Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is -I- by Raymond Russell

  1. Apr 13, 2007 #1


    User Avatar

    What is -I-?

    What gives you your (-I-) identity, what makes you, you?
    Consciousness or awareness are functions of an evolved life, no one can deny the fact that consciousness exists; we all experience it directly, even a simple life such as a bacterium can be "aware" of heat, a plant can be "aware" of light etc. So the assumption has been (-I-) Identity is consciousness or awareness, but I see this as incorrect, I see these as being what is developed on an identity through the process of evolution.

    -I- is just being alive regardless of its stage of evolution, or even without evolution, without consciousness or awareness altogether. Yet –I- is a real thing and has to be somewhere (singular existence), but the same –I-, at the same time, I speculate could exist somewhere else as well (multiple existence).

    It is a voice or just a vibration (“string?”) depending on its stage of its evolution if any. It is binary in nature, vibrating high or low, expanding or contracting, loving or hating.

    CORRECT… You = –I-, and an evolved conscious body.
    INCORRECT… You = A conscious, and a body.

    Hypothetically- I put you on an operating table and split you down the middle, are you the left you or the right you? If I could re-grow the two bodies into whole human beings again are you then just twins or clones, or are you both the same –I- now in separate bodies?
    i.e. One –I- in two evolved conscious bodies.

    What this suggests about humanity
    We are all the same person, the same –I- that is. Throughout evolution our genes are naturally selected and many different forms are derived. These genes give us form and living and experiencing life gives us individual personalities on this, our common identity.

    My Theory
    There is only one identity in the universe.

    Wave–particle duality
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality is a conceptualization that all objects in our universe exhibit properties of both waves and of particles. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum objects. The idea of duality is rooted in a debate over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton. Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and many others, current scientific theory holds that all objects have both wave and particle nature (though this phenomenon is only detectable on small scales, such as with atoms), and that a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics provides the over-arching theory resolving this ostensible paradox.
    I am not a physicist, I have been a fulltime firefighter for the past fifteen years so forgive me if I have misunderstood these theories, (I read them as carefully as I could) but does this not explain or just simply fit the hypothesis if you start with this theory of mine?

    Applying the theory to duality I propose that waves are (-I-), i.e. identity shared by all matter everywhere. If an identity (such as you) measures or defines its own identity (nothing to do with consciousness) then it is seen or acts in only one place and behaves as a particle.

    Sometimes it is best to step back from the equations and observe what is really happening.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2007 #2
    Yeah, you got the physics wrong. There isn't a concept of wave-particle duality in modern physics, it is only used to explain electromagnetic radiation to laymen. Quantum Mechanics gives one unified description of light.

    If you where to find a persons quantum mechanical wavelength when that person (70kg) is traveling at approx 0.5 m/s, that would be really, really small. So small that it would be in the order of 2 times 10 raised to negative 35.
  4. Apr 13, 2007 #3


    User Avatar

    -I-, it was suggested, would be in the smallest particles possible

    [ Atoms-Whereas the word atom originally denoted a particle that cannot be cut into smaller particles, the atoms of modern parlance are composed of subatomic particles:
    electrons, which have a negative charge, a size which is so small as to be currently unmeasurable, and which are the least heavy (i.e., massive) of the three;
    protons, which have a positive charge, and are about 1836 times more massive than electrons; and
    neutrons, which have no charge, and are the same size as protons.]

    It was suggested just that -I- , with my laymen knowledge, is in the atom and that all atoms have the same -I- in them, not a 70kg person. You must think I've no idea at all explaining it like that -Yeah-.

    Face it, in the realm of quantum we are stuck, maybe we should look at the inescapable excepted assumptions and the definitions.



    The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate failure of the uncertainty principle in the case of the creation of a pair of twin particles and the subsequent determination of certain physical characteristics of the particles at some distance from the point of their creation. The logic of the situation described by Einstein, et al, was inescapable. If the particles were actual physical entities, like tiny baseballs traveling through space at less than light speed, the uncertainty principle failed. Bohr's response was that it is incorrect to think of quanta as localized phenomena with paths through space. They only exhibit such effects when they impinge upon physical obstacles or receptors, irreversibly making their presence known in a way that could be observed and recorded in the mind of an observer. Einstein found this explanation totally unacceptable on the grounds that it violated the theory of relativity and the common sense assumption that sub-atomic paricles are localized bits of matter with definite physical characteristics, even if we cannot observe them directly. If Bohr's explanation was wrong, the uncertainty principle was wrong, and the whole fabric of quantum theory would fall apart. But quantum theory, with the uncertainty principle as an integral part continued to predict experimental results with great accuracy. This was indeed a paradox.


    Verification of Bohr's view, known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, raises an even more interesting question: How do we know that quanta, the building blocks of physical reality, exist before registering in the consciousness of an observer? Common sense, i.e., our normal, every-day experience of things, prompts us to think that they must, but this is the same common-sense idea that led to the EPR paradox. The famous Schrger's cat conundrum illustrates the difficulty of this question. The cat's state (dead or alive) depends upon the collapse of a wave function to form a physical quantum from a decaying radioactive source in a box containing the cat and a vial of poison that will be released when the quantum registers. If the cat, poison and radioactive source are all part of a quantum mechanical system, what constitutes registration? Does the registration of the quantum triggering the release have to wait for a conscious observer? Is the cat a conscious observer?

    Schrger did not believe that the Copenhagen interpretation could possibly be correct, and the purpose of this thought experiment was to show just how ridiculous it was. Now, however, we know that the Copenhagen interpretation is correct! The problem of when and how the quantum wave collapse occurs is even more critical if we accept John Von Neumann's conclusion in his classic work, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, that no logical physical separation is possible between quantum systems and classical physical objects. If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects is received in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness?

    Belief in the independent existence of physical phenomena is a basic assumption of the current scientific paradigm. Is there any way to determine whether or not we should abandon this belief? Fortunately, we don't have to base our decision on belief. We can use the scientific method to testing our hypothesis and determine whether it is true or false. We can form a hypothesis from the belief in an external world independent of consciousness by noting that if this belief is true, the material world would exist pretty much as we perceive it, with or without the existence of consciousness. But now we have a problem: This is not a scientific hypothesis — It cannot be verified or falsified because we can't observe a universe without an observer.

    Current observations suggest that billions of years of physical evolution passed before conditions favorable for organic life arose, and therefore, perhaps the universe did exist without consciousness, and still does, in distant galaxies and lifeless planets in our own solar system. This argument, however, is spurious because it assumes that the only possible form of consciousness is that associated with life as we know it.

    To assure the proper application of the scientific method, we must guard against closing our minds to possibilities other than those implied by the assumptions of our current paradigm. If we insist on staying within the current paradigm of scientific materialism, we are stuck. The belief in the independence of the material world remains just that -- a belief. But what about the converse? Can the belief that the material world IS NOT independent of consciousness be turned into a scientific hypothesis and tested? Is it possible that the physical universe and consciousness are interdependent?

    Suppose, for a moment, that consciousness is the organizing agent that creates all structure in the universe. Without it, the second law of thermodynamics, known to operate in closed physical systems, would soon bring the universe to maximum entropy. There would be no structure or order distinguishing any part of the universe from any other part. If consciousness is the organizing agent behind all structure, then trying to understand consciousness by analyzing the physical structure of the brain is like trying to determine the meaning of a symbol such as the letter 'A', a word, or a mathematical symbol by analyzing the physical properties of the ink and the paper upon which the symbol is printed.


    Nearly all physicists now accept Bohr's interpretation as the correct understanding of quantum mechanics. Most, however, are not ready to admit that acceptance of the Copenhagen interpretation necessitates acknowledging involvement of consciousness in quantum processes. The logical ramifications of the Copenhagen interpretation, however, force us to consider the possibility that reality is not consciousness independent.

    Consider the psychoparallelism described by Von Neumann: The act of observation divides the world into two parts: the observer and the observed. The flow of information is traced, through the mechanism of reflected elementary particles (photons), from the object to the receptive structures of the eye of the observer, and then, through the optic nerve and brain, a series of elementary particles (electrons) carry the information to the consciousness of the observer. Finally, the observer's conscious perception involves the creation of mental images that 'parallel' features existing in the external world.

    The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is it composed of energy? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an object can appear and be stored, since energy can only occur in quanta, or discrete, finite packets. What is the consciousness that perceives this image? Is it also made up of quanta of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy.

    This is the same logical contradiction discovered by the inner research of mystics as they seek to discover the nature and location of the self. See, for instance, the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. The mystic asks: Who am I? and where does this "I" reside? Attempting to locate the perceiving self, one soon realizes that any part of the physical body, the head, heart, brain, etc., identified as the location of the self, immediately becomes an object perceived by the self, and the perceiving subject is therefore something other than the structure. The conclusion, again, is that consciousness is something beyond matter and energy.

    Given this conclusion, we can no longer maintain the assumption of scientific materialism, i.e., that reality consists of nothing but matter and energy interacting in time and space. No one can deny the fact that consciousness exists; we all experience it directly. But the separation of reality into the observer and the observed and the logic of infinite descent forces us to conclude that consciousness cannot be composed of quanta of matter or energy. In order to continue in an objective, scientific manner, we must therefore abandon the limiting assumption of materialism and allow non-quantum consciousness to take its place as real, right along with matter and energy.

    What is the nature of this conscious non-quantum receptor? The great difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that it is, by definition, the very essence of awareness, the principle that allows sentient beings to exist in such a way as to be able to ask this question in the first place. We can begin, however, by identifying the basic functions of consciousness: The primary function of drawing distinctions, first between self and other, and then in what it perceives to be other than itself. The secondary function of consciousness is to organize those distinctions into logical structure and order.

    Some of the innate features of consciousness that we can identify include:

    * Continuity - Consciousness exhibits infinite divisibility, or continuity, distinguishing it from the discreet quanta of matter and energy.
    * Nonlocality - Because of its inherent continuity, consciousness is able to perceive phenomena ranging from a single quantum to objects composed of many distinct parts. This awareness suggests that the form of consciousness in which images are formed is connected, comprising a unified whole.
    * Complementarity - Consciousness and the physical universe are complementary aspects of the reality we experience, since they are both necessary for that experience to occur.
    * Uncertainty - The identification of consciousness with a structure of matter and energy, e.g., the body through which it perceives the physical universe, gives rise to uncertainty because of the limitations of knowledge imposed by the boundaries of that which is perceived to encompass the self.

    With Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment, quantum physics has revealed that the quantum level of reality exhibits the last three of these features.

    At first it may seem curious that some of the features of consciousness are necessary features of the physical universe at the quantum level. On the other hand, if consciousness is actually the ground of all phenomena, rather than an abstract epiphenomenon of matter, then this finding is perfectly natural and would have been expected, if we had not assumed mind and matter, consciousness and energy, to be separate in the first place. If we accept the similarity of the features of quantum reality and consciousness revealed by empirical evidence and the logic of infinite descent to be more than coincidence, we begin to see reality as a unified whole, something that includes both subject and object, something that manifests as a spectrum ranging from non-quantum consciousness to quantized energy and matter. This "something" is the root of all phenomena, the ineffable potential from which all forms are selected by the drawing of distinctions.


    Instead of trying to explain consciousness in terms of matter and energy, perhaps we should be trying to explain matter and energy in terms of consciousness. By approaching the problem in this way, we will be able to obtain information complementary to the information from research into parallel physical processes and structures. Attacking the problem from both sides will lead to a better understanding of the interaction of mind and matter and produce a more meaningful explanation of consciousness.

    Does one paradox explain another? -I- is in just one thing, -I- is in everthing.
    i.e. -I- is in you and you are experiencing it directly as your identity.

    Uncertainty principle
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a mathematical property of a pair of canonical conjugate quantities - usually stated in a form of reciprocity of spans of their spectra. It therefore mathematically limits the accuracy with which it is possible to measure (actually even define) such pairs. In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of any object and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured (or defined), the other will be measured (or defined) with less and less accuracy.
  5. Apr 13, 2007 #4


    User Avatar

    Try and pick a positive- you will be the first
    I have read-

    Observer effect
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Use in science
    In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron. It is also theoretically possible for other, less direct means of measurement to affect the electron; even if the electron is simply put into a position where observing it is possible, without actual observation taking place, it will still (theoretically) alter its position.
    In physics, a more mundane observer effect can be the result of instruments that by necessity alter the state of what they measure in some manner. For instance, in electronics, ammeters and voltmeters usually need to be connected to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring. Likewise, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.
    A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, modern quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system.
    The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently, but incorrectly, confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other. Thus, the uncertainty principle deals with measurement, and not observation. The idea that the Uncertainty Principle is caused by disturbance (and hence by observation) is no longer considered to be valid, although it was extant in the early years of quantum mechanics, and is often repeated in popular treatments.
  6. Apr 14, 2007 #5
    Wow. A copy/paste from Wikipedia. Then your speculations must be right! :rolleyes:

    Here is something interesting for you to read.

    Why Is Quantum Mechanics SO Difficult

    Your -I- is pretty much religion at this stage or some kind of attempt to validate Indochinese philosophy using physics.

    Run your ideas and posts by the following test and see how many points you have scored

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook