- #1
Erwins_mat
- 47
- 0
Hi all
I have some questions regarding interpretations of QM. I am not a physicist or mathematician, although I have good general knowledge of science. I'm a philosopher with an interest in the relationships between science, religion and metaphysics.
I am trying to link together many different problems and clues, and I need to narrow down my own views on QM interpretations, which isn't easy given the vast number of conflicting authorities on the subject. I have plenty of views about metaphysics. My problem is figuring out which existing interpretation of QM is closest to my own view. I must stress that I have come to the my own position on metaphysics for reasons which have little or nothing to do with QM. QM is just one of the remaining bits of the puzzle for me. I know sort-of where it goes in my scheme, but that's not good enough.
Ontologically, my position is closest to neutral monism, and I also believe there are some sort of hidden variables at work in reality - some hidden form of causality, possibly manifesting via quantum indeterminism. So I guess I'm on the same page as Bohm-de Broglie. I also strongly suspect that there is a link between quantum mechanical properties in the brain and consciousness. Why do I think this? Because I do not believe we have any other way of solving the mind-body problem. However - I am in no way commited to any of the existing "consciousness causes collapse" theories, and certainly not any specific suggestions e.g. Penrose/Hameroff. I think they had the right basic idea, but even Paul Davies rejects Hameroff and I simply don't understand Penrose's mathematics well enough to judge his theory.
Steven Wolfram believes science is heading for a revolution - that we will eventually come to understand that reality is little more than an iterating mathematical structure. I think he's right. If you think of reality as being made of information, then the mind-body problem is half way to being dissolved. I don't think there was any "matter" before consciousness evolved. There was just information, some of which corresponded to what we call the material world.
So the world (as it is in itself) is "made of" information. This information structure hangs off the present moment - now. Some information about previous and future iterations is also part of this structure, but the further into the future or past you go, the less "fixed" or defined it becomes. So the near past and near future are almost completely fixed, but only vaguest traces remain of the deep past and only vaguest "visions" of the distant future are yet to be created. Classical causality just operates in a forward temporal direction, working iteration by iteration. Quantum causality operates in both directions, and influences the information held about more temporally-distant iterations. It can re-fix bits of the past which have decayed, so in this sense it may be possible for "the past to change". It obviously also means the future is not fixed.
What does this have to do with consciousness? I think that early animal life forms were restricted to classical causality, and that as a result they were not conscious. At some point, some quantum property of the brain evolved (by random mutation) which allowed them to take advantage of quantum causality. This enabled them to be conscious, which gave them a massive advantage over the zombie-animals that went before them and could only react on an iteration-by-iteration basis.
My questions are these:
Whose version(s) of quantum mechanics should I be investigating?
Is anything I've said so far contradictory of the core scientific components of QM.
I am not interested in challenging the scientific theory of QM. What concerns me is the metaphysical interpration of that theory, because I need to tailor the rest of my own metaphysical position to make it consistent with at least one scientifically-acceptable metaphysical interpretation of QM. In other words, I'm not bothered about any metaphysical objections people might have to my wider view but I am very concerned about being accused of overstepping the boundaries of metaphysics (philosophy) and making scientifically-unacceptable statements.
EM
I have some questions regarding interpretations of QM. I am not a physicist or mathematician, although I have good general knowledge of science. I'm a philosopher with an interest in the relationships between science, religion and metaphysics.
I am trying to link together many different problems and clues, and I need to narrow down my own views on QM interpretations, which isn't easy given the vast number of conflicting authorities on the subject. I have plenty of views about metaphysics. My problem is figuring out which existing interpretation of QM is closest to my own view. I must stress that I have come to the my own position on metaphysics for reasons which have little or nothing to do with QM. QM is just one of the remaining bits of the puzzle for me. I know sort-of where it goes in my scheme, but that's not good enough.
Ontologically, my position is closest to neutral monism, and I also believe there are some sort of hidden variables at work in reality - some hidden form of causality, possibly manifesting via quantum indeterminism. So I guess I'm on the same page as Bohm-de Broglie. I also strongly suspect that there is a link between quantum mechanical properties in the brain and consciousness. Why do I think this? Because I do not believe we have any other way of solving the mind-body problem. However - I am in no way commited to any of the existing "consciousness causes collapse" theories, and certainly not any specific suggestions e.g. Penrose/Hameroff. I think they had the right basic idea, but even Paul Davies rejects Hameroff and I simply don't understand Penrose's mathematics well enough to judge his theory.
Steven Wolfram believes science is heading for a revolution - that we will eventually come to understand that reality is little more than an iterating mathematical structure. I think he's right. If you think of reality as being made of information, then the mind-body problem is half way to being dissolved. I don't think there was any "matter" before consciousness evolved. There was just information, some of which corresponded to what we call the material world.
So the world (as it is in itself) is "made of" information. This information structure hangs off the present moment - now. Some information about previous and future iterations is also part of this structure, but the further into the future or past you go, the less "fixed" or defined it becomes. So the near past and near future are almost completely fixed, but only vaguest traces remain of the deep past and only vaguest "visions" of the distant future are yet to be created. Classical causality just operates in a forward temporal direction, working iteration by iteration. Quantum causality operates in both directions, and influences the information held about more temporally-distant iterations. It can re-fix bits of the past which have decayed, so in this sense it may be possible for "the past to change". It obviously also means the future is not fixed.
What does this have to do with consciousness? I think that early animal life forms were restricted to classical causality, and that as a result they were not conscious. At some point, some quantum property of the brain evolved (by random mutation) which allowed them to take advantage of quantum causality. This enabled them to be conscious, which gave them a massive advantage over the zombie-animals that went before them and could only react on an iteration-by-iteration basis.
My questions are these:
Whose version(s) of quantum mechanics should I be investigating?
Is anything I've said so far contradictory of the core scientific components of QM.
I am not interested in challenging the scientific theory of QM. What concerns me is the metaphysical interpration of that theory, because I need to tailor the rest of my own metaphysical position to make it consistent with at least one scientifically-acceptable metaphysical interpretation of QM. In other words, I'm not bothered about any metaphysical objections people might have to my wider view but I am very concerned about being accused of overstepping the boundaries of metaphysics (philosophy) and making scientifically-unacceptable statements.
EM
Last edited: