Relative State Observer

Steve Dufourny

If the laws of nature and their relationships truly exist and I completely agree that they do, the real question is what is their main cause? It is probably beyond our current understanding, perhaps even beyond the spacetime we can observe and analyze and beyond our actual philosophies with informations inside these photons and connected with the fields of the GR.
What is the fundamental informational cause? Could it be something like a zero-dimensional origin like in my theory ? I’m not sure of course even if I see like this. How does this grand puzzle give rise to physical structures, mathematical equations, and logical relationships?
The nature of quantum states and their deeper parameters to superpose intrigues me. How does all of this operate? Our limitations are real, and in a sense, it’s frustrating ,even though we’ve made great progress in physics and logical analysis.

Regards.

marcovici alexandru

i have read the essay one time

it is very interesting this delves using words and some diagrams with the intricacy of how mind might works

i could say that i have thought before about similar things ,continuity/ and or discreetness of( mind) systems how their boundary can join or split , , , ,
idea one:
take things as they are, temporarily fix in order to have some reference frames after that those might be moved and changed

idea two :
maybe the operations should not be stated in terms of stunning - continuous/ discreetness- instead effectively using specific actions like receipts, do this and that to obtain this and that

remark:
splitting and joining are macroscopic observer phenomena, but if you think for example in terms of chemical reactions there are other effects as well for example when mixing the volumes of two liquids A with volume a and B with volume b the end result is not always the sum of the volumes a+b , non ideal liquids

EmeraldBeetle

RoseWren As I understand it, the main discussion is about whether they are abstractions or real objects.

Why do you think the "main discussion" is about mathematical objects being either abstract or real? Which, for me, would be a discussion about empirical (ontic) structuralism vs mathematical Platonism. From a Relative State Observer perspective, I would say that mathematical regularities discerned in our phenomenal experience are of course, real predictive patterns (cf. Dennett), that with their quantum mechanical application to physical systems allows us human servomechanisms to build a global computer network amongst other things, such as modelling the external physical reality as a state vector in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. The fact we can discern these mathematical patterns would indicate they're reflective of structure in that external quantum reality, i.e., they're real structures in Dennett's deflationary sense. As you state:

"we know about the external world primarily through what our senses allow us to perceive, and this knowledge is expressed in signs or symbols, from which we construct a picture of the world".

So yes, that is the RSO's empirical–phenomenal sensorimotor control loop: Sense data in \to information processing of the real (predictive) vs imaginary patterns observed in that ongoing contextual memory trace \to behaviour out – behaviour including the production of signs and symbols that we use to physically model and "construct a picture of the world".

The best current mathematical model of that "external world" is Schrödinger's equation describing the evolution of the wave function. For the last century the main question in quantum foundations has revolved around how we reconcile our apparently classical empirical–phenomenal reality with the wave function 'picture' of the quantum world – decoherence theory is at the centre of current foundational 'picture construction' which includes spontaneous collapse theories as well as Everettian MWI and relative state interpretations.

This 'correspondence' of phenomenal and external physical 'pictures' is entirely what my Relative State Observer model, following Everett, as outlined in my FQxI essay, is all about!

EmeraldBeetle

Lorraine Ford I might yet properly read your essay, one day, but your Everettian view of the world is a barrier to climb, and I have noticed that your essay is stuffed full of Everett quotes, and that he is the ONLY person you quote.

But the problems remain:

Yes, and as I've said, I think the main problem is your naive, apparently psychologist, pan-agentic, proprietary metaphysics that really does appear to render you incapable of actually engaging with anyone else's argument, whether Everettian, Dennettian or my own essay. WRT quoting Everett, I do point out in the second sentence that I'm "Following Everett's relative state interpretation...". In fact, the essay through to the section on 'Branch Trajectories and Cross-Sections' is my own restatement of Everett's argument.

Basically, I pulled relevant sections from his initial 'Long Thesis' (which later formed the basis for DeWitt's MWI), plus the 'Short Thesis' Everett submitted (after Wheeler rejected the long version), and several earlier essays from his archives leading up to the PhD thesis. After copy pasting everything in sequence, I then wrote through in my own words following as closely as possible to uncover his implicit RSO thread, and in various places building on his argument.

I must say I've found Everett's relative state interpretation remarkably simple once you get the basic gist of it, especially where he models the composite observer_{\text{[memory trace]}} + system states:

\Psi_{\mathrm{s+obs}}=\sum_i c_i \psi_i^{(\mathrm{s})}\otimes\psi_{[\dots,B,C,D_i]}^{(\mathrm{obs})}

If you can understand that relatively simple equation, then I think you'll understand why many of us find Everett fulfils William of Okham's phrasing of the apocryphal 'Occam's Razor' as "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate": Which I understand as 'Plurality (the Many) is used only by necessity in order to represent the One'.

He's talking of the godhead of course, as was Duns Scotus and many more Scholastics before him, but natural theology is what evolved into natural philosophy so excuse me if I swap godhead for the mathematical unity of the external physical reality. That unity is what theoretical physics still aspires to, in the sense of the unification of General Relativity and QM. On the QM side, Everettian relative state mechanics really is the most parsimonious interpretation of them all in terms of its mathematical simplicity.

I think many people, like yourself, reject Podolsky's "non-denumerable infinity" of DeWitt's 'many worlds', which is why I prefer to deflate those worlds in favour of the RSO's observable correlations (our observable world) and the orthogonally unobservable remainder that together make up the correlation structure of \Psi_{\text{U}}.

Lorraine Ford

EmeraldBeetle
The xkcd “Fields arranged by Purity” comic strip (https://xkcd.com/435/ ) speaks volumes: while computer systems and AIs dominate our lives, the computer programmers and SYSTEMS analysts that created these systems are nowhere to be found in the xkcd comic strip. And, it seems clear that mathematicians and others have no idea that equations alone don’t, and can’t, represent a viable SYSTEM.

There is a hidden and tacitly assumed (by mathematicians and others) logical infrastructure to mathematics, which the mathematical symbols in equations don’t actually represent. This hidden and tacitly assumed logical infrastructure has to be made explicit in a computer program, in order to have a viable system, i.e. in order for the computer program to work. The equations alone merely represent relationships. In fact, while a viable system needs this logical infrastructure, the equations are optional. Equations explain nothing at all about how a viable SYSTEM actually works. But the hidden and tacitly assumed logical infrastructure represents necessary aspects of a viable real-world system: the logical symbols represent the system’s knowledge of itself, and the system moving itself.

And when looking at the world as a system, or living things as systems, it is the logical aspects that really matter; and clearly the foundational “quantum” aspects of the world appear to show the system having knowledge of itself, and the system moving itself.

At least some physicists have noticed that there is a difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system: “You see, these equations can’t fly” said the late physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who also said “there’s nothing deader than an equation”. “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” asked the late physicist Stephen Hawking.

RoseWren

EmeraldBeetle ...so excuse me if I swap godhead for the mathematical unity of the external physical reality...
Sorry, EmeraldBeetle, but I ask you to clarify: do you consider the world we live in and us, as parts of this world, to be material (physical)?

Steve Dufourny

The problem is more than algebraic , it is ontological.
The Hilbert space formalism is also an ontological one, but it remains essentially a mathematical tool. The structure of memory, information, entropy, stability, and negentropy is far more complex, especially when we consider measurement, decoherence, and consciousness.
We can utilise a formalism, yes, and Everett’s simplicity within the formalism can be used. But we still have no explanation of why the formalism works, why information is conserved, or why the ontology it assumes should be correct and others.
My approach, which I call spherisation, does not multiply worlds or agents arbitrarily.
It postulates that the real carriers of information, coherence, and entropy are not branches of a universal wavefunction, but 3D spherical volumes with real causes and structures. Their dynamics encode the relations between energy, information, and logical states. It is important ontologically.
These 3D spherical volumes can be correlated with 3D Bloch spherical volumes, representing structured states of correlation, not extra worlds.
They permit a ranking of stabilities, coherences, and informational lifetimes that Everett’s formalism leaves undefined.

The same applies to the ontology that considers only Hilbert space, GR, or geometrical algebras such as Lie groups. They do not provide a universal ontological logic, even when combined with string theories. As Lorraine explained, we need concrete knowledge and causes to have viable systems and to describe their dynamics. Mathematical equations alone cannot explain this.
Thus, Everett’s approach is in a sense incomplete, much like GR probably is. Occam’s razor does not tell us that the simplest formula is necessarily true.
Can Hilbert space, for example, describe why coherence breaks down, why negentropic structures exist, why memory and knowledge exist? No.
We need structures and concrete ontological causes for entropy and negentropy within the categories of states. The Everett formalism has no real internal mechanism explaining the ranking and stability of states it seems incomplete if we want a coherent description of reality.

Abstraction itself becomes the problem when we seek concrete structures.
The Hilbert formalism, the Everett formalism, and other mathematical approaches describe, but they do not explain causes or provide real universal ontological reasoning, because these physical structures do not actually exist within those formalisms.

Abstractions or physical forms ,that is the key distinction.
Simplicity is valuable, and spheres too are simple, but complexity is essential, because ontologically, simplicity alone is not sufficient.
It is not about many worlds, but about structures linking geometry, information, consciousness, physical organization, and logical relationships.....

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny

Dear Steve,

I think you'll find quantum mechanics posits states in a Hilbert space evolving under a Hamiltonian. And that using this mathematical/physical formalism several generations of physicists have, for many decades now, successfully modelled such physical things as coherence, decoherence, information flow, entropy production, memory formation, stability, etc. – and have done this quantitatively and with massive empirical support across physics and engineering, giving rise to our global technological civilisation.

It’s the same framework behind QFT and the Standard Model, which is the most precisely tested and superbly accurate theory humans have developed in the last half-millennium of science. You can add new words and proprietary metaphysics, like your “spherisation theory”, but unless you change the state space or the Hamiltonian in a way that yields new science, you haven’t added any explanatory or predictive content i.e., it's just blather.

Steve Dufourny "Can Hilbert space, for example, describe why coherence breaks down"

No. Strictly speaking, a Hilbert space is just the state space and you of course need the (total) Hamiltonian and initial conditions to model, with high accuracy, how coherence breaks down (i.e., decoherence) – which is how decoherence is in fact modelled! But any undergraduate physics student worth their salt could tell you the same.

Only phenomenal consciousness sits outside of the Hilbert space net. While physics and biology can account for correlations among brain states and subjective reports (NCC), and can model functional aspects of consciousness amenable to physical explanation, the hard problem of the what and how of phenomenal consciousness remains.

If you want a 'why' as to the self-evident existence of physical stuff and conscious beings, then I'm afraid that's a crooked letter that just can't be straightened, unless you choose to believe in a god or gods as the first uncaused cause.

EmeraldBeetle

Lorraine Ford A viable system needs a causal element, e.g. a mathematician, or an agent, to assign and reassign the numbers, i.e. to initiate and reinitiate number movement, but this agent/ causal element is not representable by the equations.

AND

Steve Dufourny That is why I appreciate Lorraine’s reasoning about numbers, knowledge, categories, and agency,it seems to me that we may need an infinite, eternal consciousness that codes, knows, and creates.

Are you both positing some sort of conscious agency as a primitive alongside agent-less thus unmoving physical stuff?

And would this 'pre-mathematician' agency exist before the universe began in order to set up the initial conditions for the Big Bang, i.e., a supreme agency perhaps belonging to an infinite and eternal consciousness is the uncaused first cause of everything in existence – the Prime Mover? Much like an interventionist god or gods but presumably minus the 'god stuff'?

And if so, what has this got to do with empirical science and my Relative State Observer interpretation? Apart from of course, as many natural philosophers understood perfectly well, physics doesn't preclude a supernatural agency, it just describes that agent's workings – what they called the 'mind of God' as per Newton:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" pantokratōr, or "Universal Ruler".... The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect—Principia, Book III

Personally, I have no need to believe in a creative mathematical supreme agency or infinite, eternal consciousness to breathe life into 'the numbers', but each to their own!

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle
Hi, thanks for developing this. One thing is certain,,nobody can truly claim to know the absolute truth.
I’d like to explain why I believe we need a kind of super-agency consciousness. I’m 50 years old, and when I was at university in Belgium, I began searching for answers. Out of curiosity, I read many religious texts,the Bible, the Talmud, and the Quran.... I’m not religious, but I was interested in understanding them. Later, I also read many philosophers, as well as the Vedas and Buddhist teachings.

During my university years, I had an epileptic coma and took phenytoin for 12 years , but that’s another story. Reading all these books gave me knowledgeabout them , but I still didn’t find concrete answers. That’s why I turned to science, studying and organizing fields like mathematics, physics, and biology. It is in ranking that I found my theory, In a page of biology even in seeing the evolution of human brains ,Through this process, I developed my own theory, which I call the theory of spherisation, It was a kind of small eurka in ranking the evolution of biology.
For me, it seems clear that we need a super-conscious agency. When we analyze the details of science and consciousness, there appears to be a universal and logical need for such an idea though, I don’t claim it as absolute truth.
Theoretical physicists are divided. Some focus mainly on mathematical details, which is valuable, but perhaps they’ve neglected philosophy and other sciences. Remember that many great thinkers in physics and maths,here is a small list Newton, Gauss, Cauchy, Volta, Ampère, Darwin, Edison, Pascal, Marconi, Euler, Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Wigner, Gödel, Kepler, Bohr, Born, Galileo, Faraday, Lorentz, Bernoulli, Leibniz, Cantor, Compton, Lemaître, Eddington, and many others ,all considered, in one way or another, a kind of God of Spinoza.

Perhaps they did so because a certain evidence of universal consciousness becomes apparent when studying the general structure of reality. So it’s not strange to think about the possibility of an infinite, eternal consciousness in 0D. Those who see everything as a mathematical accident may be brilliant in details, but perhaps they have forgotten the bigger picture.
That is why Lorraine in telling that the mathematical equations alone cannot explain a viable system is important , we need physical structures, and logical relationships and the only one way seem to consider a superconcious agency to give a knowledge of this universe and so causes concrete to these viable systems and even to explain life and consciousness. best regards

EmeraldBeetle

Lorraine Ford Now you're just spamming my competition thread Lorraine, why not just go and read my essay then comment on it? That would be the polite thing to do. WRT to the rest of your proprietary metaphysics:

Your 'hidden logical infrastructure' isn't really hidden though, is it? All you're doing is pointing out what physicists and engineers (including programmers) already do, every day, which is apply mathematics to physical models of SYSTEMS ... and they do this logically, all the time, to build that global technological civilisation I keep coming back to.

Your belief that "Equations explain nothing at all about how a viable SYSTEM actually works" is rather idiosyncratic. I'd rather say that, for example, semiconductor transport equations give us transistors, Einstein's E=mc^2 and GR corrections keep GPS working for my iPhone, while the Schrödinger/Maxwell equations give us lasers and MRI ... etc., etc., etc.

As for "the system having knowledge of itself, and the system moving itself" that appears to me be an expression of your psychologistic anthropomorphism and possible religious conviction. In QM, dynamics is generated by the Hamiltonian and probabilities derive from the Born rule, it's just states and dynamics all the way down and there's no evidence that systems have 'self-knowledge' ... unless, are you a panpsychist as well?

Finally, Wheeler’s “equations can’t fly” is his quip about the gap between paper and prototype. Hawking’s “breathes fire” is his interesting metaphysical question concerning 'why is there something rather than nothing?' – I'm pretty sure neither are claiming that 'equations don’t explain how systems work'.

Lorraine Ford

EmeraldBeetle
I think you are being a bit flippant about Wheeler’s “equations can’t fly” and about Stephen Hawking's "What is it that breathes fire into the equations?”. Wheeler also said “there’s nothing deader than an equation”.

I'm not (deliberately) spamming your thread. You are making claims, and I'm just pointing out that the equations that you put forward (or any equations that anyone puts forward) as explaining movement, don't actually represent a system that moves. And yet, computers programs DO represent systems that move. There is a difference between the symbolic statements in computer programs, and the symbolic statements that are equations: logical connectives. In view of the fact that we need to use symbols to represent the low-level world, and that we draw conclusions from these symbols, it can be concluded that algorithmic/ logical connective symbols represent necessary aspects required for a viable moving real-world system.

E=mc^2 is a relationship. Relationships do not explain how a system moves; relationships merely say that IF some numbers change for some of the categories, then other numbers will change for other categories, due to mathematical relationship. You plug in some numbers, and other numbers change, and that is the end of it: no more movement is implied.

And this is not about human beings building "global technological civilisations": this is about low-level "quantum" aspects of the world and the beginnings of life.

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny That is why Lorraine in telling that the mathematical equations alone cannot explain a viable system is important , we need physical structures, and logical relationships and the only one way seem to consider a superconcious agency to give a knowledge of this universe and so causes concrete to these viable systems and even to explain life and consciousness.

Mathematical equations plus physical structures plus logical relationships is literally the dynamic form of Schrödinger's equation:

i\hbar\,\partial_t \psi = \hat H\,\psi

it does not require a belief in your infinite and eternal consciousness or Lorraine's pan-agency for it to 'move' or for it to be applied to real physical systems in our actual world. I have lost track of whatever it is Lorraine Ford is going on about now apart from that her statement:

Lorraine Ford "The equations that you put forward (or any equations that anyone puts forward) as explaining movement, don't actually represent a system that moves. And yet, computers programs DO represent systems that move."

simplistically conflates how we represent laws and how we compute with them. To me it suggests she doesn’t understand either physics (dynamical equations that determine motion) or computing (which implements those dynamics stepwise), and is simply confusing a representation of a physical law with its execution in a computing method for approximating its consequences.

To extrapolate from there to a 'critique' of Schrödinger's equation via a creative pan-agentic consciousness, would appear to be an attempt to introduce an 'intelligent design' pseudo-theory via a scientistic back door – and that is in my opinion, not science but rather naively ignorant hubris. And yet here we all are, on a quantum physics forum, with what appears to be two pan-theists proselytising their religious beliefs!

I think if you could restrict yourselves to property dualism rather than insist that a universal conscious agency acts on physical stuff to make it 'move', much like an interventionist God, then I might take you more seriously. And yet what, may I ask again(!), in any god's name, does any of this guff have to do with Hugh Everett and his relative state interpretation of quantum mechanics which is the theme of my philosophical essay?

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle
You defend your position and I respect that. You are standing on an ontological persuasion grounded in physicalism and mathematical realism, if I may say so. But perhaps there is some confusion here between theology and ontology. As you know, I am not religious and the idea of a super-conscious agency is something very different.
We are not speaking about intelligent design or divine intervention, but about ontology ,the origin and nature of the universe, physicality, its laws, and its possibilities. The Schrödinger equation indeed describes the dynamics of physical systems without invoking any external agency, but it still represents only a formal structure. It describes what we observe, yet we remain limited in understanding how and why the universe truly acts. Quantum mechanics, like general relativity, is probably incomplete.
I do not seek to contradict physics, but rather to explore ontological possibilities that could complete the puzzle. We seem to need both physical structures and logical relationships to obtain viable, evolving systems. Mathematical equations alone cannot create or sustain these systems ,they only describe them I insist and repeat.

The super-observer or super-conscious agency his infinite, eternal consciousness is not an interventionist deity or designer. Consciousness, physicality, information, matter, and energy may all be different modes or aspects of a single infinite substance that expresses itself as a finite evolving universe.

So how can we interpret reality only through abstractions and formal equations, without asking why these relations exist, what makes them possible, and how we are able to observe and describe them at all? If you speak of relative observations and interacting states, one can also analyze these ideas through the notion of a super-observer. We should not confuse metaphysics with religion, they address very different questions.

Ulla Mattfolk

EmeraldBeetle Mathematical equations plus physical structures plus logical relationships is literally the dynamic form of Schrödinger's equation:

i\hbar\,\partial_t \psi = \hat H\,\psi

it does not require a belief in your infinite and eternal consciousness or Lorraine's pan-agency for it to 'move' or for it to be applied to real physical systems in our actual world.

Schrödinger eq. as timedependent is in 'the infinite, ethernal consciousness', not in the physicality. I think Lorraine and Steve are right here. Time is not a physical structure, the wave is not physical either (can be discussed), you need a particle or position to have that. Schrödinger equation describes the potential for motion, but agency (a 'collapse' or reduction) is required to execute the motion and make it real and irreversible. You need an arrow of time for the exclusion?

It is an interesting model you make. You describe the work of 'a quantum computer' without measurement, never halting, never making a decision, just an ethernal oscillation between entangled parts. Time is symmetric here and you get no entropy. Penrose described this situation where all is entangled as 'Schrödingers Sea'. Here the more parts you entangle, the more stable the system get, and the more it unitarily knows. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08449-y

We published results showing that the more qubits we use in Willow, the more we reduce errors, and the more quantum the system becomes. We tested ever-larger arrays of physical qubits, scaling up from a grid of 3x3 encoded qubits, to a grid of 5x5, to a grid of 7x7 — and each time, using our latest advances in quantum error correction, we were able to cut the error rate in half. In other words, we achieved an exponential reduction in the error rate. This historic accomplishment is known in the field as “below threshold” — being able to drive errors down while scaling up the number of qubits. You must demonstrate being below threshold to show real progress on error correction, and this has been an outstanding challenge since quantum error correction was introduced by Peter Shor in 1995.

This is called redundancy, which is in itself an interesting thought. Can we redefine what decoherence is? This would be an extremely important question for 'the quantum of life' especially the warm and wet situation.

This goes against common sense, where we have entropy increasing, and ignorance growing. These are two DIFFERENT worlds. But say you are a quantum computer with 500 entangled qubits (quantized 'particle') and you are just one of them, you definitely does not know much. But entanglement is non-local, so you ignorance is 'smeared out' over all 500 qubits, and then you are a continous wave, taking info from all other parts, so together you know much more. But this is not a physicality. And you cannot measure it.

Basically you put a collective world against an individual world. An equation, being a logical relationship, cannot execute itself (Gödel). It must be broken or non-unitary, not a non-local continuum. Here we must recognize the odd numbers as such 'breakers'? And consciousness is such a 'breaker' from selection, reducing and focusing, like we do here and now.

This is what I don't understand in Everett, how come to knowledge without a breaking?
Regards Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

EmeraldBeetle
The issue is NOT "how we represent [the laws of the universe] and how we compute with them".

The issue is "how we represent the laws of the universe, and how we represent how THE UNIVERSE computes with them", where "computing" is represented by statements containing algorithmic/ logical symbols.

This issue is relevant to how the first life could have arisen: the first life 1) needed to be aware of its surroundings and 2) needed to be able to move in response to its surroundings. This is where one needs to use algorithmic/ logical symbols.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, and I won't bother you any more. 🙂

Steve Dufourny

Philosophically, we can go even further regarding the super-observer ,the infinite eternal consciousness in 0D. The question of whether it is outside or inside reality is not really the issue, because it is omnipotent and omnipresent. If it were only outside, that would create a paradox, since we are within it,therefore, paradoxically, it must also be inside.
Physical reality , this evolving universal sphere or future sphere must therefore exist within this infinite eternal consciousness. How could it be otherwise, if life, beings, and consciousness themselves emerge from it? This super-observer, this creative source, transforms, codes, and manifests energy, matter, and information. It is an important paradox to consider at my humble opinion.

If we speak of an infinite eternal consciousness, we are not describing a thing within the universe, but rather the ground of being itself. Ontologically, it is neither inside nor outside reality, for it is what makes reality possible. Even if the universe is finite, there is nothing truly outside of this consciousness; thus, all existence ,physicality, mind, and space-time are manifestations or modes of it and it evolves.
The notion of a single substance makes sense in this view, though physical evolution remains a concrete reality. Infinity, eternity, and finite systems must therefore be understood relatively, what matters is not the spatial idea of inside or outside, but the logical omnipresence that allows structured, viable systems to exist and it seems to evolve, that is why I name the theory of spherisation, an evolution of this universe.
Mathematical equations can describe these systems, but they cannot fully explain the motions, evolutions, transformations, or emergence of consciousness. If physicality truly evolves, it must depend on structured forms and logical relationships and thatis why consciousness is ontologically prior.
We are in this logic finite expressions of consciousness, manifesting within finite physical structures,hence infinity and eternity must be relativized. Maybe we have even badly interpretated infinity inside this physicality and eternity mathematicallt speaking. In my reasoning,matter does not produce consciousness rather, consciousness expresses itself as matter, energy, and information, through languages, actions, adaptations, and qualia as mechanisms of these finite systems, physical structures like if these physical structures express modes finite of this infinite eternal consciousness.
This is not a theological speculation but a philosophical necessity, an ontological substance that is both beyond and within physicality , infinite, eternal, and dimensionless (0D) but we live in a finite system evolving with dimensions and a time, there is the paradox but it must be relativated.
Therefore, the real question is not about the super-observer itself, but about physicality and its laws ,how finite structures emerge within infinite consciousness. The distinction between inside and outside dissolves, and dual ontologies lose coherence. In this sense, there is ultimately no real duality.

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny

Half a millennia ago a slow burning crisis in natural theology was collapsing Christian cosmology as it became apparent that an ontology of being had no need for a god as first cause. Nothing has changed in the 500 years since that natural philosophical 'revelation' – science is still in no need of godhead to explain physical causality.

Please stop spamming this thread with your pseudo-scientific pan-theistic religious beliefs that do authentic religious faith no good service.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny the real question is not about the super-observer itself, but about physicality and its laws ,how finite structures emerge within infinite consciousness. The distinction between inside and outside dissolves, and dual ontologies lose coherence. In this sense, there is ultimately no real duality.

There is a big difference being outside or inside a system, it is about complementarity, and maybe exactly this measurement problem. One is the question of randomess or even statistics versus pobabilities. If you are inside the randomess you see from outside may become perfectly ordered, statistics is from outside, probabilities are from inside.

If a super-observer is outside it cannot do so much, not even observe what happen inside, not measure the events or evolution, he simply cannot break the system, because then all would fall apart in non-commutative dualities? no more continuity.

If this super-deity would be a phase it must be imaginary or virtual, so no direct physicality? So I suppose this super-observer has to be inside as a part of the equations? Note that we have some difficulties with a global phase in a quantum system, but the problem does not go away just by ignoring it. Maybe this deity uses a 'ligting bolt' like Zeus or Thor to become visible?

Regarding Everett one more thing, the measurement problem has been transformed into a subjectivity problem.
Why is consciousness subjective, or is it?
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle I think this discussion shows that there are limits to how far we can go in our reasoning due to a kind of philosophical prison you have created,and that’s fine. We are not spamming; we are simply offering concrete critiques and different perspectives to explore possibilities.I understand that these ideas can touch the ego, because we are all imperfect humans. But while you make strong assertions, we are not asserting anything as absolute truth ,we are discussing possibilities. The difference is there.

Your work on RSO clearly shows your wish to go beyond Everett’s interpretation, and I respect that. But, in my humble opinion, it still lacks a certain generality and perhaps also some openness to doubt and explore. We are all convinced of our views to some extent, but vanity is never a good companion in research.
Our community, unfortunately, often suffers from too much self-certainty. Everyone believes they understand the universe and its laws better than the others. Yet a true general thinker explores questions, and doubts, while still defending their ideas with determinism if possible without asserting our assumptions..

Maybe you do not fully understand yet what Lorraine and I are trying to express. We are not attacking physics, but proposing to think more deeply about its ontological foundations. I invite you to consider that perspective carefully. Take care,

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny

No, you're now literally babbling about late mediaeval natural theological ideas whether you understand that or not. I have absolutely no interest in your pan-theistic belief in an infinite eternal consciousness and 'his' super-conscious agency.

Stop spamming my essay competition thread with your pseudo-scientific theology!

Steve Dufourny

EmeraldBeetle Well, don’t be angry ,we’re just trying to explain ideas that you may not have fully extrapolated or understood yet. It’s important to keep some doubt and not assert assumptions too strongly. I understand it’s not always easy for the ego but maybe a good Belgian beer could help with that lol.I repeat laugh is good for health on this unperfect sphere earth evolving.

You seem a bit affected by our comments, and I understand that. But now you are attributing statements to me that I never made or asserted. That often happens when vanity is touched. You simply don’t seem to understand what I was explaining about the possibilities and the difference between theology and ontology.
So I conclude that, for now, you may not be able to go further perhaps because you find it difficult to doubt. Don’t forget that the Schrödinger equation you refer to came from a thinker who, like me, reflected deeply on the idea of Spinoza’s God. To speak seriously about these matters, one must also understand the ontological and philosophical views of the great thinkers I mentioned earlier because their philosophies are essential, too.

Best regards, and good luck with your RSO and your essay. Take care.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Hi, You tell an very very important point..........This is what I don't understand in Everett, how come to knowledge without a breaking?
Thanks to point on this dear Ulla.

The same goes for Schrödinger’s equation, it does not explain why we are conscious, why we experience qualia, or why viable systems exist..... We need deeper parameters to understand why the equation breaks down and what these deeper parameters are, because entropy and negentropy are essential for the mechanisms of evolution, adaptation, and changes......
It seems he does not understand the importance of knowledge itself ,the necessity of having physical structures and logical relationships that produce the dynamics which mathematical equations alone cannot generate.

Regards

marcovici alexandru

Ulla Mattfolk i\hbar\,\partial_t \psi = \hat H\,\psi

i\hbar\,\partial_t \psi = \hat H\,\psi
i\partial_t\hbar\, \psi \hat H\,=\psi
i\hbar\,=\partial_t \psi \hat H\,\psi
i=\hbar\,\partial_t \psi \hat H\,\psi
i\hbar\,\hat H\partial_t \psi = \,\psi
...
=\hbar\,\partial_t \psi i \hat H\,\psi

what is fixed in this situation?
this comment comes from literary liberal arts studies perspective, the screen / paper surface has a finite area there is a limited amount of things that can be drawed ( written on it )
out of those an even smaller subset actually mean something in the way i can learn decipher and perceive

david bowie quote the sculpture is there hidden

lots of smart people works on this for a long time even with ai no major improvement have happened

i've heard insistingly something that quantum mechanics is not local

than a conclusion sky's (eyes) the limit,
(i mean there must be some consistency whyle trying to debate and argue (being able to follow trough ..) )
observations/ words are the peaks temporary pauses of consciousness implicite explicite or linklater or .. other more complicated understanding schemes

those structures generated from debates will be sooner or later intergrated
the idea is having better debates and more exploratory power

thats an extreme an other extreme single use word language
where learning and using of each word is in own right a special event

an other example you are in a small little room you must fold a big sheet of paper (or textile fabric) many more larger than the room surface , this surface cannot be observed all at once there must be done some extra repetitive movements to make it fit for the fold

« Previous Page Next Page »