Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics

[Kuhnada29]

Check this interesting research paper out. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm Notice how its not biased also, it states more than 1 theory on the collapse of the wave-function. Various solutions to the "measurement problem" associated with wave-function collapse have been proposed. Some physicists maintain that the classical or macro-world does not suffer from quantum ambiguity because it can store information and is subject to an "arrow of time", whereas the quantum or micro-world is alleged to be unable to store information and time-reversible (Pagels, 1983). A more extravagant approach is the many-worlds hypothesis, which claims that the universe splits each time a measurement (or measurement-like interaction) takes place, so that all the possibilities represented by the wave function (e.g. a dead cat and a living cat) exist objectively but in different universes. Our own consciousness, too, is supposed to be constantly splitting into different selves, which inhabit these proliferating, non-communicating worlds. Other theorists speculate that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function and thereby creates reality. In this view, a subatomic particle does not assume definite properties when it interacts with a measuring device, but only when the reading of the measuring device is registered in the mind of an observer (which may of course be long after the measurement has taken place). According to the most extreme, anthropocentric version of this theory, only selfconscious beings such as ourselves can collapse wave functions. This means that the whole universe must have existed originally as "potentia" in some transcendental realm of quantum probabilities until selfconscious beings evolved and collapsed themselves and the rest of their branch of reality into the material world, and that objects remain in a state of actuality only so long as they are being observed by humans (Goswami, 1993). Other theorists, however, believe that nonselfconscious entities, including cats and possibly even electrons, may be able to collapse their own wave functions (Herbert, 1993). If consciousness DOES collapse the wave-function, like it does in dreams. This would say a whole lot. This materialistic world we live in, if every self-conscious being were erased ,then the materialistic world will just disappear and return to a wave of potential or energy field. And if one self-conscious being came into this universe they'd be able to make that universe how they see fit. It'd be like their own lucid dream. Why would the universe disappear into a big wave of potentia? Because there can't be a universe if there isn't a self-aware being to perceive it. Its our brain that makes everything seem real. Like i said in a post i made a while back, maybe the reason we can't just create want we want in this reality because your not the only self-conscious being in this world. You can do what you want in dreams because your the only self-aware person. If your in a lucid dream believing you can fly, then you can. But if 10 more self-aware beings came in the dream believing you cant fly, then you can't. This is all speculation, but hey.... speculation is fun. If consciousness DOES collapse the wave-function...what do YOU think it would mean?

[grasshoppa]

I haven't read the article yet, and I plan to make another post discussing it. However, this stuck me: "And if one self-conscious being came into this universe they'd be able to make that universe how they see fit. It'd be like their own lucid dream." I can't help but think of the beginning pages of the Bible. Not that I'm trying to conclude anything here, but I find it very interesting.

[Licity]

There must be conscious life in order to collapse the wave-function. In order for conscious life to exist, it had to have had a universe in which particles existed in the particle state and not as waves. See it?

[juroara]

not if you believe that consciousness existed first outside the physical universe. then its not a catch 22 why bring that discussion here? if science does prove the relationship between consciousness and reality as discussed here, it means what the mystics have been saying for thousands of years WERE RIGHT. and if they were right about one thing? were they right about the other?

[Licity]

not if you believe that consciousness existed first outside the physical universe. then its not a catch 22 why bring that discussion here? if science does prove the relationship between consciousness and reality as discussed here, it means what the mystics have been saying for thousands of years WERE RIGHT. I didn't "bring" the discussion here, the research paper itself mentions the effects of self-conscious life evolving in an uncollapsed universe. And while the mystics would technically be right about things being more than a brain, consciousness would still be reality, just a part of reality that must be read with instruments and not with our senses directly. and if they were right about one thing? were they right about the other? What things? I wouldn't think that the fact we can't affect reality at will isn't a product of the number of self conscious beings in favor of the change, but it would work more like this: The first force capable of collapsing the wave function got to set it up how it wanted, and past that, no changes can be made. Things would have to uncollapse in order to recollapse them into a different state.

[juroara]

I didn't "bring" the discussion here I was referring to my own post

[kidjordan]

not if you believe that consciousness existed first outside the physical universe. then its not a catch 22 I think the concept of infinite regress in causality makes sense. Consciousness and particles have been creating each other in an infinite regress that extends into the infinite past.

[MindGames]

There must be conscious life in order to collapse the wave-function. Wait wut? Then how can detectors collapse the wave function? that means.. THEY'RE CONSCIOUS! Also, nice 2-year bump.

[Xei]

There's only one thing that is certain about quantum mechanics: none of us understand it.

[Tranquil Toad]

Well I understand very clearly in my head what they are getting at and why they are having confusion, god knows how I can explain it though. Here it goes. Much confusion comes from separating consciousness and matter. Its not that consciousness exists outside the universe, its that the universe IS consciousness. What you have are different points of view, different aspects of consciousness looking at each other. The entire world in which you exist is alive and aware. Everything from atoms, to rocks, to plants, to people are conscious. When two points of view intersect, this creates experience. You look at the rock, the rock looks back at you. Infinite points of consciousness all looking at each other, if you like. There are infinite other points of view which you are not looking at right now, but which you can tune into. Say you pick up coin. There are an infinite number of those coins, all in parallel realities. Your consciousness decides which coin you will tune into. From the coin's point of view, its consciousness decides which one of you it will tune into. You are living in a type of dream, its just the most complex shared dream you can imagine. It sounds odd when you try to view it linearly. "the universe splits each time a measurement (or measurement-like interaction) takes place." Well, no. All that is exists all at once, with no time. To use an analogy, picture all these infinite points of view of consciousness as frames on a film strip. They all exist at once, but when you view them one after another a linear progression appears. Then you get the movie. Everything exists all at once, but by viewing aspects of it one after the other you get time. Each measurement or observation is just changing the channel to a different station, with all stations existing at the same time. Furthermore, each point of view, each station, exists only in reference to the others. Like a yin yang, every point of view exists as a relationship to another point of view. So what you have is actually ONE consciousness, looking at itself from an infinite number of different angles.

[Original Poster]

Well I understand very clearly in my head what they are getting at and why they are having confusion, god knows how I can explain it though. Here it goes. Much confusion comes from separating consciousness and matter. Its not that consciousness exists outside the universe, its that the universe IS consciousness. What you have are different points of view, different aspects of consciousness looking at each other. The entire world in which you exist is alive and aware. Everything from atoms, to rocks, to plants, to people are conscious. When two points of view intersect, this creates experience. So you look at the rock, the rock looks back at you. Infinite points of consciousness all looking at each other, if you like. There are infinite other points of view which you are not looking at right now, but which you can tune into. Say you pick up coin. There are an infinite number of those coins, all in parallel realities. Your consciousness decides which coin you will tune into. From the coin's point of view, its consciousness decides which one of you it will tune into. You are living in a type of dream, its just the most complex shared dream you can imagine. It sounds odd when you try to view it linearly. "the universe splits each time a measurement (or measurement-like interaction) takes place." Well, no. All that is exists all at once, with no time. So to use an analogy, picture all these infinite points of view of consciousness as frames on a film strip. They all exist at once, but when you view them one after another a linear progression appears. Then you get the movie. So everything exists all at once, but by viewing aspects of it one after the other you get time. So each measurement or observation is just changing the channel to a different station, with all stations existing at the same time. Furthermore, each point of view, each station, exists only in reference to the others. Like a yin yang, every point of view exists as a relationship to another point of view. So what you have is actually ONE consciousness, looking at itself from an infinite number of different angles. This is also what I lean towards. I feel like if quantum physicists gave this notion proper value they'd stop looking for the Higgs particle and get a lot more results in their studies.

[Xei]

What is the Higgs Boson? The entire world in which you exist is alive and aware. Everything from atoms, to rocks, to plants, to people are conscious. When two points of view intersect, this creates experience. So you look at the rock, the rock looks back at you. Infinite points of consciousness all looking at each other, if you like. So why don't rocks or atoms collapse the quantum wave form?

[Original Poster]

What is the Higgs Boson? So why don't rocks or atoms collapse the quantum wave form? It's the missing piece to what gives objects their mass.

[Tranquil Toad]

So why don't rocks or atoms collapse the quantum wave form? I'm guessing they would, from their perspective. From your perspective, all the other consciousness exists in potential. All those T.V stations existing all at once. So you get the wave pattern of many places at once. From any other perspective, you would exist as a wave pattern until that perspective tuned into your channel and collapsed its own wave. Out of the infinite possibilities of channels, you focus on only a few due to your observation. You collapse the wave. But from the other channel's point of view, you are a probability until they focus on you.

[MindGames]

I'm guessing they would, from their perspective. From your perspective, all the other consciousness exists in potential. All those T.V stations existing all at once. So you get the wave pattern of many places at once. From any other perspective, you would exist as a wave pattern until that perspective tuned into your channel and collapsed its own wave. Out of the infinite possibilities of channels, you focus on only a few due to your observation. You collapse the wave. But from the other channel's point of view, you are a probability until they focus on you. So from what you're saying, if a detector collapsed a wave function, then that wave function would remain uncollapsed from our point of view. Therefore, since we had never collapsed it ourselves, all double slit experiments should show uncollapsed results as opposed to results that had been collapsed by detectors. Correct me if I'm wrong. To be honest, it sounds like you're pulling these explanations out of your ass. Do you have any real reason to believe this stuff or are you just trying to explain things so that they fit into your own paradigm of the world?

[Tranquil Toad]

So from what you're saying, if a detector collapsed a wave function, then that wave function would remain uncollapsed from our point of view. Therefore, since we had never collapsed it ourselves, all double slit experiments should show uncollapsed results as opposed to results that had been collapsed by detectors. Correct me if I'm wrong. To be honest, it sounds like you're pulling these explanations out of your ass. Do you have any real reason to believe this stuff or are you just trying to explain things so that they fit into your own paradigm of the world? Putting the detector there and using it to measure the atoms would still all be part of the intention of the scientist. The scientist collapsed the wave by placing a measuring device there to look for atoms. You could not have the detector there without the scientist being involved. From his perspective, he went through the whole chain of events of placing the measuring device and then doing the reading, all of which took place in his reality. And yes, I am sort of pulling this stuff out of my ass. But I believe that you can understand existence by inner exploration, such as trying out ideas such as this (many of which may not turn out to be right, however.) If you have your own idea of what is happening I would be glad to hear it.

[MindGames]

That's still not a very solid explanation, since you don't have to have put the detector there yourself or even be aware that an experiment was taking place for the collapse of the wave function to take place. My best explanation for what's happening? The same explanation science points towards (with some differences, based on my own common sense), although I also know that science doesn't provide a completely accurate explanation either. I don't claim to know what's happening, but I don't automatically assume we or any property of ourselves is special and requires a metaphysical explanation. I only infer (or at least try to infer) the most rational explanations for the nature of the universe without being hindered by our animalistic ego. Consciousness, for example, obviously arises from our brains, since it's directly tied to brain activity. The only reason we would think we're endowed with consciousness through some metaphysical means is because it's our nature to think everything revolves around us. And having read a bit about quantum mechanics, the wave function doesn't even require detectors or consciousness to collapse; based on what I've read I believe that interactions between different systems causes the collapse, but again, my memory is hazy and I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. Anyway, I'm very tired so I didn't really formulate my argument as well as I could have. Deal with it.