggesting a possible "meaning" for simplicity. Reality does not consist of information. That is why complex finite mathematical and supposedly "scientific" information has dismally failed to produce any sensible understanding of the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Robert,
I am terribly sorry. I attempted to remove one of my comments and in doing so, I removed all of the replies in the link as well.
It is physically impossible to ignore reality for reality consists of only one real unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Natural reality must be of the simplest reality obtainable. I am not suggesting a possible "meaning" for simplicity. Reality does not consist of information. That is why complex finite mathematical and supposedly "scientific" information has dismally failed to produce any sensible understanding of the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist