• Blog
  • The Combination Problem for Relational Quantum Mechanics - Dr. Emily Adlam

In this talk I will use the existing literature on the panpsychist combination problem as a starting point to think about how to address a structurally similar combination problem in relational quantum mechanics. I note some similarities and differences between the two problems, and I consider various proposed solutions to the panpsychist problem, assessing the prospects for a similar solution in the context of RQM. I argue that overall the prospects for solving RQM's combination problem look better for RQM with cross-perspective links than for orthodox versions of RQM.

Keywords: Relational Quantum Mechanics, Emily Adlam

    Forum Moderator
    Physics is a type of system, comprising:

    1. Symbols (that purport to represent aspects of the world), and
    2. Physicists (where the physicists consciously comprehend the above symbols, and the physicists freely move the above symbols).

    But physics is a type of system where the physicists religiously believe that the symbols alone (see 1. above) are all that is necessary to represent the aspects of the world.

    So, physicists try mightily to extract consciousness and free will from their symbols (see 1. above), while failing to notice that the consciousness and free will of physicists is an inherent part of the system of representation. But the consciousness and free will of physicists (see 2. above):

    • Is part of the system of representation, and
    • In turn represents an inherent consciousness and free will aspect of the world.

    The consciousness and free will of physicists can never be excised from the system: its just that physicists fail to notice themselves and what they are doing; and also, physicists are stuck in their abovementioned religious belief systems.

    The issue therefore is: in order to make a more complete representation of a standalone system, how do you symbolically represent what physicists are doing (see 2. above)? This problem has already been solved in computer programs: you represent what people are doing (see 2. above) via the use of the logical connective symbols in the computer programs.

    …………………..

    Physicist and philosopher Emily Adlam, who in a recent article (1) claims that the future causes the past, demonstrates once again the desperation of physicists and philosophers who are trying to make consciousness and free will emerge from the equations they have concocted.

    Unsurprisingly, Emily Adlam is once again barking up the wrong tree, trying to make reality fit the equations (where this time, the equations purport to represent consciousness and observers) when she says (e.g.):

    “the term “observer” here just labels our system to which we attach relative facts, so there's no reason why an observer could not include more than one consciousness, indeed we would expect the community of human observers to actually be made up of lots of different overlapping observers”. (52:00 of 1:06:19)

    …………………….

    1. In the quantum world, the future causes the past. How Bell’s Paradox is solved by Retrocausality. By Emily Adlam, 15th February 2024, https://iai.tv/articles/in-the-quantum-world-the-future-causes-the-past-auid-2742 .

      Lorraine Ford
      (continued)

      In physics (see 1. and 2. above), when the physicist consciously distinguishes the symbols for the equations and numbers on the page or screen, the physicist is standing in for, or playing the part of, the necessary foundation-level consciousness aspect of the world that can distinguish its own current, on-the-spot categories and numbers (that apply to the categories) from other categories and numbers.

      Similarly, when the physicist freely moves and changes the symbols for the otherwise completely static equations and numbers on the page or screen, the physicist is standing in for, or playing the part of, the necessary foundation-level aspect of the world that moves its own numbers (that apply to the categories).

      These necessary aspects of the world that can distinguish what is currently true, and that can move, analyse and collate/ combine, can be very simply represented by the following type of logical connective symbols (e.g. in computer programs): IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

      So, there necessarily exists a logical connective aspect of the world, that can be represented by logical connective symbols, as well as the necessary aspects of the world that are represented by symbols for categories, equations, and numbers.

      The simplicity of the “AND” logical connective, contrasts with the very awkward “Combination Problem” mathematical overlapping proposed in the video, which includes the very awkward:

      “We can have sharing of information between microscopic observers, and therefore we are allowed to use dynamical processes to create a unified perspective via the sharing of relative facts. We can imagine that over time the micro-observers interact, cross perspective links form between them, and eventually a higher-level perspective arises through this sharing of information, creating a unified perspective” (46:00 of 1:06:19)

      and the very awkward:

      “… the community of human observers to actually be made up of lots of different overlapping observers”. (52:00 of 1:06:19)

      6 days later

      This talk offers an intriguing exploration of the parallels between the panpsychist combination problem and a similar challenge within relational quantum mechanics (RQM). By examining existing literature and proposed solutions, the speaker delves into the complexities of both issues, ultimately suggesting that RQM with cross-perspective links may offer more promising avenues for resolution. It highlights the importance of interdisciplinary dialogue in addressing fundamental questions at the intersection of philosophy and quantum mechanics.

      Write a Reply...