Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

outlook support: on 8/23/17 at 7:38am UTC, wrote When ever you face any problem with your outlook email account then you...

Shiva nandamuri: on 6/8/17 at 19:25pm UTC, wrote 28 Cute & Short Father Daughter Quotes with Images www goodmorningquote...

Joe Fisher: on 4/13/17 at 15:57pm UTC, wrote Ignorant scientists are convinced that the Universe might have commenced...

Joe Fisher: on 4/5/17 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote In one of the "In-house" lectures by George Salzman, prepared initially in...

Steve Agnew: on 4/5/17 at 3:32am UTC, wrote exactly...

Joe Fisher: on 4/4/17 at 15:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Robert, I am terribly sorry. I attempted to remove one of my comments...

Joe Fisher: on 4/4/17 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Robert, It is physically impossible to ignore reality for reality...

Thomas Ray: on 4/4/17 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Rob, I'm fond of Einstein's model: "I think of a quantum as a...



FQXi FORUM
August 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 02:06 GMT
cf. The Dream Child Hypothesis

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 15:09 GMT
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Reality am simply visible. Unrealistic complex artificial intelligence concerns only that which am invisible.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 16:01 GMT
Quantum Darwinism is a basic notion that there are perturbations or information, what I like to call quantum phase noise, from the environment that determine quantum action. Therefore quantum Darwinism is a way to make quantum action deterministic by introducing a quantum phase noise that comes from the environment.

A process of natural selection then determines the future from many possible futures and as long as all observers use the same process, an objective reality then exists that all observers can agree with.

Not unlike pilot waves, continuous spontaneous collapse, and other Bohmiam hidden variable schemes, quantum Darwinism supposes that quantum phase noise is knowable since it encodes all of the information of the universe.

However, the observers are all subject to the same quantum phase noise as are the sources and so ultimately, it is impossible for an observer to know certain things about the universe. The only way to address all of quantum phase noise, quantum gravity, and consciousness is to have a theory that brings these three disparate notions into coherence.

This works proposes bringing quantum phase noise into consciousness and so does address two of the three. As soon as the theory also includes quantum gravity it will have a chance of success. Without quantum gravity, all of these notions simply invent a parameter for quantum phase noise.

Note that quantum gravity states are very, very numerous and therefore store correspondingly large amounts of information with very little energy. Quantum gravity also provides the perturbation known as quantum phase noise without any additional parameters...but quantum gravity does mean that the universe works somewhat differently from current assumptions...

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 15:21 GMT
Infinite visible surface cannot possibly contain any sort of finite invisible quantum perturbation.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT
...oh yeah, I forgot to mention quantum Bayes or QBism, which is another way to parameterize wavefunction collapse with a perturbation parameter. And Weinberg's recent paper attempting to use the Lindblad equation, which is yet another hidden parameter way to collapse wavefunctions. This time with atomic clock decoherence known as the Allan deviation.

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 18:45 GMT
"We’re interested in what distinguishes the behaviour of particles in the microscopic world from ordinary objects in our macroscopic world"

There are distinguished by their very low information content.

See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0129v1.pdf

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 15:13 GMT
Attempting to account for complex finite invisible particles will not help you to understand, or deal with the simple reality of there being only one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Searching for a Quantum connection to your consciousness? Search no more, the 'business knows best' Congress has just passed legislation which allows your Internet Service Provider to sell your algorithmic profile to Gucifer 2.0,

including but not limited to your social security number which you provide when filing your taxes electronically. Oh! you are an independent entrepreneur! My apologies, we mustn't have 'stifling' regulation get in the way of your genius! Just let anybody steal what you have worked on so diligently. How about your Employer ID number, that let's anybody into your tax filings. How about your health records, that let's anybody into the insurance racket that is so heavily subsidized with an exponential increase in demand for money supply while at the same time costing you more for less actual health care. Science will not survive this onslaught if there continues the fallacious hubris that 'if it's math or science it's okay for technocrats to use it to make MONEY'

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 13:06 GMT
The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from the same source, that observer cannot then know that those spin states always existed for each particle and were simply hidden. This means that before observation, quantum spin states exist as a superposition of both spin states and not just one no matter how far apart the two particles are....

view entire post


attachments: mceachernCorrelate.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Steve,

Attempting to account for complex finite invisible particles will not help you to understand, or deal with the simple reality of there being only one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light occurring in one infinite dimension.

I notified Professor Adesso that this article about invisible quantum was utter codswallop and he did not disagree with my assessment. Indeed, he wished me luck in convincing others of my unique view.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 03:02 GMT
Steve,

"Classical spin states represent revealed knowledge in that once revealed by observation, the observer knows for certain that the spin states existed even before their measurement."

That is false. If the observer had looked at (measured) the spin, while situated in a position on the opposite side of the object being measured, the observer would obtain an opposite result....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 13:24 GMT
This is exactly why I do not like the Bell's inequality arguments, which are easily gamed by very clever hidden variables sometimes called loopholes. The main issue is once the observer measures the two spins, the observer cannot say that those spin states existed prior to the measurement.

Your model says yes since you calculate the spin states and only reveal them in the graph. Quantum superposition says that the spin states existed in a superposition before measurement and not a single state.

Your noise function has the answer embedded and so is a hidden variable and therefore is not quantum nor is it physical. The model is very clever, but it is not quantum...

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Robert,

I am terribly sorry. I attempted to remove one of my comments and in doing so, I removed all of the replies in the link as well.

It is physically impossible to ignore reality for reality consists of only one real unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Natural reality must be of the simplest reality obtainable. I am not suggesting a possible “meaning” for simplicity. Reality does not consist of information. That is why complex finite mathematical and supposedly “scientific” information has dismally failed to produce any sensible understanding of the real Universe.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:29 GMT
In one of the "In-house" lectures by George Salzman, prepared initially in Fall 1996 for Science for Humane Survival, radical science courses developed at the University of Massachusetts at Boston (UMB) and at Oglala Lakota College (OLC), Kyle, South Dakota, Professor Salzman opined: “Radical science of course acknowledges the tremendous intellectual achievements that reductionism makes possible. But it does not ignore, as traditional science so often does, the need to incorporate within science not only the narrowing of focus characteristic of reductionism, but also the broader focus that requires synthesis of results from various disciplines.”

Please join me in promoting the simple irrefutable fact that only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

I eagerly await with bated breath your sensible considerate response to my proposal.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 13, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT
Ignorant scientists are convinced that the Universe might have commenced about thirteen and three=quarters invisible finite light years ago when a finite invisible nothing exploded in the big-bang. Seeing that the real Universe am always visible, logically, visibility must be eternal.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.