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

Gismo: on 11/12/12 at 16:16pm UTC, wrote @PADMA, I think we experience a 'Self' because in this vastness of...

Jean Marie Gage: on 2/21/12 at 0:39am UTC, wrote I SAW THE MIND OF GOD I am a mystic, and about a week ago, I saw the Mind...

Padma: on 11/29/10 at 17:27pm UTC, wrote I am not a scientist, I am a perpetual spiritual student with an...

Joe Fisher: on 8/27/10 at 21:35pm UTC, wrote Darwin overlooked the fact that the fastest way for any species to evolve...

Dalius Balciunas: on 2/10/10 at 20:59pm UTC, wrote Hi, The idea of natural selection was used in astrophysics (M. Volonteri,...

amrit: on 11/26/09 at 9:32am UTC, wrote Dear Franck Dreams belongs to the mind, observer belongs to the...

Frank DiMeglio: on 11/25/09 at 19:02pm UTC, wrote The following is essential to the proper understanding of...

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 11/25/09 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote 1) The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the...



FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2017

ARTICLE: Editor's Choice: The Evolution of Reality [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

amrit wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 12:54 GMT
What is "objective reality"? We can have "objective experience" of reality when we experience exactly what we perceive in senses. In "subjective experience" between perception and experience there is a mind processing of thoughts and emotions.

Scientific picture of reality is "rational". We experience reality through the rational part of the mind. Conscious observer experiences exactly what we perceive in senses. Conscious experience is "objective". In this experience we see that universe is timeless, that change run in timeless space, see my article attached here.

Why evolution of life is happening?

Evolution is happening because basic frequency of quanta of space is consciousness itself. Matter has tendency to develop in life and conscious organisms all over the universe, because matter exists in consciousness. Evolution of life on the planet Earth is a part of cosmic dynamics.

Conscious observer is consciousness itself. There is no scientific proof for that. There is an existential proof. You sit and watch your mind for few years and you will discover "inner space" beyond thoughts. You will discover that this inner space is outer space too. In Buddhism this space is called shunyata; in science we could call it "timeless quantum space".

Consciousness as a basic frequency of quantum space plays an active role in the evolution of life and human being.

Watching (witnessing) the mind is the individual research method to discover consciousness, to grow into "conscious observer" which experiences reality in an objective way without processing of the mind.

yours amrit

attachments: Bridging_Observer_and_Observed__amrit_sorli.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jean Marie Gage replied on Feb. 21, 2012 @ 00:39 GMT
I SAW THE MIND OF GOD

I am a mystic, and about a week ago, I saw the Mind of God. It was an utterly incredible experience, with never-ending ramifications!

You are going to have to use your imagination to picture what I am telling you...I will try to describe it as accurately as I can...

Picture endless space, but filled with many, many clusters of gold orbs that sparkle with...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 13, 2009 @ 18:12 GMT
I have read a number of Zurek's papers. The decoherence approach to measurement involves the attenuation of off diagonal elements of the density matrix. These correspond to overlaps between the various probabilities, and are associated with quantum oscillations between the various states. The entanglement or overlap phases of a system are taken up by a reservoir or environment of states. This increases the entanglement of "system plus environment," but decreases the entanglement of the system of interest.

The process by which this happens is a topic of research. A standard approach is to compute Wigner quasi-probability functions. The "squeezes" the energy surface (or phase space volume) of a system. Once could extend this idea into foldings, similar to Smale's horseshoes in chaos theory. As yet this has not settled the question of how the classical or macroscopic world emerges from a quantum universe.

This is a part of what I maintain. Quantum physics is mot that mysterious. It involves waves with linear dynamical equations, linear superpositions and eigen-operators. Nothing could really be simpler. Yet on a large scale there emerges this macroscopic world with properties which are not at all quantum mechanical. Yet the large scale macroscopic world of information and real valued objects is what we consider to be "objective." Another term for classical mechanics is "rational mechanics." The quantum world describes the evolution of objects that are complex valued, such as quantum waves, or quaternionic such as Dirac spinors. These exist in a world of phases and imaginary quantities, and what is real are "traces" of this. Further, these traces manage to form into a world we normally experience.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Roumen Tsekov wrote on Nov. 14, 2009 @ 13:22 GMT
The quantum Darwinism is strained. It well known from statistical thermodynamics that the equilibrium density matrix is not diagonal in general. Hence, all the eigenfunctions are present for infinite time. The only exception is a free particle, which equilibrium phase-space distribution is the same in quantum and classical statistical mechanics. Thus the conclusions drawn from this particular example are not general.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 15, 2009 @ 13:45 GMT
The off diagonal terms are not zero necessarily, and in fact they can recur. There is a Poincare recurrence with these. Yet as an approximation Zurek’s ideas here are interesting, and frankly they hold more water than other ideas about measurement outcomes, such as consciousness ideas or worlds splitting off. Along these lines I think the matter of how the classical or macroscopic world are einselected into existence (objectivity etc) is far from settled.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Nov. 17, 2009 @ 17:49 GMT
This may be slightly off-topic, but perhaps amusing, no less.

Challenge: Refute - 'The reason our scrambled eggs

don't unscramble themselves is is intrinsicaly related

to the initial conditions of the "Big Bang".'

No problemo.

(1) I firmly believe that the same physical principles

apply to all scales of nature.

(2) However, the fundamental scales [atomic, stellar,

galactic, metagalactic] need not be strongly coupled.

In fact, one can show that that are not.

Example: The observable universe [part of our metagalaxy]

expands, but *importantly*, galaxies, stars and atoms do not

participate in this metagalactic expansion. They just go

along for the ride, if you know what I mean.

Therefore: Our scrambled eggs [molecules thereof] are

roughly 3 full scales [molecules --> stars --> galaxies -->

metagalaxy] "away" from the scale of metagalactic expansion.

Bottom Line: The arrow of time for our scrambled eggs is

almost certainly decoupled from the arrow of time defined

by the metagalactic expansion, although they point in the

same direction: cause --> effect.

Does Sean Carroll need to rewrite his much ballyhooed book

that is about to be published?

Yours in science [the real kind that is definitively testable],

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 13:02 GMT
Quantum theory of conformal fields have a renformalization group (RG) flow which extends across an energy scale, which is the reciprocal of the length scale. Yet masses of fields at lower energy perturb the RG flow and break it up. Similarly quantum mechanics exhibits a time reversibility for a small number of modes, but as the number of modes increases this is less certain. Systems with a large number of modes, quantum numbers or "atoms," exhibit thermodynamic properties. Simple quantum systems do not.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 17:44 GMT
"Systems with a large number of modes, quantum numbers or "atoms," exhibit thermodynamic properties. Simple quantum systems do not."

You state that as if it were a obseravtional fact. It is not.

Personaly, I think we are on the verge of a new paradigm in physics wherein simple quantum systems are found to have many "classical" characteristics.

Given the new ideas of Tim Palmer and Joy Christian, I think we had better test our assumptions scientifically, rather than relying on mathematical over-idealizations and received wisdom.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 18, 2009 @ 21:34 GMT
As a rule we don't see much quantization on the large, which runs into the Schrodinger cat problem. Yet if I drop a piece of toast it is not in a superposition of butter side up or down. Similarly, there are not thermodynamics with the hydrogen atom.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 04:15 GMT
You might want to take a look at:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0102/0102285.pdf

This paper presents observational evidence for actual physical systems. Same methods also work for Delta Scutis, ZZ Cetis and SX Phes. Feel free to ask for published reprints.

The evidence sugests you are wrong on both counts.

(1) E = hv applies on the Stellar Scale just as fundamentally as it does for atoms.

(2) There are very definitely thermodynamic considerations associated with atoms, but not on a scale that you have any familiarity with.

You are capable of learning new knowledge, right?

Enjoy,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 04:24 GMT
Oops, that paper decribes a critical empirical test of the new discrete self-similar cosmological paradigm. It was accepted and is in press.

The paper I meant to give the link for:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0510/0510147.pdf ,

this one.

I have many more. What would you like to understand better?

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 19, 2009 @ 18:07 GMT
What you write about seem to be basically some form of comparative heuristics.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 02:53 GMT
Well, it beats abstract fantasies that are poorly grounded in reality.

I talk about specific observed stars and I talk about specific observed atoms.

I talk about the well-observed physical properties of these systems.

I show that the masses, radii and frequency spectra are related by discrete self-similar scaling. It works for all types of variable stars tested.

This discrete self-similar scaling relationship was predicted by a new cosmological paradigm that will eventually reveal the childish naivete of your obscurant mathematical pipe dreams.

You got a problem with doing conventional science: study nature, employ pattern recognition, make predictions based on inducted patterns, test the predictions?

You push around mountains of Platonic technical terms and do an impressive theoretical jig, but can you talk about or understand nature? Or is that passe these days?

Reality is so much more interesting and awe-inspiring than your hermetic theoretical fantasies.

RO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 13:34 GMT
One has to be careful and not do what Kepler did earlier in his career. For a while he focused in on trying to fit planetary orbs into platonic solids. There are lots of apparent patterns in the world which seem fundamental, but which in the end are accidents or incidences of various configurations or initial conditions.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 17:50 GMT
If you look at my website and click on "Successful Retrodictions/Predictions", you will find 38 examples of very definitive tests of the exact same discrete self-similar scaling laws.

There has been no changing of the laws to fit individual tests.

There has been no "adjusting" of the scaling laws since they were first published in 1985.

Your analogy to Kepler's Platonic solids idea is a pathetic response.

Are you a scientist? Or are you a vacuous technical-term-dropper? A poser, is my guess.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 21, 2009 @ 04:35 GMT
"How can physics live up to its true greatness except

by a new revolution which dwarfs all its past revolutions?

And when it comes, will we not say to each other,

'Oh, how beautiful and simple it is!

How could we have missed it for so long!'."

John Archibald Wheeler, 2000

Amen, brother

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Nov. 22, 2009 @ 21:42 GMT
Amrit, you ask "What is "objective reality"? We can have "objective experience" of reality when we experience exactly what we perceive in senses. In "subjective experience" between perception and experience there is a mind processing of thoughts and emotions."

I define objective reality to be that which exists independently of observation or experience. As soon as observation or experience occur the reality has become subjective because that which is perceived depends upon the observer. Information has been modified by the selectivity of the particular senses (or artificial detector) and brain processing of the individual organism (or particular computer programme.) So the subjective reality observed or experienced is a representation. It is not the same as the existential objective reality.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 02:21 GMT
GP,

True, but by careful obseravtional techniques and an understanding of the sources of subjectivity, we can minimize the difference between observed/inferred reality and objective reality.

Still, your point is well taken.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
Dear Georgina

I would suggest not to devide reality on subjective and objective.

It is about experience being subjective or objective.

Conscious observer experience is objective.

Any experience where mind process perception is subjective.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 23, 2009 @ 17:44 GMT
Ps

consciousness (conscious observer) = objective experience

mind = subjective experience

report post as inappropriate


Paul Valletta wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 02:49 GMT
"One of the key distinctions between a quantum object and a classical object is that the former can exist in a superposition of different states. For instance, an electron can be in two places at once." An electron's superposition is thus created by fact of observation,measure? Once measured it relocates to a "state" connected in some way to the measuring device or measurer, observer?

"It may seem like an esoteric problem, but the growing interest in quantum computing has lent it immediacy. Superposition lies at the heart of the promise of quantum computing. The idea is that because quantum systems, such as electrons, can exist in a superposition of states, they can encode a superposition of possibilities, and, therefore, carry out a superposition of computations simultaneously." So can the following statemennt be a factor: Can the computer be in one place only (relative), though it's electrons are configured to be elsewhere? ..and if so would this constitute a possible hierarchy of evolving systems, ie you would need at least one (minimum) computer to be relative to all other calculating computers, in order to invoke..well order!

You must have a central overseer, or observer or computer, at any level of existence!

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Nov. 24, 2009 @ 14:04 GMT
There seems to be a need for layers of observership, or what might be called drafts of outcomes. The LHC is now up and running with what looks like a working beams. Some CMS data is no line. Yet with this system we do not detect the actualy physics at a TeV, or sandard model physics of Higgs or maybe supersymmetry. Instead we detect lower energy particles that collectively have signatures of higher energy processes. So the vacuum structure of low energy physics in effect constructs a measurement outcome or draft, which we record by detectors and record as computer information. We in effect are observing the physics through a succession of records or drafts. Much the same I think could be said of lower energy quantum physics as well.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 16:04 GMT
Observer can be in any point of cosmic space. Lorentz transformation is not valid only for observers in inertial system Q and Q', it is valid for all observers (points of space) on finite distance from Q and Q'.

This is so because observer is consciousness itself. And consciousness is basic frequency of quantum space.

Through every scientist eye observes consciousness itself. Because of this experience of "Conscious observer" is objective and experience through the mind is subjective. With awakening of the observer physics is developing into "objective science". Physics here is touching ZEN, "sucheness", seeing what IS.

Neuronal time is a part of the rational scientific mind. Common experience in physics is rational - through rational mind - temporal.

In a 5 years it will be recognized in main stream that universe is timeless and physical time is run of clocks. Atemporal experience of conscious observer will be recognized as an objective scientific experience. All will distinguish between inner neuronal time and physical time that is clocks run.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 18:52 GMT
1) The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams.

2) Also, the theoretical/actual basis of the unification of known mathematical union of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) is dream experience.

Since dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, thought, and experience at the [gravitational] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general. Indeed, how space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy is a central and very valuable concept in relation to physics (and experience) in general. Dream experience offers an expanded (yet relatively unified) perspective in relation to experience (and physics) in general.

The significance of the following, in relation to the above, to physics, experience, being, thought, and to a better understanding of genius as well is not to be underestimated:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The integrated extensiveness of thought/thinking is improved in the truly superior mind (and in the highest/ideal form of genius).

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 19:02 GMT
The following is essential to the proper understanding of reality/experience in general:

1) The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams.

2) Also, the theoretical/actual basis of the unification of known mathematical union of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) is dream experience.

Since dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, thought, and experience at the [gravitational] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general. Indeed, how space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy is a central and very valuable concept in relation to physics (and experience) in general. Dream experience offers an expanded (yet relatively unified) perspective in relation to experience (and physics) in general.

The significance of the following, in relation to the above, to physics, experience, being, thought, and to a better understanding of genius as well is not to be underestimated:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The integrated extensiveness of thought/thinking is improved in the truly superior mind (and in the highest/ideal form of genius).

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience.

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Nov. 26, 2009 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear Franck

Dreams belongs to the mind,

observer belongs to the consciousness.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Dalius Balciunas wrote on Feb. 10, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Hi,

The idea of natural selection was used in astrophysics (M. Volonteri, M.J. Rees. Quasars at z = 6: The Survival of the Fittest The Astrophysical Journal, 650:669-678, 2006). Here Darwin's hypothesis found its place in quantum physics. Well, maybe such an approach is right for solving physical problems. Sometimes I even think that "natural selection" probably is that theory of everything which you, physicists, are looking for. Indeed it would be nice - Darwin found theory of everything 150 years ago.

Unfortunately, natural selection mechanism, based on the survival of the fittest approach, is a 19th century mistake. Thus, I suggest that you should look for other grounding principles to explain physical phenomena.

Kind regards,

Dalius Balciunas

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 21:35 GMT
Darwin overlooked the fact that the fastest way for any species to evolve is for it to become extinct. The only way life can continue to exist is for it to consume other life and expel still other forms of life. There is no such thing as death. In order for life to live, it must be immortal. It was not an asteroid that “killed” off the dinosaurs. The micro biotic volume of their waste products and the vast maggot army that consumed their dead flesh exceeded the dinosaurs ability to reproduce themselves. It is principally the evolution of the life contained in the bodily waste that continues for that is the only form of life that can control the conditions under which it can survive and prosper.

report post as inappropriate


Padma wrote on Nov. 29, 2010 @ 17:27 GMT
I am not a scientist, I am a perpetual spiritual student with an inquisitive mind. As I integrate experientially concepts, information and knowledge, I am continually plagued with the same questions. If 'all that is', is 'frequency', 'consciousness', 'quantum space', 'emptiness', (whichever descriptor one chooses to apply), why does one experience a "SELF"? And who or what is the 'I' in relation to and within 'all that is / quantum space'? Much gratitude is expressed here for a response of discussion regarding these inquiries. padmasherab@ymail.com

report post as inappropriate


Gismo wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 16:16 GMT
@PADMA,

I think we experience a 'Self' because in this vastness of vibration/frequency 'We' are the fixation of such vibration/frequency into a fixed point/bundle of energy in space and time and therefore can experience all other events in relation to the point/bundle 'We' are.. Without an observer, nothing happens.. But this is not to be translated into that the 'Self' cease to exist when we die as I find no connection between our bodies flesh and the 'Self'.. The 'Self' transcends physical matter and therefore, even though individual, is very much connected to everything.. One could even think of it as your soul being kept in your body due to your hearts magnetic field, once it stops beating you wil be free and fully connected to the entire vibrational field but as of now you are trapped in this physical reality.. (Basically I have no idea, but mind-wandering is fun ;-))

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.