Is it purely philosophical?
Is Roger Penrose correct that "consciousness" is a separate field of incalculable physics that acts as an intermediary between the quantum and relativistic worlds? Implying the existence of a universal consciousness field?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
arxiv.org
twitter.com
The measurement problem refutes materialism.
In the standard Copengagen interpretation of quantum mechanics there exists a ‘Heisenberg cut’ – a boundary between the observer and the observed. Von Neumann argued that all material objects must be placed on the ‘observed’ side of the Heisenberg cut, and that only consciousness can be placed on the ‘observer’ side.
This is because if we start with a superposition (S), the interaction of S with a measurement apparatus (M) would result in a superposition. But we could think of another apparatus (M0 ) that measures M and S, and we’d still have a superposition, and keeping doing this indefinitely, ever adding more measurement apparatuses to the chain – including our eyes, our optical nerves and our brain. We would be left with a brain/measurement apparatus/system that is still in a superposition. But since we never actually observe a superposition, this chain needs to stop somewhere. According to von Neumann there is only one step when we know for sure that we do not have a superposition: when we gain conscious knowledge of the measurement apparatus; i.e. when matter interacts with the mind.
1/2
2/2
There are four assumptions here:
>State completeness
Assumption 1 can be thought of as the assumption that there are no hidden variables unaccounted for in the standard quantum state – in other words: Bohmian mechanics. However, Bohmian mechanics is plagued by problems. One insurmountable one is: Hardy's paradox, any local realist theory predicts the probability of a certain combined outcome to be P=0, while experiments and quantum mechanics say P=1/16. There is no calculation in Bohmian mechanics that reproduces P=1/16. Thus, the theory is incompatible with the experimental facts of modern physics.
>No collapse
This is the assumption that the linear dynamics provides a complete and accurate description of the evolution of the physical state for all systems at all times. But theories of this nature (like GRW) must be rejected on the basis that there is strong empirical support for the linear dynamics insofar it has always made the right empirical predictions whenever we have been able to isolate and control a physical system well enough to test it.
>Empirical consistency
There is no reason to reject this.
>no branching
This assumes the measurement interaction between an observer and a physical system typically yields a single determinate measurement result. In other words, if this is false the Many Worlds hypothesis may be true. But no Everettian has been able to derive Born probabilities. This renders it useless as a scientific theory.
Thus, we are forced to accept that Copenhagen is correct and that the Heisenberg cut is one of the main axioms underlying quantum mechanics. Defining an observer as an immaterial mind is difficult to accept for someone wedded to materialism; but it is the only way to solve the problem of ‘where to put the cut’, while holding to the Copenhagen interpretation.
We are therefore forced to reject materialism and accept either mind-body dualism or Berkeleyan idealism.
Thanks for the prompt and thorough write up. Lots of terms to punch into Wikipedia and YouTube.
Cheers
>The measurement problem refutes materialism.
No it doesn't. Stop with this /x/tier non-sense. If consciousness is required for collapse then how did the first mutations collapse from a superposition into a a single definite state? It can't happen, the whole idea is self defeating.
Penrose is kind of a half-crackpot nowadays however it is true that observation/measurement is central in quantum physics and very strictly speaking the only thing that may be considered "observer" instead of observed is consciousness. In a way the consciousness is merely measuring the state of sensory organs which are in superposition, too, along with the rest of the universe.
OP here. Well that's what I mean with the emergence of a cosmic consciousness, which would have been required to collapse waveforms pre-life.
The alternatives are that the entire universe and all astronomical, geological, and biological history collapsed the "instant" that a conscious being became possible. Some poor ape-man suddenly snapped into existence along with the entire universe around him. This is pretty out there, and raises questions about a "gradient" of consciousness (dogs? mice? insects? bacteria? trees? rocks?)
Yeah Penrose is quirky but very entertaining. Thank you for the link.
>cosmic consciousness
But how can that form if everything within the universe can only exist in a superposition before a conscious observer? There is, currently, no satisfactory resolution of the measurement problem, but there's this thing called Decoherence. Now Decoherence doesn't explain the measurement problem, but it does allow us to understand the transition from superposition to single states.
>But how can that form if everything within the universe can only exist in a superposition before a conscious observer?
I guess that's where the original question arises, which is "Is it purely philosophical?"
>The measurement problem refutes materialism.
What the fuck even is materialism? Have you ever seen a material? No bitch, you only see colors, hence material is a spook
The entire universe existed as a wave function until humans existed and then all of history snapped into being. We didn't evolve, evolution was loaded up once be became conscious.
>We didn't evolve, evolution was loaded up once be became conscious.
What?
The universe did not exist as is until the probability of the wave function aligned such that it formed conscious beings and then all of the "past" was loaded up and the universe as it looks now came into being.
It did not go: big bang -> cooling -> earth forming water and life -> life becomes multicellular -> multi cellular life evolves into humans.
It went: everything was a wave function existing outside of time of space -> wave function probabilities align in a way that is consciousness -> humans snap into existence along with the entire universe and all laws of physics and all of "history" is loaded up as a back story due to observation of the conscious beings.
Conscious precede matter. It's not the other way around. Consciousness is fundamental, not matter and energy.
OP here. I had this thought too, and it's probably nuts but fun to think about.
>until the probability of the wave function aligned such that it formed conscious beings
You fundamentally don't understand superposition. When a system is in quantum superposition, it exists in all possible states until it's observed, then it collapses to a single definite state. There is no "alignment of probabilities", I'm not even sure what that means since it's not a concept.
What he's saying is every particle in the universe was indeterminate, where ever interaction between them resulted in more indeterminate states, until one specific possible configuration of all the superpositioned particles would result in a vessel capable of consciousness (some random ape-man), every waveform of every particle collapsed, filling in the blanks leading from the big bang, through galactic formation, geological history, microbial evolution, all the way up to this ape-man vessel who was finally "conscious".
This also explains when the dawning of an "inner voice" which allowed creativity, story telling, and self-reflection has been archaeologically determined to be very localised and very rapid. Pic related.
This is also why I said earlier that it raises questions about a "gradient" of consciousness. Why did it wait until this ape man? Why not some other lower mammal? Why not a fish? A microbe? Algae?
cont
The real question that'll bake your noodle, is what if that vessel is you? And that moment is now?
Okay this has gone completely overboard, so I'm just going to direct you to . Needless to say you apparently want consciousness to be the only thing that can cause collapse, yet at the same time want a "conscious vessel" to suddenly pop into existence, but that (ignoring everything else wrong with it) is it's self a collapse, since it would need to come out of superposition.
I see no problem in waxing poetic about something that literally has no explanation yet. Let your hair down.
>no explanation yet
This doesn't mean you can make up whatever crazy shit you think sounds good. It has to follow on.
>/x/ tier
Did Heisenberg not say 'the discontinuous change in the probability function', takes place when the result of a measurement is registered in the 'mind of an observer'?
Basically these. Although there are some problems.
As I said, one solution to the measurement problem is mind-body dualism. And as previous posters have noted, Wheeler's Participatory anthropic principle provides an answer to questions over the status of quantum events before the existence of consciousness. But how then, if consciousness and matter are two fundamentally different substances, could the physical matter in the brain of an animal 'produce' consciousness?
Moreover, on the consciousness causes collapse view, the free choice of the observer to choose which experiments to perform is fundamental. Free choice implies being able to initiate physical bodily motion. But how could an immaterial mind, with no size, shape, location, mass or motion, interact with our material bodies? What sort of mechanics could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires? Any such mechanism would be akin to telekinesis.
To escape these problems, we must abandon the notion of matter altogether and accept that idealism is true. This view holds that consciousness is fundamental, as the above poster mentioned, and that the first observer creates a back history of the entire universe. But it is mind which produces our perception of matter, not the other way around. Prior to mind, everything was a wave of probability only upon observation does that wave of probability collapse to definite state. But this 'definite state' is only a perception, an idea. Mind is not an emergent property of - or separate from - matter, it produces our experience of the physical world.
(1/2)
(2/2)
But this doctrine raises some serious questions: if the world is nothing but ideas, why do they seem to show more persistence and stability than objects of our imaginations or in our dreams? How is it that these ideas are ordered to such minute details so as to make the most detailed scientific investigations show consistency? When I use the word ‘idea’ here I’m referring to the Berkeleyan notion of ‘ideas of the sense’ – these are the physical objects we passively perceive through our senses, as opposed to what we are able to willingly conjure up in our mind’s eye though imagination.
Since these ‘ideas of the sense’ are necessarily the product of a mind (because we have just dispatched with the existence of matter) and evidently not of our own mind – because I cannot, however hard I try, imagine anything as remotely detailed and ordered as what we perceive through the senses (even in a dream) – it follows that these ideas must be caused by another, far more powerful, mind. That mind must be God.
I'm about halfway through the game Talos Principle and this stuff is starting to come up in that too. So fascinating. You're not Croatian are you...
Jesus fuck, this is Chopra-level nonsense.
The "observations" in QM don't require a conscious observer.
Consciousness does not cause collapse, interaction does. Fuck off.
Delayed choice quantum erasers show that the detectors in the double slit experiment don't actually cause the collapse themselves. Don't be rude.
Fundamentally, QM divides the world into observers and the observed. Consciousness is the most logical place to put the Heisenberg cut, otherwise you cannot explain why we never observe a superposition.
Define interaction.
>Did Heisenberg not say
I've no idea what he said, but if he did say that then yes, I am saying he's wrong. And this is /x/-tier. It's not supported nor accepted by the community at large.
>rejecting an appeal to prestige with an appeal to popularity
>otherwise you cannot explain why we never observe a superposition.
Because when we observe an ensemble we force it to interact with its surroundings, then Decoherence occurs and causes it to transition from a superposition to a single state. The Measurement Problem asks why that happens.
>Delayed choice quantum erasers show that the detectors in the double slit experiment don't actually cause the collapse themselves.
