|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 29, 2014 7:45:30 GMT -5
This is where John Wheeler ended his career in physics. Earlier I gave a report on the book Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn by Amanda Gefter. Gefter began her search concerning reality as a teenager with her father. Over a period of over fifteen years, she turned her inquiry into a career as a science writer. She interviewed John Wheeler before he died and then several of his students after he died. His students pretty-much said, we don't know WTF all Wheeler's questions and ideas about the observer were all about. Wheeler as a physicist did not bring in God as ordering intelligence. So his question was, if consciousness creates reality via observation, what was the consciousness that brought reality out of the quantum soup, before man came to exist? Jarrell states that Wheeler's hunch concerning the double-slit delayed observation experiment showed that "the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we, by observing the universe, contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well". (pg 21) sdp The underlying assumption is that man is the source of consciousness rather than an expression of consciousness. Yea, it's easier to see that Ordering Intelligence is the Source, that everything arises out of Consciousness and not vice versa. I think Einstein recognized this and all his references to God and the Old One etc. were not merely metaphor. sdp
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 29, 2014 8:35:48 GMT -5
FWIW, I was pretty amazed to hear from an astonomer on PBS the other night that sugar and alcohol have been detected in other galaxies. Knowing that amino acids can be produced in a reducing atmosphere by lightning, it's fascinating to know that evolving life on other planets eventually finds a way to get drunk. The cosmos is far more intelligent and creative than most people realize.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 14:31:04 GMT -5
Yeah, the wave function is a tacit acknowledgment that a particle entity has no certain reality independent of measurement (observation). In terms of the double-slit experiment, if there's no observation at the slits on the barrier then the field that creates the interference pattern on the screen wasn't differentiated into particles in the space between the barrier and the screen. Since there's still an interference pattern even when the intensity of the field is reduced to an energy that represents less than one particle at a time from the source: - the "particles" that form the stream can, and sometimes do go through both slits - in between the slit and the screen, the "individual particles" had no definite existence Decades of very very expensive experimentation have done nothing but confirm this model, and it's not anything that the experimenters wouldn't have wanted to disprove. Noone likes it. A Chemist or a Psychologist can posit an objective reality that would have been the case if not for observation, but a Physicist can't. I'll ask the same question I asked SDP. The wave function (that produces an interference pattern) is indeterminate in terms of particles, right? Can we say the particles associated with the wave function are non-local or superpositioned in time/space? By my understanding, yes, it's just a different metaphysical interpretation of what the function means, and your idea is referred to as the "many worlds" theory. In terms of this image: ... the superposition is of all the possible paths the "particle" could have taken and those are represented by the straight diagonal lines on the panel of the image.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 14:33:16 GMT -5
The friendly Wiggy paradox demonstrates quite succinctly that even if this were the case there would be no way for us to become conscious of it. .. hell, who needs QM for that matter .. "does the tree falling in the empty forest still make a sound?" What if you leave a recorder in the woods and go back later and play it back? Did it make a sound then? Unless you never hit the play button on the recorder you've changed the hypothetical. In the context of what appears to us, we know from experience that a recording device can be used to serve as an extension of our consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 14:47:57 GMT -5
Really, the collapse of the material assumption is simply the end of the line for Physics as the basis for Metaphysics, as it undermines the very foundation of the science itself. It turns out that objective physical reality is simply a very useful model that has no more foundation - despite the deep and fundamental human consensus that it embodies - than any other model. Ultimately, no model can capture what it is that we refer to as our experience and our agreement on and ability to communicate that experience mind-to-mind. Some minds will read that statement of absence as the presence of the model of no model, but that is simply a trick and artifact of language and information which are founded on the subject-object split ... and the statement of absence implicitly disclaims that split. That said, the intrusion of physical fact into common-sense notions of reality are an attention-getter. The mind can take itself on a wild ride when it kisses the void like this, that's for sure. WARNING: the rest of this is extreme TMT! For instance, consider the book of Genesis as a metaphor for deep history. Since the appearance of consciousness is a manifestation born out of the evolution of stardust, then it would follow that it was the arising of the first instance of consciousness that initially collapsed the superposition of all the possible configurations of the heavens since star formation eventually became possible in an interval after the big bang. But what would have constituted the first instance of a conscious observer triggering this collapse? (** muttley snicker **) .. Let there be light!
In my hyperminding days I speculated on the possibility that the entire Universe is just one big test. There is a theory of the Multiverse based on natural selection (I think I read this in one of Wheelers books btw) that postulates that our Universe creates gravitational singularities (black holes) because it was itself spawned by a similar Universe that created these same types of singularities. The theory is further based on the idea that each new Universe varies to some degree from it's parent, but that only Universes that are capable of supporting life and thus are subject to observation ever really come into existence. The motivation for this theory is to explain the anthropic problem without resorting to your SOI -- essentially, offering an explanation for the improbably fine-tuned values for natural constants such as the speed of light or the charge of an electron (among dozens of others). If any of these varied out to like the hundreth decimal place (or varied in proportion to one another) anything from a complete physical collapse or the impossibility for life as we know and observe it are the result. Now, mixed with a different idea -- that the process of evolution is the act of the environment encoding itself on life -- my speculation ran like this: what if just being able to support life isn't enough to guarantee the actual existence of a Universe? What if to actually be, that Universe had to produce an observer that was able to escape and outlive it? Just as we're pretty sure now that our Universe had a beginning, the current consensus is that it will suffer one of a number of ends, with the mainstream view referred to as " heat death". So I wondered, perhaps the reason that form is so entangled with emptiness and has no solid actuality is because if there is no observer at the END of physical extent of the Universe that is able to escape it, then, with regard to the Multiverse, it would be as if our Universe never was, and here, much much closer to the beginning than to the end of the story, this is a question of great uncertainty, and that uncertainty is reflected in the very nature and fabric of what constitutes the reality of it. When a paradox forms, it can be useful to take a step back and question the assumptions that led up to it. The fact that innumerable factors have to be just right for life to happen at all assumes that there are pre-life objective universal rules about what is required for life. Who wrote these rules? Not really. For example, if it weren't for the fact that ice is less dense than water -- which is unusual as for most elements the solid form is more dense -- then lots of fresh water life wouldn't have evolved the way it did. It's just an observation of an appearance, and one that of course involves looking back at the past of a process over time. The point of the scientific method is to suspend the question of the origin of the rules in order to determine what the rules are and how they relate to one another. What if consciousness simply forms life, and then uses the conditions under which it was formed as the basis for a set of rules that then seem to be a set of requirements for life to happen? Irrespective of my orientation (or lack thereof) toward the idea of the primacy of consciousness (that matter appears within consciousness and not vice-versa), the science of Physics is only applicable to that idea through an inferential speculation. What the collective work of Physicists demonstrates is that if skeptical objective rational investigation is done using quantitative tools over time, then the investigation will eventually reveal the fallacy of the underlying assumption of objectivity. To base any conclusions on reasoning beyond this point is to build a foundation on a puff of smoke. If the word real is defined in terms of objective physical phenomenon, then the word consciousness has no real meaning. It's that chegg thingy that tends to upset froggy tummies.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 14:51:57 GMT -5
Well, the squirrel that ducked out of the way as it thumped to the forest floor would disagree with your assessment, but would have neither the inclination nor the capability to debate the topic with you. You obviously haven't been to one of our squirrel satsangs.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 14:53:10 GMT -5
Well, the squirrel that ducked out of the way as it thumped to the forest floor would disagree with your assessment, but would have neither the inclination nor the capability to debate the topic with you. Squirrels have ears :-). sdp yes! So then there was a sound, right?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 14:59:25 GMT -5
FWIW, I was pretty amazed to hear from an astonomer on PBS the other night that sugar and alcohol have been detected in other galaxies. Knowing that amino acids can be produced in a reducing atmosphere by lightning, it's fascinating to know that evolving life on other planets eventually finds a way to get drunk. The cosmos is far more intelligent and creative than most people realize.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jul 29, 2014 16:36:29 GMT -5
The underlying assumption is that man is the source of consciousness rather than an expression of consciousness. Yea, it's easier to see that Ordering Intelligence is the Source, that everything arises out of Consciousness and not vice versa. I think Einstein recognized this and all his references to God and the Old One etc. were not merely metaphor. sdp It can be seen that what one is , is the awareness that appearance's appear in... many appearance's but one awareness...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 29, 2014 19:10:14 GMT -5
I'll ask the same question I asked SDP. The wave function (that produces an interference pattern) is indeterminate in terms of particles, right? Can we say the particles associated with the wave function are non-local or superpositioned in time/space? By my understanding, yes, it's just a different metaphysical interpretation of what the function means, and your idea is referred to as the "many worlds" theory. In terms of this image: ... the superposition is of all the possible paths the "particle" could have taken and those are represented by the straight diagonal lines on the panel of the image. Okay, thanks. So I'm really interested in wavicles at a fundamental level. Is the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation reconciled by a superposition of particles such that they aren't actually moving as a wave at all? Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 29, 2014 19:35:22 GMT -5
What if you leave a recorder in the woods and go back later and play it back? Did it make a sound then? Unless you never hit the play button on the recorder you've changed the hypothetical. In the context of what appears to us, we know from experience that a recording device can be used to serve as an extension of our consciousness. So a detector at the output of the double slits is an extension of consciousness, though only if the data is recorded?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 29, 2014 19:47:39 GMT -5
When a paradox forms, it can be useful to take a step back and question the assumptions that led up to it. The fact that innumerable factors have to be just right for life to happen at all assumes that there are pre-life objective universal rules about what is required for life. Who wrote these rules? Not really. For example, if it weren't for the fact that ice is less dense than water -- which is unusual as for most elements the solid form is more dense -- then lots of fresh water life wouldn't have evolved the way it did. It's just an observation of an appearance, and one that of course involves looking back at the past of a process over time. The point of the scientific method is to suspend the question of the origin of the rules in order to determine what the rules are and how they relate to one another. What if consciousness simply forms life, and then uses the conditions under which it was formed as the basis for a set of rules that then seem to be a set of requirements for life to happen? Irrespective of my orientation (or lack thereof) toward the idea of the primacy of consciousness (that matter appears within consciousness and not vice-versa), the science of Physics is only applicable to that idea through an inferential speculation. What the collective work of Physicists demonstrates is that if skeptical objective rational investigation is done using quantitative tools over time, then the investigation will eventually reveal the fallacy of the underlying assumption of objectivity. To base any conclusions on reasoning beyond this point is to build a foundation on a puff of smoke. If the word real is defined in terms of objective physical phenomenon, then the word consciousness has no real meaning. It's that chegg thingy that tends to upset froggy tummies. I'm not saying science isn't doing it's job right. I'm saying it's actual role is part of creation itself rather than objective observer. I'm saying the rules match the end result because the conditions that define the rules are no less a creation than the life that apparently emerges from that process. No set conditions were actually required for life to apparently appear on this planet. (God didn't need his ducks all lined up before he could go into production) The conditions are not the cause of creation. The conditions ARE creation happening.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 29, 2014 20:34:26 GMT -5
First, the distinctions that are made about duality/nonduality, wave/particle,superpositions, etc.. are conceptual fragmentations of what is happening, giving mutual rise to contrasting concepts.. in other words, the argument against is evidence for..
Conundrum: The experiencer cannot see/experience the far side of the moon from the 'individual/part' perspective, but.. by working in unison, collectively, different individual perspectives can unite in a shared comprehensive/whole experience of what is happening.. there are aspects of what is happening that the experiencer cannot access without the cooperation of other differentiations.. what unites us also separates us.. and, at some point the experiencer must reconcile the conundrum beyond an intellectual debate (the forum game), the resolution is realizing that it is what it is, Life happening.. and, the argument for is also evidence against..
What is happening can be experienced as an ongoing interaction between part and whole, each creating the other through the experience of the happening..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 20:45:30 GMT -5
Unless you never hit the play button on the recorder you've changed the hypothetical. In the context of what appears to us, we know from experience that a recording device can be used to serve as an extension of our consciousness. So a detector at the output of the double slits is an extension of consciousness, though only if the data is recorded? Up till now I've responded in the context of the conceptual structures that Physicists use. The bottom line is that there's a faulty assumption in your question that there is an actual divide between the detector and what it is that interprets the data. If you remember that Tom Campell video on the topic he made the claim that not collecting data from a powered-up detector toggled the pattern on the screen but he later had to retract that, and I don't know of anyone who's performed that experiment. If the question can be framed as "does an inanimate object qualify as a quantum observer?", that's a topic of metaphysical controversy but there are two simple ideas that put that to rest for me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 29, 2014 21:18:10 GMT -5
By my understanding, yes, it's just a different metaphysical interpretation of what the function means, and your idea is referred to as the "many worlds" theory. In terms of this image: ... the superposition is of all the possible paths the "particle" could have taken and those are represented by the straight diagonal lines on the panel of the image. Okay, thanks. So I'm really interested in wavicles at a fundamental level. Is the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation reconciled by a superposition of particles such that they aren't actually moving as a wave at all? Does that make sense? In the context of the DS, there's motion in either case, either of the wavefront or the particle. By my understanding, no, the superposition of the various possible paths of the particles summing to the wave function isn't related to the idea of the relative motion of a photon/light wavefront. One thing to keep in mind about the frame of reference of a photon is that it isn't available to an observer. This implicates the idea of the mass of the photon. The closer to the speed of light an observer made of matter would get, the greater their mass would become, and the speed of light is an impossibility because to maintain it would take infinite energy. In a sense, the frame of reference of a photon or a wavefront of light is an idealized absolute to which the concept of time doesn't apply.
|
|