6 ms·

> This would assume that somehow the atoms in our brain work differently than the atoms anywhere else. There is nothing special about consciousness. You assume

> This would assume that somehow the atoms in our brain work differently than the atoms anywhere else. There is nothing special about consciousness. You assume wrongly. The implication is that all wavefunctions have a corresponding consciousness. Since the universe is a nested set of wavefunctions, it's essentially all consciousness. There is nothing special about consciousness, it's the unified field, it's all there actually is. Honestly, the rigidity of your thinking holds you back from seeing any deeper truth. https://youtu.be/LPhgDfT4Zpc https://youtu.be/LPhgDfT4Zpc

ShamelessC 5y ago
There are many theories in this space to consider and we can't feasibly consider them all. Some amount of rigidity is of course required to even begin probing into something new. Since humans have finite lifespans, we all develop some heuristics (probably heavily biased ones) to serve as filters for what is efficient to consider. As such, one of my (again, heavily biased) filters are any such claims that meditation could have an outsized impact on the level of deviance/crime in the Washington DC. " We present the published results of a National Demonstration Project-in which 4,000 advanced meditators markedly reduced violent crime in Washington, DC." I simply don't have time to consider this as my personal biases are telling me to ignore it and that it is bad science. Furthermore, the researcher here very frequently makes use of highly theoretical and even unproven concepts such as string theory and a particular variant of the multiple universes idea which has also not been proven. Both are presented misleadingly as concrete fact rather than assumptions made. I dislike being misled and distrust the researcher moreso because of that. I assume your biases are quite different from mine. I assume some level of experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs may be involved? No judgement - I've just seen lots of similar appeals to philosophical interpretations of physics from other LSD users I know.
kergonath 5y ago
I have some sympathy for your thinking, but it is not borne of any understanding of the physical concepts you mention. > You assume wrongly. The implication is that all wavefunctions have a corresponding consciousness. Since the universe is a nested set of wavefunctions, it's essentially all consciousness. First, a wavefunction is a way of making sense of (some of) the concepts of quantum mechanics. It has a specific meaning, and scientists to this day argue about whether it is necessary or actually a thing. When it is used, it is a scalar field that is used to describe the probability of some experimental result, i.e. a mathematical tool. It has no link whatsoever with consciousness, which is the result of electric signals going up and down a group of neurons bunched together. You sound like you want to redefine “consciousness” as “existence”. In that case there is some tautological beauty in what you say, but it is not as enlightening as you seem to think it is. > There is nothing special about consciousness, it's the unified field, it's all there actually is. What the hell does that even mean? You use scientific-sounding words without seeming to grasp their meaning. I mean, surrealism is fun, and metaphysics can be interesting, but don’t confuse them with a deep understanding of physical truths. > https://youtu.be/LPhgDfT4Zpc https://youtu.be/LPhgDfT4Zpc I need to point out that you are citing a crackpot and that there was absolutely nothing scientific in what I have seen in this video. But yeah, it probably is my mental rigidity talking.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  There is no difference between physicality and the information that backs it. Only a philistine would try to claim that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction > Since the universal validity of the state function description is asserted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental entities, and one can even consider the state function of the entire universe. In this sense this theory can be called the theory of the "universal wave function," since all of physics is presumed to follow from this function alone.[7] You appeal to a trivially naive interpretation of what the wavefunction represents, yet claim that I or Hagelin are the crackpots. Don't you know that all modern science requires unobservables? Yet you want to constrain the wavefunction to being a mathematical tool for measurement only because that was its intended purpose and conceptual creation. Narrow mindset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobservable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobservable > You use scientific-sounding words without seeming to grasp their meaning. You think you understand quantum physics when no one does. Furthermore, you don't even understand wavefunctions except by their textbook definition...
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > There is no difference between physicality and the information that backs it. Only a philistine would try to claim that. The map is not the territory. A ball is a ball and its motion is its motion, while Newton's equations of motion for that ball are something else. While it is possible that the MWI is right and the state of the entire universe could be described by a single, universal wavefunction, that wouldn't mean that the universe is that wavefunction, anymore than Maxwell's equations are the electromagnetic field. Now, there is an interesting question that indeed no one knows the answer to for now: is the wavefunction a direct description of a physical object, or is it just a statistical tool for predicting possible positions of the real objects (waves and particles existing in some duality)? Also, you shouldn't forget that none of the existing interpretations of QM actually solve the measurement problem, not even MWI. Here is Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation of this [0]: > In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector measure”, then the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s possible with probability 1.” > This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one measurement outcome. The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are not supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector. Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches together. You should only evaluate the probability relative to the detector in one specific branch at a time. > That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate. The measurement postulate says: Update probability at measurement to 100%. The detector definition in many worlds says: The “Detector” is by definition only the thing in one branch. Now evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in each branch. Same thing. > And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot derive this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation. It’s not possible. What the many worlds people are now trying instead is to derive this postulate from rational choice theory. But of course that brings back in macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions and so on. In other words, this reference to knowledge is equally in conflict with reductionism as is the Copenhagen interpretation. [0] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-ma...
tsimionescu 5y ago
> There is nothing special about consciousness, it's the unified field, it's all there actually is. That just begs the question of what consciousness actually is. You can define consciousness as being the wave function, but then you still have to actually check if what 'consciousness' colloquially means has any resemblance to that. For example, when you tell me something is conscious, I expect that I can teach that thing certain things, like how to sing or how to fetch. Since a photon has a wavefunction, by your definition I would expect to be able to teach a photon to do things. Similarly, I expect conscious things to be able to interact with the world and have feelings about it. Do you beleive a photon admires an electron more than a proton, or anything similar? Until you can show any experiments where anything that is known to be described by a wavefunction is shown to have all of the properties we associate with the word 'consciousness' in everyday usage, your assertion that all wavefunctions have a corresponding 'consciousness' doesn't really mean anything. I could just as easily say that all wavefunctions have an associated music, and that music is all there actually is. It's a definition, so it's not wrong, but it's not illuminating.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  > For example, when you tell me something is conscious, I expect that I can teach that thing certain things, like how to sing or how to fetch. Since a photon has a wavefunction, by your definition I would expect to be able to teach a photon to do things. The possible futures for a photon, given the laws of physics, are much simpler than for you or I. Its wavefunction is known. The usual (classical) Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. > Similarly, I expect conscious things to be able to interact with the world and have feelings about it. Do you beleive a photon admires an electron more than a proton, or anything similar? You are confusing consciousness with reactiveness. Deterministic rules can cause reactions. Your refrigerator for example, reacts to temperature changes. It however, is not exercising free will or any kind of quantum randomness to do so. > Until you can show any experiments where anything that is known to be described by a wavefunction is shown to have all of the properties we associate with the word 'consciousness' in everyday usage, your assertion that all wavefunctions have a corresponding 'consciousness' doesn't really mean anything. I could just as easily say that all wavefunctions have an associated music, and that music is all there actually is. It's a definition, so it's not wrong, but it's not illuminating. There is no rule-based construct for random number generation except for PRNG[1]. It follows that, if true randomness is exhibited by the universe, one that is not generated by rules, then it must be the leftover ingredient. Consciousness is the only leftover ingredient. Everything else we know about physics is deterministic and rule-based. Now, you know very well, things like this are likely not able to be proven given the hard consciousness problem and the other proximal issues. So I'm making an argument. Some things in life are arguments, not proofs. Like political views. Get used to it instead of being cliche and resorting to Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator

ShamelessC 5y ago

There are many theories in this space to consider and we can't feasibly consider them all. Some amount of rigidity is of course required to even begin probing into something new. Since humans have finite lifespans, we all develop some heuristics (probably heavily biased ones) to serve as filters for what is efficient to consider. As such, one of my (again, heavily biased) filters are any such claims that meditation could have an outsized impact on the level of deviance/crime in the Washington DC. " We present the published results of a National Demonstration Project-in which 4,000 advanced meditators markedly reduced violent crime in Washington, DC." I simply don't have time to consider this as my personal biases are telling me to ignore it and that it is bad science. Furthermore, the researcher here very frequently makes use of highly theoretical and even unproven concepts such as string theory and a particular variant of the multiple universes idea which has also not been proven. Both are presented misleadingly as concrete fact rather than assumptions made. I dislike being misled and distrust the researcher moreso because of that. I assume your biases are quite different from mine. I assume some level of experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs may be involved? No judgement - I've just seen lots of similar appeals to philosophical interpretations of physics from other LSD users I know.

kergonath 5y ago

I have some sympathy for your thinking, but it is not borne of any understanding of the physical concepts you mention. > You assume wrongly. The implication is that all wavefunctions have a corresponding consciousness. Since the universe is a nested set of wavefunctions, it's essentially all consciousness. First, a wavefunction is a way of making sense of (some of) the concepts of quantum mechanics. It has a specific meaning, and scientists to this day argue about whether it is necessary or actually a thing. When it is used, it is a scalar field that is used to describe the probability of some experimental result, i.e. a mathematical tool. It has no link whatsoever with consciousness, which is the result of electric signals going up and down a group of neurons bunched together. You sound like you want to redefine “consciousness” as “existence”. In that case there is some tautological beauty in what you say, but it is not as enlightening as you seem to think it is. > There is nothing special about consciousness, it's the unified field, it's all there actually is. What the hell does that even mean? You use scientific-sounding words without seeming to grasp their meaning. I mean, surrealism is fun, and metaphysics can be interesting, but don’t confuse them with a deep understanding of physical truths. > https://youtu.be/LPhgDfT4Zpc https://youtu.be/LPhgDfT4Zpc I need to point out that you are citing a crackpot and that there was absolutely nothing scientific in what I have seen in this video. But yeah, it probably is my mental rigidity talking.

goldenkey 5y ago
There is no difference between physicality and the information that backs it. Only a philistine would try to claim that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_wavefunction > Since the universal validity of the state function description is asserted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental entities, and one can even consider the state function of the entire universe. In this sense this theory can be called the theory of the "universal wave function," since all of physics is presumed to follow from this function alone.[7] You appeal to a trivially naive interpretation of what the wavefunction represents, yet claim that I or Hagelin are the crackpots. Don't you know that all modern science requires unobservables? Yet you want to constrain the wavefunction to being a mathematical tool for measurement only because that was its intended purpose and conceptual creation. Narrow mindset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobservable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobservable > You use scientific-sounding words without seeming to grasp their meaning. You think you understand quantum physics when no one does. Furthermore, you don't even understand wavefunctions except by their textbook definition...
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > There is no difference between physicality and the information that backs it. Only a philistine would try to claim that. The map is not the territory. A ball is a ball and its motion is its motion, while Newton's equations of motion for that ball are something else. While it is possible that the MWI is right and the state of the entire universe could be described by a single, universal wavefunction, that wouldn't mean that the universe is that wavefunction, anymore than Maxwell's equations are the electromagnetic field. Now, there is an interesting question that indeed no one knows the answer to for now: is the wavefunction a direct description of a physical object, or is it just a statistical tool for predicting possible positions of the real objects (waves and particles existing in some duality)? Also, you shouldn't forget that none of the existing interpretations of QM actually solve the measurement problem, not even MWI. Here is Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation of this [0]: > In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector measure”, then the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s possible with probability 1.” > This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one measurement outcome. The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are not supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector. Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches together. You should only evaluate the probability relative to the detector in one specific branch at a time. > That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate. The measurement postulate says: Update probability at measurement to 100%. The detector definition in many worlds says: The “Detector” is by definition only the thing in one branch. Now evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in each branch. Same thing. > And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot derive this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation. It’s not possible. What the many worlds people are now trying instead is to derive this postulate from rational choice theory. But of course that brings back in macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions and so on. In other words, this reference to knowledge is equally in conflict with reductionism as is the Copenhagen interpretation. [0] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-ma...

tsimionescu 5y ago

> There is nothing special about consciousness, it's the unified field, it's all there actually is. That just begs the question of what consciousness actually is. You can define consciousness as being the wave function, but then you still have to actually check if what 'consciousness' colloquially means has any resemblance to that. For example, when you tell me something is conscious, I expect that I can teach that thing certain things, like how to sing or how to fetch. Since a photon has a wavefunction, by your definition I would expect to be able to teach a photon to do things. Similarly, I expect conscious things to be able to interact with the world and have feelings about it. Do you beleive a photon admires an electron more than a proton, or anything similar? Until you can show any experiments where anything that is known to be described by a wavefunction is shown to have all of the properties we associate with the word 'consciousness' in everyday usage, your assertion that all wavefunctions have a corresponding 'consciousness' doesn't really mean anything. I could just as easily say that all wavefunctions have an associated music, and that music is all there actually is. It's a definition, so it's not wrong, but it's not illuminating.

goldenkey 5y ago
> For example, when you tell me something is conscious, I expect that I can teach that thing certain things, like how to sing or how to fetch. Since a photon has a wavefunction, by your definition I would expect to be able to teach a photon to do things. The possible futures for a photon, given the laws of physics, are much simpler than for you or I. Its wavefunction is known. The usual (classical) Maxwell field is the quantum wave function for a single photon. > Similarly, I expect conscious things to be able to interact with the world and have feelings about it. Do you beleive a photon admires an electron more than a proton, or anything similar? You are confusing consciousness with reactiveness. Deterministic rules can cause reactions. Your refrigerator for example, reacts to temperature changes. It however, is not exercising free will or any kind of quantum randomness to do so. > Until you can show any experiments where anything that is known to be described by a wavefunction is shown to have all of the properties we associate with the word 'consciousness' in everyday usage, your assertion that all wavefunctions have a corresponding 'consciousness' doesn't really mean anything. I could just as easily say that all wavefunctions have an associated music, and that music is all there actually is. It's a definition, so it's not wrong, but it's not illuminating. There is no rule-based construct for random number generation except for PRNG[1]. It follows that, if true randomness is exhibited by the universe, one that is not generated by rules, then it must be the leftover ingredient. Consciousness is the only leftover ingredient. Everything else we know about physics is deterministic and rule-based. Now, you know very well, things like this are likely not able to be proven given the hard consciousness problem and the other proximal issues. So I'm making an argument. Some things in life are arguments, not proofs. Like political views. Get used to it instead of being cliche and resorting to Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator