Relative State Observer

Ulla Mattfolk

Ulla Mattfolk I quote prof Matt Strassler:
Very, very important: Do not confuse the Bohron field B(x) (a1D string) with a wave function!!

This field is a function in physical space (not the space of possibilities). B(x) is a function of physical space points x that make up the x-axis, and is not a function of a particle’s position x1, nor is it a function of any other coordinate that might arise in the space of possibilities.
I’ve chosen the simplest type of QFT field: B(x) is a real number at each location in physical space. This is in contrast to a QM wave function, which is a complex number for each possibility in the space of possibilities.
The field itself can carry energy and momentum and transport it from place to place. This is unlike a wave function, which can only describe the energy and momentum that may be carried by physical objects.
https://profmattstrassler.com/2025/02/24/the-particle-and-the-particle-part-1/

you see how the real number is 'collapsed' from a complex one?

EmeraldBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk spamming is also to link to the own work, here in one comment 3 times already...

Linking to my essay on this essay competition forum thread dedicated to discussing my essay and calling for any informed readers out there in FQxI land to actually engage with my essay's argument concerning my formulation of the Relative State Observer – is not me 'spamming' my essay's forum thread. I'm just trying to keep my essay front and centre against your and Dufourny's barrage of uninformed spam that refuses to engage with any of the specifics of my argument.

I can't help it if you're both incapable of engaging with any actual elements from my argument and instead insist on largely unintelligible and grossly generalised formulations such as:

Ulla Mattfolk we asked about the REALpatterns, how they emerge from an universal unitary wave that is 0 or almost 0 ... Noether's theorem ... this you also break?... I’ve chosen the simplest type of QFT field ... in contrast to a QM wave function ... which can only describe the energy and momentum that may be carried by physical objects.

Or:

Steve Dufourny Standard quantum mechanics needs concrete probabilities and concrete explanations for consciousness ... this universal wave function ... is physically empty.... it is very abstract , a purely mathematical ontological choice without real physical causes.... We need physical processes and physical substrates for information, particles, and fields ... we have no physical cause ... How can we live in a pure universal illusion?

Relate Noether's theorem to an actual passage from my essay and then explicate what you mean rather than just tossing a word salad that requires the reader to somehow unpack what you might intend and basically reconstruct your argument for you.

Likewise, Dufourny's word salad about how MWI lacks 'physical causes' is again just a restatement of his generalised intuition and belief in some sort of ontology of 'stuff' and presumably its underlying "infinite, eternal consciousness" which I entirely reject as just another iteration of his unphysical idiosyncratic metaphysics that confuses mathematical and physical concepts while demonstrating yet again his complete inability to understand that MWI and Schrödinger's equation are also about physical phenomena.

Again, I ask, can either of you formulate, succinctly, a logical statement of your 'critique' of my essay that doesn't require me to decipher for you how it relates or not to specific elements of my essay's argument regarding:

‘What it is like to be human’ in a phenomenal world co-instantiated with real predictive patterns (cf. Dennett) discerned in the decohering memory trace of a Relative State Observer's cybernetic servomechanical entanglement with its local sensory environment as one branch trajectory within the wider correlation structure of the universal wave function.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle I must be honest, I find your RSO model ontologically and physically incoherent. It seems like a reinterpretation of Everett’s framework that doesn’t really solve the underlying problems, but rather adds complexity without clear physical meaning. I wish you good luck with your essay nonetheless, but I believe the real challenge remains in grounding these ideas in a coherent ontology and genuine physical mechanisms rather than abstract extrapolations.

As for the idea of an infinite eternal consciousness ,something that many consider possible , perhaps it would be for you valuable to approach it with more philosophical openness and doubt. Philosophy can indeed help broaden the mind when it is learnt correctly, best regards

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle The problem, I think, is that you don’t seem to accept critical discussion about your essay. Several of usincluding Lorraine, Ulla, and myself have raised legitimate points, but your replies often become defensive. We have criticised your ideas respectfully and correctly, yet you have sometimes attributed statements to us that we never made. This is not how professional dialogue should take place.
Honestly, there is nothing particularly exceptional or revolutionary in your essay. It is mainly a reinterpretation of Everett’s MWI, speculative and difficult to connect to concrete physical mechanisms or ontology. That’s simply an honest assessment. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle Do you claim that Prof Matt Strassler is wrong? You said you use a QFT model of a particle.
And you could quote your Noether passus instead of one more time link to your own essay? Internet does not like that, so you are soon the last one. Ulla.

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny I find your RSO model ontologically and physically incoherent. It seems like a reinterpretation of Everett’s framework that doesn’t really solve the underlying problems, but rather adds complexity without clear physical meaning.

Which actual elements of my close reading of Everett's long and short theses do you find 'ontologically and physically incoherent'? For example, in what actual sense is a cybernetic servomechanical description of our biological organism not a 'genuine physical mechanism'? I understand given your idiosyncratic personal philosophy you might have difficulty understanding that MWI is also a 'genuine physical mechanism' but at the moment your 'reading' of my argument is what I would consider to be ontologically uninformed and completely incoherent WRT your concept of the physical world and its causal relations.

Steve Dufourny As for the idea of an infinite or eternal consciousness ...

This idea of yours went out of fashion about 500 years ago when 'god died', mainly due to the growing awareness within natural theology that a physical theory of our world simply didn't need a nonphysical guarantor for causality. I think your intuitions here are entirely based in a misplaced 'lost faith' that is at the heart of your idiosyncratic and physically incoherent metaphysics. This has nothing to do with science, or natural philosophy or physicalist aspirations to ground consciousness in a physical cause. You have it all upside down.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle I understand your point, but I think your interpretation of my view is not entirely accurate. The idea of an infinite eternal consciousness, or what Spinoza called the God of Nature, has been explored by many of the greatest thinkers from Spinoza to Einstein and so more, I have given you the list of all these thinkers ,and even contemporary philosophers of mind. It’s not about reintroducing a guarantor or reviving theological faith, but about acknowledging that we still do not fully understand the ontological basis of reality or consciousness.
Considering such an idea is not anti-scientific; it is simply an open philosophical stance that recognises the limits of our current physical models. Many thinkers explore this possibility without asserting it as truth,but as one path among others in the search for understanding.I personally don’t claim certainty Ionly consider that determinism and consciousness might be linked in a deeper way than we yet grasp.
Respectfully,

RoseWren

EmeraldBeetle Например, в каком смысле кибернетическое сервомеханическое описание нашего биологического организма не является «подлинным физическим механизмом»?

Вы сами пишите, что это описание, а любое описание по своей природе ментальное, идеальное, а никак не физическое.

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny critical discussion about your essay

Can you point to any actual 'critical discussion' – beyond your generalised misunderstanding of MWI and what you see as its apparent lack of 'physical causality' apparently due to your unscientific belief in a fundamental nonphysical conscious causality – that actually engages with any specific points of my argument? Such as the above example regarding my invitation for you to explain specifically just how a physical model of a cybernetic servomechanism is 'physically incoherent'? An invitation that you as usual ignored. Coming on this forum and repetitively pasting your nonphysical and largely incoherent beliefs about your own personal philosophy, while passive aggressively accusing me of arguing 'defensively' rather than logically, is trolling.

I have actually gone out of my way, in this now 126 post forum thread dedicated to my essay, to accommodate your 'theory' and invited you to actually attempt to engage with the specifics of mine. Might I remind you:

David Sloan Threads on essay competition entries are for discussion of the entries. While we there is some scope for discussion of the underlying principles on which an essay is based, this thread seems to have become detached from its original purpose - the discussion of EmeraldBeetle's essay.

I should not have to remind anyone of this, but please keep things civil and refrain from personal attacks.

So once more, for those readers who've managed to make it this far, I welcome any engagement with the actual arguments outlined in my essay and summarised as:

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny the problem with his essay is that it is godless, I think.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle I will not post anymore,I am really becoming bored. I have criticized your essay, and you simply do not accept the critiques or the possible developments. I wonder whether you can truly develop your ideas. This will be my last message. Good luck in the contest

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny Great, and likewise I also wonder if you're capable of developing your ideas in any way that might eventually engage with the actual philosophy of science and quantum foundations. But I also wish you the best in developing your rather simple personal philosophy which, AFAICT, remains a natural theological argument WRT founding physical causality in a nonphysical eternal, infinite consciousness. Good luck in that endeavour.

EmeraldBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk the problem with his essay is that it is godless, I think.

That's not a scientific problem unless your cosmology requires a god or gods in which case you're making a theological argument rather than a scientific one. That's not, however, to say that the scientific revolution in Western natural philosophy was or remains necessarily atheist, but rather that it became apparent half a millennium ago that physics only needs physical causality and has no need to invoke a god's beneficent will to explain how the physical world works. And yet again, what does agnostic godlessness have to do with my essay linking a biological servomechanism to quantum foundations as summarised by:

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk You make me laugh 😂 , I told I will not write more because now I am bored and no real developments concrete from him when we critic.

Ulla Mattfolk

Ulla Mattfolk I cannot find anything about Nother.
And much xxxx about Born rule. what is phase and what is frame?

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny

The point being both of you refuse to engage with my essay's arguments and just keep spamming this thread now at 133 posts. You need to logically relate your posted text to specific arguments in the essay instead of making ridiculously generalised statements or posting nonsense like Ulla's incomprehensible word salad regarding godless QFT particles and Noether with no relation to any actual text from my essay. You people are just very rude in your apparent ignorance and have again hijacked this public forum thread with your nonphysical nonsense.

Stop spamming this competition essay thread.

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle I just read it for the n'th time, there was NOTHING.
And we are NOT rude, we just ask questions and TRY to get an answer. If someone spam this thread it is you. Imagine 135 comments and very few answers,,, it is ridiculous. Lorraine even had the same questions like you (claimed to have) about math

EmeraldBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk

Please stop spamming this essay competition thread dedicated to my essay's argument on the Relative State Observer summarised as:

Jianhong Zuo

Let’s keep things respectful, everyone. I understand the discussion’s been intense, but please focus on the essay topic and not on each other. Critique and questions are welcome—just keep it constructive so the thread stays productive. Thanks.

Ulla Mattfolk

Jianhong Zuo Sorry, I must simply conclude he is not able to answer, so it does not make sense to ask more questions. And evidently he is also inable to take critic. To answer with a mantra is ridiculous. Ulla.

EmeraldBeetle

RoseWren
EmeraldBeetle Например, в каком смысле кибернетическое сервомеханическое описание нашего биологического организма не является «подлинным физическим механизмом»?

Вы сами пишите, что это описание, а любое описание по своей природе ментальное, идеальное, а никак не физическое.

Translated:

RoseWren
EmeraldBeetle For example, in what sense is the cybernetic servomechanical description of our biological organism not a "genuine physical mechanism"?

You yourself write that this is a description, and any description is by nature mental, ideal, not physical.

I guess if you define the term 'description' as by nature 'ideal' and not 'physical', then a description of a physical mechanism is not itself 'physical'. But I'm not asking whether the description is itself 'physical' but what it describes, as in the cybernetic servomechanism. For example, are you saying you think your living body as a cybernetic servomechanism isn't physical but a mental/ideal projection?

Do you understand plain English or is this a problem with your Russian translation of my English text?

« Previous Page Next Page »