• [deleted]

  • Post #21

Mr. Blood,

You wrote, ". . . I was wondering how, in the Smolin approach, they dealt with this most critical issue. How can a probability law follow if every version of the observer always perceives their particular associated version of reality?"

As I understand the Smolin approach, there is only one version of each observer and only one universe. Each observer has a unique view of this one universe, but the views of all the observers must be consistent, as also the history of the one universe must be consistent for all observers. This view coincides well with my concept of "the flow of time" being nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. In a nutshell, it is what it is, but each observer will see it differently. Their different view are all equally valid, but there must also be consistency among them.

It would be helpful if the originators of what we're calling "the Smolin approach" (i.e., what he termed "relational quantum theory") could perhaps give us an update or a reference to an update on their latest thinking along these lines.

jcns

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

Dear James,

Your initial question/comment on "mind-in-matter" or panpsychism was a great help to me, because it made me sharpen my thinking in that direction.

You are in good com[any on this idea. There are many reputable scientists and philosophers, including David Chalmers, the pre-eminent philosopher on consciousness (and a board member of FQXi) who find panpsychism appealing. But I think they have not fully thought through the roadblocks to this position raised by quantum mechanics. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. But I'm going to be on the road Sept. 20-Oct. 1, so the responses may not be immediate.

Casey

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Dear Dr. Casey Blood,

It will take more time to prepare to answer to your message; however, since you will not be able to answer soon, I have something quick to ask: Myself and perhaps other readers would benefit if you would say more about this part of your essay:

"But instead of doing a long series of runs before looking at the result, suppose we look at the results of single events, in real time, as the experiments are being run. If we repeat this many times, and if the Mind interpretation is correct, then we would expect the probabilities to differ from the standard x y p , p."

Specifically, why will the proof of the individual runs not be the same as the proof of the many runs? I think the experimental test you propose is as important as the the case you lay out before it. I know you give some references. Still, is there more that you can say here to clarify the above distinction.

Thank you,

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

Owen and Casey:

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. The natural and integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought go hand-in-hand.

The question is: How do we transcend, and yet partake of, the forces of physics? Answer: The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light is (of necessity) comprehensively reflected in our experience -- that is, in both our dream and waking experiences. Dreams make sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism) more like thought.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

CORRECTION -- The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light is (of necessity) reflected in our experience -- that is, in our dream experience.

Hi James,

I'll see what I can do. This is from reference [1] (arXiv.org, in the physics section the quantum physics sub-section, click on find. Then put in Blood in the author part, do search, click on v2, click on PDF) page 9.

Suppose the observer is "sensitive to" the amplitude, and suppose, for example, that the "sensitivity" rule for me perceiving an event with amplitude A is

|A|^2.25|A|^2(1-|A|^2)(.5-|A|^2), where a higher "sensitivity" means I am

more likely to perceive that state, and zero sensitivity means I will never

perceive that state. The A refers to the amplitude of the state being perceived.

We do an experiment on a two-state system, with coefficients a(1) and a(2). If we perceive the results of every outcome, and consider the number of states 1 perceived, then the appropriate value for A is a(1), and the probability of perception is |a(1)|^2.25|a(1)^2(1-|a(1)|^2) (.5-|a(1)|^2).

But now suppose we perceive only the final result. Then the amplitude squared of the perceived state, for N runs with m states 1 perceived, is

|A|^2=(N!/m!(n-m)!)a(1)^(2m) a(2)^2(N-m). As a function of m, this has a sharp maximum at m/N=a(1)^2. Thus the sensitivity |A|^2.25|A|^2(1-|A|^2) (.5-|A|^2) will also have a sharp maximum for that value of m (from the chain rule for the derivative), so that in the vast majority of cases, the maximizing m, which agrees with the probability law, will be what the observer perceives.

The point is that the amplitude that is plugged into the sensitivity law depends on whether you perceive each individual event or just the final result. And if you perceive just the final result, the combinatoric factor forces a maximum (no matter what the "sensitivity" rule, so long as it is monotone increasing) at the usual probability law value for m.

I hope this is of some help.

Casey

  • [deleted]

  • Post #27

Dear Dr. Casey Blood,

That will do fine thank you.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #28

Dear Casey Blood,

Your Mind interpretation of quantum mechanics is VERY doubtful for following reasons:

1. The Mind interpretation contradicts to quantum mechanics:

'The individual Mind perceives only the wave function of the individual brain'

Quantum mechanics do not know such notion as 'perceives'. Quantum mechanics know only the notion 'measurement'. Then measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Since Mind do measurements, therefore your Mind interpretation does not work.

2. We must select a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics using Ockham's razor: when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. Unfortunately the Mind interpretation is the most complicate ever. Even the Everet's interpretation looks very simple in comparison with Mind interpretation. You are "curing" the problem of quantum mechanics with something even worse - introduction of non-physical Mind. Instead of one problem you introduce a lot of problems:

a) How Mind 'perceives' (measure) wave-functions (reality);

b) How the non-physical Mind must exert a force or otherwise have some effect on the physical

c) How quantum mechanics works outside of Mind control; For example, inside of black holes is no Mind. But quantum mechanics works even inside of black holes!

c) What is Mind in general?

d) Mind is made of wave-functions. How Mind can 'perceive' its own wave-functions?

The Mind interpretation contradicts to experimental data: humans cannot influence the wave-function.

'Instead of each individual Mind being separate from all others, each Mind is a fragment or facet of a single overarching MIND' It looks very speculative and fantastic; How all Minds are interconnected? Why I do not perceive other Minds?

Mind interpretation appears to be non-scientific and non-physical interpretation. For these reasons I prefer to use the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics but not Mind interpretation.

Dear Leshan,

I'm going away tomorrow so I'm a bit rushed, but I wanted to respond to your criticisms. Perhaps it is best to start with a summary:

(1) No evidence for particles.

(2) No evidence for collapse.

Therefore, the current best assumption is that only the wave function exists, with all its branches.

(3) The Everett interpretation, which assumes only the wave funciton exists, is just wrong.

So something besides the wave function must exist.

We are stuck. What do we do? I assume the perceiving Mind exists.

The Mind only perceives; it does not interfere with or influence the wave function in any way. It does not collapse the wave function.

I realize the Mind interpretation is quite unconventional. But if you assume no particles, no collapse, and realize that the Everett interpretation is invalaid, what interpretation does this leave? I'm open to suggestions. The Copenhagen interpretation, as I understand it, essentially says there is no use speculating on what lies beneath the classical world we perceive. But I think that's giving up too easily.

Thanks for your interest,

Casey Blood

  • [deleted]

  • Post #30

Dear Casey Blood,

You wrote: I'm open to suggestions.

I'm sure the true interpretation of quantum mechanics exists. We must find the correct theory. Please try to create another interpretation of quantum mechanics without Mind. I suggest you a Hole Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The virtual holes in space-time are able to explain the most part of quantum mechanical phenomena as wave-particle duality, Heisenberg uncertainty principle ets. The basic idea is that the teleportation of particles is a 'built in' property of matter. Therefore, the appearance of virtual holes causes the wave properties of particles. We can build and publish together this theory. I look for a QM scientist to create this theory together.

Sincerely,

Leshan

Dear Dr. Blood,

I am trying to understand your paper, and I see that you use the Schrodinger's cat example. However, I do not see anywhere in your essay any reference to superselection rules which prohibit nonsensical half-dead half-alive state for the cat (because mathematically it is impossible to have a consistent description of a mixture of a classical system with a quantum one). Can you please elaborate on those points? Thank you.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

I admire your essay's exposition concerning how Physics we are doing gets related to the level of awareness that one may have. The human mind is the human resource to enable us to do science. It is necessary that we pay adequate attention to this fact in order to sharpen both the Physics and the mind. Awareness is tied to a broader term ' consciousness ' and somehow it is getting involved in how we conduct our science. Let us work on to quantify such connections in order to make our science better and sharper. Lately, we are hardly getting breakthroughs in Physics. In my essay , i have attempted to emphsize a closure relationship between physical and life sciences. Though the former has no apparent depence on the latter, may be if we work closely we may learn something to orient our mind better to result in breakthroughs in Physics.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #33

To Florin Moldoveneau

You are quite right about the superselection rule. In contrast to much of what one reads QM itself does indeed prohiblt the simultaneous perception of two versions of reality. But QM does not say how the version we perceive is "selected." And the Sch equation part of QM does not say how the probability law arises.

Casey Blood

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Dr. Casey Blood,

I appreciate your courteous response to my questions. I can't respond to your questions in short messages. What I have done is to post my response, in two parts, in my own forum. I did this to avoid filling your forum with my ideas. If there is anything I say that you would like to discuss, then please just quote it here in your forum and I will respond. If you want my messages posted here, then I will do that.

James

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #35

Dear Casey,

i note that my comments are not finding any worth for you to respond. My essay on this forum also has a parallel discussion on the role of human mind in the physics we are doing. I also consider ' consciousness ' as an important non-physical ingredient that has a tremendous role. In my essay site, i have added another mss ' Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences ' as an additional post. i shall appreciate to see what are your response to the same.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

Dear Narendra,

It's not that I don't find any worth in your thoughts (and I was on vacation for several days). I agree that there is almost certainly an underlyng awareness/consciousness. The trick is to deduce the existence of that awareness from the physics. It is not so easy. I think the only way is to find a "proof" that there can be no particles (hidden variables) and no collapse. Can't think of another way.

Casey

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Dr. Casey Blood,

Quoting you:

"Suppose you were God (?) and wanted to make a universe in which Intelligence had scope to express itself, but there was still some structure. Then a good candidate would seem to be to "invent" a mathematical structure within which intelligence could operate. That is what I think our physical universe is a mathematical playground for intelligence to express itself. So I think the mathematics is not misleading it gives the structure of the playground (but it is not a description of an ultimate unity). My hope is that one can rigorously deduce the existence of the intelligence from the incompleteness of the mathematical structure which describes our physical reality."

I would say that mathematics is proof that any attempt to describe the nature of the universe must be fundamentally based upon the existence of intelligence.

I applaud any physicist that makes an attempt at including intelligence, whether called awareness or whatever, in their description of the properties of the universe. Even so, I see these attempts usually as attempts to retain the illusion of a mechanical nature. Intelligence is usually inserted as an added on effect. When you speak of structure, it appears to me that you are speaking of mechanical theory. While I have admitted to not sharing a belief in a mechanical substructure to the universe, I do want to help any effort to include intelligence.

Please use my message, if you wish, to expound on your ideas. You eliminate the particle interpretation on the basis that the wave function, with the help of group theory, "...can be used to mathematically prove that mass, energy, momentum, spin and charge are properties of the wave function (or more properly the state vector)."

My question may seem unecessary, still, if you see it as an opportunity to further support your essay then please do so. I am interested. My question is: You describe mass, energy, momentum, and charge as properties of the wave function; I leave out spin for now; we do not know what is mass; we do not know what is energy; we do not know what is momentum; we do not know what is charge; therefore, what does a mathematical construct such as a wave function tell us that makes these properties real? Can they be explained as fundamental physical properties without simply referring to their mathematical definitions?

Is it the wave function that is the "physical" basis of the universe? Of what physical nature does a wave consists? What is the foundation of the "physical"? What is it that existed at the beginning? Is electric charge the physical foundation of the wave function?

I ask this because I think: If God, or intelligence in general, were to be pushed to the outside of a mechanical, using my meaning based upon dumbness, universe, then, that universe must first be proven to be real exclusive of intelligence. Do you think this has been accomplished? Secondly: How can an intelligence create a base for itself that is fundamentally dumb? What does physical mean if it is not based upon intelligence? Is electric charge independent of the outside, looking in intelligence? Which comes first? How can either one be independent of the other?

Please just use this opportunity to expand your case for the existence of a MIND. If some of what I have said seems unhelpful, then please just disregard it. I have made it clear that I believe that intelligence is the necessary ingredient of the creation and operation of the universe. You include a "structure". What I think does not matter here. What more can be said to convince "scientists" that awareness must be clearly accounted for when considering the structure of the universe?

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #38

Hi James,

I may see your point. When all there is is intelligence, how can anything "real" exist? That is, I think you are concerned about duality. I agree, although the place where duality becomes unity is a long journey from here. Don't know if this is the sort of thing you envision, but here is a quote from chapter 20 of my book.

TENNIS, COVENANTS & THE GAME OF LOVE

We are beings who have "agreed" to subject ourselves to the rules of quantum mechanics. To give this view a more picturesque form, consider the game of tennis. The players of the game agree that, to gain the benefits of play, they will follow certain rules. The rules are related to the court (a rectangle marked off on the ground to delineate the confines of the game) and the net (the barrier).

It is, I believe, the same with existence. The court and the net correspond to the physical laws (quantum mechanics), and the rules and strategies of the game correspond to the psychological laws ( brain structure and function) of life on earth. We, each of the souls here, have made a covenant with one another and with "God" that we would play the physical universe game. From this point of view, physical existence corresponds simply to a set of agreed-upon restrictions and rules [the equations of QM] --but wondrous rules, rules that allow us to play the game of love.

In the end, I think, there can be no "mechanical" reality. But its a long journey to the actual experience of this. The only way to make the journey, it seems, is through meditative practices. The magic carpet to take us there is, figuratively speaking, the prayer rug.

Casey

Dear Casey Blood,

Your article is much interesting and useful to me and I try to interpret this for a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, though your descriptions are based on Lambda-CDM model of cosmology:

In a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, the radioactive decay is described as the dissociation of terminal cluster-matters into elementary matters and they cluster into elementary-cluster-matters that are propagators for the cyclic wave propagation in a matrix. The observer itself is a cyclic cluster-matter and may be in a 'coherent' or 'incoherent' state in relevant to the propagator. For an observer in relevant to a propagator, its 'awareness' is 'true' when it is 'coherent' and it is 'false' when it is 'incoherent'. When the observer is 'aware', that is 'coherent', there is energy-mass transfer from the propagator by cyclic action. A cluster-matter is 'aware' inherently for a propagator that is coherent to it and thereby the wave function is not applicable for this model.

But the energy-mass transfer in a cyclic action by space-bubble shift phenomenon may have some mathematical similarities with 'Collapse Interpretation' mathematic formulation without probability assignments, whereas the trajectory is substituted by cyclic action.

The 'Many-worlds Interpretation' described by the wave function in Lambda-CDM model of cosmology is expressed as the existence of incoherent cluster-matters for a cluster-matter in the trifurcated tree hierarchy of cluster-matter universe, that is a single-version physical world.

Thereby in this model the source awareness is expressed as the coherency of a cluster-mater for another cluster-matter that is the propagator.

I think the neurological 'awareness' is also physical in which 'collective awareness' is the level of consciousness the mind perceives, that may be a path integral in matrix, mathematically; so interesting the physics and nature, thank you.

With best wishes,

jayakar

  • [deleted]

  • Post #40

i saw your response, Casey. If one keeps in touch with the develpments inlife sciences, one may note that it has become possible to measure the internal electric field within a singe cell as well as in a membrane. The former is far higher than the latter. The measurements were done using nanostructured dyes that can reside locally to the confine of a single cell and then act as nano voltmeter there. Soon it may become possible to understand how the cells communicate with its enviroment more locally as well as distantly within a body structure. Then it may welll become possible to start understanding how the mind works and what role the degrees of awareness/ consciousness play in such communications.

That is the reasone of my suggestion at the end of my own essay on this forum, where i suggest close collaboration between physical and life scientists and not merely providing the latter with their advanced technological tools!