Quantum Mechanics & Universal Consciousness: Evidence?

[Starbug]

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.

I wonder what Mr Feynman can have meant. On the face of it this seems outrageous.

The mathematical formulation of QM is NOT the same as the interpretation of QM.

I was under the impression that the different formulations came with their own mathematical structures.

 

[vanesch]

Good point. I can understand why physicists are wary of unorthodox interpretations of QM, even while the orthodox interpretations render Nature incomprehensible.

Well, I thought that MWI schemes (there are many variants, but they all contain one thing: strict linearity, no exception, and no genuine collapse) was one of the "orthodox" interpretations, by now. 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!

The other "orthodox" QM interpretation is usually called "Copenhagen", but it should in fact be called "von Neuman" who first, clearly stated the two fundamental processes: process 1: the collapse ; process 2: the unitary evolution.

Finally a "fringe-orthodox" interpretation is Bohmian mechanics. It reduces essentially to classical mechanics, but with two additions: strict linearity of the wavefunction (in that sense it could be classified as an MWI scheme!), and an extra "quantum potential" which, unfortunately, is very non-local (worse than Newtonian gravity, because there is no decrease of the effect with distance).

These three families are called "interpretations" because they are claimed to give "equivalent" results. However, this is not entirely true: for instance, MWI schemes allow for the "undoing" of measurements, while "Copenhagen" schemes don't allow that. At least in principle. We don't know, in practice, how to undo a measurement that has been amplified to the macroscopic level.

The three schemes all have their pros and contras (personally, I find the cocktail for MWI the most drinkable :-)

- MWI clearly has a problem in that the objective description of the world doesn't correspond to the subjective experiences of an observer, if somehow one does not associate this observer with only ONE of its bodystates. On the other hand, it has a lot of "theoretically esthetic" qualities: first of all, there is the same physics for observers as for systems under observation. Second, it is strictly local in its dynamics. Related to this, all symmetries (lorentz invariance, gauge symmetries etc...) are fully respected, all the way. MWI also naturally leads to a description of the universe (if only we knew how to handle gravity).

- "Copenhagen" has the nice property of having an "objective description of the world" which corresponds to observation. However, it suffers from several shortcomings, of which the most pressing is of course the ambiguity of the distinction between "an observation" and "a physical process": they are not compatible, and for some actions, we have to apply sometimes one, and sometimes the other evolution prescription. From this also results that we cannot have "a wavefunction of the universe" because there always needs to be an external observer. Finally, there is something unesthetic: while the unitary part respects certain symmetries such as lorentz invariance, clearly the collapse process doesn't and is bluntly non-local and non-relativistic.

- "Bohmian mechanics" has also the nice property of having an objective, and even deterministic description of the world which corresponds to observation. However, there is also an unesthetic part, similar to the Copenhagen view: while the unitary part respects certain symmetries, the quantum potential doesn't, very bluntly. It is also very odd that certain properties of particles (such as spin) only occur in the wave function description, but not in the classical particle counterpart.
Finally, Bohmian mechanics has in fact two separate dynamical schemes: the wavefunctions scheme (same as MWI, using strict unitarity) where all kinds of ghosts and superpositions occur, uninfluenced by the actual particle positions ; second a "slave dynamics" of featureless point particles which are somehow what we observe. Bohmian mechanics becomes much more opaque when it is applied to quantum field theory, although its afficionados claim that it can be done.

Each scheme renders QM "comprehensible" ; all of them agree on the practical implications of experiments one can do in a laboratory, although they can differ in certain respects concerning currently unfeasable experiments.
They also agree all that for all practical purposes, we can use von Neumann's projection scheme.

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. 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. 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.
But sensitivities can be different, and some people might prefer an uglier mathematics if they can save their agreement between objective world and subjective experience of it. I'm affraid that you hide then for yourself the deeper message of the formalism, but that's just my opinion.

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.

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 :-)

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).

Honestly, I'm sceptical about that. Ancient people were not any more stupid than we are today ; 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. 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 ; but also that the constellation of stars in which the planets move determine what will happen to my love life, and how the convulsions of a dying animal will determine the outcome of a military campaign have occurred to people.
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.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Canute]

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"?

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.

I believe that you do not get it based simply on your dismissal of the mathematics.

When did I dismiss mathematics? The mathematics is what I'm talking about.

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

So I asked, can something with vague definition, and no quantifiable means be incorporated into physics?

I'd say not, although I don't know what 'no quantifiable means' means here.

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.

This suggests to me you have no idea how definitions work, and have never read the scientific literature on consciousness.

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?

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

Pardon me, but what exactly is "mathematical structure of QM", or, for that matter the "meta-mathematically" part? How does

a1|1> + a2|2>

or

[H,p]=0 for free particles

is isomorphic with Taoism and Buddhism?

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 looks like you have no clue what I just said about mathematics being the complete description of a phenomena. I didn't say mathematics is COMPLETE. For a straightforward classical electrostatic, I can give you Gauss's Law/Coulomb's law. Now, find me a more complete description of classical electrostatic without using those mathematical description.

I'd say not, although I don't know what 'quantifiable means' means here.

I could have sworn I said that physics doesn't just deal with what goes up must come down (this is a qualitative, hand-waving description). I said that physics MUST also describe when and where it comes down (this is a QUANTITATIVE description). EVERY description of a phenomena in physics MUST have a quantitative agreement with that phenomena being measured. This includes NOT ONLY a measured value, but also how that value changes as we vary one or more parameters! If I vary the angle of trajectory of a projectile, where and when will that projectile come down? This is the more stringent test than just simply say "Oh, the projectile that goes up must come down". This is the part you seem to not understand.

This suggests to me you have no idea how definitions work, and have never read the scientific literature on consciousness.

I never said I did, nor did I claim to be an expert at it. You again forgot that you were the one who said that such a connection between these to areas exists. I asked you how can you be sure when you haven't understood one half of that equation. If I were the one trying to establish the connection between QM and "mysticism", then I'd say you have a very valid point that I have totally ignorant of the issue of consciousness. In fact, simply by reading the few literatures I've come across, I would consider my knowledge of consciousness quite superficial, and I would be silly to try to make any definitive statement about any connection between the two.

Are you, however, willing to bet that your understanding of QM goes beyond superficial understanding of what it is?

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 protect nothing. As an experimentalist, I delight in challenging established theories in physics, because, frankly, that's what I've been hired to do. However, to be able to know if something is new, or unexplaned, or can be done, I need to first know what has already been established, can already be explained, etc. I cannot do anything out of ignorance of what is known.

Your own assumptions and misreadings of what I have said led you to believe that I'm dismissing such a connection. I haven't even gotten to THAT part. What I have questioned is your understanding of what you THINK you know. Why is this not a valid question when you seem to be certain that "mysterious" things in QM has similarities mysticism? Is it not a fair question to ask if you understanding of what QM describe goes beyond superficial pop-sci level? Why do you find this offensive and ... er... "unscientific"?

Zz.

 

[Canute]

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!

I very much agree. In my opinion you cannot even seriously consider metaphysics without taking the superposition principle seriously on all scales.

Thanks for the review of the different interpretations. I only disagree with this - "Each scheme renders QM "comprehensible"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Honestly, I'm sceptical about that.

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.

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.

Ancient people were not any more stupid than we are today

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;

Yes. It's quite amazing that this is Buddhist doctrine.

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.

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.

Sorry for the length of this. You made some good point and I wanted to respond to them.

Canute

 

[Canute]

ZapperZ

You seem more interested in how much I know about QM than whether my proposition stands up to analysis, which is a shame.

But I think you may have even muddled my posts with some else's. You make criticisms of things I have not implied let alone said, and seem to have lost your temper before the discussion has even begun. Were you arguing with someone else earlier and thought I was him? I'll assume so.

 

[Doc Al]

I think it's time to bring this thread to a close.

Canute, if you'd like to continue this discussion I suggest you start a thread in the Philosophy forums.