Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 1, 2015 - 01:42pm PT
|
Secondly, the role of the observer in the double path experiment is debatable. After all it is not an observer's eye that "creates" reality. It is a screen, or CCD, or other detector that creates that reality. There is, of course, an unanswerable question what happens if nobody ever looks at the results.
--
Isn't this the Sacrexd Cow of materialists - that objective reality is stand-alone, existing outside/independent of subjectivity? Like I said, I fully expect people to lash at the new findings from all angles (the findings are not bonifide, they are "debatable."). Moose was simply the first to start the lashing. Who can blame him?
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 1, 2015 - 02:39pm PT
|
Moose, I am undeclared on this one. The observer-created universe runs into a stumbling block in my own life per the experiential adventures.
A famous zen koan asks: What is the reality of the moving flag? The "answer" is that our mind moves the flag, that there is no stand-alone flag out there waving in the wind.
I've been able to hold that realizatioin in my cross hairs for brief moments, only to watch it slip away. So it has never stabalized as a felt truth. And when such a slippery topic is not realized at depth - and I haven't done so - it seems too fantastic to belive that physical reality is not independent of mind. The rational part of me finds it impossible that the moon is only "out there" when I am looking at it.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
OK, for those of you who - like JL - enjoy analogues, metaphors, similes, etc. describing parts of objective/subjective reality, here is a wildly inappropriate parody of Max Tegmark’s notion of a Mathematical Universe:
Suppose we consider the plane (Euclidean or complex) to be a lifepath 2-D space, and we have a “person”, call him Max, making his way from his beginning to his end. Graphically, this is represented as a contour starting at a green point (birth) and ending at a red point (death). Underlying this path is a kind of lifeforce field directing his progress. Max thinks he has free will, but he may be mistaken since all in his “life” is purely mechanistic, although complicated and non-predictable to him. This last feature is due to the fact that, if Max could “look up” into 3-D, he would see the mathematical formula in the matrix that is his destiny. But, being a 2-D person he doesn’t even know that “possibility” might exist. Even if he could look up and into the mathematical matrix that supports the universe, he would see this equation:
Exp(tz)+z-it^2 = 0
Where, if he were bright enough, he would recognize that his lifepath is z=z(t) , with t ranging from zero (green dot) to 1 (red dot). However, he then could not interpret z(t) explicitly, even if he were mathematically astute. Furthermore, Max cannot “see” the lifeforce field in which he is embedded, much like we cannot “see” some of the physical fields in Physics, and this LFF actually generates the contour which is his lifepath.
We can see this field, however, being god-like creatures completely indescribable to Max and his kin.
When Max begins his journey the underlying time-dependent vector field can be seen pushing him to the “right”, indicated by a black arrow (vector). As time progresses up to 1 lifetime his path is increasingly turned “upward’’ as indicated by vectors changing colors to light green at the end.
And thus Max’s life is over.
Note that time, although numerically configured, is highly relative to Max, as his perception of its passage could be anywhere from instant to infinite. From our positions as gods we see that all “happens” in the blink of an eye, or doesn’t even “happen”. It simply is.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
JGill:
Is this "parody" your own invention?
In a review of Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe the physicist Brian Greene noted that Tegmark confronts the deepest questions at the interface of physics and philosophy,namely, why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos?
Of course, my fanciful answer would be that the universe is a matrix-like computer simulation, strung on stringy lattices.LOL
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Simulated_individual_in_simulated_reality
If the universe,or universes, are indeed simulations, then of course the $64,ooo question is by whom and how much is this whole thing costing?
One thing we do know about the simulators is that, much like yourself, they pretty much got their math under their belts.
In fact I have a theory that the simulators are at this very moment crowd-sourcing math data from throughout the cosmos---unbeknownst to all the rest of us.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Is this "parody" your own invention?
Yes. I've been exploring implicit functions, writing computer programs that illustrate some of the ideas. In old age my alternative to carving wooden ducks (which is too dangerous!)
There would seem to be a direct connection between a question and an answer as one moves downstream, from question to answer, but not not so much in the other direction—from answer to question
Sometimes in mathematics we prove an interesting isolated theorem, then look for a place where it might be of value. I.e., looking for the question.
Reverse engineering of sorts.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Jgill, now I can see how free will can be compatible with the existence of a god that knows my future.
You'll be back in the Catholic church in no time.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 1, 2015 - 08:20pm PT
|
Moose, when you postulate that everything might be an illusion, how do you differentiate between illusion and physical matter? put differently, what would make some thing or phenomenon "real" to you?
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
what would make some thing or phenomenon "real" to you?
Him falling from the top of a cliff unroped. Reality would set in at point of impact. But this is a bit simplistic. As is your question.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
what would make some thing or phenomenon "real" to you?
In pursuit of reality some go so far as to not finish their knot.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
Which philosopher was it that didn't believe anything was real so he quit eating because food wasn't real? You can guess how that turned out
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
The only figure in relatively recent times that fits the above description might have been the mathematician/philosopher Kurt Godel who suffered from dementia in his declining years and developed a morbid fear of being poisoned. He would eat only food prepared by his wife. When his wife was hospitalized for many months, she could not prepare his meals, so he therefore consequently died of starvation, his weight plunging to only 65 lbs. at the time of his death.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 1, 2015 - 09:40pm PT
|
It's curious how over the course of several years the materialists keep reminding me that since I had bones showing how could I doubt that my accident was "real." Have I ever denied it? My guess is that should you ask these same people (under a polygraph) what they considered real their answer would be "some thing we can measure." And that lest one shuts up and gets to calculating, we are, perforce, chasing the unreal, wu, and fill in the blank.
But in light of the new experiment in Australia and other similar positions, we still must wonder what if any part the observer plays in reality. There is much that is counterintuitive in these inquiries.
And need I point out that no one answered my questions directed at Moose.
What do you think makes some thing real to you?
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Edge.org:
To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves.
2014 - What scientific idea is ready for retirement?
One answer:
Anton Zeilinger
Physicist, University of Vienna; Scientific Director, Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information; President, Austrian Academy of Sciences; Author, Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Quantum Teleportation
There is No Reality in the Quantum World
The idea to be abandoned is the idea that there is no reality in the quantum world. The idea probably came about because of two reasons. On the one hand, because of the fact that one cannot always ascribe a precise value to a physical property, and on the other hand, because within the wide spectrum of interpretations of quantum mechanics some suggest that the quantum state does not describe an external reality, but rather that the properties only come about in the mind of the observer and therefore that consciousness plays a crucial role.
Let us consider for a second the famous double-slit experiment. Such experiments or their equivalents have to date not only been performed with single photons or any other kind of single particles, like neutrons, protons, electrons etc., but even with very large macromolecules, such as buckyballs and even larger. Specifically we do the experiment with buckyballs—the C-60 or C-70 molecules. You have two slits and under the right experimental conditions, you observe a distribution of the buckyballs behind the slits which has maxima and minima, the interference pattern. This is due to interference of the probability waves passing through both slits. But, following Einstein in his famous debate with Niels Bohr, we might ask if we do the experiment with individual particles, individual buckballs one by one: Through which slit does an individual buckyball molecule pass? Would it not be natural to assume that every particle has to pass either slit? Quantum physics tells us that this is not a meaningful question. We cannot assign a well-defined position to the particle unless we actually perform an experiment which allows us to find out where it is. So, before we do the measurement, the position of the buckyball—and therefore the slit it passes through—is a concept devoid of any meaning.
Suppose we now measure the position of the particle. Then we get an answer and know where it is. It is either near one slit or near the other slit. In that case, position is certainly an element of reality, and we can clearly say that quantum physics describes this reality. What is interesting is that having precise knowledge of one feature, namely the position, another kind of knowledge, namely the one encoded in the interference pattern, is not well-defined anymore.
Where could consciousness come in here? Quantum mechanics tells us that the particle, before any observation, is in a superposition of passing through one slit and of passing through the other slit. If we now have two detectors, one each behind each slit, then either detector will register the particle. But quantum mechanics tells us that the measurement apparatus becomes entangled with the position observable of the particle, and thus itself does not have well-defined classical features, at least in principle. This, following the Hungarian-American Nobel prize winner Eugene Wigner, is a chain which can be followed until an observer registers the result. So if we would adopt that reasoning, it is the consciousness which would make reality happen.
But you don't have to go so far. It is enough to assume that quantum mechanics just describes probabilities of possible measurement results. Then making an observation turns potentiality into actuality and, in our case, the position of the particle becomes a quantity one can talk reasonably about. But, whether it has a well-defined position or not, the buckyball very well exists. It is real in the double-slit experiment, even when it is impossible to assign its position a well-defined value.
And then there are folks like Ellis who think time is real and exists as sort of a wavefront of continuous quantum collapse which demarcs and defines the transition from an uncertain future to a certain past - no 'observers' necessary.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
And need I point out that no one answered my questions directed at Moose.
What's "real" to them is only what they can see with their eyes. Be it their body, or a cell through a microscope, or the dial on a gauge.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Moose: After all it is not an observer's eye that "creates" reality. It is a screen, or CCD, or other detector that creates that reality.
And this is not even more crazy than the idea that a sentient being does not create reality? Now it can be a detector?
(Oh, Lordy.)
P.S. Moose, your so-called “Options” are highly limited. Try, “that which cannot be defined or explained.” How many options can you come up with now?
Jgill:
It seems to me that everything in your post relies upon the following that you wrote,: “Suppose . . . .”
Ward: . . . how much is this whole thing costing?
You kill me, dude! You really do. (How can you come up with that Question?) I laughed until I cried.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 2, 2015 - 08:49am PT
|
I chose to believe what could be verified by observation.
-----
Can any of us observe our experience of qualia (of reading this thread, for example)? We can conflate certain brain activity with the reading but the objective and subjective are not the same "things." Is the observable electrochemical activity (an abstraction requiring all manner of tests and instruments etc) more "real" to you than your own direct experience?
JL
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Somehow we think it productive to argue about things never carefully defined.
After John's fall he was arguing the fully narcissistic position that what he perceived or was
even thinking was the only reality. Well I felt pretty sure what he was feeling was not the only
reality for the rest of us. This is an intellectual stretch for me because I am told I have no
imagination. But I was able to manage it. Saving his leg had to have cost someone a couple
of million dollars so I knew there was at least one person out there who also could make the
intellectual stretch required to know what we personally perceive is often not cosmic reality.
Now he says he never took that position. Further discussion is therefore not now possible.
I will also call attention to our experience that we macroscopic bodies do not react to two
slits the way an electron or atom does. Lester Germer, a climber, was very prominent in the
elucidation of this topic in physics around 1926. As an aside, Rgold and I helped get Lester
down from the climb on which he died. Personally I felt an acute wave of sorrow and loss
that has never left me. When his skin turned yellow I knew a very important person had just
left us and we would have to carry on alone.
I have read but am unable uniquely to parse the report on the ANU delayed decision
experiment. I don't know exact;y what they did, so I am unwilling to speculate here. To do
so would not be productive.
Evolution has achieved a very difficult engineering trade -off as regards brain function. I
have seen a lot of high technology systems engineered by humans. When humans try to
engineer these they do exactly what evolution does. They end up building a series of
designs that get improved performance. The claim that a being constructed in our image
can do this at one stroke, needs much more support than it has received. Even after 2000
years of determined effort.
Some twenty percent of our energy budget is devoted to supporting brain function. If it were
increased further our specie would be threatened by increased starvation. Just being
mammals is a huge challenge! If our response times were as short as a microsecond our
energy requirements would be prohibitive. But since we are not electrons going through slits
in a femtosecond we don't need such short reaction times.
cf. Davisson Germer
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 2, 2015 - 09:51am PT
|
Moose, you make the most fantastic statements given where this conversation has gone over the last few days. We see new experiments from Down Under confirming that the form taken by your vaunted physical reality is observer created. Can you measure "observation?" And who is a "spiritual" person, and how do you know one when you see one? Bust out the slide rule? Do you only acknowledge physical facts? When all things reduce down to that with no physical extent or dimension, what, in the end, is it that you are measuring?
JL
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Moose:
I wouldn’t make too much of experiments.
You run an experiment, and you “choose” a variable or specific condition, and then you say THAT is the causal force. A detector (rather than consciousness) creates the universe. Why not the photon, or the table where the detector was placed, or the researcher who thought-up the experiment, or the day of the week (those darned Tuesdays are always making things confusing), or the NSF funds that enabled the experiment to be run, or . . . .? Why the detector? In the last analysis, the choice is arbitrary.
Although statistical theory and measurements can seemingly tease out what has the greatest influence on outcomes, those methods are highly reliant upon a long list of assumptions (e.g., normal populations, causality). I’d say statistical methods and their underlying assumptions look like fiat. If you’ve done some research studies trying to pin down what causes what (causal modeling), you’ll know that it’s fraught with technical problems that do not lead to certainty. Perhaps what we can do best is to run correlations; but moving from correlations to causal models is major and difficult.
This issue is similar to the seemingly apparent necessity of logic. Hegel wrote a small article long ago claiming that the only real logical principal that mattered had to be that of non-contradiction of self-identity. . . and then he showed how that precept could also be wrong. “A” could also be “not-A.” Simply consider the lowly acorn and just how it ends up to be an oak tree.
Here is an addition to your short list: pink elephants have come down in a flying saucer on the rooftop of this building I live in and have made the reality what it is. You may not perceive them, but they are there.
There is no limit to interpretations of any set of data that can be generated. “Fit” is the technical issue, but what constitutes “fit” is where the rubber meets the road. WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR **ALL* THE DATA, EVERYWHERE? Where is R-square 1.0? Where is all the variance accounted for?
Consciousness.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!