A mathematical system is NOT creative: everything that comes out was already implied in your initial algorithm(s). A mathematical system that assumes an existing observer must state that assumption up front, and must state whether the observer is an external observer or an internal observer of the system. In the case of a mathematical system like the Mandelbrot set, the seemingly-creative complexity only exists from the point of view of an already-complex external observer of the system – it doesn’t exist from the point of view of simple “internal observers” i.e. the pixels. What each simple pixel “sees” is nothing but the Mandelbrot set algorithm being played over and over again.
The Mandelbrot set outcomes are already completely determined and specified by the algorithm. The descriptions “tendril” “spiral” and “point” are representations of parts of an already determined outcome; and the Misiurewicz point formula is also a (mathematical) representation of a part of an already determined outcome. Note that these part outcomes (tendril, spiral, point) are very slippery concepts that are not really definable as genuine categories in the context of the Mandelbrot set representation.
Physical reality on the other hand is genuinely creative. E.g. some aspects of the classical/collapsed outcomes of quantum decoherence are NOT determined by any existing algorithm. They can only be represented as a new initial value for a particular parameter i.e. they can only be represented as an equation. The parameter represents a genuine existing category of information which is totally interconnected into existing laws-of-nature.
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 15:32 GMT
Lorraine,
So attempt to answer this:
Did the one “click,” the digital singularity, actually happen, or does every world in the multiverse including ours, remain in an eternal state of uncollapsed probabilities even though our measured probability of being is 1.0?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 15:39 GMT
I'll bite. What the blazes is 'the one click, digital singularity'?!
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 16:11 GMT
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 16:46 GMT
You're probably safe enough playing euchre at the VFW but don't try that in the executive game at the Legion. |-)
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 19:13 GMT
Hmmm, John, my faculties fail me. What do you mean?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 19:19 GMT
Lorraine wrote:
"So the outcome I’m talking about is classical: a single state, not a superposition. If all the parameter values of the classical outcome were precisely mathematically predictable, there would be no basis for the continuing controversy."
There is no superposition "in reality". Superposition is merely a meaning assigned to an observation, not something intrinsic to the observation.
One determines (rather than observes) a superposition, by Fourier Transforming the observations.
Although predictability has a great deal to do with free-will (and thus consciousness), it has little to do with the continuing controversies in QM; they continue precisely BECAUSE there are no observations to support the slapped-on meanings - no one has ever actually observed a superposition - they merely construct superpositions, to describe the observations. Historically, they were constructed to enable the solution of partial differential equations - by solving the equations for each complex sinusoidal function individually, then summing all those solutions, to obtain the solution REPRESENTED by the "superimposed" sinusoids. A superposition is nothing more than a REPRESENTATION (to use your word) for an arbitrary function, whose only real significance, is that it is easier to solve the equation with the REPRESENTATION as input, than for the input itself.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2016 @ 19:56 GMT
T.
(1)Lorraine wants to make an a priori case for information but that is dependent on what she has in mind, it's inductive reasoning. (2) It is an historically well know fact that Einstein was dismayed by Lemaitre's extrapolating the 'big bang' singularity and came up with the Cosmological Constant as a fix for a steady state eternal universe that was his personal belief. The singularity is a product of the incompleteness of GR, and the entrenchment of the BB was very much a socio-political consequence; it was not so much 'accepted by' as it was 'not objected to' by firstly the Catholic Church. At least science and religion could agree that there was 'a beginning'. And as with wave:particle duality, singularity is the bread and butter of a lot of mathematical physics, nobody really wants a solution for either. (3) So your challenge to Lorraine was to confront a tautology with a tautology. That's a visible bluff.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 3, 2016 @ 13:15 GMT
Tom, Rob,
I tend to agree with Rob that there are no actual superpositions or states of uncollapsed probabilities. Superpositions and probabilities are just ways of interpreting what happens, and trying to represent and predict what happens.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 3, 2016 @ 17:50 GMT
John,
1. I agree.
2. Hawking solved that problem, by eliminating the event horizon and allowing conservation of information.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 05:05 GMT
You people are just having too much fun.
So there are no superposition states and they are just a convenience? There are so many examples that it is baffling why anyone would say they know which path a photon is on after a beamsplitter. Classically, the photon has one path. However, the photon is on both paths at the same time.
What we observe are interference effects and phase decoherence of photons as bullets, not waves. What we calculate are waves of single photons that interfere with themselves, not photon bullets.
Consciousness has much more to do with the quantum phase coherence of neural waves than it does with the classical bullets of neural action potentials.A single thought is necessarily a superposition of a large number of neural waves. The decoherence of that single thought is one kind of time.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 15:25 GMT
Steve,
The quanta has never been rationalized and Planck was apologetic in December of 1900 for not having any justification for it other than empirically it solved the problem of the ultra-violet catastrophe, his Theorem was a set of transforms applicable to probability of distribution of frequencies which matched the curve observed in Blackbody radiation. And while the 'quanta' is a non-divisible quantity in that respect, the 'quantum' is by definition a value of multiples equivalent to one second of any frequency 'quanta' which assumes a single waveform at that frequency. Five years later, Einstein formulated the photoelectric effect and it was a political SOP that awarded him the Nobel for that paper instead of for the much more contentious body of work on the Principle of Relativity which is worthy of the prize. Whereas, the photoelectric effect can also be accounted for in terms of rapidity as is routinely applied in analysis at CERN. It is you Quants whom have been 'having too much fun' and really do not want to see or recognize a classical resolution of duality. The 'photon' is a measurement, not a particle. Superposition is supposition. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 19:07 GMT
Steve wrote,
"What we observe are interference effects and phase decoherence of photons as bullets, not waves."
Actually, in the case of the famous double-slit experiment, what is observed is not an interference pattern at all. What is observed is the magnitude of the Fourier transform of the slit's geometry, projected onto a screen behind the slits.
It is easy to show, by direct computation, that the so-called "interference pattern", is actually just the Fourier Transform of the slit's geometry. In other words, it is a property of the slits, not the particles and/or waves passing through the slits. Think about that. The entities passing through the slits are merely the carriers, of the information content (interference pattern) being spatially modulated onto the carrier.
The point is, the information content of the "interference pattern", is entirely due to the properties of the slits, not the wave/particles.
Failing to recognize the true source of the information content, is the direct cause of most of the seeming weirdness in QM. It is rather like the problem of identifying the source of the speech, in a ventriloquist's act.
The slits are "doing the talking", not the entities passing through them. It is no wonder that it seems mysterious, when one mistakes the ventriloquist's dummy, for the entity doing the talking.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 19:14 GMT
I should interject..
We see things in a settled state strictly because all observations are made from a localized framework, and have a specific sense of direction in spacetime. John is right when he says that "the 'photon' is a measurement, not a particle," up to a point. In a set-up like the Mach-Zehnder interferometer, it is better to view the photon as an extended wave-like configuration, or a mechanism of transport, rather than an object - everywhere but at the final detector. So the waves of photons we calculate are demonstrably real.
I think that H.D. Zeh advocates for a much more radical re-write, where QM is seen as the product of the fact that the wave-like or energetic view is inherently more real, and the outlook that things are settled (quantized or specific, rather than existing in eigenstates) is an appearance induced by the fact all observations happen from a localized material framework. That is; the continuous realm of the global wavefunction, where all individual forms are seen as wave-like emanations, is necessarily broken into parts (components) when viewed from a disconnected island of form.
I attach one of Dieter's papers, addressing this issue.
All the Best,
Jonathan
attachments:
no-quantum-jumps.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 19:21 GMT
And seeing Rob's comment, I should add..
In the double slit experiment, it is exactly as you suggest Rob; the geometry and orientation of the separated apertures is locality inducing for the photons, or whatever else we pass through the apparatus. The observed patterning is largely determined by this geometric configuration and spatial and temporal orientation of the slits themselves.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 19:43 GMT
And regarding Steve's closing comments..
The idea that thinking exists as a superposition, while it is a decoherence of coherent states that induces individual thoughts, has been explored somewhat. I think papers by Paola Zizzi and Henry Stapp, dealing with this topic, would likely be of interest. I recently saw a paper by F.D. 'Tony' Smith posted on viXra where he explores the notion that E8 is recursively embedded in the molecular structure of neural microtubules, which have been implicated as structures that preserve quantum coherence or mediate in decoherence processes.
Anyhow; your comment is apt, because there may be a quantum mechanical basis for thought in sentient lifeforms. If this is the case; then it is likely related to a delicate balance that can be maintained by lifeforms - between quantum coherency and decomposed states. Perhaps this coherency-decoherence balance (or the ability to maintain it) is the defining characteristic of life. So you should by no means be swayed by naysayers that superpositions are meaningless. Rather; you should examine the evidence for yourself, and "retain what is useful" - to quote Bruce Lee.
All the Best,
Jonathan
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 20:47 GMT
Jonathan,
"because there may be a quantum mechanical basis for thought in sentient lifeforms." There may be, given that it has not been demonstrated to be impossible. However, it has also not been demonstrated that QM can explain anything about consciousness, that needs to be explained.
"So you should by no means be swayed by naysayers that superpositions are meaningless." A superposition obviously can be, and has been, assigned a meaning. The question is, does the superposition reside anywhere other than side-by-side with that assigned meaning, within the mind of a thinker?
Rob McEchern
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 20:51 GMT
Lorraine, regarding your comments above..
At the top of this thread, you posted a comment regarding the Mandelbrot Set, and its stable sameness. My example was about analysis, and I'll address some of your comments, in no particular order. I was talking about Misiurewicz points as interesting features on the Mandelbrot Set, where one fairly innocuous feature caught my eye, because the scale of forms shrinks to nothing on one side, and then grows again on the other. So I asked "Why does it have the value it does, and is there a way to calculate its exact location?"
Stated differently; I was asking "Is there an analytical formula that yields that value?" I was guided to that answer in a book by Peitgen and Richter, by Michel Planat. The point in question, at about (-1.543689012692, 0i), satisfies the relation ((c^2+c)^2+c)^2+c = (c^2+c)^2+c - where c is any complex number - and this can be derived from the Mandelbrot formula. Specifically; if we call that formula M, the left hand side is M of M of M, which we set equal to M of M. This is the next step in analysis, after setting M and then M of M to zero, and continuing with M of M of M and so on.
But the analytical formula that tells us the exact value for the point of interest also has two other roots, where the tendrils have the largest imaginary extent of any point in the Mandelbrot Set, at about (-0.22816, 1.11514i) and (-0.22816, -1.11514i). So, in a sense; the process of analysis not only told me why my point of interest has that value, but also yielded other useful information. Still; my observation only led me to the point which analytic continuation would have found anyway. I was just lucky this relation is solvable, as past the first few examples the Math becomes intractable.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 21:09 GMT
Gee Rob,
To answer your question "does the superposition reside anywhere other than side-by-side with that assigned meaning, within the mind of a thinker?" I need to ask which side of my brain you are querying, or equivalently whether you want me to answer as light or as matter. If you believe neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor, the reason we don't see the universe as wave-like is because of our preoccupation with a small portion of our brain.
Tai Chi Master William C.C. Chen teaches that the practice is all about body mechanics, and that all the health benefits are conferred without recourse to anything mystical, while Master Chungliang Al Huang asserts that once students learn to feel motion as the flow of energy or chi, all of the movements automatically become fluid and proper technique is assured.
Master Al would have his students become immured of the view that we all live in a sea of energetic wave-like emanations and that the perfection of Tai Chi involves emulating this property of nature. This is a very compelling view, and there is some truth to it beyond the psychological identification with the process over the result. On some level energy is motion and motion is energy, so it is scientifically accurate to make such a connection. But I am sure one of Master William's students would be quick to point out that this identification is unnecessary. Maybe Al's students and Jill's readers live in the same world as H.D. Zeh, however.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 4, 2016 @ 21:52 GMT
Jonathan,
"This is a very compelling view, and there is some truth to it beyond the psychological identification with the process over the result."
It is too compelling. That is the problem; There is no way to deduce the process from the result, when the result is the only thing that can be observed. In other words, if a theory merely gives the correct answer to a problem, one cannot deduce what process/algorithm was implemented (in nature) to arrive at that answer. Simply because the superposition process yields the correct answer, is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is the cause for that result. Other entirely different processes, yield identical results, in every case, because mathematical identities are not physical identities. In effect, nature may use a different algorithm (devoid of superpositions) to solve the equation, than the algorithm (like superposition) that seems obvious, to those only familiar with one algorithm.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 5, 2016 @ 02:11 GMT
For the record Rob,
I am not especially enamored of the notion of superposition as a descriptive metaphor for quantum phenomenology. Back in 2009; I presented a poster at FFP10 that championed a view of superposition, non-locality, and entanglement, as a kind of 'quantum trio' of like concepts - the same idea in different arenas - using the universality of decoherence as a mechanism for 2nd law entropy, by way of the spreading metaphor. But there were problems with that formulation which made a specific formalism difficult to propound. I might take a different approach and have more success with that now.
However; I have come to see there are problems with the conceptual basis for all three members of the trio. Superposition, non-locality, and entanglement, all have their issues - as ideas that partially fit the facts but leave something like geometric frustration - or behaving as though they are approximations of what is real. Perhaps the QM folks got it wrong. I think perhaps we are dealing with a different animal entirely, and that there is a different explanation which fits the facts better, but I see that as a work in progress.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 5, 2016 @ 13:55 GMT
Jonathan,
"Perhaps the QM folks got it wrong. I think perhaps we are dealing with a different animal entirely,..." Exactly. In signal processing theory, unlike in QM, people have recognized that Fourier Transforms can be interpreted as filter banks, rather than superpositions. It is not an approximation, but an exact rearrangement of terms. The magnitude-squared of the filter bank output yields the "power spectrum". When the input consists of identical "power quanta", within each "bin" of the spectrum, then the Power spectrum is equivalent to a histogram of the input. Which is why the whole QM procedure of describing things as superpositions and then computing the magnitude-squared of the wavefunction, yields probability estimates. The math is identical, but the physical interpretation is entirely different; same physical theory, different metaphysical interpretation - no superpositions and no wavefunctions, so no problems with wavefunction collapse, entanglement, decoherence or anything else.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 5, 2016 @ 20:54 GMT
Thanks Rob,
For filter banks; one can think of the multi-band equalizers (EQ) used in audio recording studios, and which used to be common in stereo systems - except that each band ends up in its own bin, rather than being fed into a common bus (or buss). In that way; the amplitude of the signal that falls within a given frequency band (or ends up in a given bin) can have its amplitude separately measured - which provides the same information as calculating the frequency spectrum of that waveform.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 5, 2016 @ 20:58 GMT
BTW, I was not correcting you Rob..
I was only trying to clarify what you had to say, by re-casting the message in different terms. I mean no disrespect.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 5, 2016 @ 21:17 GMT
Jonathan,
The Misiurewicz point numbers are interesting. But I’m not very surprised, because I contend that this is what numbers are: numbers are not abstract objects; numbers are things that have an underlying relationship infrastructure. Numbers are things that are mentally understood: they don’t have an abstract existence. All numbers, even imaginary numbers, are originally derived from subjective information category relationships where the information category cancels out (fundamental-level information categories are e.g. mass, charge etc.). This relationship can be symbolically represented, similar to the way laws-of-nature can be symbolically represented. But with the numbers found in nature, the underlying relationship infrastructure is not apparent because no information category can be found.
Many people claim and/or assume that the interesting large and small-scale variety that we see in physical reality is 100% due to complexity. But I claim that complexity is not enough:
1. A mathematical system is not creative of anything new: everything that comes out was already implied in your initial algorithm(s).
2. Interesting complexity is only apparent from a platonic/external observer view; at the coalface, from the point of view of the pixels, nothing interesting is happening.
3. The describable shapes that appear from the external observer’s point of view of a complex system are superficial outcomes: the shapes are not structural categories, the shapes cannot build new structure.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 7, 2016 @ 18:32 GMT
Jonathan,
Equalizers are a useful analogy. But my point is that the Fourier transforms, at the mathematical heart of QM, are not merely analogous to filter banks, they are filter banks. Viewing them as superpositions, while possible, has lead only to perplexity. Viewing them as filter banks, yields a simple, exact answer to why QM appears to be only probabilistic, rather than deterministic; QM never even attempts to construct anything other than mathematical histograms, not ghostly superpositions, to compare to histogrammed observations.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 7, 2016 @ 20:21 GMT
Hi Rob,
this is a really interesting point of view. Are there any articles that you would recommend reading on this subject?
Am I correct in saying that you consider each eigenstate (potential output) to be a bar of the histogram representing the Fourier transformation? I can understand that for a light signal but what about a single photon? It seems to me in that case the eigenstates should be bars of the hypothetical Fourier transformation for lots of photons (that might be but aren't) as well as the one real photon. The Fourier transformation representing the unknown rather than an actual signal. Is that your thinking too?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 9, 2016 @ 02:11 GMT
Jonathan,
As a technical editor, it is hard not to admire the beauty of Dieter Zeh's abstract:
"Abstract: Quantum theory does not require the existence of discontinuities: neither in time (quantum jumps), nor in space (particles), nor in spacetime (quantum events). These apparent discontinuities are readily described objectively by the continuous process of decoherence occurring locally on a very short time scale according to the Schrödinger equation for interacting systems, while the observer’s ‘increase of information’ is appropriately represented by the resulting dynamical decoupling of the corresponding components of the global wave function."
I can agree that the process is objective, but I can't help but focus on the fly in the soup:
"This is not to deny the existence of several open problems. In particular, the fundamental ‘arena’ of wave mechanics, which may or may not correspond to a classical configuration space, can only be known once we possess a fundamental ‘Theory of Everything’."
And I think that Joy Christian has defined that space in a local and realistic way. For quantum configuration space to map completely to classical configuration space requires a smooth and continuous function -- Dieter Zeh got that right -- but in my opinion stopped short of providing the necessary dimensions which allow it.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 9, 2016 @ 21:04 GMT
Georgina,
I would recommend the following:
Consider the "frequency shifting" (tuning) property of a Fourier transform.
This is accomplished by the multiplication of the function to be transformed, by the complex exponential, in the equation for the transform. Whatever components of the transformed function, that end-up being shifted to "zero", become constant, and thus...
view entire post
Georgina,
I would recommend the following:
Consider the "frequency shifting" (tuning) property of a Fourier transform.
This is accomplished by the multiplication of the function to be transformed, by the complex exponential, in the equation for the transform. Whatever components of the transformed function, that end-up being shifted to "zero", become constant, and thus integrate to a "power" (rather than cancel out), given by the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary parts of that constant. Components that end-up far from zero, are being multiplied by a rapidly oscillating function (the complex exponential), such that the product has neighboring values, at all points, that tend to cancel each other out. Thus, "tuning" occurs; the resulting integral only incorporates "power" from components tuned to be near zero, everything else tends to cancel out
When these power estimates, are combined with the fact that all the power is being obtained, physically, from discrete, equal "quantized" amounts, then the simple ratio of the total power received, at any given "tuning", divided by the power received per "quantized input", yields the number of things that must have been input. In other words, it is a histogrammer. Which is why it appears probablistic.
But what is being histogrammed, particles or waves? Neither. As Lorraine might say, what is being histogrammed is a "representation" of a quantized entity, not the entities themselves. What that entity actually is, remains unspecified, by the reprsentation. Which is why the wave/particle duality cannot be decided, using such a representation.
Just as black-and-white film, cannot reveal the world's colors, the Fourier Transforms at the heart of QM, cannot reveal the nature of their input (reality), whether probabilistic or deterministic, particle or wave. It is a fundamental limitation of the tool. The tool is incapable of answering the question so many people ask of it. But that does not mean that there is no answer. It just means that physicists will have to employ some other tool. Communication engineers already have, when faced with similar difficulties.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 9, 2016 @ 22:22 GMT
Robert,
I agree with what you have so elegantly said, with this exception:
"But what is being histogrammed, particles or waves? Neither. As Lorraine might say, what is being histogrammed is a 'representation' of a quantized entity, not the entities themselves. What that entity actually is, remains unspecified, by the reprsentation. Which is why the wave/particle duality cannot be decided, using such a representation."
There is an answer to this, and it lies in the unitary nature of spacetime. Because we live in a finite time-dependent universe, waves and particles need no separate representation. They *are* the representation, with nothing underneath (no quantization). Spacetime is dynamic, creating all particles, all real things.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 9, 2016 @ 23:30 GMT
Just to be clear, I think that wave-particle duality is a true mathematical duality, i.e., two descriptions of one underlying reality, and not a physical dualism. Once we hit the unity of spacetime -- there is nothing left to quantize, and we must accept the dynamic properties of spacetime as real. The question remaining to be answered is "how many dimensions?"
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 03:37 GMT
Tom,
I remain agnostic about the "reality" of particle/wave duality. My point was, regardless of what "reality" actually exists, Fourier Transforms cannot tell anyone anything about it. They can only describe effects, not causes for the effects; they are intrinsically non-causal.
The same is true about quantization. Regardless of whether or not "reality" is quantized, the information content of any observations of that reality can always be quantized; information is defined as such. I know you are keen on continuous functions. But information is all about the quantity of discontinuous bits, necessary and sufficient, to accurately reproduce any continuous function, that has a limited time-bandwidth product, and limited signal-to-noise ratio; which is to say, any function that can ever actually be observed in "reality". In that sense continuous and discrete have the same underlying reality - the same information content.)
Mistaking the properties of our "representations" of reality, for the properties of reality itself, continues to be a problem in physics. No similar problem exists in mathematics, precisely because math represents nothing, other than itself.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 04:58 GMT
Ugh Robert...
I think what Tom is saying is considerably more subtle than what your answer addresses. In effect; 'particle' and 'wave' are extrema on a continuum of representational flavors or colorations. A unified underlying reality can be manifested as a particle-like entity or a wave-like emanation - to an observer. In reality; it is neither or both, but any identification of the measured quantity with a specific character or property of manifestation then obscures the other view.
This is sort of like saying one can focus on a flower in the field, and this puts clouds in the sky behind it out of focus, but if you focus on the sky instead, the flower is no longer in perfect focus. Similarly; the declaration of 'particle-like' properties is like focusing on objects in the foreground, while the identification of 'wave-like' properties is like focusing on the background. The actual level of distinctiveness in the underlying reality does not change, but one viewpoint is more about the differentiation of boundaries, while the other is inherently more integrative.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 13:35 GMT
Well said, Jonathan.
Rob, I think agnostic is a good position to take on the question of 'reality.' That's a malleable term, and you are a careful researcher. Leaving aside reality, one asks whether there is any bedrock principle that supports "turtles all the way down."
I've already cast my vote for an undivided universe. That in principle obviates quantization and explains why -- or rather how -- the world is apparently largely free of inertia. B.J. Hiley recently re-posted a 1986 paper that echoes that sentiment (attached).
attachments:
42.UnbrokenWholenessPRDBBJH.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 17:35 GMT
Tom,
Thank you for the link to Bohm/Hiley 1985. The argument "equiprobability of opposing velocities is not" might support my criticism concerning improper use of FT.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 18:46 GMT
Jonathan,
"but any identification of the measured quantity with a specific character or property of manifestation then obscures the other view."
" The actual level of distinctiveness in the underlying reality does not change, but one viewpoint is more about the differentiation of boundaries, while the other is inherently more integrative."
I agree entirely. But that is beside the point that I was making. My point was connected to the subject matter of this page - consciousness. It boils down to this, the oft claimed (Penrose et al) position that consciousness is connected to unseen quantum phenomenon, is as improbable as the position that it is connected to unseen souls. And for the same reasons; superpositions and souls only seem to exist as constructs of one's mind. To elaborate further, not only do supposed superpositions fail to explain consciousness, they fail to explain the very phenomenon they were invented to explain - those phenomenon are better explained by a better understanding of the other properties of the mathematical tools (Fourier transforms) being used in QM. This gets back to your points. Viewing those tools one way (as superpostions) has "obscured the other view", that is far more insightful and less weird than the standard view.
Rob McEachern
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 10, 2016 @ 23:09 GMT
Thanks Rob,
You have restored my faith in your wisdom. I agree with most of your major points (e.g. - the filter banks metaphor), but I strongly agree with Tom's contrasting point, or points, because I think the universe does remain an undivided whole - even while it takes on the appearance of separation. So I can reject the standard view of QM too, while continuing to believe in the possibility that consciousness occurs at a level that is not well described by the materialist view of reality.
At its root level; I see the consciousness experience as being more nearly associated with the unified aspect of reality, rather than being solely the result or culmination of mechanical processes arising from separated entities coming together. Of course; for any type of consciousness to be observable on the macroscopic level, it must be seen to occur there. By definition, that is what we are measuring/observing, but this does not rule out a deeper level - call it energetic, wave-like, quantum mechanical, sub-quantal, or whatever you like - that connects the pieces together.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 00:06 GMT
Jonathan,
Re "for any type of consciousness to be observable on the macroscopic level, it must be seen to occur there":
We don't observe consciousness, we experience it!! And we can represent it symbolically e.g. my words are (imperfectly) representing my current conscious experience. Isn't it true that complex consciousness can only occur where there are complex physical molecules interacting? Please don't spout that rubbish about disembodied minds.
Re "I see the consciousness experience as being more nearly associated with the unified aspect of reality":
Oh pul-leease!. Your consciousness is NOT my consciousness! My consciousness is due to MY physical molecules and MY physical organs etc. and their interactions with the rest of reality. When I die and my body starts to break down, there will be no conscious me.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 01:08 GMT
Sorry Lorraine,
That sounds like a presupposition to me. Some of your conclusions do not jibe with empirical evidence available to me. I would not care to elaborate much, until I am ready to share my findings. From my view, the experience of consciousness is an observation. Being the observation of observation, consciousness is a kind of meta-observation phenomenon.
No; it is decidedly not true that 'complex consciousness can only occur when there are complex molecules interacting,' but that is certainly a necessary component of human consciousness, for living human beings. One can't rule out a non-corporeal consciousness without assuming that it might be real, and then doing careful research to validate or refute that hypothesis. Like it or not; that is the scientific method.
To do otherwise is to live in a hall of mirrors, where you will only entertain evidence that supports the view you endorse. This is not to say you could not be correct, to feel as you do. But know that I once took James Randi to task, for being too restrictive in his view, in a face to face conversation. Don't be the victim of the confirmation bias yourself, before admitting that such a bias exists.
My personal experience, and evidence available to me, make me certain that your answers are too restrictive to admit that evidence. Since I regard some of it as irrefutable, I must respectfully reject your conclusions.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 01:29 GMT
I want to be clear too..
Even if there is the possibility for full consciousness to arise in a completely non-material construct, for that consciousness to be detectable by physical means, it must reside in, or project from, the physical. And processes that arise in complex molecules, and interactions thereof, may be mirrored or nested in self-similar fashion - up and down the levels of scale. The work of Laurent Nottale is founded n concepts that include or engender that belief, and there is nothing particularly mystical about Scale Relativity.
Perhaps the Morphic Resonance cataloged by Rupert Sheldrake is nothing but a physical manifestation of the mathematical phenomenon of self-similarity cataloged by Mandelbrot, but in a different guise. I think we really won't understand human consciousness on a root level, until we realize that it is not a purely chemical or mechanical, nor even a purely electronic and/or computational process, but rather a concerted effort by nature which uses all of these modes of expression - in concert - to accomplish its goal.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 05:28 GMT
Jonathan,
Re “That sounds like a presupposition to me”:
Is it a presupposition if I say that after I die, when my body starts to decompose, there will be no conscious me left? In other words, are you claiming that Elvis still exists today as a “non-corporeal consciousness”?
I disagree with your assumptions:
1. The assumption that the infrastructure (i.e. laws-of-nature and numbers) can be taken for granted. The undeclared and unexamined assumption that the infrastructure is abstract/mystical. Also, the undeclared and unexamined assumption that extra-curricular computations are happening in an abstract/mystical realm behind-the-scenes.
2. The assumption that physical reality is a second-class automaton. The assumption that the REAL action is happening somewhere else in an abstract realm that can’t be measured.
3. The old emergence-out-of-complexity assumption, despite the fact that mathematical models show that nothing new emerges from complex systems that wasn’t already implied in the initial algorithm(s). Also the mistaken assumption that the “shapes” that might seem to emerge from representation of complex systems are useful for building new structure.
4. The failure to explain what an observer is, or observation is. Yet there is an assumption that consciousness is somehow an “observation of observation”, as if there were something special about recursive functions/nesting/self-similarity that allows emergence ex nihilo of consciousness.
We don't observe consciousness, WE EXPERIENCE INFORMATION about physical reality (where WE are particles, atoms, molecules, single- and multi-cell living things; and where information IS physical reality). Reality is not as overly complexified as you make it out to be.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 11:58 GMT
One needs to be a bit more precise about what one means by the word "consciousness". It is sometimes used as being more or less synonymous with intelligence, or self-awareness, or a certain class of experiences, called "qualia". Thus, if one proposes to "measure consciousness in the lab", one must be careful to specify which of these various aspects, associated with consciousness, is to be...
view entire post
One needs to be a bit more precise about what one means by the word "consciousness". It is sometimes used as being more or less synonymous with intelligence, or self-awareness, or a certain class of experiences, called "qualia". Thus, if one proposes to "measure consciousness in the lab", one must be careful to specify which of these various aspects, associated with consciousness, is to be measured. Measuring something, about an entity, in order to determine its level of self-awareness, is one thing. Measuring something to determine its level of intelligence, is something else. But measuring if it experiences qualia, is quite another; what is there to be measured?
I can easily imagine how to construct a mechanistic "robot", that is more intelligent than me, and that has self-awareness. I would call such a robot, conscious, and not a "philosophical zombie". But I highly doubt that it would experience the qualia that I experience, like color and pain. It would have a different form of "consciousness" than mine. That might even be "superior" to mine, but it would not be identical to mine. But it would be something that ought to be called "consciousness".
The so-called "hard problem of consciousness", is not really about the existence of consciousness at all, or even all its various aspects (intelligence, self-awareness) but only about our specific type of consciousness, with one very specific aspect - the qualia we experience. Why do we experience pain as pain, rather than a damage report? Why do we experience color as color, rather than wavelength, frequency and/or amplitude ratios, that correlate with our experience of color? The measurement of things like damaged components, wavelengths and frequencies etc., are necessary for our experience of qualia. But the measurements are not sufficient to explain the experience. But that particular experience is not necessary for consciousness in general, but only for our particular type of consciousness. As Thomas Nagel pointed out, we have no idea how creatures like bats, experience echo-location. We know how to build robots that employ echo-location, in radar and sonar sub-systems; but it is virtually certain that those robots do not experience it, at all (yet), much less experience it the way bats do.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 14:06 GMT
Rob,
Consciousness is information (but not your/Shannon’s “information”).
There are levels of information. For example, if I am holding a bucket of water, then I’m not aware of the precise details of the masses and forces and interactions that are involved – I’m only aware of the generalized higher-level information that the bucket feels heavy.
Similarly, I am not aware of the individual light-rays that interact with my eyes and brain – I’m only aware of higher-level categories of information like tree, building, sky, and their interrelationship in my field of view. Tree, building and sky are higher-level categories of information that don’t exist at the level of a photon.
And this is the important point: information is always about categories and their interrelationships. An information category is always related to other information categories, or it isn’t information at all.
There is no need to worry too much about qualia and intelligence and self-awareness. The important point is that the content of consciousness is categories and their relationships; and that with so many categories in effect being experienced simultaneously, qualia is OBVIOUSLY the way that reality differentiates different categories of information. The feeling of pain is instant information; a “damage report” is too intellectualized, and is not a suitable way of conveying information in a world where a lot of things are happening at once.
So Thomas Nagel was wrong: we DO know that bats must experience categories of interrelated information derived from echo-location in similar way that we experience categories of interrelated information derived from eyesight. Look at the similarities – don’t fuss over the minor differences.
And unless you believe in voodoo and magic, there are NO robots that can ever have any type of awareness of higher-level information categories. They don’t have the necessary molecules and molecular interactions for chrissakes!
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 14:23 GMT
"Consciousness is information ..."
Your first task is to support this claim. Think it through -- "if consciousness is identical to information, then ..."
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 14:44 GMT
Tom,
I don't need advice on how to think. But if you don't like what I say, then tell me specifically where you disagree with me.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 16:19 GMT
Lorraine,
You're not thinking at all. If consciousness is identical to information, in what way? What do you mean by information?
I can't make your case for you.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 18:25 GMT
Lorraine,
"The important point is that the content of consciousness is categories and their relationships..." Consciousness is about itself. It has no other content, sufficient to make it worthy of the name conscious. I think therefore I am.
A mindless machine can easily discriminate the types of categories you have mentioned. What it cannot do, is tell anyone how it feels about that.
"...and is not a suitable way of conveying information in a world where a lot of things are happening at once." Machines exist that can process such information, "where a lot of things are happening at once", orders of magnitude faster than human consciousness.
"They don’t have the necessary molecules and molecular interactions..." What makes you suppose those are necessary? Do you suppose you could not read some text, unless it has the "necessary" ink molecules? The text you are reading now, requires no such molecules. Representations, to use your word, do not require any particular type of molecules, in order to function as representations, and thereby embody "interrelationships" between "categories".
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 11, 2016 @ 18:54 GMT
"Consciousness is about itself. It has no other content ..."
Nice, Rob.
In order to bring objective analysis to the question of consciousness, we have to forget the notion that subjective sense impressions have anything to do with it. The prior assumption of consciousness is necessary and sufficient.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 00:09 GMT
Tom,
I didn't say "consciousness is identical to information". I said that consciousness IS information.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 00:13 GMT
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 00:35 GMT
Rob,
you are not talking about REAL information, you are talking about Shannon "information" i.e. mere binary digital representations of REAL information. Binary digital Shannon "information" representations are not utilized by physical reality: it is only utilized in the rarefied entrails of computers and robots. Shannon "information" is NOT information: it merely represents information.
Re "Consciousness is about itself":
What a load of unadulterated rubbish!
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 12:01 GMT
Rob, Tom,
Consciousness is NOT weak, wimpy and useless: consciousness is NOT about itself.
Your personal experience of consciousness is your personal experience of information about reality.
This consciousness is not of a separately existing information: this consciousness IS information, integrated/unified information about self and the rest of reality.
Consciousness is NECESSARY so that the universe can apprehend information about itself. Information does not exist objectively in the universe: information only exists subjectively, from the point of view of particles, atoms, molecules and living things.
And naturally, we living things create higher-level categories of information (e.g. car, tree, food): fundamental-level information like mass and charge is inadequate for the needs of us living things. Human beings and some other living things can represent information categories with sound symbols or visual symbols, in order to communicate information to others.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 12:54 GMT
Consciousness is... well ... is consciousness. Is it really 'just' 'information'? I doubt this. Even without consciousness, there is information out there in the universe. Because something has to 'inform' the whole stuff in the universe about how to behave. Does this 'mechanism of information' necessarily need consciousness? I am not sure, i would say it could or could not be so. For the latter,...
view entire post
Consciousness is... well ... is consciousness. Is it really 'just' 'information'? I doubt this. Even without consciousness, there is information out there in the universe. Because something has to 'inform' the whole stuff in the universe about how to behave. Does this 'mechanism of information' necessarily need consciousness? I am not sure, i would say it could or could not be so. For the latter, 'information' does not need consciousness, for the former, it is a kind of - how is it called? - pantheism. But, does concsiousness need 'information' - means, can it even exist without being informed about anything but only about being existent, being conscious (aware) of itself? Does the latter make any sense? I am not sure. But if so, can such a consciousness be aware of other things than its own awareness - for example can it imaginate things? Can it 'think' rationally (the latter would be a kind of source of information - because rationality comes to conclusions by acting upon certain rules of logic)? Can there be rationality without a consciousness being aware of it? These questions are adressed to the question about what are the core features of the fountain of all existence. Can we ever answer them in a satisfactory manner? Or is the fountain of consciousness a somewhat dream-like state that only develops some rational thinking under certain conditions? And how then did 'rationality' came from? Are its logical connectives then a relativ thing or are they an absolut, 'mathematical' truth? If it is a relative thing, then the physical laws of the universe (the 'information' on how to behave as a particle) is just a coincidence, based on consistence. But how did such a thing as 'consistence' came into being? I think that for a consistent line of reasoning about all these questions one has necessarily to assume that consistence, logics and probably also consciousness are fundamental parts of the fountain of all existence.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 13:13 GMT
Lorraine,
"Your personal experience of consciousness is your personal experience of information about reality."
The question is: What is the process that causes, "your personal experience of consciousness"?. The answer has a well-established name: consciousness.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 14:06 GMT
Stefan,
"Does this 'mechanism of information' necessarily need consciousness?" No. The latter evolved long after the stuff, from which it evolved.
"But, does concsiousness need 'information' - means, can it even exist without being informed about anything but only about being existent, being conscious (aware) of itself?" In principle, yes. In practice no. Evolutionary processes...
view entire post
Stefan,
"Does this 'mechanism of information' necessarily need consciousness?" No. The latter evolved long after the stuff, from which it evolved.
"But, does concsiousness need 'information' - means, can it even exist without being informed about anything but only about being existent, being conscious (aware) of itself?" In principle, yes. In practice no. Evolutionary processes develop by responding to their environment. If they cannot sense (detect the information in) the environment (including themselves), then they cannot respond to it. In this regard, simply colliding with another entity, is a form of sensation.
"Can there be rationality without a consciousness being aware of it?" Yes. Obviously, a machine can be built, by a conscious entity, that performs rational operations, long after its creator dies. A rational operation might even evolve out of non-rational processes. But only a conscious entity would "be conscious" of the fact that the operation was rational.
"These questions are adressed to the question about what are the core features of the fountain of all existence. Can we ever answer them in a satisfactory manner?" I doubt it. But consciousness is only a tiny part of all that exists.
"And how then did 'rationality' came from? Are its logical connectives then a relativ thing or are they an absolut, 'mathematical' truth?" Rationality came from evolution. Logical connections are formed from the methods (deduction, induction, abduction) used to create connections between premises and conclusions. Consequently, the truth of any logical conclusion, tends to be highly correlated with (relative to) the truth of the premises. But consciousness is not founded on rationality. Like all evolutionary processes, it exists simply because it is able to exist (develop and survive).
"But how did such a thing as 'consistence' came into being?" By being able to respond to identical inputs, in an identical manner, each time such an encounter occurs. But the ability to even determine that the input is identical, requires that the determination be free from decision errors. This in turn, ultimately requires that observing a single bit of information (eg.spin up or spin down), be based on processes founded on (evolved) error detection and correction; otherwise, identical inputs would not appear to be identical. I am of the opinion that this is at the heart of the weirdness associated with quantum phenomenon like the EPR paradox, but that is a subject for another thread.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 22:46 GMT
Rob, Stefan,
You, and physicists, and most other people who contribute to the FQXi Community pages, seem to believe that you are like platonic observers of a universe that exists separate to yourselves.
And this is the problem: you seem unwilling to accept that you ARE reality, you ARE what reality is, and your consciousness IS information. You would rather believe in magic and mystery.
This is pure conceit: the conceit that one can objectify reality when one is actually PART of reality; the conceit that one’s information about reality (i.e. human consciousness) is totally unlike the rest of reality’s information about reality. The conceit that information could exist pure, shining and objective, disconnected from the things that are affected by this information.
Naturally human consciousness/information (and the consciousness of other living things) involves a lot more than fundamental-level information like mass and charge. Nevertheless, second by second, human consciousness is founded on this fundamental-level information. But living things require, and create, new categories of information, over and above the fundamental-level categories of information. But the consciousness/information experienced by particles, atoms, molecules and single- and multi-cell living things is all the same TYPE of thing.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 12, 2016 @ 23:41 GMT
Rob,
There is NO “process that causes . . . consciousness”, where “consciousness” is the apprehension of information in the universe. Laws-of-nature are fundamental-level information, and the consciousness of living things is higher-level information.
As Stefan says: “. . . one has necessarily to assume that consistence, logics and probably also consciousness are fundamental parts of the fountain of all existence”.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 13, 2016 @ 16:18 GMT
"But the consciousness/information experienced by particles, atoms, molecules and single- and multi-cell living things is all the same TYPE of thing."
How do you know that, Lorraine?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 14, 2016 @ 12:35 GMT
Tom,
I’m saying that there are no abstract/platonic/objective-viewpoint observers of reality; and there are no abstractly existing laws-of-nature and no abstractly existing numbers. I’m saying that it’s the things of reality that are the observers/experiencers of, and the creators of, reality’s information structure.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 14, 2016 @ 16:13 GMT
Lorraine,
"I’m saying that there are no abstract/platonic/objective-viewpoint observers of reality; and there are no abstractly existing laws-of-nature and no abstractly existing numbers."
Then you take Joe Fisher's viewpoint.
Fact is, though, that without abstraction, there is no reality -- just a cacophony of what Einstein called "the merely personal." It isn't science.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 15, 2016 @ 07:35 GMT
Tom,
"Abstraction" is a term for "a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from ...specific examples..." (Wikipedia). It describes something that human beings and other living things need to do to live a successful life.
This is quite different to BASING THE WHOLE OF PHYSICS on a foundation of ABSTRACT ENTITIES!!!!!!!
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 15, 2016 @ 14:29 GMT
Lorraine,
""Abstraction" is a term for "a conceptual process by which general rules and concepts are derived from ...specific examples..." (Wikipedia). It describes something that human beings and other living things need to do to live a successful life.
This is quite different to BASING THE WHOLE OF PHYSICS on a foundation of ABSTRACT ENTITIES!!!!!!! "
I hate to break this to you, Lorraine. The whole of physics
is based on abstraction. ("Entities" is a meaningless word.)
It has nothing to do with inductive anthropocentric ideas of how to live a successful life. (You'd do well to avoid using wikipedia as a scientific resource.)
Our aim is to construct the mathematical basis of existence and test it against how the world actually works.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies