Can existence outside of the physical world be defined and discussed?

[quantumcarl]

So then was the HUP a valid principle say 10BY<BC? Where was the neural network? I do not think it is too difficult to see that something is drastically wrong with our concepts. Either the HUP is incorrect and there is no evidence of it or we have to redefine what the observer is.

"The uncertainty principle governs the observable nature of atoms and subatomic particles while its effect on measurements in the macroscopic world is negligible and can be usually ignored."

(wicpedia)

Don't let my name fool you into thinking I know quantum mechanics but, the above statement may help you with what you're asking about.

Not sure exactly what you mean? Is what you mean that, the observer is not physical but invents the physical world they way it assumes it exists?

Pardon me but some of these statements can have a whole bunch of different meanings. From your post it seems that you assume that only brains and observers have neural networks, so could you answer my first question.

What I tried to say is that, so far, it has been determined that there must be an emergent phenomenon such as a human in order for an act of observation to take place. I haven't seen any study that claims there are observations being made by sub-atomic sigmas, hadrons or quarks, waves or hazy-waves.

Semantically we could say that, because we are a composition of waves, then, waves can make observations. However, that would be like saying... because we are composed of 89 percent water, then water has the ability and facility to make observations.

This sorts of generalization of terms and elements is outside of science and outside of the normal use of terms and language. When the word "physical" is used it describes a dynamic synthesis of observation, quantum elements and "wave/particle duality". Observation is the result of the synergy created by the combination of emergent elements... namely, a certain level of complexity in a neural network.

So, when you challenge whether or not quantum particles or waves can observe... you challenge the nature of lanquage more than you challenge the nature of observation and physicality.

When I determine the "act" of observation as non-physical I am merely pointing to the fact that there is a "pipeline" between the observer and the object that holds no physical characteristics.

The observer is a result of physical laws the object of inquiry is a result of physical laws but the "observation" remains non-[hysical. It takes place on the backs of the object and the observer but has no spine of its own... to paraphrase.

 

[Rader]

"The uncertainty principle governs the observable nature of atoms and subatomic particles while its effect on measurements in the macroscopic world is negligible and can be usually ignored."

(wicpedia)

Don't let my name fool you into thinking I know quantum mechanics but, the above statement may help you with what you're asking about.

I know that we both know enough to understand what I am questioning and why we seem to have different perspectives. This statement holds veracity only because macro objects have a negligible measurement between the crests of there waves which would make them then appear as solid objects.

What I tried to say is that, so far, it has been determined that there must be an emergent phenomenon such as a human in order for an act of observation to take place. I haven't seen any study that claims there are observations being made by sub-atomic sigmas, hadrons or quarks, waves or hazy-waves.

Particle experiments show that, if there is no observation there is no particle. The mere act of observation changes reality even after the fact. In other words the particle might not be where it could have been but is only where we find it. Your explanation of human cognitive minds is only OK because that’s all we can be. Why do we have to have any study of what we already know in our heads? My question is how can we come up with a concept that correlates with what we assume exists in this world, from a time evolution of particles to cognitive minds? You can not just rub off the effects that waves have some kind of emergent property that humans have. Then you would have to explain how and where waves get this property and show why it makes us observe how we assume the world exists. If I am correct in understanding you, observation is an emergent property of waves, whereas my understanding is this can not be, that waves are the emergent property of what is observing, which is the world as we assume it exists.

Semantically we could say that, because we are a composition of waves, then, waves can make observations. However, that would be like saying... because we are composed of 89 percent water, then water has the ability and facility to make observations.

Semantically you could say that but what is physical? The physical world seems to be precisely that relationships of waves. Not quite, only if, we attach properties to waves like the ability to observe, there is an alternative and that is in our head.

This sorts of generalization of terms and elements is outside of science and outside of the normal use of terms and language. When the word "physical" is used it describes a dynamic synthesis of observation, quantum elements and "wave/particle duality". Observation is the result of the synergy created by the combination of emergent elements... namely, a certain level of complexity in a neural network.

Again that’s fine how humans observe but you seem to be missing what I really want you to answer. How did we get from particles to neural networks?

So, when you challenge whether or not quantum particles or waves can observe... you challenge the nature of lanquage more than you challenge the nature of observation and physicality.

I am not challenging that they do and most certainly think that they do not but whatever does certainly needs what they are to do it.

When I determine the "act" of observation as non-physical I am merely pointing to the fact that there is a "pipeline" between the observer and the object that holds no physical characteristics.

What does that mean, your not sure of wave-particle duality?

The observer is a result of physical laws the object of inquiry is a result of physical laws but the "observation" remains non-[hysical. It takes place on the backs of the object and the observer but has no spine of its own... to paraphrase.

Hmmmm I could take that to mean what I think but I am sure I am wrong.

 

[quantumcarl]

I am not challenging that they do and most certainly think that they do not but whatever does certainly needs what they are to do it.

Right. All I'm saying is that "observation" is the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves, whatev), neurons are the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves)... so far, the word "observe, observer and observation" is defined as such... from: http://www.dictionary.net/observation

Observation \Ob`ser*va"tion\, n. [L. observatio: cf.F. observation.]

1. The act or the faculty of observing or taking notice; the act of seeing, or of fixing the mind upon, anything.

My observation, which very seldom lies. --Shakespeare.

2. The result of an act, or of acts, of observing; view; reflection; conclusion; judgment.

In matters of human prudence, we shall find the greatest advantage in making wise observations on our conduct. --I. Watts.

3. Hence: An expression of an opinion or judgment upon what one has observed; a remark. ``That's a foolish observation.'' --Shak.

To observations which ourselves we make We grow more partial for the observer's sake. --Pope.

4. Performance of what is prescribed; adherence in practice; observance. [Obs.]We are to procure dispensation or leave to omit the observation of it in such circumstances. --Jer. Taylor.

5. (Science)
(a) The act of recognizing and noting some fact or occurrence in nature, as an aurora, a corona, or the structure of an animal.
(b) Specifically, the act of measuring, with suitable instruments, some magnitude, as the time of an occultation, with a clock; the right ascension of a star, with a transit instrument and clock; the sun's altitude, or the distance of the moon from a star, with a sextant; the temperature, with a thermometer, etc.
(c) The information so acquired.

Its all pretty straight forward from their point of view.

What does that mean, your not sure of wave-particle duality?

No. It means that there is a non-physical attribute to what is known as a concept. A concept is the resultant phenomenon of a collection of particles (with certain system attributes and functions) but the concept itself is somehow out of the loop of what we consider "physical".

Obserations are sometimes the motivators of concepts... they are arrived at via physical means and motivations... but the concepts that may result from an observation remain aphysical and somewhat etherial.

Hmmmm I could take that to mean what I think but I am sure I am wrong.

Its a difficult thing to describe because it isn't physical and I consider myself to have more physical characteristics than a "pipeline" of observation that exists yet does not exist.

 

[quantumcarl]

For instance:

An observation often results in the formation of a concept that is completely unassociated with the nature of the original object being observed. (eg: after observing what appeared as a clear path through a door-way you are actually walking through glass.)

The observer, being totally oblivious of the fact that he/she has formed an absurd concept with regard to the object being observed can only believe the absurd concept... until they learn otherwise. Until then.. the concept they have formed only exists because of a specific set of associated, functioning neurons. It is not a reality, its not physical, it is thouroughly unverifiable beyond what is going on with the specific neurons.

What neurons do create with their physical activity (for eg. concepts) remains fleeting, etheric and aphysical as does the condition which evoked the formation of the concept .

That condition of which I speak is existence. Existence holds an aphysical quality because existence presents a support structure for both physical and aphysical phenomena... (theoretically... its hard to prove non-existence from our bias of existing). In other words existence appears to encompass both physical and aphysical conditions and so could be defined to be one or the other.

It is this quality of "dual citizenship" (ie: being physical and aphysical) held by existence that allows our concepts to contain incorrect information that has no correlation to physical reality. Yet, it is also because of the duality in existence that our concepts do become physical reality.

 

[Rader]

All I'm saying is that "observation" is the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves, whatev), neurons are the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves)...

Then any collection of particles should have this quality yet many collections do not. I am sure we could set up a particle experiment with a chimpanzee yet it would be quite difficult with a rock.

It means that there is a non-physical attribute to what is known as a concept. A concept is the resultant phenomenon of a collection of particles (with certain system attributes and functions) but the concept itself is somehow out of the loop of what we consider "physical".

I will agree with you that concepts are non-physical but there corresponding physical relationships could also be considered so. If you take away the observer there is nothing.

So you think that concepts and observers are emergent properties of collections of particles. The concept space-time existed long before Einstein or human observers ever existed. There relationships that define what space-time is might have come to be but the concept would always have to have been. That would be the equivalent of saying that something can come from nothing. My perspective would be that everything comes from one thing. In another sense concepts are eternal yet the physical is mutable and ever changing.

Obserations are sometimes the motivators of concepts... they are arrived at via physical means and motivations... but the concepts that may result from an observation remain aphysical and somewhat etherial.

OK and sometimes there not, that is why I brought up Einstein’s concept of space-time. If history tells the truth, what could he have observed to come up with this concept? It was only after observation and experiments proved him right. By thinking the concept came to him, although thoughts are not mine in this case his, he has been accredited this feat of mind.

Its a difficult thing to describe because it isn't physical and I consider myself to have more physical characteristics than a "pipeline" of observation that exists yet does not exist.

Let’s just say that we know we are in our heads, so obviously we can observe the world the way we assume it exists.

 

[quantumcarl]

Here's a conundrum I found within Loren's question.

We are all observers. Observation is an innate function of our nature. We use it to survive, learn and maintain mobility etc... Therefore, our observations, as far as we can ascertain, are used to maintain our physical state... ie: survive in what we have decided is a physical world.

To ask if the observer is physical is asking the observer to make an observation with regard to the nature of their constitution. This is like asking a person if they think they're a good person or if they are competent or if their a liar etc. etc.. The answer you get is going to be from the perspective of the person... they may have everything to lose or everything to gain depending on their answer. Their answer will, 99% of the time, up hold their beliefs... or in the least, be an expression of what they believe.

So, how are we to trust the answer? It is only an opinion. Can we build a machine that will answer the question "are we physical?"

This isn't possible because we will build into the machine our bias with regard to our beliefs. The question is so relative to the individual that it cannot be answered for all of human kind... or... all those who make observations. Thus, the question is an absurdity in the domain of questions.

 

[moving finger]

If so, what physical parameters define them?

We need to be clear about what is meant by "observer" here.

The term observer is often used in the context of objective scientific experiments, where a measurement is being made and the observer is loosely defined as the agent (not necessarily a conscious agent) making the measurement, whilst the observed is loosely defined as the system upon which the measurement is being made. I say "loosely" because this concept only works in the macroscopic approximation where we can assume decoherence eliminates any quantum interference effects. At the quantum level, where we need to take quantum effects into account, it is not possible to delineate "observer" and "observed", and neither is it possible to make a "measurement", in the same way that we can at the macroscopic level (in effect, observer and observed become entangled at the quantum level).

With this in mind, we have at least two possible definitions of "observer".

Observer as "macroscopic agent" : If by "observer" we mean "the agent which is making a measurement in a macroscopic experiment", then yes, this agent can be and usually is physical (but not necessarily conscious).

Observer as "conscious self" : However, if by observer we mean "the idea of self which is created as part of the phenomenon of conscious experience" then no, this agent is not physical (the self is an illusion created by the conscious mind).

Thus, I cannot rationally answer the poll unless it is first agreed what kind of "observer" we are talking about here.

Best Regards

MF

(ps - imho this thread more properly belongs in the metaphysics & epistemology section...)

 

[quantumcarl]

if by observer we mean "the idea of self which is created as part of the phenomenon of conscious experience" then no, this agent is not physical (the self is an illusion created by the conscious mind).

Thus, I cannot rationally answer the poll unless it is first agreed what kind of "observer" we are talking about here.

I tend to agree with most of your comments concerning the entanglment of observer and observed.

I would question, however, whether or not "illusions" are physical or not. Illusions are a synthesis of neuronal activity that generate the concept of the illusion.

I know I've already suggested that concepts are non-physical but there is more to it than that. Concepts are a result of a synergistic harmony that occurs when a group of neurons fire in sequence or simultaneiously. Thus there is a high percentage of physicalness and/or dependency upon the physical for an illusion to take place. The concept/illusion must then be verified by the physical attributes of other neurons in order to be acknowledged. This leads me to believe that an illusion or a concept has about an 93% or higher content of physical nature to it.

 

[moving finger]

I would question, however, whether or not "illusions" are physical or not. Illusions are a synthesis of neuronal activity that generate the concept of the illusion.

I would define an illusion as a false belief.

What I am claiming is that the notion of "self", as an existent entity, is an illusion.

Let us take another example. In the same way that I may believe the "self" exists, I might also have the illusion that the "tooth fairy" exists.

Would you argue that it follows, from my mistaken belief that the tooth fairy exists, that the tooth fairy (even though it does not exist except in my imagination) is therefore necessarily physical?

What IS physical is the neuronal activity which "generates" those beliefs. But just because the neuronal activity is physical, it does not follow that a "belief" is also a physical object.

I know I've already suggested that concepts are non-physical but there is more to it than that. Concepts are a result of a synergistic harmony that occurs when a group of neurons fire in sequence or simultaneiously. Thus there is a high percentage of physicalness and/or dependency upon the physical for an illusion to take place. The concept/illusion must then be verified by the physical attributes of other neurons in order to be acknowledged. This leads me to believe that an illusion or a concept has about an 93% or higher content of physical nature to it.

I would be very interested to know how you arrive at the precise figure of 93%!

To me, it seems clear that there is a very distinct dividing line between physical and non-physical, and to talk of something being "93% physical" seems strange.

To take your explanation of "concepts" further, I would say that a concept is based on a (dynamic) information processing algorithm, and in that respect it is non-physical. Where the physical world comes into play is that a physical substrate is required to represent or embody that information. Think of it in terms of computer hardware (the physical substrate) and the computer program which is running on that hardware. The program is simply "information" (which may be represented or embodied in many different ways), and the hardware without the running program is just a static lump of material. Without any hardware to run on, the program is non-existent, and without the program running, the hardware is ineffectual. Put them both together and you have a working computer program. But at no time is the program "physical" or even 93% physical.

Best Regards

MF

If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple. (Stuart Burns)

 

[quantumcarl]

What IS physical is the neuronal activity which "generates" those beliefs. But just because the neuronal activity is physical, it does not follow that a "belief" is also a physical object.I would be very interested to know how you arrive at the precise figure of 93%!

To me, it seems clear that there is a very distinct dividing line between physical and non-physical, and to talk of something being "93% physical" seems strange.

To take your explanation of "concepts" further, I would say that a concept is based on a (dynamic) information processing algorithm, and in that respect it is non-physical. Where the physical world comes into play is that a physical substrate is required to represent or embody that information. Think of it in terms of computer hardware (the physical substrate) and the computer program which is running on that hardware. The program is simply "information" (which may be represented or embodied in many different ways), and the hardware without the running program is just a static lump of material. Without any hardware to run on, the program is non-existent, and without the program running, the hardware is ineffectual. Put them both together and you have a working computer program. But at no time is the program "physical" or even 93% physical.

Best Regards

MF

If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple. (Stuart Burns)

The program is physical in that it is a series of laser cut grooves in plastic. The format of the information in the program depends on the CD or HD or MP3 or whathaveyou to exist. The grooves (or whatever) stimulate an EM signal much the way a neuron does. The EM signal is signatured in such a way that it is recognizable to other physical structures as a piece of information, instruction... etc.

The EM wave/signal is Physical...albeit quantumesque. The receiving-end is physical. So, please tell me, where is the non-physical portion of a concept or a program?

 

[moving finger]

The program is physical in that it is a series of laser cut grooves in plastic. The format of the information in the program depends on the CD or HD or MP3 or whathaveyou to exist.

With respect, this is an example of "confusing the map with the territory".

The "laser grooves in plastic" is not the program. It is a representation of (some of) the information pertaining to the program. In the same way, a map is not the same as the territory, it is a representation of (some of the information pertaining to) the territory.

So, please tell me, where is the non-physical portion of a concept or a program?

Let me answer your question with an example, and a question for you :

I can imagine that the tooth fairy exists, when in fact the tooth fairy does not exist. All I am doing when imagining the existence of the tooth fairy is cross-relating multitudes of concepts (correlating otherwise abstract information) within my mind. This is simply information. Nowhere in my mind is there anything which could be identified (objectively) as a physical tooth fairy.

Are you perhaps suggesting that this concept (this figment of my imagination) "the tooth fairy" is somehow physically real?

Best Regards

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

 

[quantumcarl]

Are you perhaps suggesting that this concept (this figment of my imagination) "the tooth fairy" is somehow physically real?

Best Regards

No.

I am suggesting that a "figment of your imagination" is 100% physical (contrary to what I wrote earlier). The reasoning for this answer is because, according to physics, neurophysics and biophysics the "figment" of an imagination is a physical, electro magnetic response to a configuration of other physical attributes such as neuronal chemistry and the structuring of a neuron.

We interpret the the patterns and frequencies of these EM responses and assign their appropriateness to other neurons and subsequently, other EM responses. This chain of responses forms the "figment", concept and/or thought that is sometimes experienced in humans.

This alone suggests that the observer and the observer's thoughts are all purely physical. But, there is alway the question of where EM radiation comes from and what is the root cause of energy.

To answer my question to you:
no one would be able to locate the non-physical attributes of a concept or a 'figment' because all non-physical features are "off the map" as you say, of the physical universe.

 

[moving finger]

We interpret the the patterns and frequencies of these EM responses and assign their appropriateness to other neurons and subsequently, other EM responses. This chain of responses forms the "figment", concept and/or thought that is sometimes experienced in humans.

The only things that have any physical reality in my brain are the various chemicals, free radicals, ions and electrons which make up the various hardware configurations of my neurophysiology. There is nothing there which can be physically identified as the “tooth fairy”, which is the concept that I imagine (for the sake of this discussion) really exists. The concept “tooth fairy” is simply a subjective correlation between different levels of information represented by those neurophysiological pathways. I agree the concept would not exist if the pathways did not exist (just as the program running on a computer would not exist if the computer hardware did not exist), but that does not make either the concept or the computer program a “physical entity”. Information per se is not physical. The concept I have in my mind of a tooth fairy, and the program running on my computer, are both dynamic patterns of non-physical information, which simply rely upon diverse physical substrates for their enactment. (Once again, do not confuse a running dynamic computer program, patterns of information, with the physical but static encoding of some of that program information on a CD or hard drive).

This alone suggests that the observer and the observer's thoughts are all purely physical.

Think of a computer simulation such as “SIM City”. Are you suggesting that the virtual cities and buildings which are “constructed” in Sim City have some kind of physical embodiment? Turn off the computer monitor, but leave the program still running. The program is still “creating” the virtual buildings and roads etc in dynamic memory, but all it is really doing is just processing information. There is nothing physical that we could point to and say “look, there is that virtual hospital, there is that virtual police station” – these entities do not physically exist, they are simply virtual constructs made from the interpretations that we place on dynamically changing patterns of information.

Best Regards

MF

 

[quantumcarl]

What you call your neuroelectromagnetic activity is up to you... you can call it the "tooth fairy" and you can call it the "Old Man and the Sea". What you call your neuronal impulses is up to you and the people who agree with you.

The fact remains, however, that the "thought" you call the "tooth fairy" actually is 100% physical, according to my calculations .

Judging from how the effects of a thought can grow exponentially in energy and in size I wouldn't be too surprised if the Tooth Fairy did physically exist by now. In fact, the whole Tooth Fairy "idea" possesses adults and causes them to expend energy in an inefficent manner in many of the cultures in the Northern Hemisphere. So, effectively, the Tooth Fairy physically exists in the actions and role modeling of parents of the Northern Hemisphere

 

[eggman]

Possibility 1

I does not seem that Awareness is a physical thing...

So i vote 'no'...the observer is not a physical entity...

It may be like a property of consciousness...i'm not sure.

Since awareness cannot be the object of itself we really have no way to know for sure (?)

 

[eggman]

Possibility 2

...maybe an apparition of the physical division of 'thought ' or what appears to be 'thinking'

In other words the universe is a ghost or phantasm..

Particles divide...energy is released...this energy illuminates the residue

of the original particles and we 'see' a world or image via the nervous system.

Life is but a Dream ?

?

 

[moving finger]

Life is but a Dream ?

A dream requires a dreamer... but this is the homunculus or cartesian theatre illusion

Best Regards

MF

 

[selfAdjoint]

A dream requires a dreamer... but this is the homunculus or cartesian theatre illusion

Does it really? Since we can do without the homonculus in physical theories, why couldn't solipsism do without it? The universe as a congeries of fictions "appearing" virtually!

 

[moving finger]

Does it really? Since we can do without the homonculus in physical theories, why couldn't solipsism do without it? The universe as a congeries of fictions "appearing" virtually!

I take your point.

What I should have said is :

Perhaps life is but a dream. But do not make the mistake of thinking that there is a "physical dreamer" who is having that dream, because that way lies the cartesian theatre illusion of consciousness

Best Regards

MF

 

[paw_tracker]

If you consider Feynman's "handshake" interpretation of the copenhagen's, the observer must be physical in order for the electron or any quantum particle to be disrupted or influences from any distance. See Feynmans quantum mechanics interpretation of the particle duality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

See Feynmans quantum mechanics interpretation of the particle duality

Where can I see it?

 

[Ernies]

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

What on Earth does the first sentence mean? Simply that this is Wittgenstein's definition of discussion? Is mmarko agreeing with that?
If so how can one discuss mathematics, music and so on? I can easily find a definition of Zemelo's theorem, but find it impossible to do the equivalent with, say, Chopin's Prelude No. 17. I can discuss both, but neither are to my mind physical.

Wittgenstein may or may not have been a genius, but he never got over his theory of maths being ignored at a conference in 1930 by preference for Godel. This gave him a fanatical bias against unending processes, and ultimately restricted him to discussing the physical. The kindest opinion I have heard of his maths theory is 'naive'

Ernies