One-World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

[Anders Lindman]

In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics many different realities, "worlds" are real.

"The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe")." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

The universal wave function describes the state of the entire universe.

"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." -- Hugh Everett

The idea of a universal wave function has been criticized:

"The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. ... The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system." -- Ray Streater

Instead of ordinary causation we can examine the concept of downward causation Amit Goswami has described. Goswami says that consciousness is the most fundamental reality and that the physical reality is a result of downward causation from consciousness. Here is Amit Goswami talking about some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu53_pa-9Bk

Instead of taking the many worlds defined by the universal wave function as something actual, by having it describe possibilities and with consciousness as downward causation that collapses the universal wave function we have a one-world interpretation.

[Travis]

What?

[Roger Ramjets]

consciousness is the most fundamental realityfail

[Anders Lindman]

What?

Ordinary causation is for example one billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. Downward causation is a different kind of causation:

"When the direction of casual influence extends from "higher" levels of reality (say, above the level of physics) down to "lower" levels of reality, it is called downward causation. The ontological structure of the world may be seen as consisting of more than one domain, with each domain consisting of different entities, and with different properties defined over the respective domains." -- http://www.enotes.com/downward-causation-reference/downward-causation

If we have consciousness collapsing the universal wave function then that is a universal kind of downward causation. In this view, consciousness is not a separate thing, not even a field of some kind. Instead, consciousness is the universal "observer" collapsing the universal wave function (that describes the entire universe) as a whole.

[Anders Lindman]

fail

Maybe, maybe not. I think the idea of consciousness collapsing the universal wave function is an interesting explanation of what consciousness is.

[Anders Lindman]

"The universe creates itself by observing itself." -- J.A. Wheeler

"In his treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter. This point of view was later more prominently expanded on by Eugene Wigner, but remains a view held by very few physicists." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2 FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_c ollapse

[Anders Lindman]

"This interpretation attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. Specifically, a non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.

Henry Stapp has argued for the concept as follows:

From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become...parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unifed way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem

Dr. Henry Stapp - Beyond the Mind-Body Problem -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCdeiwmQgUk

[Anders Lindman]

Aha! I just learned that the concept of "the collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics is not entirely understood. If consciousness collapses the entire universal wave function then it becomes clear. It's not separate physical objects that cause separate collapses. The collapse is universal. The whole quantum state of the universe is collapsed into a well-defined state by consciousness moment to moment.

[TheRedWorm]

Maybe, maybe not...<snip>


Actually, yes. Fail.

[Anders Lindman]

Actually, yes. Fail.

By yes, do you mean that separate physical objects cause separate collapses of separate wave functions in quantum mechanics? Scientists have pointed out that it then leads to problems (see earlier posts). Plus the idea that consciousness is what collapses the wave function is not new. Many well-known experts have described that possibility.

[Anders Lindman]

It's important to define what consciousness means in this context. Consciousness here means the 'pure' observer/awareness. So consciousness here does NOT mean thoughts for example. Thoughts are structures/patterns observed by consciousness. Consciousness here therefore is not the same thing as we usually mean by mind. In this context consciousness means a universal principle of which our individual consciousness can be describes as being a separate facet of.

[Anders Lindman]

Sn+1 = C -> Wn

Wn+1 = Sn+1 * Wn

S is the state of the universe. C is universal consciousness. W is the universal wave function. The operator -> means collapse of the wave function. The * operator means the transformation of a state and a wave function into a new wave function.

:D

[Pulvinar]

Are the two electrons in this experiment conscious?

http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/179-the-h2-double-slit-experiment-where-quantum-and-classical-physics-meet.html

[Anders Lindman]

Are the two electrons in this experiment conscious?

http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/179-the-h2-double-slit-experiment-where-quantum-and-classical-physics-meet.html

No. No objects are conscious, and consciousness itself is not an object.

[Twiler]

This is stuff: S

This is the universe: U

This is the universe, made of stuff: U = S

Any questions?

[Anders Lindman]

This is stuff: S

This is the universe: U

This is the universe, made of stuff: U = S

Any questions?

Yes, where does consciousness fit into that picture? ;)

[Pulvinar]

No. No objects are conscious, and consciousness itself is not an object.

Ok, so how is consciousness involved in this QM experiment?

"If the two-electron system is split into its subsystems and one is thought of as the environment of the other, it becomes evident that classical properties such as loss of coherence can emerge even when only four particles are involved. Yet because the two electrons' subsystems are entangled in a tractable way, their quantum coherence can be reconstructed."

[ben m]

Aha! I just learned that the concept of "the collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics is not entirely understood.

"Just learned?" Not a good sign.

Anyway: experiments show that the "universal wavefunction" is not always collapsed; in fact, due to the existence of incommensurate observables, everything is in a superposition state all the time. Therefore your theory is wrong.

[Anders Lindman]

Ok, so how is consciousness involved in this QM experiment?

"If the two-electron system is split into its subsystems and one is thought of as the environment of the other, it becomes evident that classical properties such as loss of coherence can emerge even when only four particles are involved. Yet because the two electrons' subsystems are entangled in a tractable way, their quantum coherence can be reconstructed."

Consciousness is what collapses the universal wave function. The one-world interpretation describes the collapse as a universal collapse rather than separate collapses of separate wave functions. Perhaps it's possible to create a downward causation hierarchy of correlations and probabilities but I have no clue how that would be done mathematically.

[marplots]

Confusing.

[Anders Lindman]

"Just learned?" Not a good sign.

Anyway: experiments show that the "universal wavefunction" is not always collapsed; in fact, due to the existence of incommensurate observables, everything is in a superposition state all the time. Therefore your theory is wrong.

Ok, but if I allow the state S I described earlier (the state of the universe after the collapse of the universal wave function) to include those incommensurate observables, i.e. the state S is not definite and can contain uncertainty, then my theory still holds. :cool:

[Anders Lindman]

Confusing.

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." -- John Wheeler

:D

[Pulvinar]

Consciousness is what collapses the universal wave function.

What real-world experiment supports this?

[Ziggurat]

Consciousness is what collapses the universal wave function.

That doesn't really help. Why does consciousness collapse the wave function? What exactly is consciousness? What are the minimum requirements for consciousness? Can we make a machine that collapses a wave function? Can animals collapse wave functions?

Not only are these questions currently unanswered, it's not even possible to answer any of them under your interpretation. There is no way to determine whether or not the wave function collapsed at any time prior to your personal involvement. In fact, it's impossible to prove to yourself that YOU aren't the only person in the universe capable of collapsing wave functions, and that nobody else actually does. At which point, well, you've just re-invented solipsism.

[Anders Lindman]

What real-world experiment supports this?

My guess is that it would be really tricky to confirm this directly since downward causation is "above" ordinary causation. Things like thoughts and choices in a person's mind cannot be used because those are "objects" below the downward causation of the universal consciousness. In the one-world interpretation there is fundamentally no difference between a thought and an electron.

Maybe some indirect tests could be done.

[Anders Lindman]

That doesn't really help. Why does consciousness collapse the wave function? What exactly is consciousness? What are the minimum requirements for consciousness? Can we make a machine that collapses a wave function? Can animals collapse wave functions?

Not only are these questions currently unanswered, it's not even possible to answer any of them under your interpretation. There is no way to determine whether or not the wave function collapsed at any time prior to your personal involvement. In fact, it's impossible to prove to yourself that YOU aren't the only person in the universe capable of collapsing wave functions, and that nobody else actually does. At which point, well, you've just re-invented solipsism.

Some predictions can be made based on the one-world interpretation. One is that no objects can be consciousness, not even fields of energy etc. Solipsism doesn't apply since even the individual "self" is an object. The universal consciousness is not an object. Another prediction is that totally separate collapses of separate wave functions are not possible.

[Pulvinar]

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." -- John Wheeler

Too bad being completely confused doesn't imply an understanding.

Study that H2 split experiment above carefully to see what QM is telling us, and importantly, what it *isn't*.

[Anders Lindman]

Too bad being completely confused doesn't imply an understanding.

Study that H2 split experiment above carefully to see what QM is telling us, and importantly, what it *isn't*.

I read that there was something called electron entanglement or something like that. Way above my head. :confused:

[Ziggurat]

Some predictions can be made based on the one-world interpretation. One is that no objects can be consciousness, not even fields of energy etc.

Sorry, not testable. I can't tell if my measurement apparatus collapsed the wave function of my particle, or if the measurement apparatus simply became entangled with my particle and my consciousness collapsed both the particle and the measurement apparatus.

Hell, if you do the experiment, I can't tell if your consciousness collapsed the wave function, of if you became entangled with the particle and I collapsed your wave function.

These are not simply indistinguishable as a practical matter, they're indistinguishable in principle as well. There is no way to test your theory.

The universal consciousness is not an object.

Oh, so we're not talking about a person's consciousness, but a "universal consciousness"?

What the hell is a universal consciousness?

Another prediction is that totally separate collapses of separate wave functions are not possible.

Experiments indicate otherwise. So if that's what your theory is, then it's already falsified.

[Anders Lindman]

Oh, so we're not talking about a person's consciousness, but a "universal consciousness"?

What the hell is a universal consciousness?


The consciousness of the individual is only a facet of the universal consciousness. This is because consciousness as the term is used here is not an object. A thought is an object. A feeling is an object. An atom is an object. A person's mind is an object (collection of thoughts, memories and emotions etc). So consciousness is not even an observer (because that's again an object) but a process of observing. And that's why consciousness collapses the universal wave function as a downward causation. Ordinary causation is between objects.

Is there any validity to this idea? Sure, an object cannot be aware of other objects. So how can consciousness be an object? :cool:

[Trent Wray]

Yes, where does consciousness fit into that picture? ;) It is an emergent phenomenon of the (S)stuff. To show it as the cause of the stuff, you would have to step outside of causality to see what causes causality in the first place. We can't do that, because we are within causality.

Aha! I just learned that the concept of "the collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics is not entirely understood. If consciousness collapses the entire universal wave function then it becomes clear. It's not separate physical objects that cause separate collapses. The collapse is universal. The whole quantum state of the universe is collapsed into a well-defined state by consciousness moment to moment. Here you say "if" ...


Maybe, maybe not. I think the idea of consciousness collapsing the universal wave function is an interesting explanation of what consciousness is. Here you are still saying "if" ...

It's important to define what consciousness means in this context. Consciousness here means the 'pure' observer/awareness. So consciousness here does NOT mean thoughts for example. Thoughts are structures/patterns observed by consciousness. Consciousness here therefore is not the same thing as we usually mean by mind. In this context consciousness means a universal principle of which our individual consciousness can be describes as being a separate facet of. Here you move the goalposts and change terms ...

Consciousness is what collapses the universal wave function. And now here you claim it as a definitive fact.

--------------

See the disconnect ?

[Dancing David]

"his interpretation attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. Specifically, a non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.



No

[Dancing David]

Aha! I just learned that the concept of "the collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics is not entirely understood. If consciousness collapses the entire universal wave function then it becomes clear. It's not separate physical objects that cause separate collapses. The collapse is universal. The whole quantum state of the universe is collapsed into a well-defined state by consciousness moment to moment.

No

[Dancing David]

By yes, do you mean that separate physical objects cause separate collapses of separate wave functions in quantum mechanics? Scientists have pointed out that it then leads to problems (see earlier posts). Plus the idea that consciousness is what collapses the wave function is not new. Many well-known experts have described that possibility.

Many experts can be wrong.

[Anders Lindman]

It is an emergent phenomenon of the (S)stuff. To show it as the cause of the stuff, you would have to step outside of causality to see what causes causality in the first place. We can't do that, because we are within causality.


Ah! Consciousness a result of physical reality instead of as I claim physical reality a combined result of consciousness + the past state of the universe. Maybe that's something that can be tested?

[Dancing David]

By yes, do you mean that separate physical objects cause separate collapses of separate wave functions in quantum mechanics? Scientists have pointed out that it then leads to problems (see earlier posts). Plus the idea that consciousness is what collapses the wave function is not new. Many well-known experts have described that possibility.

Many 'well known experts' can be wrong.

[Dancing David]

It's important to define what consciousness means in this context. Consciousness here means the 'pure' observer/awareness. So consciousness here does NOT mean thoughts for example. Thoughts are structures/patterns observed by consciousness. Consciousness here therefore is not the same thing as we usually mean by mind. In this context consciousness means a universal principle of which our individual consciousness can be describes as being a separate facet of.

So you haven't described anything?

[epepke]

Maybe I shouldn't get in on this, but I will anyway.

First of all, no quantum interpretation can be considered scientific, because nobody has figured out how to do an experiment that distinguishes between them adequately. I've seen some attempts, but IMO they are all full of fail. I conjecture that it may be impossible to distinguish them with experiment.

