The Role of Observation in the Creation of the Universe: A Quantum Perspective

[Oscar Wilde]

I can't answer this question being a small piece of sand comparing to Universe but I think that everything happens for reason and Thanks to no matter who or what for creation this perfect world

The size and scale of the Universe never stopped Einstein from pursuing knowledge about the Universe.

 

[Belzy]

Ideas like this attract people because it is mysterious and very interesting. However, this has the negative effect of overwhelming one with it's oddness such that one forgets to think. The idea that we created the universe, at least to me, seems ridiculous. I also don't subscribe to this interpretation of quantum mechanics, myself.

We may not create the universe, but one must consider that the observer may well in fact have an effect on it as a whole. Just by being there to observe. Like a mother responding to a crying child. We are the children of this universe we inhabit. It would make sense that being a product of it that we are connected to it in more ways than we are yet able to understand. Science will explain all of this in "time" maybe not in our lifetime but someday. The more we question the more we will learn and the more we learn the more questions we will have.

 

[WaveJumper]

and Thanks to no matter who or what for creation this perfect world

Hmm, I wasn't aware that death and suffering were defeated.

 

[kreature]

yes, it is kind of mad...besides nobody has obsrved the big bang..only it after effects...

You are observing it now and have been your entire life. The explosion is still happening.

 

[kreature]

I don't know who said it first but I continue to say it and will forever. We are how the universe knows itself. It's so simple and yet, it ends up being assumed to be complicated.

 

[faustronaut]

the cool sci-fi answer is that perhaps by making various choices we are unconsciously navigating parallel universes. I'm not responsible for your existence, nor are you of mine. but we may choose which versions of each other we experience.

 

[quantumdude]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God?

We? No. I am. This is my universe, you're just livin' in it, Bub.

 

[Maui]

We? No. I am. This is my universe, you're just livin' in it, Bub.

Then we should appoint security guards to guarantee your safety and longevity, as we all hinge on your well-being.

 

[p764rds]

Its not so deep or abstract as all this, its much much simpler - here we go-...an intelligence can exist within quantum states that manifests itself through data and instructions which are held in quantum states (or a similar state holding entity).
1) Now, any intelligence is capable of thought in the same way that we think (its just a property of numbers).
2) An intelligence might find it fun or worthwhile to nest a Universe within its own field of existence. We could even make a (bad) universe in a PC!
3) An intelligence would soon work out that a 3D Universe would work well - its an engineering problem only.
4) Voila - here we are - we are probably similar thinkers to what created this lot we 'live' in.
5) Parallel universes are not necessary IMO, nor is travel to future or past. i.e. we have the 'present time'. It is mathematically possible to make other universes and there may well be lots and lots of them - but I cannot see the reason for designing them in or evidence of them. To run the cosmos backwards would need a vast amount of data recording all positions of all 'particles' at all times - would the designers have bothered to add that into an already difficult mix? (no..., why?)

 

[baywax]

Then we should appoint security guards to guarantee your safety and longevity, as we all hinge on your well-being.

The interconnectivity of all things says you're right to say this and wish Tom well. The random effect that each and every event in the universe has on the next event is covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory" " in english.

Its not that we create the universe when we observe it. Its that we are the universe. We are part of it and we are, in effect, motivated by the entirety of the universe. Our observations may cause a motivation to either perceive the universe differently or actually change part of it. Its not determinism to say that each motion in the universe causes a motion elsewhere and we are one of the "elsewheres".

 

[p764rds]

This looks good on my android phone. Cool blue and fast loading - thanks physics forums
web designers.

 

[Deveno]

did we create the universe? i don't think so. perhaps someone or something did...it appears to have the coherence of an artifact, unfortunately, i haven't enough experience of "un-created" things to say (or have i?)

i like to think that what we do create, is our own frame of reference. more than one frame of reference is possible, and possibly there is a "preferred frame of reference", which, if it exists, would be unique (up to isomorphism, of course).

personally, I'm not smart enough to have created everything. i don't think anyone alive is, either. although it is possible this "reality" is simulated, for all practical purposes, it is irrelevant. true or not, it does not guide the choices i make.

the possibility existence is just distributed information has a certain sort of self-contained logic to it. of course, carried to its logical conclusion, what we perceive to be our "tangible" existence, is then just a "model" for a decidedly "intangible" data-structure. one wonders where the energy for the "stepping" of the data-structure through different phases comes from. geometrically: are we on a line, a line-segment, a ray, or a loop? current theories leans towards "ray" or "line segment " but "big bounce" theories are making the "loop" fashionable once again.

of course, i have no way of knowing if my individual consciousness is just some fractional (fractal?) part of an "over-self" in which case i might actually be you (although i can't see as how this helps much). so, as enjoyable as such meta-physical speculation may be, the inability of my mind to maintain several points of view simultaneously makes me favor the ordinary view, that i am just another grain of sand in the hour-glass, and soon i will be done.

 

[p764rds]

personally, I'm not smart enough to have created everything. i don't think anyone alive is, either. although it is possible this "reality" is simulated, for all practical purposes, it is irrelevant. true or not, it does not guide the choices i make.

Enjoyed reading your post...

The 'creator' would only need to design the 10 (or so) fundamental particles, then let them go and they will do the rest themselves. Same with life - the genetic improvement with time is not a one-off design process (no unit intelligence could do that) rather it is a complex structure that has essentially designed itself in small easy steps over time. (genetic programming)

A computer game would appear at first sight to be a mess of 0s and 1s (binary) but if I know the program that is running this mess of binary then it is quite easy to grasp.

Lastly, I do not believe that the cosmos is so mysterious that we can never understand it. I believe the opposite that we can know everything about it and will soon be able to deconstruct our reality into what it really is - data. A numbers process, the magic contained within the simple properties of numbers. In this respect intelligence itself is 'only' a property of numbers and cannot exist outside numbers.
In this way we get a truer handle on ourselves. This is much better for us. I feel sure that if an intelligence created this shabang then it would not object to us knowing about it. Why should it object? It would be pleased IMO. An intelligent creator would probably be similar in thinking to ourselves because it is based on mathematical logic. The only difference would be motivations of that logic. And motivations could be any type, but logic is always logic.

:)

 

[baywax]

I do not believe that the cosmos is so mysterious that we can never understand it. I believe the opposite that we can know everything about it and will soon be able to deconstruct our reality into what it really is - data. A numbers process, the magic contained within the simple properties of numbers. In this respect intelligence itself is 'only' a property of numbers and cannot exist outside numbers.

:)

Data (eg. numbers) is a language we use to describe our experience. It is how we decipher our experience. We could be using chinese characters or even an alphabet or two to do the same thing.

Your belief appears to be the reverse of what is actually taking place. It sounds to me like you imagine a deity letting loose some numbers that magically create our experience... when, in actuality, our experience and our limited comprehensibility have led us to compartmentalize our experience into numbers and other languages.

 

[p764rds]

. It sounds to me like you imagine a deity letting loose some numbers that magically create our experience... when, in actuality, our experience and our limited comprehensibility have led us to compartmentalize our experience into numbers and other languages.

Thanks for your interesting post...
I have written over 100 posts and an independent paper on this. If you google P764RDs you will find them all.

I believe all objects in the cosmos are 'made' from data and instructions (also data) in a similar way to how a computer makes a 3D game or even a digital film. We can watch a film or game and see 3D objects on the screen but their origin is definitely in numbers - binary in the memory of the computer. Everything that happens in a computer game is 'merely' due to the amazing properties of numbers and logic. Those properties contain nearly infinite capabilities for making games.

So, in this view, objects in our cosmos are being made in a similar way as in a computer game - but through the Heisenberg Uncertaintity area rather than screen pixels.
Light is pure data containing the energy value and the location value of objects (witness our eyes and camera results for some evidence there and light 'travels' at the maximum speed of data flow too). I put travels in commas because light does not leave a track of its path between observation and creation - its in the wave equation only, not in space. One has to 'ask' light where it is then it gives you values. If you do not ask you get no information at all because its still in superposition and thus has no fixed energy or location.
If you do not ask it for its data then its not in *space* at all - its in an algorithm that simply calculates where it is allowed to be according to its algorithm. i.e its not flying through the air rather its calculating its possible 3D locations algorithmically.

Deity created it? Not a deity as such, but would a collection of numbers create a 3D cosmos (game) as we are in? Is it something that would happen of itself? I believe not, it needs a creator which would simply be an evolved intelligence. Well, is that a person or a deity? ha - you tell me.
The cosmos requires a 3D matrix co-ordinate system to define its spatial aspects as in a 3D game AND a small template collection of particles (say quarks) to be multiplied up to make objects. The properties of those particles is all that is needed to be set correctly, along with some universe constants, and the whole shebang will run itself without the need for deities as you put it.
I simply suggest that 'intelligence' is a property within numbers and is capable of design. So an initial evolved intelligence that did or does not exist in 3D space could actually design the 3D space. Its only an engineering problem and its not even massively difficult to do is it?

You reading this post and I could get together and decide that this cosmos is too boring. So we could sit down and design another cosmos using quarks that we have tweaked a little. We could put it in a computer and let it evolve by itself. I am sure you get the picture of what I am saying. Can intelligence exist outside numbers? I don't think so. But also, it can never escape from numbers can it? How?

But there may be some process that is not intelligent that self-evolves a cosmos using some natural laws? I have not really thought about it - it needs some PhD students to present us with possible scenarios.

 

[baywax]

But there may be some process that is not intelligent that self-evolves a cosmos using some natural laws?

Yes there is. Its called nature.