The nature of the universe as interpreted quantum information

In summary, the nature of the universe as a physical reality is complex and subjective. It is influenced by our interpretations and perceptions, which can sometimes create a false reality, such as in the case of phantom limb sensation. This leads to questions about the true source of information and the nature of our existence in relation to it. The universe itself can be seen as a massive quantum computer, constantly processing and creating information, and we are just a small part of it. The probabilistic and relative nature of the universe can be observed through theories like Relativity and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Ultimately, our understanding of the universe is limited by our own perceptions and interpretations of the information around us.
  • #1
Evolver
166
0
Note: This is a revised re-post of an earlier thread that I started, but I feel there was some misunderstanding in it's purpose so I have attempted to clarify with the current revisions. This is not intended to be a thread on metaphysical speculation, but rather an observation on a property of the nature of the universe as a physical reality. I feel these properties are readily observable with theories like Relativity which show how everything is relative... meaning that reality is, by nature, subjective. On top of that, the true nature of the universe is also probabilistic and not deterministic as displayed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So, considering we live in a probabilistic and relative universe, here is my second attempt at hashing out these ideas. I Look forward to hearing your thoughts:

As many of you may be well aware, there is a rare condition known as "phantom limb." For those of you that don't, it's when a recent amputee still physically feels the sensation (usually in the form of discomfort or pain) of still having the limb. The perceived sensation is very often directly related to the way in which the limb was lost (doctor amputation, accident, etc.)

This implies that the nerves were not necessarily the result of sensation in the first place. The brain has begun receiving information from a new set of neurons and interpreting the stimulus as though it were received by the original set of neurons. The logical brain can see there is no limb, but the rest of the brain creates the limb and gives it full sensations of movement, pain, interaction, etc.

Now, think of the brain itself... or perhaps for clarification, not the organic structure... but the function. The mind or the state of consciousness (I'm hesitant to use these words because they have transcendental stigmas attached to them, but let me attempt to redefine them as "the result of processing and interpreting quantum information".) The brain itself resides, tucked away in the dark and isolated housing of the skull. The brain has never touched a table or actually been hit by the photons emitted from a nearby light source, it never in essence even experienced these things in the form it actually perceives them as. All the brain has done is to interpret an electrical representation of an arbitrary impulse conjured up by a nerve cell somewhere (which itself is the result of another interpretation). In essence, the brain (or mind) has created what it thinks a table feels like, or what the color red looks like.

The implications this has is that there are not actually a table or photons as we know them... but simply information. Information that exists on some level and is interpreted by the mind and essentially "fabricated" to form our "virtual" environment. I have been fascinated with the idea of many scientists comparing the universe to a massive quantum computer in the fact that information is always created and never destroyed... even in entropy information is still created. When energy becomes unusable in entropy, information still increases about the system because the system has become more complex in the sense that it has processed multiple state changes. The universe itself is computing it's own existence, and we are interpreting a part of it. We do not see x-rays or hear incredibly high-pitched frequencies... yet they are out there. We only perceive a small fraction of the information.

What could be the source of this information? What is the true nature of the universe? How can you actually differ "reality" from that of a vivid dream without using the idea of being asleep? Biologically both can affect you, and you have real emotions and experiences while sleeping, because the mind is creating the reality by interpreting information and creating perception via the senses. If we exist then because our mind is creating perception... do we even exist at all in the traditional sense? Or do we exist as some sort of interpretation of quantum information?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Evolver said:
Note: This is a revised re-post of an earlier thread that I started, but I feel there was some misunderstanding in it's purpose so I have attempted to clarify with the current revisions. This is not intended to be a thread on metaphysical speculation, but rather an observation on a property of the nature of the universe as a physical reality. I feel these properties are readily observable with theories like Relativity which show how everything is relative... meaning that reality is, by nature, subjective. On top of that, the true nature of the universe is also probabilistic and not deterministic as displayed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So, considering we live in a probabilistic and relative universe, here is my second attempt at hashing out these ideas. I Look forward to hearing your thoughts:

As many of you may be well aware, there is a rare condition known as "phantom limb." For those of you that don't, it's when a recent amputee still physically feels the sensation (usually in the form of discomfort or pain) of still having the limb. The perceived sensation is very often directly related to the way in which the limb was lost (doctor amputation, accident, etc.)

This implies that the nerves were not necessarily the result of sensation in the first place. The brain has begun receiving information from a new set of neurons and interpreting the stimulus as though it were received by the original set of neurons. The logical brain can see there is no limb, but the rest of the brain creates the limb and gives it full sensations of movement, pain, interaction, etc.

Now, think of the brain itself... or perhaps for clarification, not the organic structure... but the function. The mind or the state of consciousness (I'm hesitant to use these words because they have transcendental stigmas attached to them, but let me attempt to redefine them as "the result of processing and interpreting quantum information".) The brain itself resides, tucked away in the dark and isolated housing of the skull. The brain has never touched a table or actually been hit by the photons emitted from a nearby light source, it never in essence even experienced these things in the form it actually perceives them as. All the brain has done is to interpret an electrical representation of an arbitrary impulse conjured up by a nerve cell somewhere (which itself is the result of another interpretation). In essence, the brain (or mind) has created what it thinks a table feels like, or what the color red looks like.

The implications this has is that there are not actually a table or photons as we know them... but simply information. Information that exists on some level and is interpreted by the mind and essentially "fabricated" to form our "virtual" environment. I have been fascinated with the idea of many scientist comparing the universe to a massive quantum computer in the fact that information is always created and never destroyed... even in entropy information is still created. When energy becomes unusable in entropy, information still increases about the system because the system has become more complex in the sense that it has processed multiple state changes. The universe itself is computing it's own existence, and we are interpreting a part of it. We do not see x-rays or hear incredibly high-pitched frequencies... yet they are out there. We only perceive a small fraction of the information.

What could be the source of this information? What is the true nature of the universe? How can you actually differ "reality" from that of a vivid dream without using the idea of being asleep? Biologically both can affect you, and you have real emotions and experiences while sleeping, because the mind is creating the reality by interpreting information and creating perception of the senses. If we exist then because our mind is creating perception... do we even exist at all in the traditional sense? Or do we exist as some sort of interpretation of quantum information?

check out this website

www://www.qsa.netne.net

all of existence is so simple. numbers,logic
 
  • #3
Evolver said:
What is the true nature of the universe? How can you actually differ "reality" from that of a vivid dream without using the idea of being asleep? Biologically both can affect you, and you have real emotions and experiences while sleeping, because the mind is creating the reality by interpreting information and creating perception via the senses. If we exist then because our mind is creating perception... do we even exist at all in the traditional sense? Or do we exist as some sort of interpretation of quantum information?


David Mermin's 'Ithaca Interpretation' is along similar lines - that the nature of the universe is correlations (i.e, information etc) without correlata (things). He explains it a lot better than me:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013
 
  • #4
These links you've provided are very fascinating! I'm glad you shared your ideas. Thanks.
 
  • #5
Evolver, the reason why i didn't post here was because there wasn't anything substantial i could add. I agree that we can't be 100.00% sure of the existence of anything but information. All the other ideas of matter, space and time are interpretations and assumptions that need to be verified. I have yet to see a proposed model of the universe that fits the experiments of modern physics and coincides with the worldview of the average Joe. There doesn't seem to be any way of coming back to our thousands-year-old pre-conceived notions.
 
  • #6
i find your thread fascinating, i ponder the nature of existence and feel that to get to the bottom of this mystery, we would have to filter out the type of descriptive language we use to understand the system itself. i find that it is like back engineering a flying saucer we are trying to find out how to make it fly, but we need to understand the reason it was made to fly. i ask myself the question why have a universe? why have anything ? what would be the benefit to any system simple or complex. does our quest to understand throw us of the trail.

when we began our observation and quantification of the known universe, did we start with the right tools to discover the truth or has our observation collapsed the one wave-function that could of revealed the true nature of things.

just a thought
 
  • #7
I have been kicking around another idea that attempts to explain why the universe must exist:

Think about the concept of 'nothing' or 'zero'. These are simply just that, concepts to help illustrate a human-made string of reasoning. But these concepts are not, themselves, physical properties of the universe. When we hold an apple in our hand we can say we have an apple, but when we take it away we cannot say we are holding no apple anymore than we can say we are holding no egg, or no rock, or no anything for that matter. It's just a man-made concept to help illustrate that line of thinking.

In actuality, there is no such thing as 'nothing', and that is a physical property of the universe itself. Even in 'empty' space there are a slew of virtual particles bubbling in and out of existence as well as various forces interacting with each other. Since matter and energy are never created nor destroyed, simply altered, it can be assumed that the universe would never stop existing by it's very own physical properties. It can also be conjectured, from this line of logic, that since 'nothing' is not a physical property of the universe itself, that it therefore MUST exist in accordance with it's own physical nature.
 
Last edited:

What is the nature of the universe as interpreted through quantum information?

The nature of the universe as interpreted through quantum information is a scientific theory that seeks to explain the fundamental building blocks and laws of the universe using the principles of quantum mechanics. It suggests that at the most basic level, the universe is composed of tiny units of information that interact and behave according to quantum laws.

How does quantum information differ from classical information?

Quantum information differs from classical information in several ways. First, quantum information is not restricted to binary states (0 or 1), but can exist in multiple states simultaneously. Second, quantum information can be "entangled" with other particles, allowing for instantaneous communication over large distances. Finally, quantum information is subject to uncertainty and probability, while classical information is deterministic.

What evidence supports the theory of the universe as quantum information?

There is a growing body of evidence that supports the theory of the universe as quantum information. For example, experiments have shown that particles can be entangled and communicate instantly over large distances, supporting the idea of non-locality in quantum mechanics. Additionally, the principles of quantum mechanics have been successfully applied to cosmological theories and observations of the early universe.

What implications does this theory have for our understanding of the universe?

If the theory of the universe as quantum information is correct, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It would challenge our traditional views of space and time, and could potentially lead to new technological advancements in areas such as quantum computing and communication. It also raises philosophical questions about the nature of reality and our place in the universe.

Are there any criticisms of the theory of the universe as quantum information?

As with any scientific theory, there are criticisms of the theory of the universe as quantum information. Some scientists argue that it is still a developing theory and needs more empirical evidence to be fully accepted. Others question the idea of "quantum consciousness" and whether quantum mechanics can truly explain all aspects of the universe. However, the theory continues to be explored and refined by researchers in the field of quantum information science.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
963
Replies
4
Views
939
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
432
Replies
56
Views
6K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top