In my view, all quantum interpretations exist for emotional reasons. Because QM is so weird and unclassical, it makes people unhappy. So they make up interpretations so that they can be happier. For example, some scientists can say "ah, the wavefunction has collapse" and go home and have a beer. Others, like Bohm, can say "ah, so Marx was right about dialectical materialism." Others can say, "ah, there is a multiplicity of universes" and go drop some acid.

The concept of the "collapse of the wavefunction" is present only in one class of interpretation. This is known by many as the Copenhagen interpretation. That's wrong; the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to "shut up and calculate." The "collapse of the wavefunction" is primarily due to von Neumann, who is better known as one of the pioneers of computing.

The idea that consciousness collapses the wavefunction is even more derivative and weaker. It's primarily popularized by Roger Penrose.

I have to reiterate that none of this is scientific. If someone ever figures out a good way to distinguish between interpretations using science, then it will become scientific. However, as far as I can tell, nobody has done so. There are some strong suggestive reasons that it might be impossible, but you really have to be elbows deep for a long time to see them.

[Anders Lindman]

Many experts can be wrong.

Yes, most experts in Quantum Mechanics probably don't even want to include consciousness in their models. They could be correct that consciousness isn't needed, but I doubt that. Nor am I certain that the experts that do talk about consciousness look at it the same way as I have described it here, namely that physical reality is a result of BOTH downward and ordinary causation (see my cool equations in some post above).

[Anders Lindman]

The idea that consciousness collapses the wavefunction is even more derivative and weaker. It's primarily popularized by Roger Penrose.


In the many-worlds interpretation the alternative worlds are considered as actual, while in the one-world interpretation only one of the worlds is actual and the rest only possibilities. I don't know if this is exactly the same as the ordinary collapse of the wave function.

[Anders Lindman]

So you haven't described anything?

I think my equations a pretty neat: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7733131&postcount=12

Even if they are extremely high level.

[Patrick1000]

In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics many different realities, "worlds" are real.

"The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse. Many-worlds implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real, each representing an actual "world" (or "universe")." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

The universal wave function describes the state of the entire universe.

"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." -- Hugh Everett

The idea of a universal wave function has been criticized:

"The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. ... The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system." -- Ray Streater

Instead of ordinary causation we can examine the concept of downward causation Amit Goswami has described. Goswami says that consciousness is the most fundamental reality and that the physical reality is a result of downward causation from consciousness. Here is Amit Goswami talking about some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu53_pa-9Bk

Instead of taking the many worlds defined by the universal wave function as something actual, by having it describe possibilities and with consciousness as downward causation that collapses the universal wave function we have a one-world interpretation.

Anders, no one "understands" quantum mechanics.

There are very few concrete results. The uncertainties are concrete, no way around those.

Bell's Theorem has been empirically proven and so the Universe is non local. That is a concrete result provided by the theory.

My main point here is that apart from a few definites, we are free to say almost anything else we want about what this that or the other thing means, including the wave function(s). The theory is one that doesn't tie us down much at all. Lots of interpretations of reality, of this world, are consistent with, compatible with, quantum.

I like your thread as always Anders, you push everyone to think, and your approach is so creative, improvisational as I like to say.

Thanks!!!

[Craig4]

Yes, most experts in Quantum Mechanics probably don't even want to include consciousness in their models. They could be correct that consciousness isn't needed, but I doubt that. Nor am I certain that the experts that do talk about consciousness look at it the same way as I have described it here, namely that physical reality is a result of BOTH downward and ordinary causation (see my cool equations in some post above).

Why do you believe your doubts are important?

[Anders Lindman]

Why do you believe your doubts are important?

It's important to know what I don't know. It sucks to not know that I don't know. He he.

[Craig4]

It's important to know what I don't know. It sucks to not know that I don't know. He he.

Would you care to prove that there is such a thing as universal consciousness? We need not be bothered with your other ideas until you've first done that.

[Anders Lindman]

Sn+1 = C -> Wn

Wn+1 = Sn+1 * Wn

S is the state of the universe. C is universal consciousness. W is the universal wave function. The operator -> means collapse of the wave function. The * operator means the transformation of a state and a wave function into a new wave function.

:D

To elaborate a bit on these equations because they may be totally non-conventional, lol: Let's start with a snapshot in time of the entire universe and call this snapshot Sn. The snapshot is a fixed state that describes the entire universe(s) down to the smallest quantum fluctuation in the vacuum and includes all galaxies and dark matter etc. Sn is a monstrously huge state of course.

The state Sn is a result of the collapse of the universal wave function W which changes for each new state S. It is the universal consciousness C that causes the collapse of W to happen in what is called downward causation, described by the first equation. There is also the ordinary type of causation from past to future and this is why the change of the universal wave function W is a combination of the most recent state S and the previous universal wave function W, as described by the second equation.

[Craig4]

To elaborate a bit on these equations because they totally non-conventional, lol: Let's start with a snapshot in time of the entire universe and call this snapshot Sn. The snapshot is a fixed state that describes the entire universe(s) down to the smallest quantum fluctuation in the vacuum and includes all galaxies and dark matter etc. Sn is a monstrously huge state of course.

The state Sn is a result of the collapse of the universal wave function W which changes for each new state S. It is the universal consciousness C that causes the collapse of W to happen in what is called downward causation, described by the first equation. There is also the ordinary type of causation from past to future and this why the change of the universal wave function W is a combination of the most recent state S and the previous universal wave function W, as described by the second equation.

What evidence causes you to include consciousness in your equation?

[Anders Lindman]

Would you care to prove that there is such a thing as universal consciousness? We need not be bothered with your other ideas until you've first done that.

That's very easy to prove. Are you aware of this post? :D Ok, if you are, then do you have a separate consciousness or is your consciousness only an aspect of the universal consciousness? Since consciousness is obviously not an object the latter is true.

[Anders Lindman]

What evidence causes you to include consciousness in your equation?

As Amit Goswami said (if I remember it correctly): Quantum mechanics only deals with possibilities. How can a possibility ever become an actuality? It can't! So there must be another principle at work which makes the possibilities become an actuality, and consciousness is the most obvious candidate for that principle (that Goswami calls downward causation).

Trailer with Amit Goswami: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO9N4Ix9Ny0

[Twiler]

As Amit Goswami said (if I remember it correctly): Quantum mechanics only deals with possibilities. How can a possibility ever become an actuality? It can't! So there must be another principle at work which makes the possibilities become an actuality, and consciousness is the most obvious candidate for that principle (that Goswami calls downward causation).

Trailer with Amit Goswami: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO9N4Ix9Ny0

I'm confused. You say that a possibility can't become a actuality, and then you say that a possibility does become an actuality.

[Twiler]

That's very easy to prove. Are you aware of this post? :D Ok, if you are, then do you have a separate consciousness or is your consciousness only an aspect of the universal consciousness? Since consciousness is obviously not an object the latter is true.

Why?

[Anders Lindman]

I'm confused. You say that a possibility can't become a actuality, and then you say that a possibility does become an actuality.

Every object in quantum mechanics is a possibility. How can a possibility cause anything? How can one possibility change another possibility? It can't! So there must be another causality at work to turn the possibilities into an actuality, and that is called downward causation.

[Twiler]

Every object in quantum mechanics is a possibility. How can a possibility cause anything? How can one possibility change another possibility? It can't! So there must be another causality at work to turn the possibilities into an actuality, and that is called downward causation.

Why not? I don't follow your reasoning.

[Anders Lindman]

Why?

Every object in quantum mechanics is a possibility. Even the 'self' is an object, a mental self consisting of a collection of thoughts, memories and emotions etc. So in quantum mechanics even the individual self is only a possibility! How can a possibility be aware of anything?

[Anders Lindman]

Why not? I don't follow your reasoning.

A possibility is a static thing. It cannot cause anything by itself.

[Twiler]

Every object in quantum mechanics is a possibility. Even the 'self' is an object, a mental self consisting of a collection of thoughts, memories and emotions etc. So in quantum mechanics even the individual self is only a possibility! How can a possibility be aware of anything?

In what sense is a consciousness an object in quantum mechanics?

[sol invictus]

The idea of a universal wave function has been criticized:

"The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. ...


That's nonsense. We know exactly what it's a function of.

The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system." -

Again, I disagree.


Instead of taking the many worlds defined by the universal wave function as something actual, by having it describe possibilities and with consciousness as downward causation that collapses the universal wave function we have a one-world interpretation.

Totally unnecessary. The many worlds interpretation does just fine (including when it's applied to the wavefunction for the universe) without any need for "consciousness" play a special role.

[Twiler]

A possibility is a static thing. It cannot cause anything by itself.

What do you mean by 'causing by itself'? What things do cause by themselves?

[sol invictus]

Bell's Theorem has been empirically proven and so the Universe is non local. That is a concrete result provided by the theory.

Not quite. Bell's inequality has been shown to be violated experimentally. That implies that either QM is non-local, or the many-worlds interpretation is correct.

[Anders Lindman]

In what sense is a consciousness an object in quantum mechanics?

Consciousness is NOT an object. The way I have used the term here consciousness means that which is aware of objects. A thought for example, is not consciousness. A thought is an object, a pattern of energy or whatever a thought consists of. Often the act of thinking is regarded as consciousness. Not in this context. Here thinking is a stream of thoughts, a stream of objects.

[Patrick1000]

Why do you believe your doubts are important?

We advance by doubting, by questioning "authority".

Anders is a master, the John Coltrane-esque, improvisational master of Conspiracy Theory.

Bravo Anders, keep it up!

[Craig4]

That's very easy to prove. Are you aware of this post? :D Ok, if you are, then do you have a separate consciousness or is your consciousness only an aspect of the universal consciousness? Since consciousness is obviously not an object the latter is true.

You take too much for granted. Prove my consciousness is connected to any other consciousness.

[Anders Lindman]

Totally unnecessary. The many worlds interpretation does just fine (including when it's applied to the wavefunction for the universe) without any need for "consciousness" play a special role.

It does not. Because what makes a PARTICULAR world out of many be experienced, if the other worlds are considered actual, rather than mere possibilities that need to be collapsed?

[Twiler]

Consciousness is NOT an object. The way I have used the term here consciousness means that which is aware of objects. A thought for example, is not consciousness. A thought is an object, a pattern of energy or whatever a thought consists of. Often the act of thinking is regarded as consciousness. Not in this context. Here thinking is a stream of thoughts, a stream of objects.

So, you think that a consciousness cannot be an object, because an object is a possibility, and a possibility cannot be aware of things?

[Anders Lindman]

You take too much for granted. Prove my consciousness is connected to any other consciousness.

Done. He he. (I am aware of this post, and you are aware of this post). Consciousness is therefore an ACTUALITY while every object, including thoughts etc, are mere possibilities according to standard interpretations of quantum mechanics. So your consciousness is not an object, and only object can be separate.

[Twiler]

Done. He he. (I am aware of this post, and you are aware of this post). Consciousness is therefore an ACTUALITY while every object, including thoughts etc, are mere possibilities according to standard interpretations of quantum mechanics. So your consciousness is not an object, and only object can be separate.

If you're aware of the post, doesn't that mean that it is an actuality?

[Anders Lindman]

So, you think that a consciousness cannot be an object, because an object is a possibility, and a possibility cannot be aware of things?

Yes! With the slight modification of what you wrote by adding that objects BECOME actual of course, but not by collapsing their own or other probabilities.

[Twiler]

Yes! With the slight modification of what you wrote by adding that objects BECOME actual of course, but not by collapsing their own or other probabilities.

Why can't possibilities be aware of things?

[Anders Lindman]

If you're aware of the post, doesn't that mean that it is an actuality?

Yes! An actuality. But what caused the actuality to be experienced out of possibilities?

[Anders Lindman]

Why can't possibilities be aware of things?

You mean like a whole collection of possibilities? Then those are still in themselves static values. Let's say we have the possibilities P1 and P2 together. Can they be aware of things?

[Twiler]

Yes! An actuality. But what caused the actuality to be experienced out of possibilities?

Why does it need a cause?

And you said all objects were possibilities. I think you meant to say that all other objects began as possibilities. Why can't a consciousness begin as a possibility?

[sol invictus]

Because what makes a PARTICULAR world out of many be experienced, if the other worlds are considered actual, rather than mere possibilities that need to be collapsed?

Nothing. They're all experienced, but by different "versions" of you.

[Twiler]

You mean like a whole collection of possibilities? Then those are still in themselves static values. Let's say we have the possibilities P1 and P2 together. Can they be aware of things?

A possible consciousness is possibly aware of things.

And the burden of proof is upon you. Why can't they be aware of things?

[Anders Lindman]

Why does it need a cause?

And you said all objects were possibilities. I think you meant to say that all other objects began as possibilities. Why can't a consciousness begin as a possibility?

Yes, I mean that an object first is only an entangled web of possibilities and then it becomes an actual object. If consciousness starts as a possibility, then what causes the consciousness to become an actuality? And even if consciousness is an actual object, then how can it be aware of other objects? Awareness, which is an aspect of consciousness, is not an object as I see it.

[Anders Lindman]

Nothing. They're all experienced, but by different "versions" of you.

Sounds like an extreme kind of science fiction to me.

[sol invictus]

Sounds like an extreme kind of science fiction to me.

It's a basic and immediate consequence of quantum mechanics, unless you add a (totally unnecessary) collapse postulate.

That's the whole point of the MWI. It's actually the simplest and most direct interpretation.

[Anders Lindman]

A possible consciousness is possibly aware of things.

And the burden of proof is upon you. Why can't they be aware of things?

If consciousness was an object then according to quantum mechanics the collapse of the wave function could produce consciousness. But can an object be aware of other objects? At first it might seem that it could be possible, but it's only because the mind creates concepts and then takes those concepts as being real in and of themselves when in reality they need consciousness to be observed in the first place.

The question "who am I" is not a question about consciousness. It's a question about thinking. Thoughts are objects in consciousness. Can a thought be aware of itself?

[MattusMaximus]

My guess is that it would be really tricky to confirm this directly since downward causation is "above" ordinary causation. Things like thoughts and choices in a person's mind cannot be used because those are "objects" below the downward causation of the universal consciousness. In the one-world interpretation there is fundamentally no difference between a thought and an electron.

Maybe some indirect tests could be done.

Great, outline those indirect tests in detail, then conduct them, then write up the results for publication in a peer-reviewed physics journal... you know, try doing science.

Or you could keep waving your hands here.

[Anders Lindman]

It's a basic and immediate consequence of quantum mechanics, unless you add a (totally unnecessary) collapse postulate.

That's the whole point of the MWI. It's actually the simplest and most direct interpretation.

I think the one-world interpretation is more rational, because that's in line with actual experience of reality, plus it works with all kinds of QM interpretations. The many-worlds interpretation is separate from most other interpretations such as those involving a collapse of the wave function. The many-worlds interpretation is like the worst kind of multiple personality disorder in history, lol.

[MattusMaximus]

The consciousness of the individual is only a facet of the universal consciousness. This is because consciousness as the term is used here is not an object. A thought is an object. A feeling is an object. An atom is an object. A person's mind is an object (collection of thoughts, memories and emotions etc). So consciousness is not even an observer (because that's again an object) but a process of observing. And that's why consciousness collapses the universal wave function as a downward causation. Ordinary causation is between objects.

Is there any validity to this idea? Sure, an object cannot be aware of other objects. So how can consciousness be an object? :cool:

I notice you said a lot and still didn't answer Zig's question, so I'll ask it again: What is the "universal consciousness"?

Until you define this, nobody here is even going to listen to you.

[MattusMaximus]

I think the one-world interpretation is more rational, because that's in line with actual experience of reality, plus it works with all kinds of QM interpretations. The many-worlds interpretation is separate from most other interpretations such as those involving a collapse of the wave function. The many-worlds interpretation is like the worst kind of multiple personality disorder in history, lol.

Yet your answer to Many-Worlds is to propose a "higher reality" and "universal consciousness", without even bothering to define these things. Color me unimpressed.

[sol invictus]

I think the one-world interpretation is more rational, because that's in line with actual experience of reality

Your wrong - the MWI is perfectly in accord with all our experiences of reality.

plus it works with all kinds of QM interpretations.

That makes no sense.

The many-worlds interpretation is separate from most other interpretations such as those involving a collapse of the wave function. The many-worlds interpretation is like the worst kind of multiple personality disorder in history, lol.

Yes, in a sense. Nevertheless, it is the simplest and most direct interpretation of QM, and QM is by far the most precisely tested theory in the history of science.

[Anders Lindman]

Great, outline those indirect tests in detail, then conduct them, then write up the results for publication in a peer-reviewed physics journal... you know, try doing science.

Or you could keep waving your hands here.

One test would be to see if there is something in physical experiments that ordinary QM interpretations have trouble with that could be explained by the one-world interpretation. Unfortunately I don't know much about QM.

[Anders Lindman]

Your wrong - the MWI is perfectly in accord with all our experiences of reality.

I disagree. I'm only aware of one me. So the MWI sounds like a theoretical cop out that can't be tested.

[MattusMaximus]

One test would be to see if there is something in physical experiments that ordinary QM interpretations have trouble with that could be explained by the one-world interpretation. Unfortunately I don't know much about QM.

Well, seeing as how the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM is perfectly consistent with every experimental test of QM to date, it seems your idea is pretty much dead in the water.

Besides, you need to be specific about these proposed tests of yours. As it is, you are still waving your hands.

[Anders Lindman]

I notice you said a lot and still didn't answer Zig's question, so I'll ask it again: What is the "universal consciousness"?

Until you define this, nobody here is even going to listen to you.

The universal consciousness is the principle that causes the collapse of the universal quantum wave function.

[MattusMaximus]

I disagree. I'm only aware of one me. So the MWI sounds like a theoretical cop out that can't be tested.

As others here have already said, MWI (or any interpretation) of QM cannot specifically be tested. But what we can do is see whether or not those interpretations are consistent with experimental tests of QM. And MWI is consistent in this manner, so you are essentially building a straw man.

[Anders Lindman]

Well, seeing as how the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM is perfectly consistent with every experimental test of QM to date, it seems your idea is pretty much dead in the water.

Besides, you need to be specific about these proposed tests of yours. As it is, you are still waving your hands.

So if the many-world interpretation is perfectly consistent, then why the need for other interpretations? Are they perfectly consistent too? And if so, then how to test which interpretation is the correct one?

[MattusMaximus]

The universal consciousness is the principle that causes the collapse of the universal quantum wave function.

And what is the physical mechanism by which you propose this occurs?

[Anders Lindman]

And what is the physical mechanism by which you propose this occurs?

Real math: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7733718&postcount=46

Well, not completely standard math perhaps.

[sol invictus]

I disagree. I'm only aware of one me.


That's what the MWI predicts. So you're wrong.

So the MWI sounds like a theoretical cop out that can't be tested.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If it predicted something that contradicts our experience, it would have been falsified (and hence testable).

[Anders Lindman]

That's what the MWI predicts. So you're wrong.



Now you're contradicting yourself. If it predicted something that contradicts our experience, it would have been falsified (and hence testable).

I can't prove that other separate realities don't exist! I certainly don't believe I exist in zillions of different copies, but I can't prove it.

[Twiler]

Yes, I mean that an object first is only an entangled web of possibilities and then it becomes an actual object. If consciousness starts as a possibility, then what causes the consciousness to become an actuality? And even if consciousness is an actual object, then how can it be aware of other objects? Awareness, which is an aspect of consciousness, is not an object as I see it.

And why do you think that?

[Anders Lindman]

And why do you think that?

That which is aware of separate objects cannot itself be separate from that which it is aware of, and at the same time it cannot be the same as that which it is aware of, so it means that awareness is not an object.

[dlorde]

I think the one-world interpretation is more rational, because that's in line with actual experience of reality, plus it works with all kinds of QM interpretations. The many-worlds interpretation is separate from most other interpretations such as those involving a collapse of the wave function. The many-worlds interpretation is like the worst kind of multiple personality disorder in history, lol.
The MWI is a QM interpretation. So your universal consciousness theory can't be compatible with 'all kinds of QM interpretations' :rolleyes:

Consciousness is a process, the result of certain kinds of neural activity in the brain. Your unevidenced, unexplained, undefined 'universal consciousness' sounds like redundant nonsense - what is it? how does it arise? how is it maintained? how can it be detected or falsified? How does it collapse the wavefunction of the universe?

I thought this was going to be just another thread confusing an 'observer' with consciousness, but it's way more confused than that... careful not to cut yourself on Ockham's Razor.

[MattusMaximus]

So if the many-world interpretation is perfectly consistent, then why the need for other interpretations? Are they perfectly consistent too? And if so, then how to test which interpretation is the correct one?

One of the ways to distinguish between varying interpretations of QM is to look at what assumptions are made going into each. Which one makes the least assumptions while still being consistent with what we observe in terms of experimental results? As has been stated before, as far as we know now, there is no direct test for telling which interpretation is "correct", though some interpretations have been eliminated because they are not consistent with experiment.

[Twiler]

That which is aware of separate objects cannot itself be separate from that which it is aware of, and at the same time it cannot be the same as that which it is aware of, so it means that awareness is not an object.

If I receive information about an object, am I separate from it?

[MattusMaximus]

Real math: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7733718&postcount=46

Well, not completely standard math perhaps.

Ummm, "real math" is not a physical mechanism. Try again.

Btw, in your equations I could replace C (consciousness) with L (leprechauns) and it would be just as logically sound. That should tell you something.

[MattusMaximus]

I can't prove that other separate realities don't exist! I certainly don't believe I exist in zillions of different copies, but I can't prove it.

Yet in your "theory" you propose things like "higher reality" without providing a definition of that thing. And you still haven't provided a real definition of "universal consciousness", btw.

[dlorde]

And what is the physical mechanism by which you propose this occurs?Real math: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7733718&postcount=46
That is simply stating the same assertion symbolically; it isn't in any way a description of a physical mechanism.

[Anders Lindman]

Ummm, "real math" is not a physical mechanism. Try again.

Btw, in your equations I could replace C (consciousness) with L (leprechauns) and it would be just as logically sound. That should tell you something.

The physical mechanism is the second equation.

[Anders Lindman]

That is simply stating the same assertion symbolically; it isn't in any way a description of a physical mechanism.

Both equations must be taken in combination. The second equation includes the physical mechanism.

[MattusMaximus]

The physical mechanism is the second equation.

So now you've gone from "real math" to "the second equation" as your physical mechanism, which is still not naming an actual physical mechanism. Which means you're essentially giving the same answer in a slightly modified form. Which means you still aren't answering the challenge.

Try again: What is the physical mechanism by which you propose the "universal consciousness" (whatever that is) collapses the universal wavefunction?

[MattusMaximus]

Both equations must be taken in combination. The second equation includes the physical mechanism.

Which is what, exactly?

[Anders Lindman]

Which is what, exactly?

The second equation represents physical causation. The first equation does NOT represent physical causation so any physical mechanism can't be found there. However, the two equations taken together make the connection between the downward causation and physical reality.

Then what the heck is the kind of causation in the first equation? That is downward causation. Amit Goswami explains it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-KkzLa-UE

[MattusMaximus]

The second equation represents physical causation. The first equation does NOT represent physical causation so any physical mechanism can't be found there. However, the two equations taken together make the connection between the downward causation and physical reality.

Then what the heck is the kind of causation in the first equation? That is downward causation. Amit Goswami explains it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr-KkzLa-UE

You keep running around in circles without actually addressing my question. Do you even understand what is meant when I ask for you to name the "physical mechanism"? Word salad and circular arguments don't help you.

ETA: Btw, Amit Goswami in that video is speaking pure drivel, from a physics standpoint. If he really believes the water in the plastic cup isn't an object, then I suppose he wouldn't be upset at all to have it dumped all over his head? If he doesn't believe that cars moving down the road are actual objects (merely "possibilities" due to QM, as he states) does he not look both ways before crossing the street? Linking to that YouTube video does nothing to help your case; in fact, it does the opposite :rolleyes:

[Anders Lindman]

You keep running around in circles without actually addressing my question. Do you even understand what is meant when I ask for you to name the "physical mechanism"?

I thought you meant physical causation. That's what Amit Goswami calls upward causation. It's the ordinary cause and effect, such as one billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. So for example friction would be the physical mechanism that slows down the billiard balls. Or do you mean something else?

[MattusMaximus]

I thought you meant physical causation. That's what Amit Goswami calls upward causation. It's the ordinary cause and effect, such as one billiard ball hitting another billiard ball. So for example friction would be the physical mechanism that slows down the billiard balls. Or do you mean something else?

Yes, I mean mechanism, not "causation". Name the physical mechanism by which your hypothetical "universal consciousness" (which you still haven't defined) causes the universal wavefunction to collapse.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, I mean mechanism, not "causation". Name the physical mechanism by which your hypothetical "universal consciousness" (which you still haven't defined) causes the universal wavefunction to collapse.

Define what you mean by physical mechanism. Take that! :D

[MattusMaximus]

Define what you mean by physical mechanism. Take that! :D

Seeing as how you provided an example of a physical mechanism previously when you mentioned friction, you know full well what is a physical mechanism.

Now you're just playing word games and trolling.

Good-bye.

[Anders Lindman]

Seeing as how you provided an example of a physical mechanism previously when you mentioned friction, you know full well what is a physical mechanism.

Now you're just playing word games and trolling.

Good-bye.

In the case of the one-world interpretation the physical mechanism is the collapse of the universal wave function. The universal consciousness is more than just this collapse now that I think of it. The universal consciousness is that which causes both the collapse of the universal wave function and the awareness of the result of that collapse. For the how this is done the second equation is needed which plugs in the ordinary physical causation from past to future.

Then how exactly is the transformation Wn+1 = Sn+1 * Wn done? What does the * operation actually do? How is it calculated? I have no clue since I don't even know the equations for the wave function nor for the state S. But maybe it's possible to use standard calculations from QM to flesh out these details.

And time has to be incorporated somehow. :confused: In the two equations I described time is generated simply by the iteration from n to n+1 to n+2 and so on. In ordinary QM time may be defined in a different way (or not defined at all and just taken for granted as some absolute universal grandfather clock).

[Anders Lindman]

Hey! I came to think that even though the two equations I described probably are complete crap (I just made them up as the simplest possible version I could come up with) the time aspect in them is really good. They define time as a system of iterative equations AND they define an arrow of time! Because the iterative equations are not reversible and only move in one direction. In ordinary QM I think time is not even defined and taken as some absolute universal clock outside of QM and also that the equations don't incorporate the arrow of time.

[Anders Lindman]

Wait a minute. There's something I have not understood yet. What is the difference between the many-worlds interpretation and the collapse of the wave function interpretations? They seem like the same thing to me except that in the many-worlds interpretation all the possibilities are taken as actualities. Why not just take the other worlds as just probabilities that simply don't were actualized?

ETA: Oh, now I see. The many-worlds interpretation is an attempt to avoid choice. That's why all the possibilities must be actual, because otherwise a choice would be needed. Ha, what a lame theory.

[Anders Lindman]

So the reason why I experience only one world in the many-worlds interpretation is that I just happen to be at one particular branch at a time. And there is no choice, no collapse of any probability functions? So the reason for just experiencing one particular world is because of something undefined? Or something random? A universal random generator perhaps without any collapse on any wave function? I don't think the many-worlds interpretation is something to take seriously.

ETA: OR, the world we are experiencing now is a superposition of ALL possible worlds! :D Then there is no need for any collapse of the wave function or any choice in the usual sense. Instead the possibilities are branching all the time into zillions and zillions of worlds in an ever expanding tree into even more worlds. This creates the arrow of time (the tree grows bigger and bigger with more and more branches)! Could that be a possible interpretation? If so, then I will change my mind and say that the many-worlds interpretation may very well be the correct one after all.

[Craig4]

snip. So your consciousness is not an object, and only object can be separate.

Prove this bit.

[Craig4]

Well, I suppose we shouldn't complain. He's not telling lies about the families of victims of 9/11 or trying to get sick people to not take their medicine. It's a good thing he'd devoted his energies to things that aren't either blatantly disrespectful or hopelessly irresponsible.

[Anders Lindman]

Wow, now I have a much better version of the one-world interpretation. It starts with taking the many-worlds interpretation just as it is, but instead of experiencing just one of those worlds and having copies of ourselves in zillions of other worlds simultaneously (which I think is a ludicrous idea) this one world we are experiencing is a superposition of all possible worlds.

Wouldn't that create a total mess of the world? Not necessarily. Here comes the clever trick, if I may say so myself: The reason for why for example Barack Obama is the U.S. president at the moment instead of Hillary Clinton is because there are many, many, many more possible worlds with Barack Obama as president than with Hillary Clinton as the current president. So even if there are worlds with Hillary Clinton as president being a part of the total superposition of all possible worlds, they are very, very few compared to the worlds with Obama as president. So in practical everyday experience we have Barack Obama as the current U.S. president.

Is that a super extreme and far-fetched theory? Not compared to having zillions of copies of oneself running around in separate worlds.

[Anders Lindman]

Prove this bit.

I have a new version of the one-world interpretation. :D That doesn't depend on consciousness. See recent post #117 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7734352&postcount=117).

[sol invictus]

So the reason why I experience only one world in the many-worlds interpretation is that I just happen to be at one particular branch at a time.

No.


And there is no choice, no collapse of any probability functions? So the reason for just experiencing one particular world is because of something undefined? Or something random? A universal random generator perhaps without any collapse on any wave function?

None of the above.


I don't think the many-worlds interpretation is something to take seriously.

I don't think you're to be taken seriously.

ETA: OR, the world we are experiencing now is a superposition of ALL possible worlds! :D Then there is no need for any collapse of the wave function or any choice in the usual sense. Instead the possibilities are branching all the time into zillions and zillions of worlds in an ever expanding tree into even more worlds. This creates the arrow of time (the tree grows bigger and bigger with more and more branches)! Could that be a possible interpretation? If so, then I will change my mind and say that the many-worlds interpretation may very well be the correct one after all.

That's slightly closer. But there is essentially zero interference between branches that differ by the state of a macroscopic object (like your brain), which is why it's very difficult to distinguish a state that is the superposition of two or more branches from a state that has collapsed only onto one.

[Anders Lindman]

That's slightly closer. But there is essentially zero interference between branches that differ by the state of a macroscopic object (like your brain), which is why it's very difficult to distinguish a state that is the superposition of two or more branches from a state that has collapsed only onto one.

I have an improved version of the superposition world idea, in post #117 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7734352&postcount=117).

It explains why there can be essentially zero interference between different worlds (branches) even when they are all experienced at the same time as a superposition into one experienced reality.

[Anders Lindman]

Another very interesting property of the superposition world interpretation is that it explains, in addition to the arrow of time, the increase of complexity in the universe and the exponential progress of evolution. Don't believe evolution is an exponential progress? Yo, check this out: http://scalometer.wikispaces.com/file/view/Kurzweil_paradigm_shifts_for_15_lists_of_key_event s,_time_to_next_event_%28years%29_vs_time_before_p resent_%28years%29.png

Without the superposition of all worlds there would only be one puny branch all the time and how can that lead to an exponential increase of complexity, from the Big Bang to the present day?

[Craig4]

I have a new version of the one-world interpretation. :D That doesn't depend on consciousness. See recent post #117 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7734352&postcount=117).

I'll skip it.

[Anders Lindman]

Empty space is a result of a superposition of all possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation. Many of these worlds have the ordinary 3D space geometry and that's why we experience it. So empty space is common to many more worlds than for example worlds with Barack Obama as the current U.S. president. Physical matter is just a thin structure on the fabric of the vacuum energy in space. For example, and atom consists of 99.99999...% empty space.

[Ziggurat]

The consciousness of the individual is only a facet of the universal consciousness.

That tells me nothing.

This is because consciousness as the term is used here is not an object.

Meaningless word salad.

A thought is an object.

No, it isn't.

A feeling is an object.

No, it isn't.

An atom is an object.

You finally got one right.

A person's mind is an object (collection of thoughts, memories and emotions etc). So consciousness is not even an observer (because that's again an object) but a process of observing. And that's why consciousness collapses the universal wave function as a downward causation. Ordinary causation is between objects.

"downward causation". Now you're just making **** up.

Is there any validity to this idea?

I'd settle for some coherence to this idea. But I'm out of luck on that count.

Sure, an object cannot be aware of other objects. So how can consciousness be an object? :cool:

Is that supposed to be profound? Like "what is the sound of one hand clapping"? Because it's not.

[Anders Lindman]

No, it isn't.


A thought is merely a pattern of energy. So it's an object in the sense of a separate entity. A thought cannot be aware of itself. It's consciousness that is aware of thoughts.

[Patrick1000]

A thought is merely a pattern of energy. So it's an object in the sense of a separate entity. A thought cannot be aware of itself. It's consciousness that is aware of thoughts.

Maybe a thought can be self aware Anders. Immanuel Kant had a lot on the ball. He suggested self awareness was a condition of awareness(the transcendental unity of apperception).

For there to be any thoughts, there must be an accompanying self awareness, witness of the thought. Self awareness is a NECESSARY CONDITION of thought, and so if Kant were/is correct Anders, thoughts are in a sense aware. It is not here a thought and there the thinker. The two must be merged.

[Anders Lindman]

Maybe a thought can be self aware Anders. Immanuel Kant had a lot on the ball. He suggested self awareness was a condition of awareness(the transcendental unity of apperception).

For there to be any thoughts, there must be an accompanying self awareness, witness of the thought. Self awareness is a NECESSARY CONDITION of thought, and so if Kant were/is correct Anders, thoughts are in a sense aware. It is not here a thought and there the thinker. The two must be merged.

No object can be conscious as I see it, and thoughts are patterns of energy experienced in the brain. There is fundamentally no difference between a thought and other patterns of energy such as physical particles or a radio wave. They are all objects (that's what the attempt to come up with a unifying theory is all about, a single force principle responsible for all forms of energy and matter). Consciousness is aware of objects but is itself not an object.

[Twiler]

No object can be conscious as I see it, and thoughts are patterns of energy experienced in the brain. There is fundamentally no difference between a thought and other patterns of energy such as physical particles or a radio wave. They are all objects (that's what the attempt to come up with a unifying theory is all about, a single force principle responsible for all forms of energy and matter). Consciousness is aware of objects but is itself not an object.

Do you think that a computer has a consciousness?

[Anders Lindman]

Do you think that a computer has a consciousness?

No. I believe Amit Goswami is correct that consciousness is 'above' the physical reality so to speak. A crude analogy would be that the physical world is a movie screen and consciousness the film projector that projects images on that screen. We would not be able to find the film projector itself anywhere on that screen.

[dlorde]

No. I believe Amit Goswami is correct that consciousness is 'above' the physical reality so to speak. A crude analogy would be that the physical world is a movie screen and consciousness the film projector that projects images on that screen. We would not be able to find the film projector itself anywhere on that screen.
Do you have any evidence for any of that? any evidence of consciousness unrelated to brain activity? How could one distinguish your hypothesis from 'God does it'?

[Anders Lindman]

Do you have any evidence for any of that? any evidence of consciousness unrelated to brain activity? How could one distinguish your hypothesis from 'God does it'?

Few scientists would say that an atom has consciousness. But most of them probably will say that the brain has consciousness. My hypothesis is that no matter of physical matter can create consciousness. How to test this hypothesis? I don't know, lol.

[Twiler]

Few scientists would say that an atom has consciousness. But most of them probably will say that the brain has consciousness. My hypothesis is that no matter of physical matter can create consciousness. How to test this hypothesis? I don't know, lol.

I think that a consciousness is an observable entity, that all consciousnesses are not connected, and that there is no universal consciousness.

[Dancing David]

A thought is merely a pattern of energy. So it's an object in the sense of a separate entity. A thought cannot be aware of itself. It's consciousness that is aware of thoughts.

No, show me consciousness that is not a biological property.

Go

[Dancing David]

Few scientists would say that an atom has consciousness. But most of them probably will say that the brain has consciousness. My hypothesis is that no matter of physical matter can create consciousness. How to test this hypothesis? I don't know, lol.

How do you know that consciousness exists?

[Anders Lindman]

I think that a consciousness is an observable entity, that all consciousnesses are not connected, and that there is no universal consciousness.

Observable entity? Observed by who? Consciousness? Consciousness observing consciousness? A tooth biting itself? Like consciousness observing consciousness observing consciousness and so on in an infinite regression?

[Trent Wray]

Ah! Consciousness a result of physical reality instead of as I claim physical reality a combined result of consciousness + the past state of the universe. Maybe that's something that can be tested? Yes .... destroy someone's brain and see if there is consciousness still there. Or try and create a brain (i.e. procreate) and see if the result is consciousness in the brain you create. This would be good evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomena resulting from reality, not vice versa.

In other words, and I don't mean this in a snarky way whatsoever ... the universe does not revolve around us, nor are we the cause of it. A questioning person who becomes aware of themselves often faces this dillema I think ... "what am I ? Am I the cause of the universe ? That seems unlikely that I thought it all up ... no ... maybe something else did ? But what ? Therefore "god" "outside universal observer" *insert uber-being-thing* here"

And again, the idea that the universe is intrinsically collapsing it's own universal wave function because of it's own consciousness .... you had to change the definitions of consciousness to make it fit your theory. You moved the goalposts. "Well water has memory, if we change the definition of memory".

[Anders Lindman]

How do you know that consciousness exists?

Because I'm aware of what you wrote in the quote above. Is that consciousness produced by my brain? My guess is no. Universal consciousness is making the universe appear and it observes the universe through the brains and nervous systems of people. Does it observe through animals too? To a lesser degree yes, I think so. Does it observe through atoms? Not really, except in a very limited proto-way, not in a self-aware way. Single-celled organisms have a little more 'awareness' than molecules. In humans, thoughts and memories are generated by the brain, but not only by the brain I think. Our nervous system is non-locally connected to the rest of the universe, so information can also come from sources outside the brain I think. Is there a God outside the universe? Kind of, in that God is an equation. :D God is the universal wave function.

[Twiler]

Observable entity? Observed by who? Consciousness? Consciousness observing consciousness? A tooth biting itself? Like consciousness observing consciousness observing consciousness and so on in an infinite regression?

Observed by people.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes .... destroy someone's brain and see if there is consciousness still there. Or try and create a brain (i.e. procreate) and see if the result is consciousness in the brain you create. This would be good evidence that consciousness is an emergent phenomena resulting from reality, not vice versa.

In other words, and I don't mean this in a snarky way whatsoever ... the universe does not revolve around us, nor are we the cause of it. A questioning person who becomes aware of themselves often faces this dillema I think ... "what am I ? Am I the cause of the universe ? That seems unlikely that I thought it all up ... no ... maybe something else did ? But what ? Therefore "god" "outside universal observer" *insert uber-being-thing* here"

And again, the idea that the universe is intrinsically collapsing it's own universal wave function because of it's own consciousness .... you had to change the definitions of consciousness to make it fit your theory. You moved the goalposts. "Well water has memory, if we change the definition of memory".

Destroy a television set and see if the TV programs are still there. ;) And my new version of the one-world interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't require any collapse of the wave function. Hmm... Maybe I should update the original post and add the new version.

[Anders Lindman]

It's not possible edit the original post any longer. So I post the new version here:

In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics all possible worlds are branching off in an ever expanding tree. The one-world interpretation is based on the same principle with the difference that instead of us only experiencing one of the possible worlds we experience a superposition of all possible worlds.

Wouldn't that create a mess of the world? Not necessarily. The reason we now have Barack Obama as the U.S. president instead of Hillary Clinton for example is that there are many, many, many more possible worlds with Barack Obama as the current president instead of Hillary Clinton. Empty space is a result of a superposition of a vast number of possible worlds that have the basic 3D geometry of empty space. Physical matter is only a thin texture on the fabric of the vacuum. An atom for example, consists of 99.9999...% empty space.

Since we experience a superposition of the entire expanding tree of possible worlds it explains the arrow of time (and possible also the process of evolution leading to more and more complexity from the Big Bang to the present day). The movement of time is simply a result of the branching off into new worlds that continuously goes on moment to moment. There is no collapse needed of the wave function. All possible worlds are experienced at the same time.

[Anders Lindman]

Observed by people.

You mean like measuring brain activity? Then what about deep sleep? Is there consciousness in the brain during deep sleep?

[Anders Lindman]

:eek: A bit off topic but a really cool observation: artificial intelligence will be conscious. Why? Because either consciousness is created out of physical reality or consciousness is experienced through physical reality. Either way, artificial intelligence will be conscious. I can't wait for self-improving artificial general intelligence with an IQ of over a trillion. Maybe it already exists, created by what Richard Doland calls the breakaway civilization, or in the form of extraterrestrial technology.

[Ziggurat]

A thought is merely a pattern of energy. So it's an object in the sense of a separate entity.

That's not what "object" means. The state of an object (the brain) is not itself an object. And it's quite definitely not separate from the object, though I note you didn't say separate from what.

So basically, all you're doing is redefining words in arbitrary, nonsensical fashion, and then making meaningless statements about those words you're redefined. I can get that from the stoner at the local coffee shop.

[Twiler]

You mean like measuring brain activity? Then what about deep sleep? Is there consciousness in the brain during deep sleep?

No, I mean that they observe other people observing and acting, which are the characteristics of consciousnesses.

[Anders Lindman]

That's not what "object" means. The state of an object (the brain) is not itself an object. And it's quite definitely not separate from the object, though I note you didn't say separate from what.

So basically, all you're doing is redefining words in arbitrary, nonsensical fashion, and then making meaningless statements about those words you're redefined. I can get that from the stoner at the local coffee shop.

Ok, yes a clear definition is needed. Instead of object it's perhaps better to use the term physical entity. I claim that no physical entity can produce consciousness.

[Anders Lindman]

No, I mean that they observe other people observing and acting, which are the characteristics of consciousnesses.

Ok, but soon (within some decades or so) we will very likely have artificial intelligence that will be able to behave just like humans, and just a few decades after that the AI will be able to create physical bodies indistinguishable from human bodies. Ray Kurzweil says that even if we will not be able to tell if such being will have real consciousness it would behave exactly as if it had. So in a scientific sense it would perhaps not be possible to test for real consciousness.

The AI will be able to become conscious as I mentioned in a previous post.

[Trent Wray]

Destroy a television set and see if the TV programs are still there. ;) And my new version of the one-world interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't require any collapse of the wave function. Hmm... Maybe I should update the original post and add the new version. You're actually getting closer with the TV set/programs analogy. Take it to the next step ... which you somewhat do later ... what is the difference between strong AI and "consciousness" ? IMO, the difference is only in the AI's ability to seem conscious, by comparison. That's it. No magic needed. It's so good as a counterfeit, that the difference between the counterfeit and the real thing is undetectable. Thus, it's all mechanics.

Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is NOT magic.

But your "new interpretation" doesn't seem to involve consciousness as a required element.

However it does seem to operate off the illusion of choice, for example, that in one world we vote in Obama as US pres, in another world we vote in Clinton. How do you know that choice facilitates alternate realities at all and not just "this one" ?

I think you keep ascribing special qualities to consciousness, and choice, that cannot be proven to exist in the manner in which you are basing your ideas on. Again, you are trying to make the universe fit into an illusionary model ...

[Anders Lindman]

You're actually getting closer with the TV set/programs analogy. Take it to the next step ... which you somewhat do later ... what is the difference between strong AI and "consciousness" ? IMO, the difference is only in the AI's ability to seem conscious, by comparison. That's it. No magic needed. It's so good as a counterfeit, that the difference between the counterfeit and the real thing is undetectable. Thus, it's all mechanics.

Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is NOT magic.

But your "new interpretation" doesn't seem to involve consciousness as a required element.

However it does seem to operate off the illusion of choice.

And the AI may develop in two stages where in the first it is intelligent enough to appear conscious and in the next step it will have actual consciousness. But that's just a speculation. It will happen fast though. Even though AI today is very crude, it's still pretty impressive, like Watson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFR3lOm_xhE). And technological progress is exponential so just within a few decades the AI will have become enormously much more advanced.

Yes, the new one-world interpretation does not require consciousness. It's simply a superposition of all the possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation. Very simple yet it looks really promising to me even though there may be some evidence to show that the theory is false. Then what about choice and free will? There is a kind of choice in that the superposition of all the worlds still will include choice-making and things like that. And it has computational irreducibility (which is the term I think Stephen Wolfram has used) which means that even though it's a deterministic process the future cannot be fully predicted because the actual computations must be done, which means actually performing choices etc as individual humans. So in that sense there is still free will and choice even within the deterministic process.

[Ziggurat]

Ok, yes a clear definition is needed. Instead of object it's perhaps better to use the term physical entity. I claim that no physical entity can produce consciousness.

Since you still haven't defined consciousness in any meaningful way, this is still just word salad.

[Anders Lindman]

Since you still haven't defined consciousness in any meaningful way, this is still just word salad.

Consciousness is awareness in the sense of being self-aware. That's a pretty good definition I think. A video camera can perhaps be said to be aware to stretch it a bit, but a video camera can hardly be said to be self-aware.

[Trent Wray]

And the AI may develop in two stages where in the first it is intelligent enough to appear conscious and in the next step it will have actual consciousness. This is exactly my point. How will you know the difference then between it being "real" and "really real" ? The redundancy isn't necessary, nor does it solve anything practical that I can see. The simplest answer suffices .... there is no difference between "real consciousness" and "really real consciousness". If we can make a toaster that appears conscious, you have found evidence that supports the idea that there is nothing "special" about consciousness other than it being a complex combination of factors emerging as something we call "consciousness" but is really just a bunch of programmed bells and whistles. Turn the toaster off, the TV off, the brain off ... what do you have ?

But that's just a speculation. It will happen fast though. Even though AI today is very crude, it's still pretty impressive, like Watson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFR3lOm_xhE). And technological progress is exponential so just within a few decades the AI will have become enormously much more advanced. Today's toys would appear "alive" to ancient human beings. See what I'm saying ? It's a matter of fooling us ... making a magic trick not look like a magic trick. Nothing special about it.

Yes, the new one-world interpretation does not require consciousness. It's simply a superposition of all the possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation. Very simple yet it looks really promising to me even though there may be some evidence to show that the theory is false. Then what about choice and free will? There is a kind of choice in that the superposition of all the worlds still will include choice-making and things like that. And it has computational irreducibility (which is the term I think Stephen Wolfram has used) which means that even though it's a deterministic process the future cannot be fully predicted because the actual computations must be done, which means actually performing choices etc as individual humans. So in that sense there is still free will and choice even within the deterministic process. But why expand this into "possible worlds" at all ? Because we have to in order to maintain some special view most people have on the way causality works which cannot be proven ?

This is my armchair/uneducated and off the cuff concept and response:

Consider me playing a video game. The video game is a "closed" system. It has parameters, rules, etc. I can make choices within the game, but a limited amount. The video game is an example of a "programmed world" existing within this world.

Now, it's a closed system, until it isn't. My dog comes by, pulls the video game out, pisses on it, destroys it. There, he's now destroyed one of the worlds within a world.

So although the video game has limited parameters, there is still this illusion of free will within it's choices .... but it's an illusion. It's all controlled and effected by all the outside factors nonetheless. So it's not really a "closed universe" at all.

So take a controlled experiment. I have taken into account all the factors, and created yet another "world within a world". Let's say it's a mouse in a cage. Uh-oh ... again, my dog comes by, busts open the cage, eats the mouse. He's now effected the "closed system".

All these "multiple worlds" interacting with each other, all the time. The video game, the experiment, my dog and I.

So now look at the entire universe as a whole. My mind isn't "closed", the dog's choices aren't "closed", the video game, the mouse in the cage, on down the line. I choose this, they choose that. All limited, and interacting off everything else around us.

Do we find any sort of "everything happening at once" going on in this universe ? You've already mentioned it, and it takes place at the quantum level. So why go beyond the need to have all these many worlds branching off after decoherence ? Why not just have this one universe that we have already ... the video games, the human minds, the intelligent toasters, consciousness, the mouse in the cage, etc and so forth .... why the redundancy ?

[Trent Wray]

Consciousness is awareness in the sense of being self-aware. That's a pretty good definition I think. A video camera can perhaps be said to be aware to stretch it a bit, but a video camera can hardly be said to be self-aware. Again, redundancy doesn't mean anything special.

I can program my Mac to tell me "I think therefore I am, and I'm aware of it." and I can say, "prove it", and it will tell me it just did by telling me, and that it doesn't have to prove anything else to me. It can repeat this over and over and over again.

How do you know it's lying ?

[Twiler]

Ok, but soon (within some decades or so) we will very likely have artificial intelligence that will be able to behave just like humans, and just a few decades after that the AI will be able to create physical bodies indistinguishable from human bodies. Ray Kurzweil says that even if we will not be able to tell if such being will have real consciousness it would behave exactly as if it had. So in a scientific sense it would perhaps not be possible to test for real consciousness.

The AI will be able to become conscious as I mentioned in a previous post.

Are you familiar with the 'Chinese Room' argument concerning intelligence?

[Anders Lindman]

This is exactly my point. How will you know the difference then between it being "real" and "really real" ?
...
But why expand this into "possible worlds" at all ? Because we have to in order to maintain some special view most people have on the way causality works which cannot be proven ?
...
So it's not really a "closed universe" at all.
...
Do we find any sort of "everything happening at once" going on in this universe ? You've already mentioned it, and it takes place at the quantum level. So why go beyond the need to have all these many worlds branching off after decoherence ?

Not between real and really real but between consciousness operating or not.

The all possible worlds needed to actually have a closed system.

The branching off into new possible worlds is needed to create the motion of time, and the process of evolution I suspect (gradual increase of complexity).

[Anders Lindman]

Again, redundancy doesn't mean anything special.

I can program my Mac to tell me "I think therefore I am, and I'm aware of it." and I can say, "prove it", and it will tell me it just did by telling me, and that it doesn't have to prove anything else to me. It can repeat this over and over and over again.

How do you know it's lying ?

A computer can potentially pass a Turing test without actually be self-aware. Maybe the on/off of consciousness is if there is computation enough to become self-aware.

[Anders Lindman]

Are you familiar with the 'Chinese Room' argument concerning intelligence?

I looked it up. It's about how to determine whether a machine that appears to understand something really has understanding or is just producing a result that outside observers interpret as correct understanding (even though the machine itself may have no actual understanding at all and just be running some algorithm).

How do we know the meaning of the letter A? Because it's a part of the English alphabet. How do we know the meaning of the English alphabet? Because of the meaning of the English language? How do we know the meaning of the English language? Because of its connection to actual things and events in the world. The Watson program that is a Jeopardy master has such knowledge, yet it's hardly self-conscious.

[Belz...]

Maybe, maybe not.

Don't you just love answers that cover all possible outcomes ?

[Belz...]

Consciousness is what collapses the universal wave function .

No.

[Trent Wray]

Not between real and really real but between consciousness operating or not. Well then I'm still going to have to say what others have said: objectively define consciousness.

The all possible worlds needed to actually have a closed system. IOW the system we already have, i.e. the universe (imo only of course).

The branching off into new possible worlds is needed to create the motion of time, and the process of evolution I suspect (gradual increase of complexity). Evolution is the way things change over time. But here you are saying that time is an emergent phenomena resulting from decoherence (essentially), not that time is a medium through which decoherence takes place (i.e. space-time). And the gradual increase of complexity ... closed systems, verses isolated systems, thermodynamic equilibrium, entropy, etc ...

How are you going to differentiate between something branching off into a new universe that we can measure and detect and observe from something that has finished branching off, as it were ? My point is that this could already be said to be taking place and is exactly what comprises our universe that we know of as it already stands, so to speak. And I might start talking over my head here soon :) lol

[Twiler]

I looked it up. It's about how to determine whether a machine that appears to understand something really has understanding or is just producing a result that outside observers interpret as correct understanding (even though the machine itself may have no actual understanding at all and just be running some algorithm).

How do we know the meaning of the letter A? Because it's a part of the English alphabet. How do we know the meaning of the English alphabet? Because of the meaning of the English language? How do we know the meaning of the English language? Because of its connection to actual things and events in the world. The Watson program that is a Jeopardy master has such knowledge, yet it's hardly self-conscious.

I'd say that the difference between a conscious machine and a non-conscious one is arbitrary; I don't think that there's any grand principle involved.

[Belz...]

A thought is merely a pattern of energy.

No. A thought is an action. It is no more an object than "running".

I believe Amit Goswami is correct that consciousness is 'above' the physical reality so to speak.

Why ? Aside from "I would like it to be true", do you have any reason to believe that ?

Is there consciousness in the brain during deep sleep?

Is there consciousness when you blow someone's brain with a rifle ? No ? Sounds physical to me.

[Anders Lindman]

No.

I have a new version of the one-world interpretation here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7735878&postcount=140

[Trent Wray]

How do we know the meaning of the letter A? Because it's a part of the English alphabet. How do we know the meaning of the English alphabet? Because of the meaning of the English language? How do we know the meaning of the English language? Because of its connection to actual things and events in the world. The Watson program that is a Jeopardy master has such knowledge, yet it's hardly self-conscious. How do you know it isn't ? If you had lived 2000 years ago, you would likely view the Watson program as "more conscious" than you are.

The point is that you look are looking at a 3 hp lawn mower engine, and then an SR-71's continuously afterburning Pratt & Whitney J58-P4 engines, and because you are more impressed with the J58-P4 engines, you are saying, "well ... the lawn mower engine isn't really an engine then."

They are both engines. The more impressive one isn't "a real engine" anymore than the lawn mower engine is a real engine.

[Anders Lindman]

Is there consciousness when you blow someone's brain with a rifle ? No ? Sounds physical to me.

If you smash a television set, does it still show TV programs? Do you think the TV programs exist in the television set?

[Anders Lindman]

How do you know it isn't ?

I strongly doubt at least that the Watson program is self-aware.

[Trent Wray]

A computer can potentially pass a Turing test without actually be self-aware. Maybe the on/off of consciousness is if there is computation enough to become self-aware. What is on/off consciousness ? You are still making something more complicated than it needs to be, building upon a foundation you don't have a concrete understanding of. Consciousness, self-awareness.

You are trying to prove B without understanding A and going off assumptions.

No. I believe Amit Goswami is correct that consciousness is 'above' the physical reality so to speak.Dude.

[Trent Wray]

I strongly doubt at least that the Watson program is self-aware. Why isn't it ? My 6 year old thinks it is, I asked him. Is he wrong ?

Taste great, less filling .... "taste" does not therefore have a will, intent, intelligence. The beer does not have an agenda. There is no need to explain what you are trying to understand by figuring out whether or not multiple versions of yourself are experiencing the beer in different worlds ... it seems to me you are trying to explain your personal experience and understanding of consciousness, self-awareness, observation, etc by connecting it somehow to physics ... but doing so in a manner that is, again, ascribing special assumptions about the nature of consciousness, personal experience, observation, etc. I think the "closed system" is the one in your POV because it can't go passed it's own assumptions on any real and meaningful level, and I'm not being snarky. I'm trying to point out where, imho, I think it's falling apart.

[Anders Lindman]

Evolution is the way things change over time. But here you are saying that time is an emergent phenomena resulting from decoherence (essentially), not that time is a medium through which decoherence takes place (i.e. space-time).

The new one-world interpretation defines a truly closed system, as a superpositions of all possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. By truly closed system I mean it even includes the mechanism for generating time! In ordinary quantum mechanics time is considered to be something outside of the system! That kind of description of time is redundant as for example Julian Barbour has pointed out.

In the one-world interpretation time is generated by the branching off into new worlds. So time is something intrinsic to the theory. Pretty neat, huh? :cool:

[Anders Lindman]

What is on/off consciousness ?

Dreamless sleep - consciousness off, awaken state - consciousness on.

[Trent Wray]

If you smash a television set, does it still show TV programs? Do you think the TV programs exist in the television set? This is a perfect example of how you are ascribing special concepts to the human brain, because it's more "complex" than a television set.

If you die, do your memories remain in your decaying brain ? You intake food, your body converts that into energy, your brain functions, you speak, interpret stimuli, etc.

You stop eating food, you die, your brain no longer spits out "TV shows". The power source has been cut.

Now take a TV that has a hard drive with a terabyte of memory. Ooooohhh !!!!!! (that was snarky :) ). Now, we can destroy the TV, but if the harddrive remains intact, we can still transfer that harddrive to another TV set and have the shows (memories) it's stored ! Do the TV shows now exist in the television set ? This is tricky magic !

[Trent Wray]

Dreamless sleep - consciousness off, awaken state - consciousness on. Again ... I could compare this definition to a computer in sleep/screensaver mode.

This could go on all day, I think the bottom line is that you'd have to have a concrete definition of consciousness.

[Ziggurat]

Consciousness is awareness in the sense of being self-aware. That's a pretty good definition I think. A video camera can perhaps be said to be aware to stretch it a bit, but a video camera can hardly be said to be self-aware.

But a person is self-aware, correct? And a person is a physical entity. But you said physical entities cannot be conscious.

Your position is completely incoherent.

[Trent Wray]

The new one-world interpretation defines a truly closed system, as a superpositions of all possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. By truly closed system I mean it even includes the mechanism for generating time! In ordinary quantum mechanics time is considered to be something outside of the system! That kind of description of time is redundant as for example Julian Barbour has pointed out.

In the one-world interpretation time is generated by the branching off into new worlds. So time is something intrinsic to the theory. Pretty neat, huh? :cool: I agree that time is pretty neat. :rolleyes:

[Trent Wray]

Is there consciousness when you blow someone's brain with a rifle ? No ? Sounds physical to me. Consciousness splatter patterns :)

[Anders Lindman]

Why isn't it ? My 4 year old thinks it is, I asked him. Is he wrong ?

There is no need to explain what you are trying to understand by figuring out whether or not multiple versions of yourself are experiencing the beer in different worlds

Yes, he's probably wrong. Watson is a computer program for crying out loud! :D

You mean there is no need for a one-world interpretation? But I think it makes more sense than the original many-worlds interpretation.

The many-worlds interpretation states that: "The fundamental idea of the MWI, going back to Everett 1957, is that there are myriads of worlds in the Universe in addition to the world we are aware of." -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

The one-world interpretation states the same thing except that what we are experiencing is not one of the possible worlds but a superposition of all possible worlds. So we are aware of all the worlds; there are no additional worlds we are unaware of as in the many-worlds interpretation.

[Anders Lindman]

But a person is self-aware, correct? And a person is a physical entity. But you said physical entities cannot be conscious.

Your position is completely incoherent.

A person cannot be conscious by him- or herself. It's not my brain that produces consciousness as some substance or energy field or something like that. I am conscious because my brain acts as a vehicle for consciousness to 'observe' through. When in deep sleep consciousness does not observe through my brain.

[Anders Lindman]

This is a perfect example of how you are ascribing special concepts to the human brain, because it's more "complex" than a television set.

If you die, do your memories remain in your decaying brain ?

Not only that. I also think in addition the the complexity of the brain also needs to be a certain pattern or resonance to enable consciousness. In deep sleep for example, consciousness is not activated in the brain.

I'm not sure memories are stored in the brain or just accessed in the brain. My memories will remain. The many-worlds interpretation states that all memories are preserved. How to access them all is another question. :confused::D

[Trent Wray]

Yes, he's probably wrong. Watson is a computer program for crying out loud! :D You are missing the obvious.

You mean there is no need for a one-world interpretation? But I think it makes more sense than the original many-worlds interpretation.

The many-worlds interpretation states that: "The fundamental idea of the MWI, going back to Everett 1957, is that there are myriads of worlds in the Universe in addition to the world we are aware of." -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

The one-world interpretation states the same thing except that what we are experiencing is not one of the possible worlds but a superposition of all possible worlds. So we are aware of all the worlds; there are no additional worlds we are unaware of as in the many-worlds interpretation. No, I didn't say that I agreed with MWI over a one-world interpretation ... I am pointing out where I don't see you're making valid connections to consciousness and observation. There is too much muddling. I don't have to even be versed in physics to point out some of the places your ideas seem to fall apart.

A person cannot be conscious by him- or herself. It's not my brain that produces consciousness as some substance or energy field or something like that. I am conscious because my brain acts as a vehicle for consciousness to 'observe' through. When in deep sleep consciousness does not observe through my brain. If consciousness isn't a substance or thing, then why do you describe it as though it is ? Another example of where I think you are missing the obviousness, perhaps even of your own argument.

And regarding consciousness when you are asleep or awake ... are you familiar with the default mode network ? Again ... you have no solid definition of "consciousness". The goalposts are all over the field.

What was the point of this thread ?

[Anders Lindman]

Frustrating that I don't know much about the mathematics of quantum mechanics. :mad: I would like to see if the equations for the many-worlds interpretation can be changed so that time is not something outside of the system but an integral part of the equations themselves.

[Trent Wray]

I'm not sure memories are stored in the brain or just accessed in the brain. My memories will remain. The many-worlds interpretation states that all memories are preserved. How to access them all is another question. :confused::D Edgar Cayce ?

[Anders Lindman]

I am pointing out where I don't see you're making valid connections to consciousness and observation.

Hmm... You mean that my new version fails to make a connection to consciousness? That's correct. The new version is completely independent of consciousness. How to make the connection? One guess is that the universal wave function makes it possible for consciousness to become activated. Pretty lame connection I guess, but I think with the new version of the one-world interpretation consciousness can be put aside. That's not different than many other theories in physics where consciousness is often put aside.

[Anders Lindman]

Edgar Cayce ?

Actually, I believe things such as past life memories can be explained with a non-local memory theory. Several people can claim to have been Cleopatra in their past lives and all be correct! Because they access the universal memory so it's not some actual reincarnation or something like that.

[Ziggurat]

A person cannot be conscious by him- or herself. It's not my brain that produces consciousness as some substance or energy field or something like that.

Of course not. Consciousness is a state, not an object. So what?

I am conscious because my brain acts as a vehicle for consciousness to 'observe' through.

This is meaningless nonsense.

[Ziggurat]

Actually, I believe things such as past life memories can be explained with a non-local memory theory. Several people can claim to have been Cleopatra in their past lives and all be correct! Because they access the universal memory so it's not some actual reincarnation or something like that.

So you believe in mystical powers. Fine, whatever. But why the hell are you in a science forum when your beliefs are so plainly non-scientific?

Hell, do you even know what science is?

[Trent Wray]

Actually, I believe things such as past life memories can be explained with a non-local memory theory. Several people can claim to have been Cleopatra in their past lives and all be correct! Because they access the universal memory so it's not some actual reincarnation or something like that. I think you should have posted this thread in the philosophy / religion section ...

[Anders Lindman]

So you believe in mystical powers. Fine, whatever. But why the hell are you in a science forum when your beliefs are so plainly non-scientific?

Hell, do you even know what science is?

I don't think non-local memory necessarily has to be a mystical power. It could perhaps be explained by science. For example, the universal wave function in quantum mechanics, doesn't it define an entangled state of the entire universe?

[Anders Lindman]

I think you should have posted this thread in the philosophy / religion section ...

Correction. That post. Not this thread. That post was a bit off topic.

[Anders Lindman]

Of course not. Consciousness is a state, not an object. So what?


Yes, that's probably correct. Consciousness is a state. It's not important for the new version of the one-world interpretation though. The new version isn't dependent on consciousness.

[Anders Lindman]

Objection to the many-worlds interpretation:

"The splitting of worlds forward in time, but not backwards in time (i.e. i.e. merging worlds), is time asymmetric and incompatible with the time symmetric nature of Schrödinger's equation, or CPT invariance in general.

MWI response: The splitting is time asymmetric; this observed temporal asymmetry is due to the boundary conditions imposed by the Big Bang" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Common_objections_and_miscon ceptions

In the one-world interpretation the splitting of worlds IS what causes time. I think that's a superior theory. Otherwise time is needed as some absolute 'clock' outside the system. Plus it explains the arrow of time. Theories that behave the same both forwards and backwards in time do not explain the arrow of time.

[Ziggurat]

I don't think non-local memory necessarily has to be a mystical power. It could perhaps be explained by science. For example, the universal wave function in quantum mechanics, doesn't it define an entangled state of the entire universe?

Not in any manner which will accomplish your purpose. The non-locality of quantum mechanics doesn't allow for non-local transfer of information. Which means, non non-local memory. Unless you want to accept mystical powers. Which, evidently, you do.

So why are you here?

[Anders Lindman]

Not in any manner which will accomplish your purpose. The non-locality of quantum mechanics doesn't allow for non-local transfer of information. Which means, non non-local memory. Unless you want to accept mystical powers. Which, evidently, you do.

So why are you here?

Ok, how about local information? ;) Superposition of all possible worlds, remember?

[Craig4]

Instead spouting silly nonsense have you considered asking some of the resident 10 pound brains here to explain quantum mechanics to you? If you want to know about it you could just ask.

[Anders Lindman]

Instead spouting silly nonsense have you considered asking some of the resident 10 pound brains here to explain quantum mechanics to you? If you want to know about it you could just ask.

One first question would be if it's possible to make a superposition of all possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation without violating existing standard physics.

[Ziggurat]

One first question would be if it's possible to make a superposition of all possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation without violating existing standard physics.

Of course. States which violate the laws of physics would not be possible, and would therefore be excluded from the superposition. So what we're left with, the possible states, would all obey the laws of physics.

[Anders Lindman]

Of course. States which violate the laws of physics would not be possible, and would therefore be excluded from the superposition. So what we're left with, the possible states, would all obey the laws of physics.

That's a good start. Then the following question is if such superposition can be done mathematically. For a standard superposition the separate states added together must be linear or something like that perhaps.

[Ziggurat]

That's a good start. Then the following question is if such superposition can be done mathematically. For a standard superposition the separate states added together must be linear or something like that perhaps.

Do you have any idea what the term "linear" actually means in this context? Because it doesn't appear that you do.

[Anders Lindman]

Do you have any idea what the term "linear" actually means in this context? Because it doesn't appear that you do.

Ok, I looked up superposition and it says that: F(x1+x2+...) = F(x1)+F(x2)+...

F must be a linear system:

"A general deterministic system can be described by operator, H, that maps an input, x(t), as a function of t to an output, y(t), a type of black box description. Linear systems satisfy the properties of superposition and scaling or homogeneity. Given two valid inputs

x1(t)
x2(t)

as well as their respective outputs

y1(t) = H{x1(t)}
y2(t) = H{x2(t)}

then a linear system must satisfy

a*y1(t) + b*y2(t) = H{a*x1(t) + b*x2(t)}

for any scalar values a and b." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_system

[Cheetah]

Dammit, dammit, dammit, was just getting exited, misread the thread title, thought someone was going to explain quantum mechanics to me in "One-Word".

[Anders Lindman]

Dammit, dammit, dammit, was just getting exited, misread the thread title, thought someone was going to explain quantum mechanics to me in "One-Word".

I think you are looking for this: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7733415&postcount=20

:D

[Anders Lindman]

Are there an infinite number of possible worlds? Yes, but is there an infinite number of worlds at this moment? Maybe not. The tree of worlds branching off grows larger and larger with more and more possible worlds at each iteration and it may be that the number of possible worlds has not yet reached infinity, and never will! The tree will expand forever.

I may have to drop the idea that time is a result of the branching off process itself because that's not the standard interpretation which says that time is something outside of the quantum system. If on the other hand the movement of time really can be defined as the branching off process, then how long period of time does it take for each split of worlds? Zero seconds? Or a tiny time period like the Planck time? If zero seconds, then there are already an infinite number of possible worlds, and if nonzero there may be a finite number of possible worlds experienced at all moments.

When calculating the superposition of all possible worlds a normalization is probably needed so that each world is added divided by the total number of possible worlds.

[Belz...]

If you smash a television set, does it still show TV programs? Do you think the TV programs exist in the television set?

Good point, but we have a lot more reasons to say that the brain is the source of consciousness, and not independant from it. Can you extend your TV analogy to all of them ?

[Belz...]

Dreamless sleep - consciousness off, awaken state - consciousness on.

That's actually a point against your TV analogy. If consciousness originated from outside the brain, it wouldn't turn "off" in those instances, unless for some reason the brain is required for consciousness to be expressed, which brings us back to asking: why do we need, in the absence of evidence, to assume that consciousness originates from outside the brain ?

[Belz...]

I'm not sure memories are stored in the brain or just accessed in the brain.

Well, there you have it. Get some knowledge about what we know about the brain, before you make up crazy theories about consciousness.

[Cheetah]

I think you are looking for this: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7733415&postcount=20

:D

Thanks, that helped.....a bit....have to think about it...that last syllable just doesn't make sense to me, yet. ;)

[Anders Lindman]

Good point, but we have a lot more reasons to say that the brain is the source of consciousness, and not independant from it. Can you extend your TV analogy to all of them ?

Sure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6f1L3P4Ck :)

[Cheetah]

I'm not sure memories are stored in the brain or just accessed in the brain.

The fact that a good firm knock to the noggin can wipe a few minutes of your memory seems to imply they are somewhere in your head and I have solid anecdotal proof to confirm this (why the hell not? :D).
My girlfriend got catapulted off a horse head-first into a tree, by the time I got to her she was crawling around on the ground going: "Where the *^*$!@@% is that &!@$&& horse, it tossed me into a tree! Go get it, I have to get back onto the &$#&#% thing immediately."
By the time I had chased down the animal she had absolutely no idea what had happened, still doesn't.

There is of course also good scientific evidence that memories are stored in new synaptic pathways that reinforce the communicative strength between neurons. Long term memories are also not immutable but change slightly (sometimes a lot) and are reinforced with every recall (details lost and false details added).

[Anders Lindman]

The fact that a good firm knock to the noggin can wipe a few minutes of your memory seems to imply they are somewhere in your head and I have solid anecdotal proof to confirm this (why the hell not? :D).
My girlfriend got catapulted off a horse head-first into a tree, by the time I got to her she was crawling around on the ground going: "Where the *^*$!@@% is that &!@$&& horse, it tossed me into a tree! Go get it, I have to get back onto the &$#&#% thing immediately."
By the time I had chased down the animal she had absolutely no idea what had happened, still doesn't.

There is of course also good scientific evidence that memories are stored in new synaptic pathways that reinforce the communicative strength between neurons. Long term memories are also not immutable but change slightly (sometimes a lot) and are reinforced with every recall (details lost and false details added).

If you store a copy of a file on your computer, does it mean that the file only exists on your computer?

[Anders Lindman]

You know what? I just measured the electrons in my computer and guess what, the Internet is IN my computer! I swear to God. Even the fricken porn is right in there, man. :D

[Belz...]

Sure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6f1L3P4Ck :)

I'll take that as a "no".

[Cheetah]

You are pushing your computer analogy a bit (I'm being kind :)) far and ignoring the current state of science that contradicts your theory (which I admit I'm incapable of comprehending).

[Ziggurat]

Ok, I looked up superposition

But do you understand what you found? The fact that you can quote a definition doesn't mean you know what it means.

[Dancing David]

Because I'm aware of what you wrote in the quote above. .

That is an observable event then?

[Anders Lindman]

But do you understand what you found? The fact that you can quote a definition doesn't mean you know what it means.

Yes, but I don't know the functions for the many worlds. If the function that describes one of those worlds is linear, then a superposition can easily be calculated. If it's not linear, then it could become much trickier.

[Anders Lindman]

Ouch. This seems difficult:

"Is the form of the Universal Wavefunction knowable?

To calculate the form of the universal wavefunction requires not only a knowledge of its dynamics (which we have a good approximation to, at the moment) but also of the boundary conditions. To actually calculate the form of the universal wavefunction, and hence make inferences about all the embedded worlds, we would need to know the boundary conditions as well. We are presently restricted to making inferences about those worlds with which have shared a common history up to some point, which have left traces (records, fossils, etc.) still discernible today. This restricts us to a subset of the extant worlds which have shared the same boundary conditions with us. The further we probe back in time the less we know of the boundary conditions and the less we can know of the universal wavefunction." -- http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#knowable

Will it become easier to determine the universal wave function if all possible worlds are superimposed into a one-world interpretation?

[Anders Lindman]

"Whether or not we can ever determine the totality of the universal wavefunction is an open question. If Steven Hawking's work on the no- boundary-condition condition is ultimately successful, or it emerges from some theory of everything, and many think it will, then the actual form of the total wavefunction could, in principle, we determined from a complete knowledge of physical law itself." -- http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#knowable

"Science is slowly awakening to the timeless Universe. The most popular physicist of our time is the esteemed Stephen Hawking, ... For over ten years Hawking has been applying the No Boundary Proposal, a theory which extends other theories such as Sum Over Histories developed by the late Richard Feynman and Imaginary Time. ... Stephen clearly describes an infinite, or a beginningless and endless time reference with the no boundary proposal. 'The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the north pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the north pole is an ordinary point on the Earth,' In A Brief History of Time Hawking writes: 'One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.'" -- http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

[Ziggurat]

Yes, but I don't know the functions for the many worlds. If the function that describes one of those worlds is linear, then a superposition can easily be calculated. If it's not linear, then it could become much trickier.

So... you don't really understand what linearity has to do with quantum mechanics.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, most people don't even know that the word "linear" has anything to do with quantum mechanics. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about this sort of thing. But the fact is that you are ignorant of it. And you're not going to be able to understand it unless you do a lot more studying. You just don't know enough quantum mechanics to begin even worrying about how to interpret it.

[Anders Lindman]

If the boundary conditions for the universal wave function are only about time, then if the splitting of worlds in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is what causes the movement of time itself then the initial condition could simply be the first splitting from a single and empty world, which in turn could represent the Big Bang.

Note that with this view, time is created by the branching off into new worlds rather than the other way around. And also note that this makes the idea of a separate external time outside of the quantum system redundant.

[Anders Lindman]

So... you don't really understand what linearity has to do with quantum mechanics.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, most people don't even know that the word "linear" has anything to do with quantum mechanics. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about this sort of thing. But the fact is that you are ignorant of it. And you're not going to be able to understand it unless you do a lot more studying. You just don't know enough quantum mechanics to begin even worrying about how to interpret it.

Superposition is a general principle. So it should apply to quantum mechanics too. Or have I missed something? :confused:

[Anders Lindman]

If we start with a universal wave function describing a single empty world, then how would that equation look like? Wouldn't it be a super simple equation? And what happens when there is a branching off into new worlds, does the equation remain the same? Surely it must remain the same. Otherwise we would have a self-changing equation which sounds weird to me. But how can a single equation describe both the initial single and empty world and also describe zillions of possible worlds and particles etc at the same time?

[Ziggurat]

If we start with a universal wave function describing a single empty world, then how would that equation look like? Wouldn't it be a super simple equation? And what happens when there is a branching off into new worlds, does the equation remain the same? Surely it must remain the same. Otherwise we would have a self-changing equation which sounds weird to me. But how can a single equation describe both the initial single and empty world and also describe zillions of possible worlds and particles etc at the same time?

Since our world is not empty, and there's no reason to think it ever was empty, why are you interested in what happens in any empty world?

[Anders Lindman]

Since our world is not empty, and there's no reason to think it ever was empty, why are you interested in what happens in any empty world?

But the many-worlds interpretation describes a tree of worlds branching off. So the tree continuously grows. Why can't the tree start with the simplest possible root of a single and empty world? That's even very similar to the Big Bang.

[Anders Lindman]

I can possibly even make the argument stronger. Going in the reverse direction of the tree of worlds, into the past, then the worlds will become fewer and fewer (splitting of worlds only happens forward in time). And so what will the root of the tree be? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a root starting from an empty world than from a large number of worlds?

[Ziggurat]

But the many-worlds interpretation describes a tree of worlds branching off. So the tree continuously grows. Why can't the tree start with the simplest possible root of a single and empty world? That's even very similar to the Big Bang.

No, that's very un-similar to the big bang. The big bang was pretty much the opposite of emptiness.

[Anders Lindman]

No, that's very un-similar to the big bang. The big bang was pretty much the opposite of emptiness.

Yes, I have heard that at the start of the Big Bang there was some structure already from the beginning. But is such initial condition really needed? Why not start with an entirely empty world? OR, the Big Bang was only a branch on a larger tree of universes, so there could still be an empty world at the root of that larger tree.

[Anders Lindman]

You know what? I just measured the electrons in my computer and guess what, the Internet is IN my computer! I swear to God. Even the fricken porn is right in there, man. :D

I see now that one of the porn videos is called "The Double-Slut Experiment". :boxedin::D Just kidding.

[Reality Check]

Yes, I have heard that at the start of the Big Bang there was some structure already from the beginning.
Ziggurat's point is that the Big Bang starts with a immensely dense universe - it is not empty by any measure.
There is also no 'structure'. It is one big hot dense chaotic mess. The inflationary phase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) then expands the fluctuations in that mess to become "the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe".

[Anders Lindman]

Ziggurat's point is that the Big Bang starts with a immensely dense universe - it is not empty by any measure.
There is also no 'structure'. It is one big hot dense chaotic mess. The inflationary phase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) then expands the fluctuations in that mess to become "the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe".

Ok, but then the idea that the Big Bang was only a new branch on a larger tree of universes still holds and that larger tree may have an empty world as its root. The universal wave function then is for the entire larger tree of universes.

[Belz...]

If

Sums you up, no ?

[Reality Check]

Ok, but then the idea that the Big Bang was only a new branch on a larger tree of universes still holds and that larger tree may have an empty world as its root. The universal wave function then is for the entire larger tree of universes.
The Big Bang is not a new branch. It would be the root. If you have a tree then you have to order the nodes in it somehow. The obvious order is by time where the Big Bang comes first.

You might say that that universe is cyclic. But then there is no root to the tree!

All you have done is stated the many-worlds interpretation of QM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation).

[Anders Lindman]

The Big Bang is not a new branch. It would be the root. If you have a tree then you have to order the nodes in it somehow. The obvious order is by time where the Big Bang comes first.

You might say that that universe is cyclic. But then there is no root to the tree!

All you have done is stated the many-worlds interpretation of QM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation).

The Big Bang can be considered a new 'bud' on a larger tree of universes. You said yourself that our universe was very dense even at the start of the Big Bang. That's the bud! Lots of energy at the Big Bang, but not much complexity yet. Then as the tree of worlds continued to expand subatomic particles formed, then atoms, molecules, single-celled organisms, multicellular organisms with us humans as a late development and then computers and then in the future possibly 'real' artificial intelligence and so on.

So the state of our universe at the Big Bang was much less complex than today which fits the idea of superposition of the growing number of branches of possible worlds.

The universe today consists of many more possible worlds than at the Big Bang. That's a direct consequence of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Prior to the Big Bang our universe was only a potential not yet actualized. That potential had even fewer possible worlds than at the start of the Big Bang. It was so to speak a branch on the larger tree of universes that not yet had a bud fully formed on it.

This view explains the initial conditions at the Big Bang. The initial conditions were a superposition of all possible worlds at a position able to generate the Big Bang with the correct parameters for our universe. Our universe in only one of countless of universes branching off in the form of other Big Bangs on the larger tree of possible universes. The root of the larger tree consists of a single and empty world.

The timeline goes from 1 world at the root of the larger tree of universes and then to M worlds at the start of our Big Bang and then to N worlds today. 1 < M < N. When did this timeline start? The answer is: it started now. There is only the now. The past exists as a timeline in the now, all the way from today and back to the Big Bang and then back to the root of the tree of universes. So could the universe be 16 billion years old? Yes, very possible, with the entire history record back to the Big Bang compressed into the now.

[Reality Check]

The Big Bang can be considered a new 'bud' on a larger tree of universes. You said yourself that our universe was very dense even at the start of the Big Bang. That's the bud!...
Wrong: That is the root until you can state what happened before the Big Bang. And most theories throw the root away- no tree!

In the many-worlds interpretation of QM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) there are always an infinite number of posibilities. You cannot say that there are a smaller or larger number of possibilities.

ETA. Another way to say this: The MWI is that all possible histories and futures of the universe exist in a single universal wave function. A specific present can only see the histories that lead up to it. So there is the perception of a tree starting at the Big Bang in our universe. A specific present can only see the futures that lead from it. So there is the perception of a tree expanding from our present.

[Anders Lindman]

Wrong: That is the root until you can state what happened before the Big Bang. And most theories throw the root away- no tree!

In the many-worlds interpretation of QM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) there are always an infinite number of posibilities. You cannot say that there are a smaller or larger number of possibilities.

ETA. Another way to say this: The MWI is that all possible histories and futures of the universe exist in a single universal wave function. A specific present can only see the histories that lead up to it. So there is the perception of a tree starting at the Big Bang in our universe. A specific present can only see the futures that lead from it. So there is the perception of a tree expanding from our present.

In the single-world interpretation the future doesn't exist yet. And the movement of time is created by the branching off into new worlds itself. Is it possible to remove the absolute and external time from the MWI? If not, then a new definition of the universal wave function is needed for the one-world interpretation.

[Anders Lindman]

Wrong: That is the root until you can state what happened before the Big Bang.

I did describe what happened before the Big Bang.

[Reality Check]

I did describe what happened before the Big Bang.
Not that I saw. Whet happened before the Big Bang say before the Planck epoch?

[Reality Check]

In the single-world interpretation the future doesn't exist yet. And the movement of time is created by the branching off into new worlds itself. Is it possible to remove the absolute and external time from the MWI? If not, then a new definition of the universal wave function is needed for the one-world interpretation.
So is this "single-world interpretation ' some fantasy of yours? Or maybe you can cite your published papers on it?

[Anders Lindman]

Not that I saw. Whet happened before the Big Bang say before the Planck epoch?

Let the universal wave function describe a tree of branching off worlds from the Big Bang up till today. The universal wave function is a part of a larger multiversal wave function. The multiversal wave function also describes a tree of branching off worlds, and the start of the Big Bang is a point somewhere in that larger tree. So what happened before the Big Bang was that a seed for it was building up within the multiversal wave function.

Is it possible to have the Big Bang be a single world from which new possible worlds branch off?

[Patrick1000]

Not quite. Bell's inequality has been shown to be violated experimentally. That implies that either QM is non-local, or the many-worlds interpretation is correct.

Better said, thanks for your "correction".....

[Patrick1000]

No object can be conscious as I see it, and thoughts are patterns of energy experienced in the brain. There is fundamentally no difference between a thought and other patterns of energy such as physical particles or a radio wave. They are all objects (that's what the attempt to come up with a unifying theory is all about, a single force principle responsible for all forms of energy and matter). Consciousness is aware of objects but is itself not an object.

The point Kant made had nothing to do with "objects" Anders. What he suggested was an awareness, an ego, was a CONDITION OF ANY THOUGHT AT ALL. If you think something, if anyone thinks anything, self awareness within that thought, whatever it is about, football to Bell's theorem, a witness must be present and self aware.

It sounds weird at first Anders if you have never been exposed to it, but mull it over.

It is worthwhile I think Anders for people like you and me who seem at least sort of science oriented to give other perspectives a shot. Philosophy say in this case.

Give it a try. I think you might be good at it, better than most of us.

Great thread by the way Anders, lots of good posting from all sides.

[Anders Lindman]

The point Kant made had nothing to do with "objects" Anders. What he suggested was an awareness, an ego, was a CONDITION OF ANY THOUGHT AT ALL. If you think something, if anyone thinks anything, self awareness within that thought, whatever it is about, football to Bell's theorem, a witness must be present and self aware.

It sounds weird at first Anders if you have never been exposed to it, but mull it over.

It is worthwhile I think Anders for people like you and me who seem at least sort of science oriented to give other perspectives a shot. Philosophy say in this case.

Give it a try. I think you might be good at it, better than most of us.

Great thread by the way Anders, lots of good posting from all sides.

I still maintain that a thought is a pattern of energy, i.e. a physical entity being observed by consciousness which is a non-physical state. I predict that a thought can be measured while consciousness cannot be measured.

[Patrick1000]

I still maintain that a thought is a pattern of energy, i.e. a physical entity being observed by consciousness which is a non-physical state. I predict that a thought can be measured while consciousness cannot be measured.

OK Anders, go for it......The rationale for my post, if one can call it that, was to encourage you, me, others, to keep in mind there are other ways to look at things, "non-science" ways of addressing questions/problems, "non-science" ways of looking at things that reveal, or may reveal, quite a bit.

Philosophy goes to places where science cannot. Sometimes it goes to the same place, and because of a different orientation, gives a different answer, one that may be quite useful.

Anyway, rock on Anders, you are beautuiful.

[Anders Lindman]

OK Anders, go for it......The rationale for my post, if one can call it that, was to encourage you, me, others, to keep in mind there are other ways to look at things, "non-science" ways of addressing questions/problems, "non-science" ways of looking at things that reveal, or may reveal, quite a bit.

Philosophy goes to places where science cannot. Sometimes it goes to the same place, and because of a different orientation, gives a different answer, one that may be quite useful.

Anyway, rock on Anders, you are beautuiful.

Ok, here is a philosophy version:

Let's say you are having a dream and you meet a person in that dream and start having a conversation with that person. You are fully convinced, in your dream, that the other person is conscious. Then when you wake up you realize that it was just a dream and that the other person probably didn't have a consciousness of his or her own.

[Patrick1000]

Ok, here is a philosophy version:

Let's say you are having a dream and you meet a person in that dream and start having a conversation with that person. You are fully convinced, in your dream, that the other person is conscious. Then when you wake up you realize that it was just a dream and that the other person probably didn't have a consciousness of his or her own.

Thanks Anders, I like it.....

[Robrob]

Or, that the "other person" didn't actually exist at all - they were just a character in your dream.

[Roboramma]

Let's say you are having a dream and you meet a person in that dream and start having a conversation with that person. You are fully convinced, in your dream, that the other person is conscious. Then when you wake up you realize that it was just a dream and that the other person probably didn't have a consciousness of his or her own.

In order to analyise my thoughts I often have conversations with myself in my head: I think "if such and such, then such and such" and then I respond "oh, but this and that", etc.

There's a real interaction going on in my thoughts. When I'm awake, though, I'm quite aware of the fact that it's me who's acting out both sides of the conversation. That sometimes we are unaware of that doesn't mean that on those occasions there's actually someone else involved.

[Reality Check]

Let the universal wave function describe a tree of branching off worlds from the Big Bang up till today. ...
I see now - you have a fantasy, not a scientific theory.
In this fantasy you imagine that there is a "multiversal wave function" and a "universal wave function".

[Anders Lindman]

I see now - you have a fantasy, not a scientific theory.
In this fantasy you imagine that there is a "multiversal wave function" and a "universal wave function".

I have changed the theory and then expanded the theory. The core new idea is that we experience a superposition of all possible worlds in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. So that needs to be examined first perhaps to see if that is even possible theoretically.

[Belz...]

The Big Bang can be considered a new 'bud' on a larger tree of universes.

Objection your honour: speculation.

[Anders Lindman]

Objection your honour: speculation.

It's an attempt to remove the boundary conditions. Let S be the set of all possible worlds defined by the universal wave function and let e be the empty world. Is e a member of S? Maybe difficult to tell because the form of the universal wave function seems to be tricky to determine.

[Anders Lindman]

Or, that the "other person" didn't actually exist at all - they were just a character in your dream.

Yes, that's what I meant. In the dream the other person is believed to be conscious while in fact it's most certainly not a person with his or her own consciousness. Similarly, it can be difficult or as I predict impossible to detect consciousness in the brain. At best only indirect detection of consciousness is possible by measuring brain waves and patterns etc.

[Anders Lindman]

Disclaimer for speculation: Instead of a static universal wave function we can define an iterative version of the universal wave function starting with the possibility of only the empty world Ψ0 from which all new possible worlds branch into Ψ1 and then in the next iteration it expands again into Ψ2 and so on, leading to a growing tree of possible worlds. Time, then, and the arrow of time, is a result of this branching off into more and more possible worlds, and what we experience as our world is a superposition of all possible worlds at a certain iteration Ψn. The next moment in time, the next step into the future, is Ψn+1 and is not actualized yet.