Consciousness and QP
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
Here is the perfect summary of what I am saying, this is from a physics forum

"Here's the problem. Decoherence can explain with no difficulty how different "pointer positions" of a macro instrument get coupled to certain "quantum outcomes," with no cross-talk (i.e., no interference) between different pointer positions. This is the state of affairs before we look at the outcome of the measurement-- we have only a statistical understanding of the possibilities. The problem comes when we actually look at the pointer ourselves, and at that point, something happens that there is no consensus about in quantum measurement theory. The Copenhagen school says that the statistical prediction is all we can use quantum mechanics for, and the actual looking is something different, something outside the ability of quantum mechanics to describe (expressly because it is outside the ability of quantum mechanics to predict, and Copenhagen likes to equate science with prediction). The many-worlds school says that all the pointer positions actually occur, and each sub-world spawns its own intelligent analyses of their own particular pointer, so each consciousness is trapped by, or born into if you prefer, a kind of coherent sub-world of the incoherent and non-interfering many worlds. You can see how it is a little hard to talk about the differences in these interpretations without talking about consciousnesses. Finally, the third main school is deBroglie-Bohm, which says that there is only one world, and it is computable and deterministic, we just don't have access to the information one needs to do the computation (which is called a "pilot wave" and is not directly observable at present)."

To summarize, the role of consciousness is quite substantially different in the three interpretations. To Copenhagen, consciousness is paramount, because quantum mechanics is just a tool that the consciousness uses to predict outcomes, and some elements of the outcome are simply not describable so must be treated as random. To many worlds, the consciousness is a kind of minor player in the vast array of many worlds (and I do mean vast), because some of the worlds spawn consciousnesses and some don't, and the physics doesn't really care if there's a consciousness in there or not. To deBroglie-Bohm, the consciousness is neither paramount nor minor-- the deterministic physics is the "truth" of the situation, just as in many worlds, but now there is just one world that is being determined, and so that one world must be the home to all the consciousnesses.

The bottom line is, all these interpretations make the same successful predictions, so choosing between them (or ignoring them altogether) is really a matter of personal taste. The choice is very often motivated by how you like to think about the role of consciousness, and that's why consciousness continues to play a key role in, not the predictions of quantum mechanics about measurable outcomes, but in understanding what quantum mechanics is really describing, what it really is.

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(14-01-2015 11:24 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 11:15 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  tl;dr

Why don’t you just paste the hyperlink to your ground-breaking, peer-reviewed, published, widely-accepted paper so I too may read it?

Wait...there isn’t one? Why not? You really should. You’ll probably recieve the Nobel Prize for Science!

This has all been known for decades. It is not accepted only because modern scientists refuse to accept that consciousness plays any role whatsoever. Which is absurd.

As I said check my sources make sure what I'm saying is correct. Getting angry at me will not do anything.

Which consciousness? What does it do? What was the universe before there were conscious beings? What about events in the universe that have not yet been observed?

You utterly misunderstand the phrase "collapse of the wave function". It is not a physical event, it is a description of information.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(14-01-2015 11:26 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Until you refute what I just said. I am correct...until proven incorrect.

Seriously? That's not the way it works; and if you actually were a scientist, you would know that.

You are a pretender.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
15-01-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 08:58 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Here is the perfect summary of what I am saying, this is from a physics forum

"Here's the problem. Decoherence can explain with no difficulty how different "pointer positions" of a macro instrument get coupled to certain "quantum outcomes," with no cross-talk (i.e., no interference) between different pointer positions. This is the state of affairs before we look at the outcome of the measurement-- we have only a statistical understanding of the possibilities. The problem comes when we actually look at the pointer ourselves, and at that point, something happens that there is no consensus about in quantum measurement theory. The Copenhagen school says that the statistical prediction is all we can use quantum mechanics for, and the actual looking is something different, something outside the ability of quantum mechanics to describe (expressly because it is outside the ability of quantum mechanics to predict, and Copenhagen likes to equate science with prediction). The many-worlds school says that all the pointer positions actually occur, and each sub-world spawns its own intelligent analyses of their own particular pointer, so each consciousness is trapped by, or born into if you prefer, a kind of coherent sub-world of the incoherent and non-interfering many worlds. You can see how it is a little hard to talk about the differences in these interpretations without talking about consciousnesses. Finally, the third main school is deBroglie-Bohm, which says that there is only one world, and it is computable and deterministic, we just don't have access to the information one needs to do the computation (which is called a "pilot wave" and is not directly observable at present)."

To summarize, the role of consciousness is quite substantially different in the three interpretations. To Copenhagen, consciousness is paramount, because quantum mechanics is just a tool that the consciousness uses to predict outcomes, and some elements of the outcome are simply not describable so must be treated as random. To many worlds, the consciousness is a kind of minor player in the vast array of many worlds (and I do mean vast), because some of the worlds spawn consciousnesses and some don't, and the physics doesn't really care if there's a consciousness in there or not. To deBroglie-Bohm, the consciousness is neither paramount nor minor-- the deterministic physics is the "truth" of the situation, just as in many worlds, but now there is just one world that is being determined, and so that one world must be the home to all the consciousnesses.

The bottom line is, all these interpretations make the same successful predictions, so choosing between them (or ignoring them altogether) is really a matter of personal taste. The choice is very often motivated by how you like to think about the role of consciousness, and that's why consciousness continues to play a key role in, not the predictions of quantum mechanics about measurable outcomes, but in understanding what quantum mechanics is really describing, what it really is.

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com


You continue to conflate measurement with conscious observation. You obviously do not understand the nuance of what you posted. Scientists often use the word "observation" or "look" to mean "measurement". There is no implication whatsoever in the various schools of thought on QM that incorporate consciousness into the discussion.

You are guilty of making what Dan Dennett calls a deepity--stating something that has multiple readings, one of which is trivially true, and using the triviality to try to prove something profound.

Example 1:

Love is just a word. Trivially, the word love is just a word. However the deeper point that the concept of love is just a word cannot be justified by this kind of word play.

Example 2:

You cited this example upthread--If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The audio perceptions made by a conscious being in their brains will not be there. However the physical manifestation of a sound--a pressure wave of certain frequencies--most certainly will be there. We can set up an experiment to record such sounds as evidence later on that there was a sound wave, if not a perceived sound in the absence of human presence.

Example 3:

Observation changes the state of a quantum mechanical system. In the sense that "observation" is used as scientists do to mean we take a measurement, this is true. Conscious interpretation though is not required. In the double slit experiment, we can send electrons through it and get one result if we do not attempt to measure which opening the electron goes through, but another result if we try to measure which opening the electron passes through. We make this measurement with a detector, not with our human senses. We can set this experiment up with our presence or the absence of human presence to verify that our sensual observation of the events do not influence the results (big surprise, they do not). I have done this experiment. Until you have, STFU.


Example 4:

I cite this to show you are no better than a creationist--"Evolution is just a theory". Use of the word "theory" in the colloquial understanding of the word to mean a conjecture would make that statement true. But using the word theory as scientists do to say it is something supported with a wide body of evidence makes the critique of evolution a lie. What you are doing about QM is no better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like BryanS's post
15-01-2015, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2015 10:06 AM by mmhm1234.)
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 08:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 08:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok. So you are saying you are not really conscious, that it is an illusion. The whole concept is so wacky i cant quite get my mind around it. What makes it even more absurd is the blatant fact that all of modern science has no definition for consciousness. There is absolutely no proof the brain creates consciousness. Therefor you cannot back up that claim. To call me delusional in saying that the physical world is merely a construct of consciousness, and then at the time saying you know what consciousness is...as if it is a thing such as a proton neutron or electron is absolutely false...no evidence so supports that "electricity in the brain" creates consciousness.

Physics and chemistry and all the sciences of man merely describe the current system we are in i.e. this universe and the certain principles that define this system.
But think of it this way, how would we know this system even exists if we were not aware of it? If there was nothing that knew this system exists, and observed it, it would NOT exist. The atoms, particles, etc. know what to be because we define them to be such.

Many of you subscribe to this view: consciousness has nothing to do with measurement

The point is, that statement is patently false. The truth is that measurement, as defined and understood and contemplated and used by the conscious physicist, can happen even if no such physicist is present. However, to give semantic meaning to what a measurement even is, this does indeed require a conscious intelligence (so far as we understand what those words mean), who has been there in a fully analogous situation for us to be able to use any of those words meaningfully. In short, a universe with no intelligent beings is a universe that has no measurements, and no wave functions to collapse. That is not an opinion, it is a fact-- in such a universe there are not the words "wavefunction", there is not the concept "amplitude", because there are no words and no concepts in the first place, stuff just happens, presumably the same as it does now minus any concept of "measurement" or "collapse" of anything. The significance of this fact opens up a lot of what physics really means, but does indeed get a bit philosophical.

Actually it IS an illusion. You have sensory input, (because many or most of your sensory systems are working somewhat, at least). That input gets (rapidly) referenced (chemically converted to various signals), assembled into a package that makes sense to you because YOU HAVE LEARNED how to make sense of the package, in part by referencing the "input bundle" to stored memories. While this is done relatively rapidly, it CAN be slowed by drugs, or disease. By the time it's complete, it's actually in the past. In that sense, your "consciousness" is awareness of a few fractions of a second in the past, thus actually what you experience as "present" is already past. Therefore, your consciousness IS an illusion.

Who is this 'YOU' you are talking about? I thought I didn't exist. What you say about what I experience as being in the past is indeed true. But still, in no way does this suggest that I am not a conscious sentient being.

Also how does this statement: "In that sense, your "consciousness" is awareness of a few fractions of a second in the past, thus actually what you experience as "present" is already past. Therefore, your consciousness IS an illusion." in any way indicate my consciousness is illusion. Again this so called evidence, is not really evidence. Because what I experience in the present is in the past this somehow points to my consciousness being an illusion?? HOW? You dont even know what you are saying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 09:54 AM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2015 10:06 AM by mmhm1234.)
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 09:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 08:58 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Here is the perfect summary of what I am saying, this is from a physics forum

"Here's the problem. Decoherence can explain with no difficulty how different "pointer positions" of a macro instrument get coupled to certain "quantum outcomes," with no cross-talk (i.e., no interference) between different pointer positions. This is the state of affairs before we look at the outcome of the measurement-- we have only a statistical understanding of the possibilities. The problem comes when we actually look at the pointer ourselves, and at that point, something happens that there is no consensus about in quantum measurement theory. The Copenhagen school says that the statistical prediction is all we can use quantum mechanics for, and the actual looking is something different, something outside the ability of quantum mechanics to describe (expressly because it is outside the ability of quantum mechanics to predict, and Copenhagen likes to equate science with prediction). The many-worlds school says that all the pointer positions actually occur, and each sub-world spawns its own intelligent analyses of their own particular pointer, so each consciousness is trapped by, or born into if you prefer, a kind of coherent sub-world of the incoherent and non-interfering many worlds. You can see how it is a little hard to talk about the differences in these interpretations without talking about consciousnesses. Finally, the third main school is deBroglie-Bohm, which says that there is only one world, and it is computable and deterministic, we just don't have access to the information one needs to do the computation (which is called a "pilot wave" and is not directly observable at present)."

To summarize, the role of consciousness is quite substantially different in the three interpretations. To Copenhagen, consciousness is paramount, because quantum mechanics is just a tool that the consciousness uses to predict outcomes, and some elements of the outcome are simply not describable so must be treated as random. To many worlds, the consciousness is a kind of minor player in the vast array of many worlds (and I do mean vast), because some of the worlds spawn consciousnesses and some don't, and the physics doesn't really care if there's a consciousness in there or not. To deBroglie-Bohm, the consciousness is neither paramount nor minor-- the deterministic physics is the "truth" of the situation, just as in many worlds, but now there is just one world that is being determined, and so that one world must be the home to all the consciousnesses.

The bottom line is, all these interpretations make the same successful predictions, so choosing between them (or ignoring them altogether) is really a matter of personal taste. The choice is very often motivated by how you like to think about the role of consciousness, and that's why consciousness continues to play a key role in, not the predictions of quantum mechanics about measurable outcomes, but in understanding what quantum mechanics is really describing, what it really is.

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com


You continue to conflate measurement with conscious observation. You obviously do not understand the nuance of what you posted. Scientists often use the word "observation" or "look" to mean "measurement". There is no implication whatsoever in the various schools of thought on QM that incorporate consciousness into the discussion.

You are guilty of making what Dan Dennett calls a deepity--stating something that has multiple readings, one of which is trivially true, and using the triviality to try to prove something profound.

Example 1:

Love is just a word. Trivially, the word love is just a word. However the deeper point that the concept of love is just a word cannot be justified by this kind of word play.

Example 2:

You cited this example upthread--If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The audio perceptions made by a conscious being in their brains will not be there. However the physical manifestation of a sound--a pressure wave of certain frequencies--most certainly will be there. We can set up an experiment to record such sounds as evidence later on that there was a sound wave, if not a perceived sound in the absence of human presence.

Example 3:

Observation changes the state of a quantum mechanical system. In the sense that "observation" is used as scientists do to mean we take a measurement, this is true. Conscious interpretation though is not required. In the double slit experiment, we can send electrons through it and get one result if we do not attempt to measure which opening the electron goes through, but another result if we try to measure which opening the electron passes through. We make this measurement with a detector, not with our human senses. We can set this experiment up with our presence or the absence of human presence to verify that our sensual observation of the events do not influence the results (big surprise, they do not). I have done this experiment. Until you have, STFU.


Example 4:

I cite this to show you are no better than a creationist--"Evolution is just a theory". Use of the word "theory" in the colloquial understanding of the word to mean a conjecture would make that statement true. But using the word theory as scientists do to say it is something supported with a wide body of evidence makes the critique of evolution a lie. What you are doing about QM is no better.

Atheists quite often state things that can many have interpretations, many readings too, you're not off the hook there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 09:51 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 08:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually it IS an illusion. You have sensory input, (because many or most of your sensory systems are working somewhat, at least). That input gets (rapidly) referenced (chemically converted to various signals), assembled into a package that makes sense to you because YOU HAVE LEARNED how to make sense of the package, in part by referencing the "input bundle" to stored memories. While this is done relatively rapidly, it CAN be slowed by drugs, or disease. By the time it's complete, it's actually in the past. In that sense, your "consciousness" is awareness of a few fractions of a second in the past, thus actually what you experience as "present" is already past. Therefore, your consciousness IS an illusion.

Who is this 'YOU' you are talking about? I thought I didn't exist. What you say about what I experience as being in the past is indeed true. But still, in no way does this suggest that I am not a conscious sentient being.

You thought you didn't exist. Really ?
You're worse off that we had suspected. Nowhere did I ever say that.
OMG.

Ok. Are we ready for next week's set of trolls yet ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-01-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 09:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 08:58 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Here is the perfect summary of what I am saying, this is from a physics forum

"Here's the problem. Decoherence can explain with no difficulty how different "pointer positions" of a macro instrument get coupled to certain "quantum outcomes," with no cross-talk (i.e., no interference) between different pointer positions. This is the state of affairs before we look at the outcome of the measurement-- we have only a statistical understanding of the possibilities. The problem comes when we actually look at the pointer ourselves, and at that point, something happens that there is no consensus about in quantum measurement theory. The Copenhagen school says that the statistical prediction is all we can use quantum mechanics for, and the actual looking is something different, something outside the ability of quantum mechanics to describe (expressly because it is outside the ability of quantum mechanics to predict, and Copenhagen likes to equate science with prediction). The many-worlds school says that all the pointer positions actually occur, and each sub-world spawns its own intelligent analyses of their own particular pointer, so each consciousness is trapped by, or born into if you prefer, a kind of coherent sub-world of the incoherent and non-interfering many worlds. You can see how it is a little hard to talk about the differences in these interpretations without talking about consciousnesses. Finally, the third main school is deBroglie-Bohm, which says that there is only one world, and it is computable and deterministic, we just don't have access to the information one needs to do the computation (which is called a "pilot wave" and is not directly observable at present)."

To summarize, the role of consciousness is quite substantially different in the three interpretations. To Copenhagen, consciousness is paramount, because quantum mechanics is just a tool that the consciousness uses to predict outcomes, and some elements of the outcome are simply not describable so must be treated as random. To many worlds, the consciousness is a kind of minor player in the vast array of many worlds (and I do mean vast), because some of the worlds spawn consciousnesses and some don't, and the physics doesn't really care if there's a consciousness in there or not. To deBroglie-Bohm, the consciousness is neither paramount nor minor-- the deterministic physics is the "truth" of the situation, just as in many worlds, but now there is just one world that is being determined, and so that one world must be the home to all the consciousnesses.

The bottom line is, all these interpretations make the same successful predictions, so choosing between them (or ignoring them altogether) is really a matter of personal taste. The choice is very often motivated by how you like to think about the role of consciousness, and that's why consciousness continues to play a key role in, not the predictions of quantum mechanics about measurable outcomes, but in understanding what quantum mechanics is really describing, what it really is.

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com


You continue to conflate measurement with conscious observation. You obviously do not understand the nuance of what you posted. Scientists often use the word "observation" or "look" to mean "measurement". There is no implication whatsoever in the various schools of thought on QM that incorporate consciousness into the discussion.

You are guilty of making what Dan Dennett calls a deepity--stating something that has multiple readings, one of which is trivially true, and using the triviality to try to prove something profound.

Example 1:

Love is just a word. Trivially, the word love is just a word. However the deeper point that the concept of love is just a word cannot be justified by this kind of word play.

Example 2:

You cited this example upthread--If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The audio perceptions made by a conscious being in their brains will not be there. However the physical manifestation of a sound--a pressure wave of certain frequencies--most certainly will be there. We can set up an experiment to record such sounds as evidence later on that there was a sound wave, if not a perceived sound in the absence of human presence.

Example 3:

Observation changes the state of a quantum mechanical system. In the sense that "observation" is used as scientists do to mean we take a measurement, this is true. Conscious interpretation though is not required. In the double slit experiment, we can send electrons through it and get one result if we do not attempt to measure which opening the electron goes through, but another result if we try to measure which opening the electron passes through. We make this measurement with a detector, not with our human senses. We can set this experiment up with our presence or the absence of human presence to verify that our sensual observation of the events do not influence the results (big surprise, they do not). I have done this experiment. Until you have, STFU.


Example 4:

I cite this to show you are no better than a creationist--"Evolution is just a theory". Use of the word "theory" in the colloquial understanding of the word to mean a conjecture would make that statement true. But using the word theory as scientists do to say it is something supported with a wide body of evidence makes the critique of evolution a lie. What you are doing about QM is no better.

Your 'example 2' but the observation of the data recorded is still made down the line. You can never separate consciousness from what is being observed/experienced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 09:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 11:24 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  This has all been known for decades. It is not accepted only because modern scientists refuse to accept that consciousness plays any role whatsoever. Which is absurd.

As I said check my sources make sure what I'm saying is correct. Getting angry at me will not do anything.

Which consciousness? What does it do? What was the universe before there were conscious beings? What about events in the universe that have not yet been observed?

You utterly misunderstand the phrase "collapse of the wave function". It is not a physical event, it is a description of information.

Unfortunately you sir don't understand. In the Copenhagen interpretation of QP the conscious observer is paramount. This "discription of information" is only information because somewhere down the line it is observed as such. You cannot think your way out of this...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 10:03 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 09:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  Which consciousness? What does it do? What was the universe before there were conscious beings? What about events in the universe that have not yet been observed?

You utterly misunderstand the phrase "collapse of the wave function". It is not a physical event, it is a description of information.

Unfortunately you sir don't understand. In the Copenhagen interpretation of QP the conscious observer is paramount. This "discription of information" is only information because somewhere down the line it is observed as such. You cannot think your way out of this...

Have you somewhere demonstrated the Copenhagen interpretation to be the correct one ? If not, get busy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: