And who exactly makes the observations? Is a cat good enough? A chimp? If we get someone really smart to look at an electron can we collapse it better?
The brain centered quantum mechanics I've seen become fashionable to lay people in the last 20 years are a last gasp of homo-centrism that really should have died a very long time ago.
In a shared hallucinated dream/reality our bodies and planet, if not real, may serve as a metaphoric language for some purpose. Perhaps as a classroom or habitat for gods.
Observation, i.e. recognition, might be a mental process, but it's directed at something else.
> your entire perception of reality is mental
So mentality would be reality, therefore perception could only ever be directed at itself. But if there is nothing but the self, where does the notion of self come from, i.e. what is the self compared to? Can god heat up a burrito so far he can't eat it?
The article seems interesting but I am afraid I do not understand quantum physics well enough to understand it fully - could someone more knowledgeable please try to explain it like I am five? How would quantum mechanical perception of the world for common people look like?
I explain quantum physics (or at least the underlying principles) to myself this way:
1. Quantum fluctuations are the random number generator function of the universe. Without which, the universe will be utterly uniform and lacking detail. All detail (or information) is born through quantum fluctuations.
2. The universe has a finite resolution -- you zoom in enough and you reach a point where you 'see' the 'pixels' of the universe and see no further. This applies to matter, energy, space and time.
I may be oversimplifying or even understanding it wrong, but to me, denying either (1) or (2) eventually leads to a reductio ad absurdum -- 1) a universe that is a uniform, featureless soup, or 2) infinite information density.
* As a side-note, denying (1) also results in denying free will -- all future states of the universe becomes classically predictable, including the thoughts and behaviors of conscious beings in it.
EDIT: sorry, I know you asked about perception. I've never quite been able to explain waveform collapse to myself. Intuitively, it feels like the universe does lazy evaluation -- all variables are in flux until read?
"As a side-note, denying (1) also results in denying free will."
Denying (1) clearly denies free will since we are talking about a purely deterministic universe. But notice that (1) holding true doesn't really open up any space for free will anyway.
With (1) you now have randomness as well as causality in the universe, but how does that mix produce free will? If the conscious beings thoughts and behaviours are stuck in determinism/randomness, there is no free will.
I've seen that quantum argument for free will thrown around, but random events in the brain giving rise to our thoughts and actions is still the antithesis of free will. Whether you're doing something because of a chain of cause and effect, or because of random fluctuations in the very small, you're not doing it because you want to do it.
Since we are on the subject of perception, what if I were to postulate (as a lot of people have done before) that what we call free will is just our perception of randomness in the brain ex post facto? Some studies have shown that decision neuron clusters fire a fraction of a second before the subject appears to make the conscious decision.
Anyway, apologies for potentially derailing the thread by throwing free will into the discussion.
I don't agree but beware - non-educated unscientific rant ahead, personal view only
You can only measure nature with nature ..or universe with the same universe, - or - universe can only measure it self with/by itself; now measurement is an interaction - you have to interact(either directly or indirectly) with what you are trying to measure to get some information. Since you are using "parts" of the universe(like photon/electron beams, stones, chopsticks) to measure other parts of the same universe, of course there are limits on your precision and artifacts within those measurements. Lets do a gedankenexperiment; imagine that you just entered a porcelain shop but your vision is based on arbitrary-sized plastic projectile gun and a (smart)detector wall that detects all projectiles that bumped of a scanned surface within a certain angle. Now there is only a range of momentums(velocity/weight combinations) that would let you scan that environment within an acceptable resolution - the point is that you can't have an arbitrary resolution(either there is air-resistance or unavoidable damage to the environment or or).. I'll jump ahead a few steps and go right to the underlying question, and that is whether the universe is deterministic or not - which in context of the above is actually pretty straight-forward(again, personal view) - since as "inhabitants" of the universe we want to measure we are bound to use parts of the universe to do our measurements, newtons predicable clockwork universe indeed has its limitations(and I really don't see why this is such an issue when c is accepted without friction, if you have no problems dealing with c why on earth do you have such problems with this which directly follows). Regardless of whether we live in a deterministic universe or not we can't have arbitrary resolution so from practical point of view - for us - its the same as if the universe "at-its-core" was not deterministic(there is no way to get that probability line under control when time increases). Now as a pure philosophical question, whether our universe is really deterministic or not depends on the model we use(in "bubble-like-multiverses" there is no interaction between universe-bubbles possible hence deterministic, in eternal inflation models it gets spread from deterministic to non-deterministic but for all models with interacting universes - only your imagination is the limit, seriously, very potent drug) All in all, one thing is sure - we are the universe experiencing it self sooo enjoy
> "you are using "parts" of the universe(like photon/electron beams, stones, chopsticks) to measure other parts of the same universe"
That's a very insightful way to put it. To me, that completely and intuitively explains uncertainty -- every form of perception is a form of interaction. So our brains have just evolved to treat them as two different concepts because we perceive using very weakly interacting mechanisms (such as light and sound) and that gives the illusion of pure perception.
However, that does not invalidate my points about the other two aspects of quantum physics -- fluctuations and quantization -- does it?
"[..] gives the illusion of pure perception" - nicely put
@invalidate. this is too strong of a word for a fuzzy conversation like this, it was certainly not my intend nor do I feel to be qualified enough to do so
"fluctuations and quantization" - please elaborate furher
> I've never quite been able to explain waveform collapse to myself. Intuitively, it feels like the universe does lazy evaluation -- all variables are in flux until read?
Worth noting is that this idea of quantum randomness has recently been all but proven wrong in an experiment involving water ripples[1].
Einstein had this idea of "hidden information" (i.e., just because we're not advanced enough yet to observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but it has always been regarded as ludicrous.
In other words, the resolution of the universe may not be finite, but since the parts involved in infinity are impossible to comprehend or list in a peer reviewed paper, this drives mathematicians bananas.
In the end, the human ego might prove to be the real Strong Force in the universe.
1) It's very far from proven that water pilot wave experiments say anything at all about the quantum world. Most physicist believe they don't tell us anything about it, they just provide a simpler system that "looks quantum". This quote is from the article you linked:
“It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics,” Oxford University physics philosopher David Wallace told Quanta earlier this year.
2) Physicists have no problems with handling/removing infinities, just see regularization or renormalization in quantum field theory.
3) In general, this comic applies to anything you read in popsci sources: https://xkcd.com/1240/
Pertaining the 1st and 3rd points though, an important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of big scientific ideas come from philosophers and even science fiction writers, and I wouldn't be shocked if a few thoughtful comic strips joined the club. Most scientists are just technicians, applying existing knowledge to test existing theories. This means that a scientist doesn't necessarily have more qualified of opinions than any other person does.
While technically correct (the best kind of correct!) your final sentence seems to be a fairly ludicrous position to me -- in general scientists spend (quite a lot) more time learning about biases and other flaws in rigorous thinking and how to avoid them, studying and discussing all of that existing knowledge, learning how to perform experiments, performing them, interpreting the results, etc. all of which lead directly to them having a much more qualified opinion than "any other person" does.
Re: your second-to-last sentence: it may well be that many scientists appear as if they are technicians applying existing knowledge to test theories. But that is partly because the only way to go beyond accepted theories is often to find where those accepted theories start breaking down, and then see how they break down.
Also, the random numbers generally interact like 2-dimensional vectors when not observed, and in a different way, like probabilities between 0 to 1, the moment they are observed.
If the universe is purely mental, then why does it follow a set of rules so precisely? Why doesn't it just dream up the best possible thoughts it can have?
Also, why are different parts of this mental process disconnected from each other? For example, if you and i are both part of the same mental process, then why do we intuitively believe that we are different, disconnected entities?
1. We don't know if the universe follows any rules precisely. We can never know because the only way to know that a rule is being followed unconditionally would be to exhaustively verify every event in the universe to see if it follows that rule, which is impossible.
2. There's not just one mental process. There are an infinite number (most likely) of mental processes. But even though we're not both part of the same mental process, we're both part of the same causal process. The reason we perceive ourselves as discrete entities is: 1. mental processes (thoughts) can be both true and false, 2. true thoughts are more rare than false thoughts, 3. false thoughts are still capable of doing work, and therefore, our survival has relied on the false thought that each of us is a separate individual, even though the truth is that we're causally dependent on one another, our environment, etc.
If the universe is purely mental, then it seems to follow a set of rules so precisely, because beyond the universe is reality which the mental process isn't conscious about (yet), i.e. it's unconscious about the rules, which answers your second question as well.
the idea that the univers is mental is old, very old. it's funny how these scientists discover all of the sudden new ideas. and it's funny how we attribute discoveries to someone... the biggest minds that lived didn't attributed to themselves the ideas they had. modesty? honesty? :)
29 comments
[ 25.5 ms ] story [ 1200 ms ] threadThe brain centered quantum mechanics I've seen become fashionable to lay people in the last 20 years are a last gasp of homo-centrism that really should have died a very long time ago.
I'd like to recommend the QM explanation on lesswrong. Unlike most other explanations out there, it attempts to take away, rather than add, mystery.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/
Observation, i.e. recognition, might be a mental process, but it's directed at something else.
> your entire perception of reality is mental
So mentality would be reality, therefore perception could only ever be directed at itself. But if there is nothing but the self, where does the notion of self come from, i.e. what is the self compared to? Can god heat up a burrito so far he can't eat it?
1. Quantum fluctuations are the random number generator function of the universe. Without which, the universe will be utterly uniform and lacking detail. All detail (or information) is born through quantum fluctuations.
2. The universe has a finite resolution -- you zoom in enough and you reach a point where you 'see' the 'pixels' of the universe and see no further. This applies to matter, energy, space and time.
I may be oversimplifying or even understanding it wrong, but to me, denying either (1) or (2) eventually leads to a reductio ad absurdum -- 1) a universe that is a uniform, featureless soup, or 2) infinite information density.
* As a side-note, denying (1) also results in denying free will -- all future states of the universe becomes classically predictable, including the thoughts and behaviors of conscious beings in it.
EDIT: sorry, I know you asked about perception. I've never quite been able to explain waveform collapse to myself. Intuitively, it feels like the universe does lazy evaluation -- all variables are in flux until read?
Denying (1) clearly denies free will since we are talking about a purely deterministic universe. But notice that (1) holding true doesn't really open up any space for free will anyway.
With (1) you now have randomness as well as causality in the universe, but how does that mix produce free will? If the conscious beings thoughts and behaviours are stuck in determinism/randomness, there is no free will.
I've seen that quantum argument for free will thrown around, but random events in the brain giving rise to our thoughts and actions is still the antithesis of free will. Whether you're doing something because of a chain of cause and effect, or because of random fluctuations in the very small, you're not doing it because you want to do it.
Since we are on the subject of perception, what if I were to postulate (as a lot of people have done before) that what we call free will is just our perception of randomness in the brain ex post facto? Some studies have shown that decision neuron clusters fire a fraction of a second before the subject appears to make the conscious decision.
Anyway, apologies for potentially derailing the thread by throwing free will into the discussion.
You can only measure nature with nature ..or universe with the same universe, - or - universe can only measure it self with/by itself; now measurement is an interaction - you have to interact(either directly or indirectly) with what you are trying to measure to get some information. Since you are using "parts" of the universe(like photon/electron beams, stones, chopsticks) to measure other parts of the same universe, of course there are limits on your precision and artifacts within those measurements. Lets do a gedankenexperiment; imagine that you just entered a porcelain shop but your vision is based on arbitrary-sized plastic projectile gun and a (smart)detector wall that detects all projectiles that bumped of a scanned surface within a certain angle. Now there is only a range of momentums(velocity/weight combinations) that would let you scan that environment within an acceptable resolution - the point is that you can't have an arbitrary resolution(either there is air-resistance or unavoidable damage to the environment or or).. I'll jump ahead a few steps and go right to the underlying question, and that is whether the universe is deterministic or not - which in context of the above is actually pretty straight-forward(again, personal view) - since as "inhabitants" of the universe we want to measure we are bound to use parts of the universe to do our measurements, newtons predicable clockwork universe indeed has its limitations(and I really don't see why this is such an issue when c is accepted without friction, if you have no problems dealing with c why on earth do you have such problems with this which directly follows). Regardless of whether we live in a deterministic universe or not we can't have arbitrary resolution so from practical point of view - for us - its the same as if the universe "at-its-core" was not deterministic(there is no way to get that probability line under control when time increases). Now as a pure philosophical question, whether our universe is really deterministic or not depends on the model we use(in "bubble-like-multiverses" there is no interaction between universe-bubbles possible hence deterministic, in eternal inflation models it gets spread from deterministic to non-deterministic but for all models with interacting universes - only your imagination is the limit, seriously, very potent drug) All in all, one thing is sure - we are the universe experiencing it self sooo enjoy
That's a very insightful way to put it. To me, that completely and intuitively explains uncertainty -- every form of perception is a form of interaction. So our brains have just evolved to treat them as two different concepts because we perceive using very weakly interacting mechanisms (such as light and sound) and that gives the illusion of pure perception.
However, that does not invalidate my points about the other two aspects of quantum physics -- fluctuations and quantization -- does it?
@invalidate. this is too strong of a word for a fuzzy conversation like this, it was certainly not my intend nor do I feel to be qualified enough to do so
"fluctuations and quantization" - please elaborate furher
Quantization, of course, is the existence limits to divisibility of matter and energy.
Sorry, I only have a first-year engineering knowledge of quantum mechanics. I could be oversimplifying.
There are many interpretation. This page could be relevant to your interest : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...
Einstein had this idea of "hidden information" (i.e., just because we're not advanced enough yet to observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but it has always been regarded as ludicrous.
In other words, the resolution of the universe may not be finite, but since the parts involved in infinity are impossible to comprehend or list in a peer reviewed paper, this drives mathematicians bananas.
In the end, the human ego might prove to be the real Strong Force in the universe.
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/09/quantum-p...
1) It's very far from proven that water pilot wave experiments say anything at all about the quantum world. Most physicist believe they don't tell us anything about it, they just provide a simpler system that "looks quantum". This quote is from the article you linked:
“It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics,” Oxford University physics philosopher David Wallace told Quanta earlier this year.
2) Physicists have no problems with handling/removing infinities, just see regularization or renormalization in quantum field theory.
3) In general, this comic applies to anything you read in popsci sources: https://xkcd.com/1240/
Pertaining the 1st and 3rd points though, an important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of big scientific ideas come from philosophers and even science fiction writers, and I wouldn't be shocked if a few thoughtful comic strips joined the club. Most scientists are just technicians, applying existing knowledge to test existing theories. This means that a scientist doesn't necessarily have more qualified of opinions than any other person does.
Also, why are different parts of this mental process disconnected from each other? For example, if you and i are both part of the same mental process, then why do we intuitively believe that we are different, disconnected entities?
2. There's not just one mental process. There are an infinite number (most likely) of mental processes. But even though we're not both part of the same mental process, we're both part of the same causal process. The reason we perceive ourselves as discrete entities is: 1. mental processes (thoughts) can be both true and false, 2. true thoughts are more rare than false thoughts, 3. false thoughts are still capable of doing work, and therefore, our survival has relied on the false thought that each of us is a separate individual, even though the truth is that we're causally dependent on one another, our environment, etc.
my take is that we intuitively know we are one, not disconnected. but the short site, not listening to that intuition, is seeing only duality.
the universe is a projection of the sum of all thoughts it is not better because we all as a sum do not create it better :)
find and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalion
the idea that the univers is mental is old, very old. it's funny how these scientists discover all of the sudden new ideas. and it's funny how we attribute discoveries to someone... the biggest minds that lived didn't attributed to themselves the ideas they had. modesty? honesty? :)