Relative State Observer

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle
I have difficulties to understand exactly what that branching is.

Decoherence only explains why the other branches become causally isolated (Branching2) so that we don't see interference. But why do we only experience one (Branching1)?

Branching 1 is the ontology or pure states in a quantum state? it is like the different codes we get when we split up a combination of ingoing codes, say a tricodon or GHZ states?

Decoherence is when the computation has halted and we can read the result as a change or swap, say 000-> 111? We only consider the 111 further? The other codons are causally isolated then. This is branching 2?

I claim the reason for this is ignorance, neglect. We know only one result that become real. the other are virtual and stay virtual? The quantum still exist? But what about the extracted 111? Is the quantum then incomplete?

Decoherence does not solve this conundrum as the loss of coherence suppresses interference between superpositions in the position basis, but it does not explain the emergence of a singular observed outcome, either from an apparent collapse of the wave function or otherwise.

It is an easy way out to just sweep this under the rug, saying the causality is broken. Because it still have impacts on the universal wavefunction, seen as phase, so we can still get a global branching, understood as a symmetry breaking orphase transition. It has causality even if we ignore it? In quantum in the same way phase get to be a 'hidden variable'?

And note the causality is classical time. Observation belongs also to the phase, the SO?

Observation is not a process external to an observed system but an interaction that entangles observer and system, creating a composite observer–system state. Ultimately, all such composite observer systems are subsystems ψo within a single universal wave function, ΨU, described by a state vector in a possibly infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.

This is the RSO, but the entanglement is broken and built again inside the quantum system, leaving only one part as 'observed'? What can possibly do this? Does the entanglements have different qualities? This observer is physical so you get an 'impossible config'? What happens? This is the collapse problem. is this also a category error?

This machine, biological or synthetic, operates in a continuous feedback loop with its local sensory environment (P2), including its body.

You get a quantized system (the classical, physical observer) interacting with a quantum non-physical system that is entanged and discreate, complex, but still get a continous feedback loop? How is this possible? Note this is where we see the collapse in quantum measurement theory.

Modelled on Everett’s 'automaton', each feedback step produces an individually consistent record of experience (P1) within ΨU (P2).

Here I say, check the quantization. And see your fig 1.

ΨU is the external physical reality, always evolving by the Schrödinger equation.

This is the most easy, EO? , but this has no physicality because it is virtual and hidden? But it oscillates and measure.
But as external it has no causation. Time is not effective. It does not belong to the 'causal diamond' in classicality. So if it has an action this must be different? But this cannot be the ΨU?

Then the SO, the God-state, a superposition in which all possible 'worlds' coexist. This entity would exist outside ΨU looking in. This is the 0D in Steves reasoning? A standing wave?

The distinction between the internal RSO and an abstract SO is fundamental to my argument. Conflating these two perspectives—mistaking the god's-eye view of the SO for the lived experience of the embedded RSO—would be a methodological error

a categorical error?

Axiom (CO-INST): Phenomenal consciousness is co-instantiated with the real patterns that mediate between external reality ΨU (P2) and a state observer's empirical experience (P1). The pairing is provisional, epistemically biconditional, and adds no extra causal powers: if the patterns occur, consciousness can obtain; if consciousness occurs, it presents exactly those patterns.

This is completely non-understandable to me.

Decoherence is a local physical process that suppresses interference, but it does not explain the emergence of a singular outcome (P1).
Interference is the computing part.

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny I have taken time to analyse deeper the different approaches of the MWI.

I think you've got the basics although in my opinion you overstate the differences between Everett, Ney and Carroll. However, I think you're fundamentally missing the distinction between mathematics and physics re:

Steve Dufourny All this is purely mathematical formalism, and the problem is that it lacks physical structure and mechanism ... There is no real physical map between this mathematical object, the higher-dimensional wavefunction and thei analysis and our 3D world.

Decoherence theory, verified in many experiments as a real physical process, was prefigured by Everett, formalized by Zeh and developed by Zurek and others, and it does provide the physical picture of how interference is suppressed and quasi‑classical pointer states emerge, thus bridging the universal wave function’s branching structure with our decohered, quasi‑classical 3D experience. Quantum Darwinism and envariance have growing empirical support, while Gell-Mann and Hartle's decoherent/consistent histories is a formal framework that fits neatly with this physical picture. None of this by itself selects a single outcome, but within Everettian QM it explains why branches become effectively non‑interacting 'worlds'.

That’s why MWI is interesting to many theorists as an increasingly coherent worldview linking the possibly infinite‑dimensional Hilbert space (a mathematical tool) with the evolution of the wave function generated by its Hamiltonian (a physical construct) and with environmental decoherence providing the quasi‑classical reality we live in.

More to the point, Schrödinger's equation itself is an empirically grounded dynamical law of physics, not just ‘mathematical formalism’, and this wonderful equation provides the theoretical and applied physics foundation for constructing the modern world of electronic engineering and technology that we live in.

So ... Hilbert space is a mathematically formal construct – Schrödinger's equation uses it to model and predict real physical phenomena with amazingly accurate results.

Steve Dufourny But we can go further by considering deeper parameters added to general relativity, Hilbert space, or quantum field theory , it is this I insist and perhaps even consciousness, dark energy, and dark matter could help

And here you mix up three different realms:

Hilbert space – mathematics
GR, QFT, dark matter/energy – physics
Consciousness – currently a topic for philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience, and not part of standard physics.

So if you're looking for 'deeper physical parameters' that might unify gravity and QM or explain dark energy/matter, that's all within current physics which uses the mathematical tool of Hilbert space to model that physical reality.

I understand you want to add your notion of a 'creative conscious agency' as a 'deeper nonphysical parameter' animating the physical reality but as soon as you propose that, you're no longer working within modern physics and its naturalistic methodology. In fact, what you propose with your "infinite, eternal consciousness in 0D" underlying the physical reality is very much in line with late mediaeval natural theology which also posited the same in pretty much the same words you use, minus of course the term 'god'. Nonetheless, anyone who wants to propose that nonphysical 'universal consciousness' is what creatively animates physical stuff is no longer proposing a physical theory.

From this physical perspective, your 'spherisation theory' is not a physical theory as such but a nonphysical theory about the physical – and in that sense it has next to nothing to do with physics, or the Everettian relative state interpretation of the physical universal wave function that my Relative State Observer essay is based on. If you could keep your replies on this essay competition thread on topic, as in keeping the discussion more or less related back to my essay and its argument, that would be gratefully received.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle Thank you for your detailed answer and analysis. I appreciate your effort to clarify the distinctions and to explain the physical aspects of the Everettian framework but that does not change my points of vue.
However, I think our difference is mainly ontological rather than technical. My intention is not to deny the validity or the power of the Schrödinger equation or decoherence ,they are indeed concrete and essential. What I emphasize is that all interpretations of quantum mechanics, including the MWI and its variants, remain assumptions about reality. They are based on mathematical formalisms that work extremely well, but they dont provide the full ontological picture of the universe for me simply .They are simply assumptions all these extrapolations.
When I speak about adding deeper parameters to GR or QFT ....involving dark energy, dark matter, or even consciousness , I am not rejecting physics but rather trying to explore whether additional physical or informational structures could complete our understanding. The Hilbert space is indeed a powerful mathematical tool, but I propose that we can also consider 3D physical structures (like the spherical volumes in my model) that might give an ontological basis to these mathematical representations.
Concerning the 0D concept, perhaps there was a misunderstanding and you know it , it is not meant as a religious or mystical statement but as a way to discuss the origin of physical structures from a fundamental point of view. My approach remains physical, though it seeks to unify physics with informational and possibly cognitive aspects of reality.

So yes, my proposal is speculative like your RSO like the MWI and all other interpretations in fact , but it aims to stay within a logical and scientific framework, even if it broadens the ontological scope. But thanks for developping, the vanity is a reality, we are humans, and the politeness and the details of answers can be relevant if the respect is there . I insist that said, this MWI and its other models lack of a concrete universal ontological logic , the universal wave function is an assumption, the mathematics cannot be in logic the primary essence. That is why Lorraine was relevant , we need logical relationships to explain the reality and its viable systems.The physical strucutres and their informations give this , a thing that the maths, the universal wave function cannot give simply. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle

Schrödinger's equation itself is an empirically grounded dynamical law of physics, not just ‘mathematical formalism’, and this wonderful equation provides the theoretical and applied physics foundation for constructing the modern world of electronic engineering and technology that we live in.

that is a very ad hoc statement, I think. How is unitary universe becoming a non-unitary universe?

MWI lacks a mechanism to explain why we perceive only one branch. explain how? Is not your consciousness split also? or must you first double it, like I tried to explain,

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny My point is what does any of your idiosyncratic nonphysicalist metaphysics have to do with the specifics of my Everettian essay’s argument? Why do you keep spamming this essay thread with these long diatribes about your personal philosophy instead of engaging with the essay themes? You just can’t help yourself can you?

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle Be professional, EmeraldBeetle. We are discussing, not asserting things that others have not said. Please do not risk your credibility with attitude or vanity ,that is not how a good professional acts in philosophy or science.
I have engaged with your essay several times and explained why, in my opinion, it is of interest but not particularly special or innovative from an ontological point of view. However, the general quality is good.
Let’s analyze further. Your essay, as I mentioned, seems to be an attempt to refine or extend the MWI or the works of Ney and Carroll, whose analyses I respect. Regarding the works of de Broglie and Bohm on pilot waves, they are much more concrete than Everett’s approach ontologically speaking, because position and properties follow the Schrödinger equation. The particles are explicitly considered, and there is a clear logic for their trajectory and position. This is concrete regarding the quantum potential.
Their works are therefore more deterministic and realistic, as they propose a coherent physical field in space, not merely a mathematical tool. Furthermore, we can consider possible hidden variables in their reasoning.
Bohmian mechanics can include a universal wavefunction describing all particles in the universe, but in Bohm’s view, this universal ψ has physical meaning only through the configuration of the actual particles it guides , something that the MWI lacks. That is why my interpretation can follow the reasoning of de Broglie–Bohm, Copenhagen, and Rovelli. Information can be correlated only through logical relationships and physical structures for the fields ,something I believe you do not fully grasp. Particles are fundamental; without them, ψ would be only an abstract wave in a high-dimensional space with no physical 3D reality. This seems totally impossible ontologically and universally. That is what makes your RSO and the MWI weak.
Let’s take a musical analogy. I have played guitar and piano for more than 30 years and also write poems, the arts are important for creativity, and science follows a similar logic of constructing harmonies while respecting structure and logic.

The guitar represents the physical structures ,the instrument for matter, fields, and real geometrical entities. The player represents the cause or physical mechanism. The sound and waves are the results, with amplitudes and wavefunctions. In the MWI, the sound is assumed to be everything but there is no guitar and no player, no cause for the branches and no physical carrier for the waves.
The worlds are merely mathematical decohered patterns inside ψ, but ψ itself exists in Hilbert space, not in our 3D space. This is totally incoherent universally, because reality needs physical substrates and mechanisms to generate real physical matter and energy. You do not seem to understand this due to what I would call a philosophical confinement. Mathematical formalism can be coherent and elegant, but the equations lack physical entities and logical structures.
De Broglie and Bohm include real objects in 3D space. The MWI says the universe is the wave, while de Broglie and Bohm say the universe has waves and things that generate them.
That is exactly what my reasoning about spherisation supports ,we need physical structures, not just abstract mathematical amplitudes. My Objective Spherisation Interpretation (OSI) goes a step beyond Bohm, Copenhagen, and Rovelli, and it fits well because we have information, energy, and matter in physical structures implying coherence, memory, negentropy, and evolution. MWI or your RSO cannot provide this. We simply need real ontological units and structures.
The universal wavefunction alone, as in MWI, is like describing music with no instrument and no performer ,mathematically interesting and elegant but ontologically incomplete. The de Broglie–Bohm theory adds the instrument (particles) and the rules of motion, giving physical meaning to the melody.
My OSI adds one more layer a physical geometry and informational logic underlying the instruments themselves, which could unify matter, energy, and information.

To you, my dear thinker.
Best regards,

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny Be professional, EmeraldBeetle. We are discussing, not asserting things that others have not said.

I just find your idiosyncratic nonphysical notion of an:

omnipotent, eternal, infinite consciousness as a mathematical seed that gives rise to logic and the flow of information into physical dynamics – Steve Dufourny

uninteresting from a philosophical and science-based perspective. Mainly because I find it to be an argument from natural theology dressed up as pseudoscience. Having actually bothered to engage with your 0D argument, I really don't think you know what you're talking about with regards to basic concepts of empirical science and natural philosophy, the difference between mathematics and physics, or the meaning of terms like 'ontology', and are just making things up as you go to suit your idiosyncratic metaphysical thinking, what we might call your 'Dufournyism', which AFAICT no one else on the planet subscribes to.

And you're flooding my essay competition forum thread just to keep peddling your idiosyncratic wares and ridiculously grandiose claims that your '0D' pseudo-theory is somehow a fundamental ontological rewrite of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

Steve Dufourny The universal wavefunction alone, as in MWI, is like describing music with no instrument and no performer ,mathematically interesting and elegant but ontologically incomplete. The de Broglie–Bohm theory adds the instrument (particles) and the rules of motion, giving physical meaning to the melody.
My OSI adds one more layer a physical geometry and informational logic underlying the instruments themselves, which could unify matter, energy, and information.

So I think it's your simplistic interpretation of MWI that is the problem here as you continue to just ignore the fact that the universal wave function, together with decoherence, explains why we observe a quasi‑classical 3D world within which musicians make music and in this sense is as ontologically complete as any other foundational interpretation of QM – whereas your apparently preferred Bohmian ontology has relativistic problems.

And your concept of 'ontological lack' appears to just be about your preference for a primitive 3D “stuff” ontology vs any form of wave function realism or ontic structural realism (your maths vs physical gloss). That's just your preference and not a philosophical consensus within current foundational debates.

Finally, your claim that 'OSI' adds another layer means that you're just adding even more ontic structure – some physical geometry and informational logic tied to a 0D infinite, eternal consciousness (in your own words, even if you're backing away now!) “underlying” QFT and GR – which means you fail Ockham's parsimony test vs Everettian purity while claiming your idiosyncratic and fundamentally nonphysical metaphysical additions somehow reveal a new (psychophysical?) basis underlying quantum foundations.

I just sincerely and honestly think your 'theory' is pseudoscientific blather that you just keep posting here because you're incapable of actually engaging with any theoretical debate outside the ridiculously overblown sense of your own apparently revolutionary genius.

And yet again, what has any of this to do with an actual, thoughtful engagement with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns 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 All is said. It is evident that you have not really understood my theory nor the deeper ontological questions it raises. That is not a reproach but an observation and I am probably not the only one having observed this, these problems require humility and doubt and general studies, not quick dismissal. I see your comportments when a person critic your RSO. It is rather sad to see such a lack of openness from someone holding a PhD in philosophy, where the very essence should be curiosity and reflection about the unknown. For my theory, there is nothing of odd about this possible 0D , that has nothing to do with the religions or the intelligent design, your only one way to critic , the 3d quantum spherical volumes, the same nothing of odd and possible like the OSI, possible the spherisation evolution of the universe, I think your reaction mainly reflects a touch of vanity simply after my critiques and you cannot develop more, rather than a true philosophical engagement. But it is like this, it is the life, wish you all the best on this contest and in the life, ps I have critised your RSO correctly in explaining why it is weak ontologically speaking, so the debate about your RSO was concrete and the problem is there, you don t like when a person critic with coherence and generality your RSO. sincerely

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle I also asked for the 'lack of ontology'. And what do you do here where the whole contest is about 'pseudoscientific dravel' as someone expressed it. I think this competition is excellent and actual. I have hard to see a link to the aim of this contest in your essay, you just talk of MWI interpretations and mess the branchings here and there. Where is the quantum life? I try very hard to understand, thinking I can maybe learn something about the measurement problem. This essay contest asked for texts more for laymen, Ithink, not text hard to melt. But I get no answers. Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle You know, I expect nothing from the physics community. I have simply been working seriously for more than 30 years now. I had to stop university because of an epileptic coma and took phenytoin for 12 years, my health is not perfect. I search for answers and cannot stop studying. I share and improve my theory on FQXi because I believe professionals can work on it, since it seems innovative, with or without those who oppose it.
I repeat, I am not waiting for recognition , I only seek answers with sincerity and a genuine love for studying mathematics and physics. In secondary school, I was in a strong math–science program with seven hours of math and seven hours of science per week, plus labs, I know what is a derivation, a study of function, an integration,....I have studied maths in details like geometricqal algebras of Lie, Clifford, Hopf...the hilbert works and this and that ,so I know what science and physics are. Later, I was at university in Belgium but had to stop because of epilepsy, and since then I have never stopped studying and organizing mathematics and science.
I am not a revolutionary genius,I simply search for answers and continue improving my theory by studying mathematics and physics in detail, using good papers from arXiv. I am not here to compete, I just explain my points of view sincerely, without asserting my assumptions as absolute truths. Regards

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny – so your ‘thoughtful engagement’ with my essay reduces down to my apparently stupid inability to see the deeper genius of your 0D consciousness ontology? Again:

What does this have to do with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns 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?

EmeraldBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk Where is the quantum life? I try very hard to understand, thinking I can maybe learn something about the measurement problem. This essay contest asked for texts more for laymen

The FQxI competitions generally assume a nonspecialist but still general informed audience so if you’re struggling to understand basic concepts in quantum physics or MWI ‘branching worlds’, which is a mainstay of quantum foundations, then you will probably struggle to engage with my essay.

That essay deals with a physical model linking a living biological servomechanism (i.e., 'life') to a relative state interpretation of MWI (i.e., 'quantum'), and I lay out the basic concepts (i.e., 'how') of this relation between 'life' and the external 'quantum' reality in figures 1-3 as plainly as possible. I think this is clearly within the competition’s theme of ‘how quantum is life?’ and while you don’t have to understand the full decoherence theory I do summarise it and also nod to the canonical references for specialist readers. The fact that it’s not an essay about quantum chemical applications in biology is, I think, beside the point.

My essay may well be deemed too technical by the specialist judges once the submission deadline ends on Friday this week, although I personally think the basic model is plainly laid out for a layman with at least some background in the theory in terms of:

‘What it is like to be a human’ in a phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns 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

Ulla Mattfolk Hi Ulla, Hi Emerald Beetle,
I have read several papers about the MWI because I am interested to know more, and that does not change my opinion. This essay is about this universal wave function, and the RSO is a cybernetic servomechanism with entanglements with its environment, ok I see the generality. So, in this logic, we experience reality as a decohered branch of the universal wave function. It is odd for me because we have no physical cause. How can this consciousness be an emergent informational process in this logic?

If we consider that living beings with the servomechanism are self-referential control systems in their environments, implying a kind of feedback process , here the consciousness ,it is more than odd for me, ontologically speaking. This concept can be attractive for the Everettian fans persuaded that this universal wave function is the only truth, but it is physically empty, if I can say so. Maybe it is also a kind of modern fashion inside a part of the theoretical physics community, these interpretations and extrapolations from Everett.
The problem is that we have no physical causes, I repeat, and no real connections with the quantum states. If these decoherences destroying the quantum coherences are due to the servomechanisms and entanglements with the environments, like a feedback and thus a consciousness, it is very abstract , a purely mathematical ontological choice without real physical causes, I insist. The measurement problem is still there in these reasonings. That does not change or solve the ontological problems of the Everettian interpretation by considering a cybernetic servomechanism replacing the observer, in summary.
The mind, life, and consciousness seem to need physical substrates. They can, of course, by choice, consider the universal wave function,they are free to think as they wish and then correlate it with the mathematical Hilbert space. But we can still criticize this by explaining the ontological problem of abstract mathematics and the fact that we need physical interactions for physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, consciousness, and life.

The problem is that we need physical systems in this spacetime and probably deeper parameters. But I respect their ontological choices. I tell myself that there is a problem about quantum information and the way decoherence is considered. That implies a big problem for the emergence of consciousness in their reasoning. Negentropy and information need physical substrates, in summary.
We need concrete mechanisms for evolution, biology, physical ontology, and if we create abstract concepts like this RSO with branches of the wave function, it is ontologically weak for me. The cybernetic servomechanism therefore cannot really explain why we have evolved as physical conscious systems ,and that is important ontologically. The fact of treating reality as pure mathematical correlations and this universal wave function means, in a sense, that everything is an illusion. It is more than odd, philosophically speaking. How can we live in a pure universal illusion. Regards

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny

And what do your education and health histories have to do with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns 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
Ijust explain this so that you understand me better ,nothing odd. Distress a little bit. Don’t always be on the defensive or look for a fight; we’re not in a boxing match, and we’re not children at school. I have criticized your RSO fairly and respectfully, following the rules. I also pointed out that your essay is not really about the FQXi topic, How Quantum is Life.Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle Which of my questions did you answer here? None.

Noether's theorem states that every continuous symmetry, i.e. the parameter in the symmetry transformation being continuous rather than discrete, leads to a corresponding conservation law - this you also break?

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

like this mantra: ‘What it is like to be a human’ in a phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns 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. - sounds like mandarin? It is not how many times you repeat it that counts.

we asked about the REALpatterns, how they emerge from an universal unitary wave that is 0 or almost 0. (Schrödinger evolution?) you say you have no particles there. MAYBE you need the God you reject to break the symmetry?
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny
I can understand that a part of the theoretical physics community has chosen the MWI as their main framework, perhaps around 15 percent , but the preferred interpretations remain Copenhagen, de Broglie–Bohm, Objective Collapse, or the Relational interpretation it seesm to me.
These interpretations are generally considered more consistent because they provide clearer mechanisms for the reality we observe. We need physical processes and physical substrates for information, particles, and fields, and that is why the physical substrates and the logical relationships resulting from information are relevant to link Copenhagen and the Relational interpretation. It is what I try.
Standard quantum mechanics needs concrete probabilities and concrete explanations for consciousness, we cannot be vague about philosophy, in my opinion.
Of course, theorists are free to explore different versions of Everettian realism and various models of decoherence and correlations, but we can also explain why these extrapolations seem ontologically weak. The Everett MWI is respected, yes, due to its coherent mathematical formalism, but only a minority truly adopts it as a worldview. The majority see it as an elegant mathematical construction of the universal wave function within Hilbert space, while also recognizing that MWI does not provide a complete physical explanation, since it lacks several fundamental elements.

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.

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?

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »