Quantum Mechanics & Universal Consciousness: Evidence?

[Overdose]

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...

 

[chroot]

Quantum mechanics is physics, not metaphysics or neuroscience or philosophy. It answers questions about the outcomes of physical experiments. It doesn't deal with minds or consciousness.

- Warren

 

[Stevo]

Well, Chroot, I would argue quite vigorously that the interpretation of QM (or any science in general) is a philosophical issue.

I would also argue that QM does raise very striking ontological and epistemological questions, as a theory of reality in primitive form.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was wondering if there is any real evidence within the field of quantum mechanics to support the idea of a universal collective consciousness?

No.

And I strongly support chroot's comment. There is a distinct difference between the physics and the interpretation of the physics. Most practicing physicists can get by very well without delving very deeply (or even delving at all) into the philosophy of the things they encounter or use. Metaphysical ideas that appears to originate out of solid physics principles often involve wild speculations. And when one starts speculating, then all bets are off. One might as well speculate whatever one wants without justification. This then is no longer physics.

Zz.

 

[jackle]

Quantum mechanics definitely definately does not 'prove collective consciousness'.

Quantum mechanics is a brilliant theory to use in support of any philosophy that is classically implausible. Unfortunately, many such philosophies exclude each other. You can produce a compelling argument using some of the ideas in quantum mechanics but they can't all be right.

 

[DrChinese]

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.

 

[Overdose]

You have a point...

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.

 

[karma345]

I'm of the mind that - while yes, we can grasp at straws of an ontological nature based upon the findings of quantum physics these guys are, for the most part, correct. It's the same problem we find with relativity theory being interpreted as a way of stating that different points of view are plausible - and must be taken into consideration. This may or may not be true, Special Relativistic physics doesn't say one way or the other - it's merely a model of our physical universe based upon the constancy of the speed of light. It demonstrates that inertial frames of reference are not consistent when it comes to time and space measurement at high velocities, but light will always be - it's a mechanics, nothing more. While QM has given us a huge glimpse into the principle that probabilities may be all we have in this universe, both from a physical and a metaphysical standpoint, (i.e. - we can never truly know anything, we can only take our best educated guess from a statistical standpoint) it is a science - not a philosophy. I think, at this point, we've just got to take Jung's empirical evidence - most of which is a priori - that there is a good indication that a collective consciousness exists. Until we get to the point where we can point to some form of energy and say - through experiment - there it is, there's consciousness - QM doesn't have any room for true thought on the subject. Now I'm still learning the basics, so I don't have a lot of room to talk - but one thing I do know is how to differentiate science and philosophy. I'm on your side - I'd like to find some experimental evidence beyond a priori empiricism that there is a collective consciousness - and perhaps one day QM will point to something that indicates just that, and even then all we can do is measure specific states of the particles or energy or both using quantum theory - it won't grant us any real proof - it will only point to it by means of watching the interactions. Until then, I don't believe we can say one way or the other, and we certainly can't say that QM verifies it in any way, shape or form.

 

[LURCH]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

I was wondering when someone would finally bring this up! :)

I know you said you don't believe in it, so this is not exactly a rebuttal aimed at you. In any case, if someone has an inkling to extrapolate "collective conscousness" from the entanglement aspect of QM, I only have one thing to say: DECOHERENCE.

If QM entanglement is THAT easy to maintain over distance and time, we would have seen quantum phenomena easily in the macroscopic regime of our world. QM phenomena then would not have been "strange". Effects of entanglement would have been common. Yet, as we can clearly see, they aren't!

This is because to be able to notice the effects of entanglement, one must maintain the coherence of the entangled properties either over the length of macroscopic distances, and/or over sufficiently long time scales. This isn't easy because it takes almost no effort for the system to interact with larger and larger degrees of freedom. This easily destroys the coherence. Thus, when decoherence sets in, no more evidence of entanglement.

To use entanglement to support the idea of "collective conscousness" is really grasping at virtual straws.

Zz.

 

[karma345]

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.

While I agree with this, from a certain point of view - this is the crux of the problem as I perceive it. We're not holding our own here. As Quantum Physicists - we are not taking the next logical step.

I mean, consider this - Dr. Carl Gustav Jung pointed out, most enthusiastically, at the end of his life, that the psyche must be studied. It wasn't long after that statement that Relativity and Quantum Theories both came of age to the point where they could be rationally used as pure scientific models. But to say that metaphysics shouldn't be involved in science is a fallacy! Science should explain everything!

And we don't take that seriously enough today. The implications of quantum theory, while they do not prove a collective consciousness yet - as Dr. Chinese pointed it, that is mostly due to the fact that we do not have a consensus of a supporting model for consciousness - and who's fault is that? We still insist that it's up the bilologists to determine what consciousness is - basing it upon the quantum model if necessary - I disagree entirely. It is completely within OUR jurisdiction - not theirs. Why? Because - until you show me how to disregard the observer in the experiment - it is an essential piece of the system. And that being the case, what's the implication here? You tell me! Why are we ignoring it? I'd really like to know - why it's so easy for you guys to just shrug it off as occultist metaphysical philosophical babbling, when it's obvious that it is not. It's part of the system we're investigating. You find me a hidden variable system that works, some atomic or subatomic mechanism causing these jumps outside of the observer, outside of consciousness as we currently understand it, make M-Theory work without the stings fraying, and I'll retract this statement happily - until then - we need to start defining consciousness - in terms of - the systems we're investigating, for a complete model. And won't it be interesting if all string theory proves to be is yet another level of observational maneuvering? Why are we putting it off and setting science back to the stone age after 100 years of Occidental Quantum Theory?

Jason

 

[godzilla7]

Being a lowly pre degree student, I'm studying the pre degree maths to take a course in Physics, although I am fairly well read in the ideas behind quantum mechanics I don't presume to have the basis to truly question them, I usually read with interest but steer clear of the quantum world in as much as when the conversation turns to maths I'm left standing saying huh?

Consciousness, well that's interesting, I've often asked myself the question about the experimenters conscious perceptions in experiments and about the way we interpret data, whether these could be clouded by our own inabilities to see what is really there, I see that it's intrinsic to all understanding in experimentation is the Consciousness and understanding this key factor I think could only expedite further discoveries, but I also understand it's impossible to truly take it into account without solving that holy grail that is the 'hard problem', bravo for trying to explain the problems with forming ideas based on any aspect of Consciousness though, I will read this post with interest I think.

I happen to know a Dr of neuropharmacology and his comments on finding chemical biological rationals for Consciousness are that we really have no real grasp yet of the biology or the chemistry of the brain as it applies to a theory of Consciousness, it's possible to say when we do a to receptor b we get c which may influence the series of neurons to produce d, the problem is of such a scale though as to be monumental, for example we don't even know exactly how many drugs work? And to scale this lack of understanding of even basic biochemistry up as has been said leads to speculation and nothing more, how do we have a thought an idea or even a collective Consciousnessif it exists, it's impossible to say; some say we may never know what makes us conscious?

Let's hope we someday know the answers to the Consciousness, it is as relevant to physics as it is to all science, it just eludes us all, at some point we have to get beyond the philosophical idea of 'what is truth' though, what do we really see behind the veil, and produce some absolute data if that is possible.I have sometimes asked where's the evidence and got some great answers on this forum, doesn't stop me from saying yeah but why? Like a kid asking his parents why and why and why over and over until they say it just is or they produce something that makes me go, oh yeah cool.

Let's hope in a few hundred years someone is standing where we are now and winking at our notions of the universe and how primitive were our concepts, 'ah they were on the right track' they say but he he not quite right, just as we do now at some of the notions of the last few millennia.

 

[reilly]

I strongly suspect that Jung was right about a collective unconscious, The reason he was right is that we are all wired the same -- or close enough. Dragons and monsters, and scary sounds, and shadows in the dark, all, on first encounter a least, scare the hell out of us in a purely involuntary way. Jung's primitive archetypes are created from neural processes (probably well defined ones) given the right inputs and context.
In other words, the collective unconscious processes mental data in much the same fashion as do other processes governing, say, speech, or movement, or ...

While the process of human vision is dependent upon quantum processes, most other physical aspects of mental phenomena appear to be well described by classical concepts. The mysteries of QM are, I think, more likely to be better understood as we learn more about human capabilities and concepts -- as epistemology turns into science.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[quantumdude]

Well, Chroot, I would argue quite vigorously that the interpretation of QM (or any science in general) is a philosophical issue.

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.

 

[DrChinese]

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 someone can come up with a useful theory to connect the two, then more power to them! To do this, you will need to identify variables which are shared between the two views (QM and consciousness). That ain't going to be so easy...

:)

 

[Nereid]

I was wondering if there is any real evidence within the field of quantum mechanics to support the idea of a universal collective consciousness?

If there is, please let's see it! (the consensus of posts so far seems to be 'NO!')

any ideas...

Ideas are good; pointers towards specific, concrete, testable predictions (etc) are better.

 

[vanesch]

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.

Although I know it is a slippery domain, especially because in the culture of physicists it is not politically correct to talk about "minds" and "consciousness", as some will have observed here, I think there might be a connection in the resolution of the measurement problem in a MWI setting.
Let's say that things become clear if you make an association between a "mind" and one of the states of the Schmidt decomposition of the wavefunction of the universe, when considering it as a tensor product of H_mybody x H_restofuniverse. If you now stochastically associate the "mind in my body" with ONE of these states, according to the Born rule, then my "mind" will be associated with a body state which has all the necessary properties of "a good observer according to von Neumann" WITHOUT the problem of having to distinguish between "physical processes evolving unitarily" and "measurement processes".

So it are the successive associations of "my mind" to "one of my body states" which gives me the impression of living in a world in which the Born rule is true.

In this view, the "mind" is the ultimate observer which applies the Born rule, and the funny thing is that there are some parallels between this view, and some philosophical ideas about "mind" (like the "hard problem": namely that it is observationally impossible to know if something has a consciousness or not, except by redefining the concept into something observational).

But, having said this, I repeat: I think that this is a kind of reasoning that can build a consistent interpretation of QM, and that's it. It doesn't "prove" anything about minds or consciousnesses and one cannot say that QM says this or that about it. Also, as has been pointed out here, we're talking about interpretations, and not about hard physics. However, I DO think that it is important for physicists, to think about the interpretation of their theories and not just "shut up and calculate". But often the interpretation has some personal aspects, although I think it also enhances comprehension of the theory at hand. It is very slippery, and you're indeed easily drawn into new age stuff, something I would like to avoid at all costs.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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!

 

[masudr]

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!

Amen to that!

 

[vanesch]

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?

Well, the moon DOES exist even if "no mind" is looking at it. It even exists in several entangled states. You just have to pick out one, that's all there is to it. The same with nuclear processes. Sooner or later, you WILL observe something that is somehow related to it, which will make you choose one or another "interaction history" completely compatible with an "objective reaction".
In fact, your remark is more to the point concerning "parts of the universe outside of the visible universe", say, at 500 billion lightyears from here. Does that part of the unobservable universe "exist" or not ?

I will remain agnostic about measurement and hope for a successful completion of the decoherence program. Next year in Stockholm!

I'm convinced the decoherence program IS already "completed". It did what it could": it indicated that interactions with the environment lead to Schmidt decompositions which turn out to be "classical" states.
But there's something that Decoherence, nor ANYTHING can solve, within strict unitary QM: that is: at the end of the day, you end up with a sum of terms, and you have to pick one of them. Because of the linearity of the time evolution operator, you cannot do anything to do so.
What you can hope to do is that there is some *natural* way of assigning probabilities to each of the terms which turns out to be equivalent to the Born rule (I'm convinced you cannot even do that because I know of OTHER ways to "naturally assign" probabilities, but that's something else).
But THE VERY FACT that you have to pick out one term, and not all together (even if there is a "natural way" to pick it out), means that this is *an extra postulate* which is NOT included in quantum theory itself. After all, nothing stops me from being entangled with something else, and _experience_ that entanglement !
I agree that my "mind" stuff is only a shortcut to "the observing something that must somehow pick out ONE term to be observed". But given CURRENT STATE of quantum theory, embracing strict linearity, I don't see another way out.
My real hope resides infact in gravity. Gravity might somehow induce a genuine probabilistic (or even deterministic ?) collapse in an objective way, and then all that mind stuff can go in the dust bin.
But that would then imply true non-local interactions (EPR...), GR and SR would fall on their faces in one way or another etc...
If the superstring approach to quantizing gravity holds, then I think we're stuck with strictly linear quantum theory. And then I don't see any other way out, honestly.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[Canute]

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]

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.

Maybe he can do it now? He passed on a while back.

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.

Decoherence means that most normal quantum processes become indistinguishable from classical ones with stunning speed. The exceptions to this, SQUIDS etc., occur at low energies and low temperatures. The temperature of the brain is far too high for such manifest quantum effects. This is why Penrose, who "desperately wants" to have active quantum processes in consciousness has to confine himself speculatively to the cytoskeleton of the brain cells, attributing special functions to it that cell biologists know not of.

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.

Schroedinger rejected most of the theory of quantum mechanics - uncertainty, Born probability, etc. and was a rival/coworker with Einstein in the development of a classical based unified theory. So what modern quantum theory says, and what he said about consciousness have not much to do with each other.

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.

This "nonduality" of yours ("Tat asti tva?") seems to be based on a popular and unsound understanding of entanglement. Look at the threads and posts on this subject here in the quantum forum for better information.

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

With respect I will examine this site and see what's what.

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?

 

[ZapperZ]

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?

I tend to agree with you on this. It appears that most people who are trying to make such connection only understand QM at the superficial level.

Here's something I am almost certain: until this thing call "consciousness" can be defined unambiguously AND quantified, it can never merge with physics, and especially QM.

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

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.

This is probably not the right place to discuss this (except for its analogy with "observer" in quantum theory!), but all "behavioral" definitions of consciousness (like the Turing test in artificial intelligence) miss completely the point ; which makes consciousness something that is not open to typical scientific enquiry.

There is in fact no reason to have a concept like consciousness, except for the very Cartesian view "I think therefor I am"... and this untangible concept of observer in quantum theory :-)

If I (very sexist - ladies, I'm kidding!) claim that women don't have a consciousness, but that they are just bodies that behave in ways which are completely understandable if we were to analyse all physical processes inside their bodies, then I wonder how a woman can convince a man of the opposite.
In exactly the same way, if I claim that women are not "observers" but evolve unitarily, and only men are "observers" and "collapse the wave function", then I would like to know how one is going to contradict me.
Nevertheless, I think that women somehow KNOW that this is wrong !

cheers,
Patrick

 

[Canute]

Hmm. Nobody seems to like my proposition much. But to me the objections made here don't carry much weight. I'll try to defend what I wrote earlier, since I'm here on a reality-check. You'll have to bear with me, I'm not a mathematician or physicist.

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? 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.

Here we have a number of explanatory/descriptive systems purporting to be true accounts of Nature which all share the same strange and unusual structure. In each what is being described is 'nondual', i.e. has complementary/contradictory aspects but cannot be conceived as what it is. To me it would be be astonishing if this was coincidence. These kinds of formal descriptive schemes are not found anywhere else, as far as I know, but in descriptions of Nature at a fundamental or cosmological level. It seems likely that it is Nature, the thing that is being described, that forces us into using these unusual formal systems to describe it. I suppose it could be coincidence but if so it's a very extraordinary one.

I'll go through some objections.

1. Penrose is criticised for misunderstanding decoherence. I cannot judge. However I'd be surprised if he did not understand it at least as well as anyone here. At least the case against him has to be made, not assumed.

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.

3. The concept of nonduality has nothing to with quantum entanglement, in the sense that the two concepts arose independently. However, I believe there is a connection. It does not seem to be common knowledge amongst physicists that non-locality, superposition, the 'absorber theory' of time and other counterintuitive concepts recently forced onto physicists by the behaviour of Nature at a micro-level are old hat in Buddhism (although of course the words are new). A Taoist is no more likely to say that the Tao is extended or unextended than a physicist is to say that a wavicle is a particle or a wave.

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.

As Vanesh says, consciousness is not something that is open to typical scientific enquiry. It does not follow from this that consciousness does not exist. The unfalsfiabilty of solipsism shows that we are more certain that it exists than anything else we think exists. If it exists then it would be odd indeed if there were not a causal or ontological connection between consciousness and QM.

5. Vanesh writes "There is in fact no reason to have a concept like consciousness, except for the very Cartesian view "I think therefore I am"... and this untangible concept of observer in quantum theory :-)" Again this is true. It says that there is no reason to have a concept of consciousness besides the fact that we are conscious.

6. Vanesh - "If I (very sexist - ladies, I'm kidding!) claim that women don't have a consciousness, but that they are just bodies that behave in ways which are completely understandable if we were to analyse all physical processes inside their bodies, then I wonder how a woman can convince a man of the opposite."

It would be impossible for a woman to do this. Men can't do it either. This is known as the 'other minds' problem.

7. It may be that the article I mentioned is at the John Gribben level as SA said. This is probably why it made sense to me. But this has no bearing on whether it is soundly reasoned or not. If it has faults they need to be identified. It is not a requirement of truth that it has to be made more complicated than Gribben, in fact the opposite is likely to the case.

It is unclear to me why the idea that the universe is not a classical object but a quantum mechanical one, which can thus exist in a superposition of observer-actualised states, as Buddhist doctrine states once translated into physics-speak, causes such consternation among scientific thinkers, nor why consciousness is such a feared phenomenon just because we can't define it scientifically. Are we to just to accept the incomprehensibility of Nature rather than explore explanations that might work but that we're not comfortable with?

Paul Davies in his book 'The Mind of God' conjectures, having exhausted all other avenues, that Nature might have an explanation that is wholly unlike our usual scientific explanations of things. As a respected physicist he seems entitled to hold this view.

 

[ZapperZ]

I will address only a few incorrect points you have made here. Any more and it will turn into a book.

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.

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?

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?

Come again?

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?

The mathematical formulation of QM is NOT the same as the interpretation of QM. What you are trying to connect is the popularization of the interpretation of QM. There's a very important distinction there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why is there this need to join this two? Are you trying to give more "credibility" to "consciousness"? I mean, physics certainly doesn't need it. Just look at all the practical applications that have been produced from physics, and compare that to "consciousness". 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.

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

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 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.
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.
One can be opposed to MWI, but it is hard to conceive quantum theories of gravity without taking MWI seriously up to a certain point. So real physicists are doing some real physics (not in the lab...) by explicitly or implicitly placing themselves in such an MWI scheme. And, again, within an MWI scheme, there is a difference between the objective world and the subjectively experienced world ; that subjectively experienced world is experienced by what I call a "consciousness".
I know that it is somehow a frightening idea that we need a subjective experience to make sense of physics to die-hard physicists ; there are two points to be made.
- first is the point that those die-hard physicists are so much into the study of an objective world that they might have forgotten that the existence of an objective world cannot be anything else but a working hypothesis: all knowledge a human being can have is namely through its subjective experiences. This working hypothesis of an objective wolrd might, or might not, be right ; in the same way as universal time was once an evident working hypothesis. Mind you, I think that the jury is still out on this: it might be that MWI is simply WRONG and that collapse is an objective phenomenon (or a Bohmian-like theory will emerge). But it has far-reaching implications concerning a lot of established ideas such as, say, lorentz invariance.
- the second point is that one can point to a lot of applications of QM which "don't need all that mumbo jumbo" and work very well without thinking about these issues. But that's simply a technological limitation, which is such that there is so much room left for the Heisenberg cut. Maybe one day technological advances will shrink the room for a Heisenberg cut considerably.
But probably we will have a much deeper theoretical understanding by that time that will make all these discussions obsolete in any case.

Nevertheless, although the last point indicates somehow the futility of these considerations, I personally find that pondering about it gives insight in the machinery of QM itself, as it stands, today. And that's my aim with it.

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 ; it has to be said that QM is a lot more free in these things than classical physics. I leave that to the personal opinion of the people involved ; however, I think that that is not doing physics, or even metaphysics, anymore.

cheers,
patrick.

 

[Canute]

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 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.

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?

I did not say that. I said I was not a mathematician. It does not follow that I'm a fool.

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

Quite so.

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.

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).

Why is there this need to join this two? Are you trying to give more "credibility" to "consciousness"?

I not clear what 'giving credibity to consciousness' might mean.

I mean, physics certainly doesn't need it.

Lol. I rather think that physics wouldn't exist without it.

Just look at all the practical applications that have been produced from physics, and compare that to "consciousness".

You're kidding, right?

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'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]

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.

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.

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.

Yes, it's an odd situation. It's not clear to me how this can be explained without including consciousness in the explanation.

I know that it is somehow a frightening idea that we need a subjective experience to make sense of physics to die-hard physicists

If Kuhn is right they'll die sooner or later and then at last we can move on.

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

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). This is much bolder claim than one that states just that QM does not falsify that doctrine, and one that is testable. If a new hypothesis has greater explanatory reach than the one currently being used then it's worth considering. If it's flawed in some way then that will become apparent - but only if it is considered.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

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"?

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

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.

A person's view also isn't always correct BECAUSE he is dead. So what's your point? 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".

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.

I said NOTHING about consciousness. Lest you forget, it is YOU who are insisting that it be incorporated into physics. So I asked, can something with vague definition, and no quantifiable means be incorporated into physics? 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.

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?

Zz.

 

[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.