- #1
Overdose
- 195
- 0
I was wondering if there is any real evidence within the field of quantum mechanics to support the idea of a universal collective consciousness?
any ideas...
any ideas...
Overdose said:I was wondering if there is any real evidence within the field of quantum mechanics to support the idea of a universal collective consciousness?
DrChinese said:I agree with chroot, zapperz and jackle. The absolute MOST you could say is that QM does not per se exclude "collective consciousness."
The obvious problems with such a question start with the definition of "consciousness" which has thus far eluded a reasonable description. Further, the notion of "collective consciousness" is itself speculation without any scientific basis that I am aware of.
LURCH said:Although...
I don't believe a word fo this, but it would probably form the best link between quantum mechanics and the idea of a universal "collective consciousness". There is some discussion of consciousness being a quantum phenomenon. If we take this idea (and the Big Bang cosmological model) to be correct, and apply to it the concept of the entanglement of particles of the quantum level, a suggestion does arise. If all matter within the universe was once compressed into an area smaller than the plank length, all quanta should have emerged from that area entangled. This of course would include whatever events take place at the quantum level within the neurons that result in human consciousness. Throughout the universe, then, there would still be entangled particles from the original cosmeg that are still entangled to this day. These could operate as a single mass, as though they were still in the original state.
Not at all plausible, IMHO, but it is a way in which quantum mechanics could imply collective consciousness.
DrChinese said:I agree with chroot, zapperz and jackle. The absolute MOST you could say is that QM does not per se exclude "collective consciousness."
The obvious problems with such a question start with the definition of "consciousness" which has thus far eluded a reasonable description. Further, the notion of "collective consciousness" is itself speculation without any scientific basis that I am aware of.
Stevo said:Well, Chroot, I would argue quite vigorously that the interpretation of QM (or any science in general) is a philosophical issue.
Tom Mattson said:Yes, but scientific theories comprise what is known as natural philosophy, which is a far cry from being a philosophy of mind. This mind-QM connection exists in the pages of books of men such as Frijtof Capra and his ilk, and those who listen to these new-age gurus. You cannot start from the axioms in any QM textbook and deduce anything about the mind or consciousness.
If there is, please let's see it! (the consensus of posts so far seems to be 'NO!')Overdose said:I was wondering if there is any real evidence within the field of quantum mechanics to support the idea of a universal collective consciousness?
Ideas are good; pointers towards specific, concrete, testable predictions (etc) are better.any ideas...
Tom Mattson said:This mind-QM connection exists in the pages of books of men such as Frijtof Capra and his ilk, and those who listen to these new-age gurus. You cannot start from the axioms in any QM textbook and deduce anything about the mind or consciousness.
selfAdjoint said:If there were a clarification of "relative state" that avoided "MWI" I would jump at it. But as it is, it leads sensible people like vanesch to bring back the "mind of the observer" and that gets us back again to "does the Moon exist when nobody is looking at it" and "How do nuclear processes go on in the heart of the Sun when there is no mind there to observe them? Unless you bring in God, as in the limerick. Fooey!
I will remain agnostic about measurement and hope for a successful completion of the decoherence program. Next year in Stockholm!
selfAdjoint said:If there were a clarification of "relative state" that avoided "MWI" I would jump at it. But as it is, it leads sensible people like vanesch to bring back the "mind of the observer" and that gets us back again to "does the Moon exist when nobody is looking at it" and "How do nuclear processes go on in the heart of the Sun when there is no mind there to observe them?
I will remain agnostic about measurement and hope for a successful completion of the decoherence program. Next year in Stockholm!
Canute said:I've come a bit late to this, not being a regular visitor to the QM thread n'all. However I'd like to strongly disagree with those here who have rubbished the idea that QM offers us a way of making sense of 'cosmic consciousness', or even just of human consciousness.
Firstly it is not true to say that we have no definition of consciousness. We have no scientific definition of consciousness yet, and may never have one. However most people researching in this area define it as 'what it is like', and this definition is not problematic unless one wants to argue that consciousness is something other than this. Nobody has yet managed to do this successfully so the definition stands. Even Crick, who desperately wants to redefine it, cannot do it yet.
If one is a believer in the hypothesis that brain causes mind, as I expect most people here are, then clearly consciousness is caused by quantum mechanical processes, for brains are the result of such processes. Thus we see the Penrose talking about consciousness arising at the level of mass and charge, and expressing itself via a process involving quantum coherence in microtubules in the brain.
As for the idea that all instances of individual consciousness are parts of one whole consciousness, Schrodinger asserted that this was the case for over forty years, and it seems likely that his knowledge of QM played some part in leading him to this conclusion.
But this is not quite the same as saying that QM gives us a reason to believe in collective consciousness. It just suggests that QM is consistent with the idea. In my view QM does more than this, and gives credence to the idea in various ways. Amongst these various ways are the concepts of superposition, non-locality and nonduality. I'd say that QM virtually proves that reality is nondual, just as Taoists and Buddhists and others have always asserted it is, which suggests that the other assertions they make may also be true since those assertions form a self-consistent whole.
Here is an article that sits somewhere between physics and consciousness studies, which suggests, by implication at least, how they might relate to each other. It's called 'Kantian Quantum Mechanics' and it's by Dr Ross Keller. What he says seems correct to me. However I'm not a phsyicist so would be interested to hear comments on this from anybody here who is.
http://www.friesian.com/space-2.htm
selfAdjoint said:Update: I read the essay and was not greatly impressed, I wonder what Patrick thinks of it. The author maps what he understands from Gribben-level popularizations of quantum mechanics into Kantian concepts. So? How does this help extended consciousness?
Canute said:Firstly it is not true to say that we have no definition of consciousness. We have no scientific definition of consciousness yet, and may never have one. However most people researching in this area define it as 'what it is like', and this definition is not problematic unless one wants to argue that consciousness is something other than this.
Canute said:You'll all know Feynman's comment that the way physicists have to describe Nature is incomprehensible to them. Why would this be? It seems to me that it is for precisely the same reason that Buddhist doctrine is incomprehensible to physicists, since Nature is what is described by that doctrine.
Can it be just a coincidence that the mathematical scheme of QM is identical with the epistemilogical scheme of nondual doctrines like Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Essenism and so on?
2. Nothing that has been discovered about QM since Schroedinger's death (can't do the umlat) gives us reason to believe that what he said about collective consciousness is incorrect. At least we can be certain that the idea is not inconsistent with the scientific facts.
4. ZapperZ writes "until this thing called "consciousness" can be defined unambiguously AND quantified, it can never merge with physics, and especially QM."
This is very true. It suggests that consciousness is not a scientific phenomenon, and will not be until science is redefined, as David Chalmers argues. Hence the scientific approach is to explain it away rather than explain it. (cf Lyle, Dennett, Rand and co.). But we cannot say a thing does not exist just because we cannot define it scientifically.
Canute said:Can it be just a coincidence that the mathematical scheme of QM is identical with the epistemilogical scheme of nondual doctrines like Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Essenism and so on? It seems unlikely. It seems even more unlikely considering that it is also identical with the logical/ontological scheme of the 'calculus of indications' put forward by George Spencer Brown as modeling the way in which universes come into being.
I did not say I did not have the tools to understand the mathematical structure of QM. That stucture is very simple and understandable to anyone with a little intelligence. Also, Feynman was perfectly clear in what he said, physicists do not understand the way they have to describe Nature. It's irrelevant that they understand the mathematics.ZapperZ said:Incorrect. Feynman is indicating that the INTERPRETATION of QM is the one that people are arguing with. Do not ever forget that QM starts with the mathematical formulation - NO ONE, even Feynman, is stating that physicists do not understand those. This means that if you lack the mathematical tools to "read" QM, you have only understood it in it's utmost superficial form. Would you be willing to build any kind of ideology on top of such shaky grounds?
I did not say that. I said I was not a mathematician. It does not follow that I'm a fool.How are you able to compare the "mathematical scheme of QM" with anything when you admitted to not knowing about any of the mathematics of QM?
Quite so.The mathematical formulation of QM is NOT the same as the interpretation of QM.
Of course. It's been a while since Scrodinger died. However nothing has been discovered that renders his view false. A person's view isn't wrong just because they're dead. His view was consistent with physics when he was alive, and it still is.I'm sorry, but QED and QCD came into force AFTER Schrodinger's death. And it is still evolving especially as we discover more and more processes that requires a substantial modification of the Standard Model of particles. Schrodinger never saw CP violation nor neutrino oscillation. Maybe these mean nothing to you, but for physicists, these are MAJOR discoveries.
Until science is redefined? Why does it have to be that way and not the OTHER WAY? I didn't explain anything away. I merely pointed out that if you wish to connect "consciousness" with "physics", then you must FIRST and foremost understand how we test and verify things in physics. A handwaving argument of a vaguely-defined quality doesn't cut it. Physics doesn't just say what goes up must come down. It also has to say when and where it comes down.
Very true. This is my point. It appears that conciousness is not explicable by physics. David Chalmers and others argue that it remain inexplicable to physics until science is redefined. I agree. (I wasn't accusing you of explaining away consciousness -I was referring to the literature. You'll see what I mean if you read it).
I not clear what 'giving credibity to consciousness' might mean.Why is there this need to join this two? Are you trying to give more "credibility" to "consciousness"?
Lol. I rather think that physics wouldn't exist without it.I mean, physics certainly doesn't need it.
You're kidding, right?Just look at all the practical applications that have been produced from physics, and compare that to "consciousness".
I'm afraid I can't make sense of that. Are you saying that consciousness does not exist? Or are you saying that it does exist but there are no physyical processes associated with it? Or are you just reluctant to consider the issues? It doesn't seem a very scientific approach.I put it to you that it is the study of consciousness that is more dependent on the need to have some scientific validity and achieve the same ballpark degree of validity that a lot of areas in physics already have. Unfortunately, you want us to lower our standards and be "redefined" to accept consciouness. Let's dumb down physics so that it becomes less objectionable to consciouness.
I agree that there is a lot of nonsense talked about consciousness (a good deal of it by physicists). Mysticism, however, should not be assumed to be necessarily New Age.vanesch said:I would like to point out, for the n-th time :-) that talk about consciousness in physics is a very slippery domain, and that one should be very careful NOT to be sucked into complete new age mysticism.
Yes, it's an odd situation. It's not clear to me how this can be explained without including consciousness in the explanation.The way "consciousness" can be used in interpretative schemes of quantum theory is rather limited ; it is just a replacement for "the subjective experience which we call observation" ; and it comes in handy in MWI schemes, because there is clearly no OBJECTIVE world which corresponds to observation. There is an objective world all right, but which contains all possibilities in a superposition, and somehow we subjectively experience only one branch of it.
If Kuhn is right they'll die sooner or later and then at last we can move on.I know that it is somehow a frightening idea that we need a subjective experience to make sense of physics to die-hard physicists
Good point. I can understand why physicists are wary of unorthodox interpretations of QM, even while the orthodox interpretations render Nature incomprehensible. QM is complex and as yet there is no scientific explanation for the data so it can be misinterpreted very easily to suit one's pet theory. It must drive physicsts crazy to see so much New Age babble talked about it. However, it seems to me that there are times, as they fight off the nonsense, when they inadvertantly throw out the baby with the bathwater.For adepts of a lot of -isms, the nice thing is that you can always find an interpretation of quantum theory which somehow allows for your favorite ism not to be at odds with it
Canute said:I did not say I did not have the tools to understand the mathematical structure of QM. That stucture is very simple and understandable to anyone with a little intelligence. Also, Feynman was perfectly clear in what he said, physicists do not understand the way they have to describe Nature. It's irrelevant that they understand the mathematics.
Of course. It's been a while since Scrodinger died. However nothing has been discovered that renders his view false. A person's view isn't wrong just because they're dead. His view was consistent with physics when he was alive, and it still is.
Until science is redefined? Why does it have to be that way and not the OTHER WAY? I didn't explain anything away. I merely pointed out that if you wish to connect "consciousness" with "physics", then you must FIRST and foremost understand how we test and verify things in physics. A handwaving argument of a vaguely-defined quality doesn't cut it. Physics doesn't just say what goes up must come down. It also has to say when and where it comes down.
Very true. This is my point. It appears that conciousness is not explicable by physics. David Chalmers and others argue that it remain inexplicable to physics until science is redefined. I agree. (I wasn't accusing you of explaining away consciousness -I was referring to the literature. You'll see what I mean if you read it).
I not clear what 'giving credibity to consciousness' might mean.
Lol. I rather think that physics wouldn't exist without it.
You're kidding, right?
I'm afraid I can't make sense of that. Are you saying that consciousness does not exist? Or are you saying that it does exist but there are no physyical processes associated with it? Or are you just reluctant to consider the issues? It doesn't seem a very scientific approach.
Canute said:Also, Feynman was perfectly clear in what he said, physicists do not understand the way they have to describe Nature. It's irrelevant that they understand the mathematics.
The mathematical formulation of QM is NOT the same as the interpretation of QM.
Canute said:Good point. I can understand why physicists are wary of unorthodox interpretations of QM, even while the orthodox interpretations render Nature incomprehensible.
QM is complex and as yet there is no scientific explanation for the data so it can be misinterpreted very easily to suit one's pet theory. It must drive physicsts crazy to see so much New Age babble talked about it. However, it seems to me that there are times, as they fight off the nonsense, when they inadvertantly throw out the baby with the bathwater.
To be clear, I am not simply suggesting that the nondual doctrine is consistent with the data, but that it has the power to explain the data, i.e. why wavicles are weird, how non-locality is possible, why motion is paradoxical, and many other outstanding problems. It even offers the possibility of solving the timing problem in QM (as I understand it the problem of how the observation occurs when there is nothing to observe until after its been observed).
Absolutely not. I'm saying the mathematical structure of QM is simple, not the mathematics. I'm looking at it meta-mathematically, from which perspective the formal explanatory scheme of QM is isomorphic with that of Taoism and Buddhism. In both schemes their ultimate explanda ('wavicles' and the 'Tao') are inconceivable, but can be described constistently and almost completely by a formal scheme which has two contradictory but complementary aspects.ZapperZ said:I'm sorry, but are you implying that you understand the mathematical structure of, let's say, the 2nd quantization formalism? Are you implying that you are able to see that the uncertainty principle actually came about due to the so-called First Quantization of the non-commuting operators? Is this what you mean when you said that you understand the "mathematical structure of QM"?
When did I dismiss mathematics? The mathematics is what I'm talking about.I believe that you do not get it based simply on your dismissal of the mathematics.
Oh c'mon. Have you not heard of Kurt Goedel? Stephen Hawking feels that the incompleteness theorem ensures that physics cannot be completed. I agree with him, and he certainly wouldn't agree with what you say here.That's like dismissing a piece of music simply because you don't understand the musical notes. The "irrelevant" mathematics is a COMPLETE description of a physical concept. It is more complete than ANY words and phrases that you could conjure up! It isn't just mathematics. It's a representation of an idea!
A person's view also isn't always correct BECAUSE he is dead. So what's your point?
Er, what's yours? I said no such thing. Please read more carefully.
I did not say that there was. I suggested that Scroedingers view was not inconsistent with physics when he was alive, and nothing has been discovered since that makes it so. If you can falsify this statement then fine. If not then let's move on.That all dead persons view MUST always be correct? Baloney! Schrodinger never saw QED and QCD in its full bloom! In fact, QCD is still evolving the more we know about the strong interactions! There have been plenty of discoveries in physics since he died and there have been nothing to support anything on issues of "consciousness".
I'd say not, although I don't know what 'no quantifiable means' means here.So I asked, can something with vague definition, and no quantifiable means be incorporated into physics?
This suggests to me you have no idea how definitions work, and have never read the scientific literature on consciousness.Instead of answering that, you now want to "redefine" physics so that ambiguous objects like that can be dealt with. What this shows to me is that you have no clue on how physics works.
You seem to be assuming that all your misreadings and temperamental assumptions constitute an understanding of what I am talking about. So busy are you protecting your fragile paradigm that you don't have time to read what I actually write. So much for objectivity and intelligent discussion.What I do not understand in this whole thing is that, if you want to hijack various parts of physics into your mysticism, shouldn't you at least make sure you clearly understand those physics ideas that you are stealing? Or are you claiming that superficial understanding of physics from pop-sci books and magazines is sufficient to claim one to be enough of an expert at quantum mechanics to make such outlandish connection?
Canute said:Absolutely not. I'm saying the mathematical structure of QM is simple, not the mathematics. I'm looking at it meta-mathematically, from which perspective the formal explanatory scheme of QM is isomorphic with that of Taoism and Buddhism. In both their unltimate explanda (wavicles and the Tao) are inconceivable, but can be described constistently and almost completely by two formal schemes that are contradictory but complementary.
Oh c'mon. Have you not heard of Kurt Goedel? Stephen Hawking feels that the incompleteness theorem ensures that physics, because it is a formal mathematical scheme, cannot be completed. I agree with him, and he certainly wouldn't agree with what you say here.
I'd say not, although I don't know what 'quantifiable means' means here.
This suggests to me you have no idea how definitions work, and have never read the scientific literature on consciousness.
You seem to be assuming that all your misreadings and temperamental assumptions constitute an understanding of what I am talking about. So busy are you protecting your fragile paradigm that you don't have time to read what I actually write. So much for objectivity and intelligent discussion.
I very much agree. In my opinion you cannot even seriously consider metaphysics without taking the superposition principle seriously on all scales.vanesch said:As I said, you cannot seriously consider quantum gravity without at least implicitly taking the superposition principle seriously on a scale which is vastly macroscopic beyond what in "Copenhagen" is considered macroscopic ; namely on the level of black holes!
Conceptually manageable yes. The mathematics is well proven and understood. However none of the current interpretations render QM comprehensible in an ontological sense, in the sense of giving us any understanding of why the mathematics has to be the way it is.Thanks for the review of the different interpretations. I only disagree with this - "Each scheme renders QM "comprehensible"
I'm for the MWI as well. But your last sentence seems back to front to me. It is very definitely not possible to establish "what our subjective experience will be like" starting with the objective world. It has to be done the other way around. Philosophy would be easy if it was possible your way. It is not possible to prove that anything has an objective existence. This is one reason why Buddhist doctrine has survived so long. It is also why soplipsim is unfalsifiable, and also why it doesn't sound completely crazy when a physicist says that the universe may exist in a superposition of an infinity of observer-actualised states, as MWI more or less does.My preference for the MWI schemes resides in the formal beauty that goes with it: symmetries and laws apply to all of physics. If that implies that the objective world is different from our subjective experience of it, but that we can establish, starting from the objective world description, what our subjective experience will be like, then so be it.
Makes sense to me. But would it destabalise you if I suggested that time exists only in observer actualised universes, and that by reduction time does not exist, along with space, as Buddhists, Taoists and M-theorists suggest.I don't find this any more destabilizing than telling me that what I experience as "time" is also a subjective experience of a geometrical property.
That seems very true to me. In a sense this seems to be what Goedel did. He kept going to the bitter end, and so proved that there wasn't one, thus showing that physics cannot be completed, as Hawking argues. Something has to be left over, unexplained, undefined and undescribed. Lao Tse beat him to it by a few thousand years of course, which is why the incompleteness theorem came as no surprise to members of any 'mystical' 'religion', although the fact that it is mathematically provable did. Previously it had been generally assumed to be only knowable from immediate experience.The nice thing (from my point of view) of sticking to the "lessons of the formalism" till the end, is that it leads to a better comprehension of that formalism.
That's the eternal balance between being too open and be drawn into a lot of nonsense, and be too conservative and miss oportunities of break throughs :-)Very true. It's a problem we all have to live with. However I feel that it's not too difficult to find a reasonable balance as long as this is what one is honestly trying to do, rather than simply protect ones opinions from reasonable challenges. I think we all do this latter thing, even if we try not to, but of course some do it more than others.
I'm not surprised. I've never heard anyone say this. Certainly no Buddhist or Taoist I know of has said it, and you're only the second person to whom I've said it. Neverthelesss, I believe it's true. I would argue that Buddhist doctrine, if it is true, would entail that Nature behave in just the way that physicists say it does.Honestly, I'm sceptical about that.
I don't expect this idea to be taken seriously here, but I'm hoping someone will be annoyed enough at the suggestion to take the trouble to make loads of objections. Then I'll find out if I can deal with them.
Whoah there. Not all Buddhist are dead yet. The doctrine is ancient, not the Buddhists. The reason that the doctrine is ancient, and bear in mind that it is now two and half thousand years since its founder taught, is that it has never had to be changed in any way in order to take account of any new philsophical or scientific discovery. Funny that.Ancient people were not any more stupid than we are today
Yes, this is an important issue in this context since I'm trying to make Buddhism (and its many equivalents) seem more plausible. How could a doctrine first expounded twenty five centuries ago have survived unscathed into the present? It has been entirely untroubled by the discoveries we've made since about the phenomenal universe. It is consistent with physics, which is why many physicists become interested in Buddhism and Taoism.only they had less hindsight. This means that somehow, logical possibilities of modern physical theories could have occurred to them, without the framework of a formal theory, as any other, correct or wrong, idea could have occured.
But in quantum mechanics and quantum cosmology we are now face to face with this ancient doctrine. Now that science has developed to a sufficient degree we can start examing at the quantum level whether the nature of matter is as Buddhists assert. If it is not then Buddhism is false.
Luckily the two doctrines are entirely consistent with one another, at least up to the point that science becomes metaphysics and has to give up.
Yes. It's quite amazing that this is Buddhist doctrine.For instance, the "relativity of motion", or the existence of other dimensions, or the idea that time can flow differently for different people all have occurred ;
This seems a reasonable explanation but it does not stand up to analysis. If you look into the facts you'll find that these are not a few lucky coincidences. Physicists and Buddhists say the same thing about the universe. But it is not easy to translate the language of one into the language of the other so it is not at all obvious that they do.From that morass of ideas, it should not be surprising that some *new* ideas in physical theories have already occurred in some old tales. But does that say anything about the validity of those tales ? I think that the only message is that the people who wrote down these tales were very smart people who apparently were able to conceive ideas that emerge also in modern views on physics. Ideas which were being put out of circulation by former views on physics but which are maybe not so strange if you do not know anything about classical physics.
Sorry for the length of this. You made some good point and I wanted to respond to them.
Canute