Current Essay Contest
Previous Contests
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
Spring 2009
Special Thanks to Bruce & Astrid McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
Spring 2008
read/discuss • winners
The essay contest is currently closed
Previous Contests
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
Spring 2009
Special Thanks to Bruce & Astrid McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
Spring 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
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
FQXi FORUM
March 19, 2010
CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest
[back]
TOPIC: Subjective Universe by Daegene Song [refresh]
TOPIC: Subjective Universe by Daegene Song [refresh]
Essay Abstract
We show that, using quantum theory, the subjective experience including that of observing the representation of the universe, i.e., not the universe itself, is all that exists. This is called the 'Subjective Universe'.
Author Bio
Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from Oxford University. His research interest includes quantum foundations and quantum computation.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
We show that, using quantum theory, the subjective experience including that of observing the representation of the universe, i.e., not the universe itself, is all that exists. This is called the 'Subjective Universe'.
Author Bio
Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from Oxford University. His research interest includes quantum foundations and quantum computation.
Download Essay PDF File
report post as inappropriate
Dear Daegene,
I would like to note that, although you are right regarding the subjective tint associated with quantum mechanics, I would draw a completely different conclusion from yours (that “the universe does not exist! Only the subjective experience does!”). I would conclude rather that the current underlying formalism is *fundamentally* inadequate, mainly due to the flaws associated with the numeric measurement processes.
As I outlined in my essay (see also the link in ref. [15] there), if we switch to a different (non-numeric) representational formalism—though the physics has not yet been developed in it—it suggests a much more satisfactory match between the objective and subjective realities, the match without which the entire scientific enterprise loses its principal value.
report post as inappropriate
I would like to note that, although you are right regarding the subjective tint associated with quantum mechanics, I would draw a completely different conclusion from yours (that “the universe does not exist! Only the subjective experience does!”). I would conclude rather that the current underlying formalism is *fundamentally* inadequate, mainly due to the flaws associated with the numeric measurement processes.
As I outlined in my essay (see also the link in ref. [15] there), if we switch to a different (non-numeric) representational formalism—though the physics has not yet been developed in it—it suggests a much more satisfactory match between the objective and subjective realities, the match without which the entire scientific enterprise loses its principal value.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Song,
i sing praise in music for you. After all, all that we perceive is based on the sensors of our body, the most sophisticated of these all is the human mind. None of us know where in the body is it located. To me it is the awareness / consciousness associated with individual that does the job through interaction with the universal cconsciousness, its own mother. There is no way that we can subjective about it as we ourselves are within the universe and there is no way we can get out of it. Thus, there is hardly anything in this universe that we can visualise outside ourselves! Yes, the creator of the universe may well be partly within us as well as outside us but how to know about Him in a scientific manner is rationally ruled out but emotionally we can sense a non-human Creator without physical form.
As you may not visit your own site to respond to this comment, i wish you all success in winning an award in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
i sing praise in music for you. After all, all that we perceive is based on the sensors of our body, the most sophisticated of these all is the human mind. None of us know where in the body is it located. To me it is the awareness / consciousness associated with individual that does the job through interaction with the universal cconsciousness, its own mother. There is no way that we can subjective about it as we ourselves are within the universe and there is no way we can get out of it. Thus, there is hardly anything in this universe that we can visualise outside ourselves! Yes, the creator of the universe may well be partly within us as well as outside us but how to know about Him in a scientific manner is rationally ruled out but emotionally we can sense a non-human Creator without physical form.
As you may not visit your own site to respond to this comment, i wish you all success in winning an award in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Prof. Goldfarb,
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with you in regards to quantum mechancis. The theory has been tested so many times with unparalleled precision. I believe the theory is correct as it is including the numeric measurement process. The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics is that it assumes the separation between the object and the observer which leads to two picture formulation which is the fourth axiom discussed in the paper.
Dear Prof. Nath,
Thank you so much for your great compliment. I sincerely appreciate it. It seems we share a similar thought in regards to the universe. I am not completely sure about this, but I do not believe it is just consciousness that exists as claimed by Descartes or Berkeley. I believe the existence is more of da-sein type proposed by Heidegger. Of course, we are not talking about philosophy but about physics. Nevertheless, it is very nice to meet someone having similar thoughts. I also wish you all sucess in winning an award in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with you in regards to quantum mechancis. The theory has been tested so many times with unparalleled precision. I believe the theory is correct as it is including the numeric measurement process. The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics is that it assumes the separation between the object and the observer which leads to two picture formulation which is the fourth axiom discussed in the paper.
Dear Prof. Nath,
Thank you so much for your great compliment. I sincerely appreciate it. It seems we share a similar thought in regards to the universe. I am not completely sure about this, but I do not believe it is just consciousness that exists as claimed by Descartes or Berkeley. I believe the existence is more of da-sein type proposed by Heidegger. Of course, we are not talking about philosophy but about physics. Nevertheless, it is very nice to meet someone having similar thoughts. I also wish you all sucess in winning an award in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
You said:
“The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics is that it assumes the separation between the object and the observer which leads to two picture formulation which is the fourth axiom discussed in the paper.”
The reason the “separation” exists is precisely the one I mentioned.
Best wishes!
report post as inappropriate
“The only thing which I find inadequate in quantum mechanics is that it assumes the separation between the object and the observer which leads to two picture formulation which is the fourth axiom discussed in the paper.”
The reason the “separation” exists is precisely the one I mentioned.
Best wishes!
report post as inappropriate
Dear Song,
i see that you claim that observer and the observed has no affect on another as per quantum mechanics. How then we claim the truth about the Uncertainity relation. Implicitely it implies interaction between the observer and the observed through an unseen interaction. The universe seen by one inside the universe can be different from one outside the universe. As we observe one conjugate quantity precisely the other one becomes hughly inaccurate accordingly. The reality is that both have their instantaneous values that we disturb in the process of observation between the subject and the object.
May be i am not perfect in my language expressions.
Regarding the philosophy of Heidigger that youn mention, i am ignorant about it. To the 'creator' of the universe, the opinions of human beings have no relevance or significance. Such things are confined within our circle of humanity, as we live in a world of duality. The creator to me is unitarity itself! Creation is just a part of the Creator, as we all are too!
report post as inappropriate
i see that you claim that observer and the observed has no affect on another as per quantum mechanics. How then we claim the truth about the Uncertainity relation. Implicitely it implies interaction between the observer and the observed through an unseen interaction. The universe seen by one inside the universe can be different from one outside the universe. As we observe one conjugate quantity precisely the other one becomes hughly inaccurate accordingly. The reality is that both have their instantaneous values that we disturb in the process of observation between the subject and the object.
May be i am not perfect in my language expressions.
Regarding the philosophy of Heidigger that youn mention, i am ignorant about it. To the 'creator' of the universe, the opinions of human beings have no relevance or significance. Such things are confined within our circle of humanity, as we live in a world of duality. The creator to me is unitarity itself! Creation is just a part of the Creator, as we all are too!
report post as inappropriate
Dear Daegene Song,
I enjoyed your essay, but like other commenters, I hesitate at the conclusion that "the universe does not exist, only the subjective experience."
For another interpretation that includes subjectivity, you may wish to look at my essay, "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness", wherein I outline an approach to the interaction between consciousness, considered as a field, and the physical world, considered as real, but derived from consciousness.
Everyone here is selling his own ideas, and few are buying, but many are obviously very devoted to understanding key problems, and some help may be available from other essays.
Thanks for your essay and I look forward to any comments you might have.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed your essay, but like other commenters, I hesitate at the conclusion that "the universe does not exist, only the subjective experience."
For another interpretation that includes subjectivity, you may wish to look at my essay, "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness", wherein I outline an approach to the interaction between consciousness, considered as a field, and the physical world, considered as real, but derived from consciousness.
Everyone here is selling his own ideas, and few are buying, but many are obviously very devoted to understanding key problems, and some help may be available from other essays.
Thanks for your essay and I look forward to any comments you might have.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Daegene and Edwin:
When using words like "real" or "reality" along with other notions/ideas, it is necessary to provide definitions, or the discussion is unintelligible.
Next, thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Thought, emotion, and feeling are different, and yet they are fundamentally interactive. Accordingly, the integrated extensiveness of being and experience not...
view entire post
When using words like "real" or "reality" along with other notions/ideas, it is necessary to provide definitions, or the discussion is unintelligible.
Next, thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Thought, emotion, and feeling are different, and yet they are fundamentally interactive. Accordingly, the integrated extensiveness of being and experience not...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
The issue of science is and remains not that of consciousness but of truth. In our modern world it is the issue of "truth" that needs a new scientific definition that takes into account more than one type of truth and there is such a thing as a subjective truth that is no less true for those who are subjectively experiencing that truth. Science after the quantum theory can look at truth from different vantage points and still define truth as something objective and not only subjective in all cases truth must be examinable and evident to all who can put it into the test-tube and loot at it with measurable instruments. Not knowing something does not automatically mean that it is not true, and knowing something without proof does not mean automatically that it is true. Subjective Universe is a very interesting idea and in Judaism we have many such ideas that are as we say "tatrei de satrei." "Renew our days as of old!"
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post