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

[eddietheboyp]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God? The reasoning behind my madness is from my basic understanding of quantum physics.

I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence and/or influence it to act in the way it does, be it from sticking a cold thermometer into a warm bowl of water and therefore lower the temperature of the water, to the classic wave/particle experiment with photons and slits.

Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

I apologise if this is old news or already addressed elsewhere, but I could not find anything on the subject.

 

[AUMathTutor]

I think that it is probably coherent to assume that there is no difference between being in an airtight, sound-proof, etc. cardboard box in an otherwise empty universe as compared to being in the same box in Chicago or on a boat at sea or on Pluto.

Don't we really all create the universe every morning when we wake up?

 

[Naty1]

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

 

[QuantumBend]

Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

This no good, you need see doctor.

 

[p764rds]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God? The reasoning behind my madness is from my basic understanding of quantum physics.

I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence and/or influence it to act in the way it does, be it from sticking a cold thermometer into a warm bowl of water and therefore lower the temperature of the water, to the classic wave/particle experiment with photons and slits.

Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

I apologise if this is old news or already addressed elsewhere, but I could not find anything on the subject.

If the universe is based on information (and not many agree that is is) then something 'like us' could have done it IMO. i.e. an advanced life form with very good physics, mathematics and computing skills. They probably did the design and implemented it and then just left us to get on with it - obviously they could not come up with something better designed (faster) than evolution - it is a little too slow IMO.

Its not out of the question that we are sitting in an aliens computer and he has forgotten about us! (I can supply legitimate references for this from a University professor!)

 

[eddietheboyp]

Now that would be something worth reading! ;

Its not out of the question that we are sitting in an aliens computer and he has forgotten about us! (I can supply legitimate references for this from a University professor!)

 

[p764rds]

Now that would be something worth reading! ;

Its not out of the question that we are sitting in an aliens computer and he has forgotten about us! (I can supply legitimate references for this from a University professor!)

This is one reference:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Another is an American Professor being interviewed but I cannot find it at present - sorry. He said we should all hold up a large message saying "We know this is a simulation" for the young lad who is running our Universe on his quantum PC to read.

 

[Questioner...]

This is a very touchy subject. Assuming that we create 'Everyone's' universe by simply waking up in the morning is a little silly. Presuming it is your own perspective that you are living in everyday. You make what your fate seals for you. But I believe it is choice that effects us. I think that there is an experiment being carried out about this same issue- Parallel Universes. It states, vaguely, that every choice we make/could have made, has happened somewhere out in the universe. And that there is to be exact copies of ourselves.
See: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/parauniv.html

This is very challenging, from what I got out of it. It almost seems like there is giant mirror in the center of the universe, looking like a flat disk just how presumably our galaxies planets and stars were formed.

Truthfully, all that I have lived. From what I have experienced and witnessed in my life. I know that there can not be a second copy of myself. Because with so many choices in life, we are bound to make one where I or you or the president or anyone for that matter will not exist. Take this for example: Me and a friend are walking downtown one day, when we go to cross the street. My friend see's that the light is yellow and maybe we shouldn't cross. We do anyways. A driver from just turning onto the street parallel to us see's the light yellow and does not see us crossing. He speeds ahead and turns left in our direction hitting my friend and killing him. Now what if we had not of crossed? What if the driver was in traffic. What if that day I ended up getting sick.

The point is, choices we make in life effect everyone around us. Evening if we don't see it. Someone is always talking about you somewhere, always thinking, always wondering.

I think that if we created the universe we would know, and would not have to question one another. I do not think we are some science project either for we ourselves are our own scientists. If aliens created us and put us here...we would never know. Because ignorance would block that from us, no one would except it.

I believe it is simpler than that though. If we look at an atom, we know that positive and negative charges surround it. Just like positive and negative choices we could make. In the nucleus is what? Do we know? Will we ever? And do we ever truly know ourselves? Do you? Will you ever? The answer in most cases is no, arrogant people will say they do. Until the day the unexpected happens and we are forced to do something that could impact us or everyone around us in a way no one expected. The only time we truly know ourselves is in death. When all that matters is gone, and we are one with our self and no one else has an input

 

[QuantumBend]

If we look at an atom, we know that positive and negative charges surround it. Just like positive and negative choices we could make. In the nucleus is what? Do we know? Will we ever?

Yes, NOTHING in atom. Neutrinas go through many not banging. Why.

 

[alxm]

What you're saying has nothing to do with quantum physics (which, let's be clear: is not anthropocentric in the least). Rather, it sounds like a weird re-interpretation of http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/berkeley.htm" metaphysics.

 

[A.I.]

It may seem ridiculous to think that we've created our own universes, but essentially that's what we've done. Reality is relative, and it can be shaped and tuned according to an individual's experiences. But remember that everything you experience from day to day is an illusion. As your hands move over the keyboard and touch each key, you really only see shadows and effects of an underlying reality that we can never truly experience. This is the reason that reality as we experience it is so pliable. I would recommend reading "Dancing Wu Li Masters" and Plato's allegory of the cave.
You were created by me, but I'm only here as long as you believe that I am.

 

[p764rds]

It may seem ridiculous to think that we've created our own universes, but essentially that's what we've done. Reality is relative, and it can be shaped and tuned according to an individual's experiences. But remember that everything you experience from day to day is an illusion. As your hands move over the keyboard and touch each key, you really only see shadows and effects of an underlying reality that we can never truly experience. This is the reason that reality as we experience it is so pliable. I would recommend reading "Dancing Wu Li Masters" and Plato's allegory of the cave.
You were created by me, but I'm only here as long as you believe that I am.

I disagree with some of that above - "You were created by me, but I'm only here as long as you believe that I am." no, no, (IMO) - If I don't believe you are there, then you are still 'there' - just not in my 'small universe'. I think you are getting confused with Von-Neumann-like machines (our brains) that can create their own little reality (say in a dream), but that reality is limited - our brains don't really create an extensive reality like the one we live in - well, there is a philosophical case that nevertheless it is a reality but it is weak case IMO. Again, a 3d video game could be equally 'real', they are just not very extensive at present.

Indeed, a super massive computer creating AI and very intelligent characters is a kind of reality IMO - the whole universe could be one as it may be a von-neumann-like machine like our brains! But just one person 'thinking' is not enough IMO. Its a matter of scale. Don't forget too, that 'thinking machines' can embed in each other very well and still be independent in thought. e.g. a mac OS in a Linux OS. I suppose one could embed a character in our brains that think on their own. I know actors can get quite confused because a character they have copied can become real in their minds - (embedded von neumanns usually work very well).

 

[wavering]

Its not out of the question that we are sitting in an aliens computer and he has forgotten about us! (I can supply legitimate references for this from a University professor!)

I think you are maybe referring to the new book by Martin Rees:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article767308.ece

Actually, this idea has been explored many times in Science Fiction (eg the Matrix films)

 

[AUMathTutor]

I think it's silly to think that I'm real to me, and you're real to you, and we're imaginary to each other.

The truth of the matter is that I'm real, and you guys are figments of my imagination. None of these posts exist before I come read them.

The reason it's not well to dwell on theories like this is that *there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove them*. I'm not sure how one could prove that anything exists, save the self... and I certainly don't see how one could prove that others exist.

 

[Russell Berty]

There is a book called Conjecture of Self that describes a model of reality in which every living thing creates its own reality. Each living thing "shares" its reality with others - they coexist, kind of like a superimposed collection of realities. Moreover, as a life form evolves, its reality becomes more complex based on past experiences.

So I do not create you and you do not create me. We each create our own reality and we superimpose upon each other. :)

 

[p764rds]

There is a book called Conjecture of Self that describes a model of reality in which every living thing creates its own reality. Each living thing "shares" its reality with others - they coexist, kind of like a superimposed collection of realities. Moreover, as a life form evolves, its reality becomes more complex based on past experiences.

So I do not create you and you do not create me. We each create our own reality and we superimpose upon each other. :)

If you view the brain as a von neumann-like machine (ie there is data and a processing area + inputs and outputs) then it can produce its own reality in that its a self contained data processing area. Then its easy to transfer data from one brain to another just like a computer can - which is a classic von neumann machine. Von Neumann machines can nest one within another 100% perfectly. A windows system can nest a Linux system perfectly within its memory - its a perfect Linux system within the windows memory space.
Brains can learn from each other - which (IMO) is a similar sort of nesting process.

 

[Russell Berty]

In describing the model in the book, perhaps I was unclear by the phrase "creates its own reality". I did not mean merely "within a creature's brain, a version of reality is simulated". I mean that each life form IS a reality. All of a creature's reality is a part of the creature. Each creature IS an entire "universe". And each "universe" superimposes with another. In this model, there is no reality "outside" of a creature, except for other creatures. So, it is not the standard model of a material reality. It is akin to Bishop Berkeley's idea (Immaterialism, but without the assumption of a god.)

 

[Coldcall]

We did not create the universe. It created itself, through a quantum wave evolution of probabilities, one of them creating a universe with biocentric laws, hence picking itself a universe in which observers emerge. Not necessarily human observers, just any observers.

 

[stevedy]

It occurred to me that everyday scientific knowledge improves, but the universe becomes one day closer to it's "end" (matter spreading out, all the stars dying etc.) Any intellegent life reaching that point at the peak of scientific and technical knowledge may decide the only thing really left to do is travel back in time and cause the big bang.

That was either my thought or battlestar's.

 

[p764rds]

It occurred to me that everyday scientific knowledge improves, but the universe becomes one day closer to it's "end" (matter spreading out, all the stars dying etc.) Any intellegent life reaching that point at the peak of scientific and technical knowledge may decide the only thing really left to do is travel back in time and cause the big bang.

That was either my thought or battlestar's.

Interesting idea, but IMO it lacks a mechanism to travel back in time. But the intelligent life would not need to, because if, as I believe this Universe is a kind of computer simulation (in a giant quantum computer-like structure, for example) then intelligent life would not be able to 'get out' of the simulation before its demise, but it would be able to create another universe (in a big compter-like structure) and leave it to evolve into intelligence again. The 'life-form' would have been good engineers and designed an evolution path for itself to re-emerge.
Of course, I do not know this for sure, its just a possibility.

 

[superwolf]

The universe started as a clump of very condensed and hot elementary particles, that started to expanded cool over billions of years, following certain physicall laws that allowed for the formation of planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies. Then life came into being by accident, and conscious brains became aware of themselves and started wondering why they exist. It's so damn crazy to think about it!

 

[p764rds]

The universe started as a clump of very condensed and hot elementary particles, that started to expanded cool over billions of years, following certain physicall laws that allowed for the formation of planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies. Then life came into being by accident, and conscious brains became aware of themselves and started wondering why they exist. It's so damn crazy to think about it!

Thats not the only view... Try this as alternative: Intelligence is natural in the universe. Its probably related to mathematics. We are intelligent. The big bang is probably not correct IMO, because the universe is working on information not atoms and fields.
If a previous alien life got very clever (like we are getting) they may have designed the universe because they were unable to escape the demise of information. Why? Because they were made of information and could not escape it. This universe could be in a gigantic quantum computer or something like that - rather than made of atoms etc etc.

It makes more sense than what you are grappling with eh?

Well, its only an idea, but there is more than one way to look at it all.

 

[superwolf]

The big bang is probably not correct IMO

How about the theory of evolution?

 

[p764rds]

How about the theory of evolution?

Sure, evolution. IMO its got a direction from simple to complex almost like a law of physics.
I think it was 'designed in' so that intelligence could reappear (of course, I don't know that for sure). Its my belief that whatever intelligence is in the universe is also in us. But I admit to it being mathematics based and implemented in information. Its much easier than what the physicists are doing, but they should (and are) arrive at the same conclusion.
For example, quantum field theory now has particles as fields. Then they should get from fields to information. Cannot understand what's holding them up.

This is only a minority view, but there are a few papers around if you want references.

WHat do you think of evolution?

 

[superwolf]

I think evolution is a fact.

 

[Belzy]

participatory principle

 

[swat4life]

The universe started as a clump of very condensed and hot elementary particles, that started to expanded cool over billions of years, following certain physicall laws that allowed for the formation of planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies. Then life came into being by accident, and conscious brains became aware of themselves and started wondering why they exist. It's so damn crazy to think about it!

Interesting. How then did the "clump of very condensed and hot elementary particles" come into existence?


Also, how did something made of unconscious matter (i.e. the physical brain) produce conscious thought?

 

[superwolf]

Interesting. How then did the "clump of very condensed and hot elementary particles" come into existence?


Also, how did something made of unconscious matter (i.e. the physical brain) produce conscious thought?

It never came into existence, because matter and energy cannot cease to exist.

Unconscious matter produced conscious thoughts because reproducable biomolecules formed by accident, followed by billions of years of evolution.

 

[p764rds]

Interesting. How then did the "clump of very condensed and hot elementary particles" come into existence?


Also, how did something made of unconscious matter (i.e. the physical brain) produce conscious thought?

Another view is that the universe can only use the tools it has. These are mathematics
and its implementation through information (i.e. data and instructions).

Using these two it cannot *suddenly* produce galaxies and life - in an instant.
Its tools are not powerful enough to do that. So how does it achieve what we
have?
SImple. It starts out with a clump of condensed matter (matter being an implementation
of information) and with good design in the information (working through mathematics)
that develops in time to what we have. WHat else could it do? Start out with everything built? - no way.

Information must step to work (as in a computer), it cannot do all at once.
Hence evolution - so simple really. This is much more logical than trying
to wrestle with matter and energy.

Intelligence? Well, that is probably a very natural property of the universe, we have
it. Intelligence is probably based on logic and mathematics. The universe just cannot
do all at once, rather stepwise. Its logical processes being used.

 

[squidsoft]

I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence

"the Universe exits independently of our minds but understand her Mathematical laws and you can control her to an incredible degree of accuracy. Fail to understand these laws, or ignore them, or forget them and she can be as malevolent as Moby Dick"

 

[p764rds]

"the Universe exits independently of our minds but understand her Mathematical laws and you can control her to an incredible degree of accuracy. Fail to understand these laws, or ignore them, or forget them and she can be as malevolent as Moby Dick"

This is all my opinion, but there is support for this view:

IMO the universe is entirely 'made of' information. Information (good old 1s and 0s) does not have any mass, nor does it need a 3 dimensional space to exist. Its this information that creates a 3d Space and everything in it, including us who are 'made of' information.

Our brains are like mini universes in that they run on information processing and like
the real universe can create their own realities. Computers do the same but not as
well as us yet. Insects brains (do they have them?) do it too.

What is the intelligence behind it? Its mathematics and logic. I suppose a branch of mathematics might want to self replicate. If so, it could put everything in place to do that.
A good team of engineers could design a universe (and stick it in a great big quantum computer). Intelligence is a natural consequence of mathematics. Its not (IMO) THE consequence of mathematics, its just A possibility which, once its got a hold can self replicate if that is what is written into its instruction set. It can easily self-write its own instructions.

Why all this? I dunno, you tell me.

 

[octelcogopod]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God? The reasoning behind my madness is from my basic understanding of quantum physics.

I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence and/or influence it to act in the way it does, be it from sticking a cold thermometer into a warm bowl of water and therefore lower the temperature of the water, to the classic wave/particle experiment with photons and slits.

Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

I apologise if this is old news or already addressed elsewhere, but I could not find anything on the subject.

There's a difference between influencing the universe and creating it.
The big bang happened way before humans were around, so by logic we had nothing to do with it.
We have a sphere of influence around ourselves, through what we see and what we touch/do we define what the universe is doing (we are made of the universe) but that doesn't mean that influence goes any further.

We can change the universe (or more specifically local parts of it) but history is history and we had nothing to do with that.

 

[Belzy]

"the Universe exits independently of our minds but understand her Mathematical laws and you can control her to an incredible degree of accuracy. Fail to understand these laws, or ignore them, or forget them and she can be as malevolent as Moby Dick"

If there were no one around to observe the universe then it would not exist. See: anthropic and participatory principle. John A. Wheeler worked on unified field theory with Albert Einstein.

"it is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core of physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer." Quote: John Archibald Wheeler

"It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
("John Archibald Wheeler")

"Wheeler (1990) has suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this 'it from bit' doctrine, the laws of physics can be cast in terms of information, postulating different states that give rise to different effects without actually saying what those states are. It is only their position in an information space that counts. If so, then information is a natural candidate to also play a role in a fundamental theory of consciousness. We are led to a conception of the world on which information is truly fundamental, and on which it has two basic aspects, corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world." ("David Chalmers")

 

[p764rds]

If there were no one around to observe the universe then it would not exist. See: anthropic and participatory principle. John A. Wheeler worked on unified field theory with Albert Einstein.

"it is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core of physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer." Quote: John Archibald Wheeler

"It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
("John Archibald Wheeler")

"Wheeler (1990) has suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this 'it from bit' doctrine, the laws of physics can be cast in terms of information, postulating different states that give rise to different effects without actually saying what those states are. It is only their position in an information space that counts. If so, then information is a natural candidate to also play a role in a fundamental theory of consciousness. We are led to a conception of the world on which information is truly fundamental, and on which it has two basic aspects, corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world." ("David Chalmers")

yes...
Wheelers thoughts changed over time, but his exclamation 'we are living in a giant computer'
was discredited (not enough memory or something like that!).

The idea of information ibeing at the hub of everything must be correct (IMO). Even a 3 dimensioanl space could not exist without information building it.

The earlier work about Quantum Logic etc needs to be reopened in the light of new theories (eg quantum computing).

Did we create the universe? Probably not, but something like us? I bet so - a previous life form probably, that seeded its recreation. Incidentally, we cannot step back the universe because it would need zillion gigantic store of transactional data to do that. Even the universe has its limits - it can only work with the tools it has (mathematics implemented in information)

This is my opinion and not accepted fact

 

[Belzy]

Well I would have to kind of agree with you. All I say is that if nothing with any of the 5 senses is here to experience the Universe. Then there would be nothing to ask any of these question at all. That would mean there is no universe without us or something like us.

 

[OB 50]

Did we create the universe?

Through what reverse time travel, causality breaking mechanism would we have done that, magic?

Sorry, but we're not that important. The universe was doing just fine for the 14 billion or so years before we came around, and it'll go on existing after the last human dies.

The problem with this line of thinking is what you define as the retroactive creator/observer. Where do you draw the line? Is it only human observers? Okay, then what makes a human observer any more special than an amoeba? What about a virus? Are viruses even "alive" in the traditional sense?

We don't have some special privileged position. We're just a part of it just like everything else. We are the universe, or at least a very small part of it. How can a thing retroactively cause itself?

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Though I am late in addressing the OP, it nonethless deserves my attention. I am an existentialist. We create our own lives and selves, refining our own unique view of the Universe. We essentially "create" our own Universes that we inhabit.

 

[p764rds]

There are probably 15 billion trillion other planets like ours in the universe. A 'brain'
does 'create its own universe' in a sense, but what about the trillions of other brains?

A brain has a processing area and a data area also inputs and outputs. A computer does too. They are both von neumann machines that are processing data. Even an insect does that (do they have little brains?)

 

[swat4life]

"the Universe exits independently of our minds but understand her Mathematical laws and you can control her to an incredible degree of accuracy. Fail to understand these laws, or ignore them, or forget them and she can be as malevolent as Moby Dick"

Have you read the book Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by the former head of UC Santa Cruz's Physics Dept & current emeritus professor of Physics (Bruce Rosemblum)?

http://quantumenigma.com/

His credentials include a PHD in Physics from Columbia and the book was reviewed in Physics Today.

It's one of the most honest, open-minded and scientifically grounded pieces of literature of the subject that I've read since my journey to investigate these matters.

Here's a little description to whet one's intellectual curiousity:


----
Book Description

The most successful theory in all of science—and the basis of one third of our economy—says the strangest things about the world and about us. Can you believe physical reality to be created by our observation of it? Physicists were forced to this conclusion, the quantum enigma, by what they observed in their laboratories.

Trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics and found, to their embarrassment, that their theory intimately connects consciousness with the physical world. Quantum Enigma explores what that implies and why some founders of the theory became the foremost objectors to it. Schrödinger showed that it “absurdly” allowed a cat to be in a “superposition” simultaneously dead and alive. Einstein derided the theory’s “spooky interactions.” With Bell’s theorem, we now know Schrödinger’s superpositions and Einstein’s spooky interactions indeed exist.

Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all of this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and bits about the theory’s developers. They present the quantum mystery honestly, with an emphasis on what is and what is not speculation.

Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. Because the authors open the closet and examine the skeleton, theirs is a controversial book. Quantum Enigma’s description of the experimental quantum facts and the quantum theory explaining them is, however, undisputed. It’s interpreting what it means that’s controversial.

Every interpretation of quantum physics encounters consciousness. Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself—and encounter quantum physics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing.

Readers are brought to a boundary where the particular expertise of physicists is no longer a sure guide. They will find, instead, the facts and hints provided by quantum mechanics and the ability to speculate for themselves.

--

I also love some the insightful quotes:

[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Albert Einstein

Werner Heisenberg"[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

Werner Heisenberg

But Heisenberg went on to insist that these philosophical issues raised by quantum mechanics applied to the big as well as the small.

Albert Einstein"Whether we electrons, light quanta, benzol molecules, or stones, we shall always come up against these two characteristics, the corpuscular and the undular." (Emphasis added.)

Werner Heisenberg

Albert Einstein"Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it."

Niels Bohr

Pascual Jordan"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."

Pascual Jordan

Eugene Wigner"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."

Eugene Wigner

Bernard d'Espagnat"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

Bernard d'Espagnat

Richard Feynman"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Richard Feynman

John Bell"Is it not good to know what follows from what, even if it is not necessary FAPP? [FAPP is Bell's disparaging abbreviation of "for all practical purposes."] Suppose for example that quantum mechanics were found to resist precise formulation. Suppose that when formulation beyond FAPP is attempted, we find an unmovable finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the mind of the observer, to the Hindu scriptures, to God, or even only Gravitation? Would that not be very, very interesting?"

John Bell

Martin Rees"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."

Martin Rees



https://www.amazon.com/dp/019517559X/?tag=pfamazon01-20


As for my personal view of the universe?

I think Wheeler, much like the authors who adorned the great temples at Karnak, knew the power of pictures and symbolism to stimulate left and right brained integrated thinking for the neophytes, so too perhaps did he:

I'm also struck by Bohr and his coat of arms:
http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/birthdayindex/oct/oct7bohr/Bohr1.jpg

I think the wise among men learn as much from reading between the lines (if not more so) than through the obvious. My personal belief is that a lot of these scientists left clues to how they *really* felt about many of the mysteries of life but in the conservative, hard-lined environments they were in, couldn't really come out and say all of what they were probably thinking.

Actually, at the beginning of the book written above, the author speaks to an anonymous colleague, a physics professor who says about his book:

"Though what you're saying is correct, presenting this material to nonscientists is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to play with loaded guns"

 

[swat4life]

Oh,
Forgot a small point. When I mentioned "reading between the lines", I meant this.

Consider the definition of ying/yang:

In Chinese philosophy, the concept of yin yang ([yin - simplified Chinese: 阴; traditional Chinese: 陰; pinyin: yīn] [yang - simplified Chinese: 阳; traditional Chinese: 陽; pinyin: yáng] eum-yang in Korean; often referred to in the west as yin and yang) is used to describe how seemingly disjunct or opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, giving rise to each other in turn. (my emphasis)

Now, if anyone has read about Bohr's life, they'll know that he had the great honor of choosing his own coat of arms when he was knighted by the Danish King.

Now in terms of reading through the lines, I asked myself,
"why would one of the fathers of physics, one of the greatest physicists probably to ever live over the past 100 years, pick something as obviously esoteric as the ying yang symbol for his own coat of arms - something he knew would last for ever and ever?"

I ignore stupid comments like "he didn't know what it meant" or "it's not important" because no one with any sense would believe a man like this would do something like that without any thought to it...

 

[p764rds]

"Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. " That view is no longer accepted - the wavefunction in the Copenhagen Interpretation explains the problems that gave rise to it.
But there is so much literature already written, that it will not go away.

 

[Belzy]

Perhaps "we" (All life/DNA) are the product of our universe. Considering that everything in our universe is absolutely perfect for life to exist at this moment. If it were smaller the crunch would happen to fast for life to evolve, if it were any bigger to much gamma radiation. If it were younger not enough time to turn lighter elements into heavier (Cook time in Stars) for us to be here. The point is everything seems to point to the fact the our universe is just right for life. Like we are the end product of crystal growing. The universe produced us just so we would be here to observe it. So it would exist.

 

[p764rds]

Perhaps "we" (All life/DNA) are the product of our universe. Considering that everything in our universe is absolutely perfect for life to exist at this moment. If it were smaller the crunch would happen to fast for life to evolve, if it were any bigger to much gamma radiation. If it were younger not enough time to turn lighter elements into heavier (Cook time in Stars) for us to be here. The point is everything seems to point to the fact the our universe is just right for life. Like we are the end product of crystal growing. The universe produced us just so we would be here to observe it. So it would exist.

Take this a step further: Information (ie data, 1s and 0s) implements mathematics easily.
Information (and mathematics) is probably behind everything in this universe.
In that mathematics intelligence can exist. Some types of intelligence might want to replicate and stay around. We are intelligent, we are product of the universe. Information cannot suddenly produce a formed universe, it must step along - its tools are limited. Hence evolution. It could only start off with the basic clumps and build from there. it could not
simply produce a mature universe - not strong enough tools for that. Information cannot
suddenly form into perfect life holding entity. Needs to step along - that's what information does (in a computer too)
I assume an earlier life form wanted to survive the demise of information. The only way back, since itself was made of the decaying information? Well, seed it to evolve again, needed good designers. We could make a very bad universe now, but in 1000 years?, I bet we could make a better one than this one. Would need a gigantic quantum type of PC!Then just leave it to evolve.

Well, its a more logical explanation than atoms, energy and big bangs etc.

 

[swat4life]

"Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. " That view is no longer accepted - the wavefunction in the Copenhagen Interpretation explains the problems that gave rise to it.
But there is so much literature already written, that it will not go away.

This statement is not accurate. In other words, it is not supported by the scientific facts that are beyond dispute. You have evidence of this contention in the statement that you made - the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The scientific facts, i.e. the skeleton are absolutely, unequivocally undisputed.
The interpretations, however ARE NOT.

Unfortunately, what's happened is that many people have come to equate the generally accepted interpretations with the scientifically observed facts (often because the former are more intuitive or more in line with a generally accepted worldview - i.e. they "make sense").Theory/interpretation neutral demonstrations of the BRUTE FACTS consistently produce the same results - no matter how "spooky" they appear.

I don't think the average student of physics can be blamed for their understanding of this issue however because as it was pointed out, most physics departments either a) avoid the issue or b) lead students to believe the issue has been "solved".Perhaps this is why Murray Gell-Mann made the remark in his Nobel Prize Lecture that Niels Bohr had "brainwashed generations of physicists into believing the problem has been solved".
Or why a colleague of Rosemblum stated,
"Though what you're saying is correct, presenting this material to nonscientists is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to play with loaded guns".

If you care to, you can listen here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/gell-mann-bio.html to old Nobel lectures...Lastly, an import issue needs to be understood by all. The "enigma", or "skeleton" or "implications" of the observed phenomena is a PHILOSOPHICAL ONE and the existence of this enigma, many would argue is not a question of physics but, "metaphysics". The danger however lies unfortunately in the latter - if danger is a word.

It's not much different than observing a ship that started at one point and returned to that same point having traveled in a circle as evidence that the world is round, but developing an "assessment" of that fact more in line with a flat Earth interpretation - especially since the latter makes sense with the sun appears to they to rise in the east and set in the west...

In any case my premise about the indesputability of the scientifically observed facts - independent of subjective interpretation - is supported by the naturally observed phenomena as real as the laws of quantum physics themselves. If you're interested in reading some peer-reviewed literature or want links to the publications I've read to develop this view, PM and I'll happily forward them along...

 

[squidsoft]

Have you read the book Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by the former head of UC Santa Cruz's Physics Dept & current emeritus professor of Physics (Bruce Rosemblum)?

Thanks for that information. It's interesting and I'll try to find a copy. :)

 

[Moonbear]

Though I am late in addressing the OP, it nonethless deserves my attention. I am an existentialist. We create our own lives and selves, refining our own unique view of the Universe. We essentially "create" our own Universes that we inhabit.

Then it seems this thread needs a working definition of universe if there is more than one way to interpret the word that makes the OP less nonsensical.

 

[p764rds]

Then it seems this thread needs a working definition of universe if there is more than one way to interpret the word that makes the OP less nonsensical.

I'll take a shot at defining the universe:

Lets assume that the universe is a von neumann-like machine that works on information processing. (its not just me that says this, Nick Bostrom, Oxford University is another for example).

Now, Von Neumann machines can nest one inside another perfectly. For example,
a Linux OS can nest inside a Windows system - perfectly. Certain people have two personanilities nested in the same brain.

So, the 'reality' of the universe is a reality that is produced by information processing.

Equally valid realities are brains (human, animal) and computers that are nested within the
the big universe. They all produce mini-universes. In fact many philosphers say that their
mini-unverse (their own mind) is the only universe, and that everything else is imagined in their universe. I believe that is a silly egocentric view that is undisprovable at the outset.

So, the universe is an extensive information processing system based on quantum logical flow that uses field theories, Lorentz Covariance, relativity and 3 dimensional space to realize itself situated in nothingness (the void) and stepping along using a present moment in an evolutionary way starting from small condensed 3D space and ending in the demise of all its data. Then it either reboots or is re-designed by the intelligence contained within it

 

[gabrielh]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God? The reasoning behind my madness is from my basic understanding of quantum physics.

I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence and/or influence it to act in the way it does, be it from sticking a cold thermometer into a warm bowl of water and therefore lower the temperature of the water, to the classic wave/particle experiment with photons and slits.

Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

I apologise if this is old news or already addressed elsewhere, but I could not find anything on the subject.

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.

 

[3dfan]

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

 

[p764rds]

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

Intelligence is probably a natural property of the universe derived from logic and mathematics which can exist outside space time. So thank yourself as part of that intelligence.