• [deleted]

What is "objective reality"? We can have "objective experience" of reality when we experience exactly what we perceive in senses. In "subjective experience" between perception and experience there is a mind processing of thoughts and emotions.

Scientific picture of reality is "rational". We experience reality through the rational part of the mind. Conscious observer experiences exactly what we perceive in senses. Conscious experience is "objective". In this experience we see that universe is timeless, that change run in timeless space, see my article attached here.

Why evolution of life is happening?

Evolution is happening because basic frequency of quanta of space is consciousness itself. Matter has tendency to develop in life and conscious organisms all over the universe, because matter exists in consciousness. Evolution of life on the planet Earth is a part of cosmic dynamics.

Conscious observer is consciousness itself. There is no scientific proof for that. There is an existential proof. You sit and watch your mind for few years and you will discover "inner space" beyond thoughts. You will discover that this inner space is outer space too. In Buddhism this space is called shunyata; in science we could call it "timeless quantum space".

Consciousness as a basic frequency of quantum space plays an active role in the evolution of life and human being.

Watching (witnessing) the mind is the individual research method to discover consciousness, to grow into "conscious observer" which experiences reality in an objective way without processing of the mind.

yours amritAttachment #1: Bridging_Observer_and_Observed__amrit_sorli.pdf

    • [deleted]

    I have read a number of Zurek's papers. The decoherence approach to measurement involves the attenuation of off diagonal elements of the density matrix. These correspond to overlaps between the various probabilities, and are associated with quantum oscillations between the various states. The entanglement or overlap phases of a system are taken up by a reservoir or environment of states. This increases the entanglement of "system plus environment," but decreases the entanglement of the system of interest.

    The process by which this happens is a topic of research. A standard approach is to compute Wigner quasi-probability functions. The "squeezes" the energy surface (or phase space volume) of a system. Once could extend this idea into foldings, similar to Smale's horseshoes in chaos theory. As yet this has not settled the question of how the classical or macroscopic world emerges from a quantum universe.

    This is a part of what I maintain. Quantum physics is mot that mysterious. It involves waves with linear dynamical equations, linear superpositions and eigen-operators. Nothing could really be simpler. Yet on a large scale there emerges this macroscopic world with properties which are not at all quantum mechanical. Yet the large scale macroscopic world of information and real valued objects is what we consider to be "objective." Another term for classical mechanics is "rational mechanics." The quantum world describes the evolution of objects that are complex valued, such as quantum waves, or quaternionic such as Dirac spinors. These exist in a world of phases and imaginary quantities, and what is real are "traces" of this. Further, these traces manage to form into a world we normally experience.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    The quantum Darwinism is strained. It well known from statistical thermodynamics that the equilibrium density matrix is not diagonal in general. Hence, all the eigenfunctions are present for infinite time. The only exception is a free particle, which equilibrium phase-space distribution is the same in quantum and classical statistical mechanics. Thus the conclusions drawn from this particular example are not general.

    • [deleted]

    The off diagonal terms are not zero necessarily, and in fact they can recur. There is a Poincare recurrence with these. Yet as an approximation Zurek's ideas here are interesting, and frankly they hold more water than other ideas about measurement outcomes, such as consciousness ideas or worlds splitting off. Along these lines I think the matter of how the classical or macroscopic world are einselected into existence (objectivity etc) is far from settled.

    Cheers LC

    This may be slightly off-topic, but perhaps amusing, no less.

    Challenge: Refute - 'The reason our scrambled eggs

    don't unscramble themselves is is intrinsicaly related

    to the initial conditions of the "Big Bang".'

    No problemo.

    (1) I firmly believe that the same physical principles

    apply to all scales of nature.

    (2) However, the fundamental scales [atomic, stellar,

    galactic, metagalactic] need not be strongly coupled.

    In fact, one can show that that are not.

    Example: The observable universe [part of our metagalaxy]

    expands, but *importantly*, galaxies, stars and atoms do not

    participate in this metagalactic expansion. They just go

    along for the ride, if you know what I mean.

    Therefore: Our scrambled eggs [molecules thereof] are

    roughly 3 full scales [molecules --> stars --> galaxies -->

    metagalaxy] "away" from the scale of metagalactic expansion.

    Bottom Line: The arrow of time for our scrambled eggs is

    almost certainly decoupled from the arrow of time defined

    by the metagalactic expansion, although they point in the

    same direction: cause --> effect.

    Does Sean Carroll need to rewrite his much ballyhooed book

    that is about to be published?

    Yours in science [the real kind that is definitively testable],

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    Quantum theory of conformal fields have a renformalization group (RG) flow which extends across an energy scale, which is the reciprocal of the length scale. Yet masses of fields at lower energy perturb the RG flow and break it up. Similarly quantum mechanics exhibits a time reversibility for a small number of modes, but as the number of modes increases this is less certain. Systems with a large number of modes, quantum numbers or "atoms," exhibit thermodynamic properties. Simple quantum systems do not.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    "Systems with a large number of modes, quantum numbers or "atoms," exhibit thermodynamic properties. Simple quantum systems do not."

    You state that as if it were a obseravtional fact. It is not.

    Personaly, I think we are on the verge of a new paradigm in physics wherein simple quantum systems are found to have many "classical" characteristics.

    Given the new ideas of Tim Palmer and Joy Christian, I think we had better test our assumptions scientifically, rather than relying on mathematical over-idealizations and received wisdom.

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    As a rule we don't see much quantization on the large, which runs into the Schrodinger cat problem. Yet if I drop a piece of toast it is not in a superposition of butter side up or down. Similarly, there are not thermodynamics with the hydrogen atom.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    You might want to take a look at:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0102/0102285.pdf

    This paper presents observational evidence for actual physical systems. Same methods also work for Delta Scutis, ZZ Cetis and SX Phes. Feel free to ask for published reprints.

    The evidence sugests you are wrong on both counts.

    (1) E = hv applies on the Stellar Scale just as fundamentally as it does for atoms.

    (2) There are very definitely thermodynamic considerations associated with atoms, but not on a scale that you have any familiarity with.

    You are capable of learning new knowledge, right?

    Enjoy,

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    Oops, that paper decribes a critical empirical test of the new discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm. It was accepted and is in press.

    The paper I meant to give the link for:

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0510/0510147.pdf ,

    this one.

    I have many more. What would you like to understand better?

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    What you write about seem to be basically some form of comparative heuristics.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Well, it beats abstract fantasies that are poorly grounded in reality.

    I talk about specific observed stars and I talk about specific observed atoms.

    I talk about the well-observed physical properties of these systems.

    I show that the masses, radii and frequency spectra are related by discrete self-similar scaling. It works for all types of variable stars tested.

    This discrete self-similar scaling relationship was predicted by a new cosmological paradigm that will eventually reveal the childish naivete of your obscurant mathematical pipe dreams.

    You got a problem with doing conventional science: study nature, employ pattern recognition, make predictions based on inducted patterns, test the predictions?

    You push around mountains of Platonic technical terms and do an impressive theoretical jig, but can you talk about or understand nature? Or is that passe these days?

    Reality is so much more interesting and awe-inspiring than your hermetic theoretical fantasies.

    RO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    One has to be careful and not do what Kepler did earlier in his career. For a while he focused in on trying to fit planetary orbs into platonic solids. There are lots of apparent patterns in the world which seem fundamental, but which in the end are accidents or incidences of various configurations or initial conditions.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    If you look at my website and click on "Successful Retrodictions/Predictions", you will find 38 examples of very definitive tests of the exact same discrete self-similar scaling laws.

    There has been no changing of the laws to fit individual tests.

    There has been no "adjusting" of the scaling laws since they were first published in 1985.

    Your analogy to Kepler's Platonic solids idea is a pathetic response.

    Are you a scientist? Or are you a vacuous technical-term-dropper? A poser, is my guess.

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    "How can physics live up to its true greatness except

    by a new revolution which dwarfs all its past revolutions?

    And when it comes, will we not say to each other,

    'Oh, how beautiful and simple it is!

    How could we have missed it for so long!'."

    John Archibald Wheeler, 2000

    Amen, brother

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    Amrit, you ask "What is "objective reality"? We can have "objective experience" of reality when we experience exactly what we perceive in senses. In "subjective experience" between perception and experience there is a mind processing of thoughts and emotions."

    I define objective reality to be that which exists independently of observation or experience. As soon as observation or experience occur the reality has become subjective because that which is perceived depends upon the observer. Information has been modified by the selectivity of the particular senses (or artificial detector) and brain processing of the individual organism (or particular computer programme.) So the subjective reality observed or experienced is a representation. It is not the same as the existential objective reality.

    • [deleted]

    GP,

    True, but by careful obseravtional techniques and an understanding of the sources of subjectivity, we can minimize the difference between observed/inferred reality and objective reality.

    Still, your point is well taken.

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    Dear Georgina

    I would suggest not to devide reality on subjective and objective.

    It is about experience being subjective or objective.

    Conscious observer experience is objective.

    Any experience where mind process perception is subjective.

    yours amrit

    • [deleted]

    Ps

    consciousness (conscious observer) = objective experience

    mind = subjective experience

    • [deleted]

    "One of the key distinctions between a quantum object and a classical object is that the former can exist in a superposition of different states. For instance, an electron can be in two places at once." An electron's superposition is thus created by fact of observation,measure? Once measured it relocates to a "state" connected in some way to the measuring device or measurer, observer?

    "It may seem like an esoteric problem, but the growing interest in quantum computing has lent it immediacy. Superposition lies at the heart of the promise of quantum computing. The idea is that because quantum systems, such as electrons, can exist in a superposition of states, they can encode a superposition of possibilities, and, therefore, carry out a superposition of computations simultaneously." So can the following statemennt be a factor: Can the computer be in one place only (relative), though it's electrons are configured to be elsewhere? ..and if so would this constitute a possible hierarchy of evolving systems, ie you would need at least one (minimum) computer to be relative to all other calculating computers, in order to invoke..well order!

    You must have a central overseer, or observer or computer, at any level of existence!