No, that's a common misunderstanding. The quantum eraser does not observe the photons, it "marks" them with information. The which path information is the interaction itself, not the result of that interaction. So destroying the which path information means there is no interaction.
>He doesn't realize all of science is an appeal to popularity.
Pro tip: just because an argument contains a fallacy doesn't mean it's incorrect. Which is why patients listen to the advice of doctors.
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
Neither of you have even attempted to show why the logic of the above posts is flawed, or proposed an alternative interpretation that makes more sense.
Just repeating 'this is /x/ tier' or 'the community doesn't agree' isn't an argument.
>the community doesn't agree' isn't an argument.
>Saying science disagrees with me isn't an argument
I clearly explained why you don't need to place the "Heisenberg cut" at consciousness. I don't know how else to say it. When you observe a system you force it to interact with its surroundings, which causes Decoherence making it transition from a superposition to a single state. Which is why we don't observe superpositions. The only question is what causes Decoherence.
You are trying to convince an army of idiots, aren't you?
>which causes Decoherence
>what causes Decoherence?
>Brightest minds in physics believe consciousness plays some important role
>Veeky Forums retards insist consciousness is "just how the brain works;)"
Right, but that's no what the other guy was arguing. He was saying that you can place the collapse at any point in a chain of observation, fine, he then argued that it's only logical to place it at a consciousness. I pointed out that isn't the case and that we can place it right at the start. Coupled with what Penrose said (about how mutations that give rise to consciousness can become mutations because there's no conscious observer to cause them to drop out out of superposition) leads us to conclude that consciousness being a requirement of collapse is both extraneous and self defeating.
Monism is the answer. All is information.
You've just restated the measurement problem. 'What causes decoherence' is synonymous with 'what causes collapse'.
Decoherence doesn't transform the uncertain, superposed quantum options into objectively well-defined quantum outcomes. Decoherence in no way modifies quantum mechanics; and it in no way reduces the role that the observer must play in applying and verifying the predictions of quantum mechanics.
>Brightest minds in natural philosophy believe that the philosophers stone is real and phlogiston exists
>Veeky Forums retards insist fire is actually chemical bonds breaking and transmutation requires a particle accelerator
Read . The other guy was wrong on a fundamental level, placing the cut at the end of the chain is not the mostc logical place.
'Surroundings' are made up of particles - and are described by quantum mechanical laws - as well. In principle, there is no reason why the interaction of a system with a measurement apparatus would not result in a superposition, as I explained in my very first post.
>as I explained in my very first post.
No you asserted that.
You have a point, but your conclusion is too broad.
It could be the case that consciousness did not need to evolve, and it already exists in the universe in some primordial form.
>It could be the case that consciousness did not need to evolve, and it already exists in the universe in some primordial form.
>closeted dualist detected
I reject your shitty hypothesis.
If follows from basic principles of superposition and entanglement.
When a particle interacts with a superposed system it becomes entangled. Do you deny this?
You are giving too much importance to consciouness. The wave function colapses because to measure it you must perturbate the system and that causes the colapse, not because we see it (there were no QM before humans?).
The only way to "see" a superposed state would be a measurement so "delicate" that does not affects the system, but I doubt thats even possible
>must perturbate the system
Please explain precisely what you mean by this.
>Do you deny this?
Yes, because that's completely wrong.
>When a particle interacts with a superposed system it becomes entangled.
Absolutely, completely, utterly wrong. If this were the case scattering experiments would always end in entangled sets. This is not the case.
Then you do not understand basic quantum mechanics.
Assume that we take a simple system, such as a spin 1/2 atom, which enters into a spin analyzer. If the initial direction of the spin is transverse (with respect to the magnetic field which defines the eigen-states associated with the apparatus), the wave function of the atom will split into two different wave packets, one which is pulled upwards, the other pushed downwards; this is an elementary consequence of the linearity of the Schrodinger equation. Propagating further, each of the two wave packets may strike a detector, with which they interact by modifying its state as well as theirs; for instance, the incoming spin 1/2 atoms are ionized and produce electrons; as a consequence, the initial coherent superposition now encompasses new particles.
That's wrong. But whatever, you aren't going to listen to me, you "know" you're right.
You cant gather information about a particle without interacting with it physically. To measure the position of a particle you have to shoot a photon that crashes with the particle, that is the perturbation that makes the wave function collapse if the particle in question is in a superposed state
Everything interacts with everything. Wave functions do not have finite extent. What's different from shooting a photon at something and every other type of wave function interaction that's constantely happening?
>Everything interacts with everything
Yes the wave function is infinite but it goes quickly near zero.. the probability of an interaction in that zone is practically zero, the photon passes through a more "dense" zone, and the probability of that photon perturbating the state is high, it can happen though that the photon just passes through without altering, if the measurement area is too narrow
You really need to read this paper to understand why you're wrong.
>perturbating the state
What does this constitute, though. The wave function is all there is. How does wave function overlap differ from wave function perturbation.
Its a wave function overlap though, the only difference is the magnitud of probabilities that makes it more likely to make the wave collapse.
>wave collapse
Oh boy. Can you model wave collapse using quantum mechanics, then?