Consensus reality and the collapse of the wave function
47 views
Skip to first unread message
David Bailey
Mar 19, 2012, 6:09:37 AM3/19/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
Hi Bernardo,
I'd like to discuss the physical part of consensus reality a bit more.
If we imagine a 2-slit experiment, or any other simple QM experiment,
it reasonable to imagine that this might ultimately work as a mental
process. However, when the photon or electron hits the screen in such
an experiment, one can either say the wave function collapses, or that
it becomes entangled with the wave function of the atoms of the screen
to produce a vastly bigger mathematical object - a function of 3N
spatial coordinates! It is far less plausible to imagine that these
humongous wave functions are processed by a mind-like entity (call it
M) - particularly as one quantum process entangles with another and
another.
I wonder if the physical part of consensus reality works more like a
cleverly programmed game - some parts of the environment are computed
in more detail than others. Thus perhaps the QM experiment really does
revert to the classical when the particles hit the detectors - i.e. M
does what an experimental simulation program might do at this point.
Perhaps this goes further, and a chair (say) is rendered in a very
rough way without even individual atoms and molecules, unless and
until someone decides to slice it up and examine it under a scanning
tunneling microscope! This, of course, leads on to the question of
what M did in the days before QM had been discovered!
What do you think - is all physical reality handled in detail, or just
filled in with a broad brush until detail is needed?
I'd like to discuss the physical part of consensus reality a bit more.
If we imagine a 2-slit experiment, or any other simple QM experiment,
it reasonable to imagine that this might ultimately work as a mental
process. However, when the photon or electron hits the screen in such
an experiment, one can either say the wave function collapses, or that
it becomes entangled with the wave function of the atoms of the screen
to produce a vastly bigger mathematical object - a function of 3N
spatial coordinates! It is far less plausible to imagine that these
humongous wave functions are processed by a mind-like entity (call it
M) - particularly as one quantum process entangles with another and
another.
I wonder if the physical part of consensus reality works more like a
cleverly programmed game - some parts of the environment are computed
in more detail than others. Thus perhaps the QM experiment really does
revert to the classical when the particles hit the detectors - i.e. M
does what an experimental simulation program might do at this point.
Perhaps this goes further, and a chair (say) is rendered in a very
rough way without even individual atoms and molecules, unless and
until someone decides to slice it up and examine it under a scanning
tunneling microscope! This, of course, leads on to the question of
what M did in the days before QM had been discovered!
What do you think - is all physical reality handled in detail, or just
filled in with a broad brush until detail is needed?
Bernardo
Mar 24, 2012, 4:13:55 AM3/24/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
Wow, very interesting. I confess to have given this some thought
before, though I never dared to write about it.
Well, if I try to be consistent with my position that the only reality
that exists is that which is perceived by a conscious entity, then I
must go along with your simulation hypothesis: the only rendering that
actually exists is that which is perceived. If only little detail is
perceived, then that little detail is all that exists. In a computer
game, the game engine only renders what you need to see at any
particular point in time, the rest being virtual potentials defined by
the game's code. I subscribe to the position that reality works in an
analogous manner, otherwise I would contradict Idealism by postulating
that there exist things that are not perceived in consciousness.
I don't think quantum decoherence solves the problem of collapse.
Decoherence may explain collapse in laboratory experiments if you
start from the assumption that the environment is already classical
(i.e. collapsed), so the superposed states of the microscopic quantum
system under study simply leak and get diluted in the classical
environment. But it leaves open the following question: How the heck
did the environment become classical to begin with? After all, in the
Big Bang, everything was in superposition, so you still need to
postulate a true collapse at some point. Decoherence alone explains
nothing.
Perhaps the envelop of superposed states derived from Schrodinger's
equation reflects merely the potentials of reality; like the code
behind the rendering engine. But only a small subset is actually
rendered at any point in time and, thereby, become real.
Cheers, B.
before, though I never dared to write about it.
Well, if I try to be consistent with my position that the only reality
that exists is that which is perceived by a conscious entity, then I
must go along with your simulation hypothesis: the only rendering that
actually exists is that which is perceived. If only little detail is
perceived, then that little detail is all that exists. In a computer
game, the game engine only renders what you need to see at any
particular point in time, the rest being virtual potentials defined by
the game's code. I subscribe to the position that reality works in an
analogous manner, otherwise I would contradict Idealism by postulating
that there exist things that are not perceived in consciousness.
I don't think quantum decoherence solves the problem of collapse.
Decoherence may explain collapse in laboratory experiments if you
start from the assumption that the environment is already classical
(i.e. collapsed), so the superposed states of the microscopic quantum
system under study simply leak and get diluted in the classical
environment. But it leaves open the following question: How the heck
did the environment become classical to begin with? After all, in the
Big Bang, everything was in superposition, so you still need to
postulate a true collapse at some point. Decoherence alone explains
nothing.
Perhaps the envelop of superposed states derived from Schrodinger's
equation reflects merely the potentials of reality; like the code
behind the rendering engine. But only a small subset is actually
rendered at any point in time and, thereby, become real.
Cheers, B.
David Bailey
Mar 27, 2012, 6:07:36 PM3/27/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
Hi Berbardo,
Thanks for the reply! Of course, that leads on to the question of
whether there is anything special about the current physical theories,
or whether reality could have conformed to different theories if
people had come up with them.
I sometimes think that science is a series of clever patches - each
theory patches the previous one, and yet each theory was clearly
flawed when it was created! For example, the existence of chemicals
with well defined properties, meant that those chemicals could not be
the fundamental particles of matter - otherwise they could not
interconvert - but they had to have repeatable structures - the
standing waves of QM were almost inevitable to eliminate a continuum
of possibilities.
Likewise, no theory can really be ultimate, because it always invites
more questions.
Is it possible that reality used to work as a much simpler
'simulation' than is possible now - that indeed, we might someday
overload its capacty, say with quantum computers!
Thanks for the reply! Of course, that leads on to the question of
whether there is anything special about the current physical theories,
or whether reality could have conformed to different theories if
people had come up with them.
I sometimes think that science is a series of clever patches - each
theory patches the previous one, and yet each theory was clearly
flawed when it was created! For example, the existence of chemicals
with well defined properties, meant that those chemicals could not be
the fundamental particles of matter - otherwise they could not
interconvert - but they had to have repeatable structures - the
standing waves of QM were almost inevitable to eliminate a continuum
of possibilities.
Likewise, no theory can really be ultimate, because it always invites
more questions.
Is it possible that reality used to work as a much simpler
'simulation' than is possible now - that indeed, we might someday
overload its capacty, say with quantum computers!
David Bailey
Mar 28, 2012, 6:14:43 AM3/28/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
Bernardo,
A further point that maybe suggests partial simulation, is that a full
mental simulation of the entire world (entire universe?)would be
incredibly clumsy when it comes to psi events - so many bits of
wavefunctions would need to be tweaked in a coordinated way to achieve
even the simplest ESP event. In a way, a full mental simulation of the
fundamental equations would be such a straight jacket that it would
have to run as if it were materialistic!
A further point that maybe suggests partial simulation, is that a full
mental simulation of the entire world (entire universe?)would be
incredibly clumsy when it comes to psi events - so many bits of
wavefunctions would need to be tweaked in a coordinated way to achieve
even the simplest ESP event. In a way, a full mental simulation of the
fundamental equations would be such a straight jacket that it would
have to run as if it were materialistic!
Bernardo
Apr 3, 2012, 1:42:02 AM4/3/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
One thing that occurred to me when I read your latest posts is this:
When we think of ourselves, or of "people", we are in fact thinking of
the very small conscious part of our minds, i.e. the ego. We know from
depth-psychology that that mind goes much deeper than that. Jung went
as far as to say that the limits of the full human psyche were not
possible to pin down. So if reality is indeed a projection of mind,
then there is no reason to believe it's a projection of the conscious
(egoic) part alone, but of the whole mind instead, including the
unfathomable depths that escape ordinary awareness (Jung called it the
"unconscious", though I don't like the word since it suggests a
negation of consciousness, which it is NOT). So when you speculate
reality is not an egoic choice. Seen this way, the laws of physics may
tell us not about how a truly objective and autonomous reality works,
but how the collective "unconscious" works. In other words, the laws
of physics may be a partial glimpse into the laws of the "unconscious"
mind. I elaborate on this in "Meaning in Absurdity."
When we think of ourselves, or of "people", we are in fact thinking of
the very small conscious part of our minds, i.e. the ego. We know from
depth-psychology that that mind goes much deeper than that. Jung went
as far as to say that the limits of the full human psyche were not
possible to pin down. So if reality is indeed a projection of mind,
then there is no reason to believe it's a projection of the conscious
(egoic) part alone, but of the whole mind instead, including the
unfathomable depths that escape ordinary awareness (Jung called it the
"unconscious", though I don't like the word since it suggests a
negation of consciousness, which it is NOT). So when you speculate
"whether reality could have conformed to different theories if people
had come up with them" we must not forget the "unconscious." Likely,
reality is not an egoic choice. Seen this way, the laws of physics may
tell us not about how a truly objective and autonomous reality works,
but how the collective "unconscious" works. In other words, the laws
of physics may be a partial glimpse into the laws of the "unconscious"
mind. I elaborate on this in "Meaning in Absurdity."
David Bailey
Apr 3, 2012, 10:51:24 AM4/3/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Apr 3, 6:42 am, Bernardo <anonymous_metaphys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In other words, the laws
> of physics may be a partial glimpse into the laws of the "unconscious"
> mind. I elaborate on this in "Meaning in Absurdity."
David
Eddiwhorl
Apr 16, 2012, 7:26:12 PM4/16/12
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
Hi guys, excuse a new poster bursting in.
Surely 'consensus reality' is not just about what is directly observed, but also the consequences of that observation. For example, if I am looking at the full Moon, then the Sun must therefore also exist for my reality to be consistent, even though I'm not seeing it directly. Thus reality may need to be rendered in far greater detail than is required simply to conform to direct observations.
When we include the innumerable perceptions of other beings that share our reality, right down to microbes or possibly other more intriguing entities that may be conscious on some fundamental level such as atoms or auto-poietic patterns... perhaps it not so surprising that it's quite hard to create these fuzzy zones of uncollapsed probability wave functions.
Could "consensus reality" be a gargantuan network of interacting perceptions, together building a single reality that is consistent with all the participants, no matter how small?
Barry
Surely 'consensus reality' is not just about what is directly observed, but also the consequences of that observation. For example, if I am looking at the full Moon, then the Sun must therefore also exist for my reality to be consistent, even though I'm not seeing it directly. Thus reality may need to be rendered in far greater detail than is required simply to conform to direct observations.
When we include the innumerable perceptions of other beings that share our reality, right down to microbes or possibly other more intriguing entities that may be conscious on some fundamental level such as atoms or auto-poietic patterns... perhaps it not so surprising that it's quite hard to create these fuzzy zones of uncollapsed probability wave functions.
Could "consensus reality" be a gargantuan network of interacting perceptions, together building a single reality that is consistent with all the participants, no matter how small?
Barry
Bernardo
Apr 17, 2012, 1:21:10 AM4/17/12
to Metaphysical Speculations
Personally, I think it must be such network on interacting
perceptions. There is someone on the other side of the Earth watching
the sun as you watch the moon at night.
Bernardo.
perceptions. There is someone on the other side of the Earth watching
the sun as you watch the moon at night.
Bernardo.
ozi...@gmail.com
Apr 17, 2012, 7:20:45 AM4/17/12
to metaphysical...@googlegroups.com
It may in fact be more simpler. The answer from the experienced OBE travellers in the afterlife worlds tells of the highly thought responsive nature of the astral plane, such that the winner of the consensus realities found comes down to strength of belief and the numbers believing it, so that you can simply be a passer by without influencing the layout. Then, this physical plane is no different albeit not as immediately changeable being denser - you may also just be a passer by unless your belief can overcome others.
::
::
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages