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.
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
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Jack James: on 2/10/20 at 7:34am UTC, wrote "That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/19/19 at 2:55am UTC, wrote I think a universe designed by a Mind is the best way to explain the fine...
gamesbx 716: on 9/28/19 at 2:56am UTC, wrote The universe includes all matter, energy and space available, considered a...
Kazmer Ujvarosy: on 6/11/19 at 5:39am UTC, wrote Markus Mueller's suggestion that the world we see emerges from our...
Steve Dufourny: on 4/12/19 at 11:44am UTC, wrote Hello Mrs John, Indeed the article is very well made.It is relevant also...
Steve Dufourny: on 2/18/19 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote This consciousness even can be ranked,it exists Indeed different groups...
Robert McEachern: on 2/5/19 at 0:33am UTC, wrote Via Bell tests, in which the two particles, in each entangled pair, are...
Jack James: on 2/10/20 at 7:34am UTC, wrote "That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the...
Jason Wolfe: on 12/19/19 at 2:55am UTC, wrote I think a universe designed by a Mind is the best way to explain the fine...
gamesbx 716: on 9/28/19 at 2:56am UTC, wrote The universe includes all matter, energy and space available, considered a...
Kazmer Ujvarosy: on 6/11/19 at 5:39am UTC, wrote Markus Mueller's suggestion that the world we see emerges from our...
Steve Dufourny: on 4/12/19 at 11:44am UTC, wrote Hello Mrs John, Indeed the article is very well made.It is relevant also...
Steve Dufourny: on 2/18/19 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote This consciousness even can be ranked,it exists Indeed different groups...
Robert McEachern: on 2/5/19 at 0:33am UTC, wrote Via Bell tests, in which the two particles, in each entangled pair, are...
FQXi FORUM
May 17, 2021
In my perception it is our emerged part of consciousness in this emerged reality that is responsible for the Flow of time experience and the awareness of continuity of space.
The first question however with the idea of “emerged reality” is where it emerges from. I will explain below (in short) how.
I argue that the source of all emerging phenomena is time and...
view entire post
The first question however with the idea of “emerged reality” is where it emerges from. I will explain below (in short) how.
I argue that the source of all emerging phenomena is time and...
view entire post
I'm not against Dr. Mueller's ideas or algorithmic information theory, but if the goal is, as the article says, to
"reveal about the origin of reality...develop a framework to describe reality without assuming the existence of ordinary objects with properties...’What if all you have is mathematics itself? "That was my starting point."
and you start with mathematics, observations, and some one/thing assigning probabilities to these observations, you're not really explaining the origins of reality because you're assuming the presence of all these things. I think it's better to not over-sell what an idea is accomplishing by saying this explains the origin of reality.
My view is that to really get to the fundamentals, you can't assume the presence of mathematics, observations, some one/thing assigning probabilities, or anything else. That is, you have to assume "absolute nothing" and see where this takes you. Where it takes me is, if you follow things to the logical end as Dr. Mueller pointed out, is that if you start with what we've always thought of as absolute "nothing, but accept that
- there's no mechanism present in "nothing" to turn it into a "something"
- there is "something" now
the only way this can be is if that "nothing" wasn't actually "nothing" but was actually a "something". It's like saying that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), the only way this can be is if that 0 wasn't really a 0 but was actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looked like a 0 on the surface.
I think this reduced assumption type of thinking is the way to go if we ever want to explain the origins of reality.
report post as inappropriate
"reveal about the origin of reality...develop a framework to describe reality without assuming the existence of ordinary objects with properties...’What if all you have is mathematics itself? "That was my starting point."
and you start with mathematics, observations, and some one/thing assigning probabilities to these observations, you're not really explaining the origins of reality because you're assuming the presence of all these things. I think it's better to not over-sell what an idea is accomplishing by saying this explains the origin of reality.
My view is that to really get to the fundamentals, you can't assume the presence of mathematics, observations, some one/thing assigning probabilities, or anything else. That is, you have to assume "absolute nothing" and see where this takes you. Where it takes me is, if you follow things to the logical end as Dr. Mueller pointed out, is that if you start with what we've always thought of as absolute "nothing, but accept that
- there's no mechanism present in "nothing" to turn it into a "something"
- there is "something" now
the only way this can be is if that "nothing" wasn't actually "nothing" but was actually a "something". It's like saying that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), the only way this can be is if that 0 wasn't really a 0 but was actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looked like a 0 on the surface.
I think this reduced assumption type of thinking is the way to go if we ever want to explain the origins of reality.
I don't think it at all difficult to grasp that what we see emerges from observation. A leap too far is ""Our theory says that only observations are fundamentally ’real’", Markus Mueller. I think this begs the question what do you mean by real or what is reality? There is of course what we experience as reality from sensory perception and the reality of which we are a part as material bodies. The observer beable is necessary for the generation of the limited product of observation. The brain is able to do the necessary calculations to transform meaningless sensory input into a representation of the world that be understood and is useful in navigation and hence survival. What has been encountered before might facilitate the process and aid perception but is not limiting what can be observed. I.e. Not limiting what exists to be seen.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Roger, prior to processing into a meaningful product potential sensory information is meaningless, it is just what it is -such as unmeasured EM radiation or unmeasured pressure waves in air. Not having measurements does not make the potential stimuli non existent but just unknown or not yet known. That is a difference between a 0, non existence and 1, something (that can be something but unknown or not yet known). Agreeing with you that the nothing has to be something really. But it is important not to give prime importance to the observation product but also consider the origin of the potential stimuli, emitted from material beable sources. Also the necessity of the observer not being within the space-time product it generates but belonging to that separate category of reality, with the other beables.
report post as inappropriate
The article takes another leap too far in my opinion; from discussion of observations to them controlling the universe (which I am taking to mean the material universe where physics happens), the laws of physics, and why "business as usual" rather than bizarre physics is the norm. I think the brain is limited in the kinds of product it can generate given its material condition and well functioning biochemistry. Drugs altering brain function or brain damage or disease can affect the kinds of product generated which fall out of the norm -but these are product generation errors not a different state of the externally existing beable universe.
report post as inappropriate
This reminds me very much of Mermin's latest paper. I'll just quote the abstract here:
"We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to "Now" --- the present moment."
https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01639
I have a paper 'The ineffable 'now' in physics' that I haven't put on the Arxiv but is submitted to a journal.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
"We still lack any consensus about what one is actually talking about as one uses quantum mechanics. There is a gap between the abstract terms in which the theory is couched and the phenomena the theory enables each of us to account for so well. Because it has no practical consequences for how we each use quantum mechanics to deal with physical problems, this cognitive dissonance has managed to coexist with the quantum theory from the very beginning. The absence of conceptual clarity for almost a century suggests that the problem might lie in some implicit misconceptions about the nature of scientific explanation that are deeply held by virtually all physicists, but are rarely explicitly acknowledged. I describe here such unvoiced but widely shared assumptions. Rejecting them clarifies and unifies a range of obscure remarks about quantum mechanics made almost from the beginning by some of the giants of physics, many of whom are held to be in deep disagreement. This new view of physics requires physicists to think about science in an unfamiliar way. My primary purpose is to explain the new perspective and urge that it be taken seriously. My secondary aims are to explain why this perspective differs significantly from what Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli had been saying from the very beginning, and why it is not solipsism, as some have maintained. To emphasize that this is a general view of science, and not just of quantum mechanics, I apply it to a long-standing puzzle in classical physics: the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to "Now" --- the present moment."
https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01639
I have a paper 'The ineffable 'now' in physics' that I haven't put on the Arxiv but is submitted to a journal.
Paul
Paul, I can't access the article. "The computer you are using is not registered by an institution with a subscription to this article."
Re. "the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to "Now" --- the present moment."P.M. It is something i have spent more than a decade addressing. What I call '-Now' is categorically different from 'the present moment'. The present being the current experience of an observer. -Now being the existing configuration of the material universe. Perhaps you could give a brief summary of how you regard 'Now" and the "the present moment". I am interested in potential overlap of our ideas and the potential for confusion (or further exacerbation of general confusion) by use of similar words for different meanings by different people.
report post as inappropriate
Re. "the apparent inability of physics to give any meaning to "Now" --- the present moment."P.M. It is something i have spent more than a decade addressing. What I call '-Now' is categorically different from 'the present moment'. The present being the current experience of an observer. -Now being the existing configuration of the material universe. Perhaps you could give a brief summary of how you regard 'Now" and the "the present moment". I am interested in potential overlap of our ideas and the potential for confusion (or further exacerbation of general confusion) by use of similar words for different meanings by different people.
I did that. I just get the David Mermin abstract that you have already written here. Clicking DOI takes me to a subscription page or option to buy the article. I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't have spare money to use purchasing journal papers.
Why not share briefly here your 'takeaway' from the D. Mermin paper, and your own ideas and terminology re. Now and the present moment.
report post as inappropriate
Why not share briefly here your 'takeaway' from the D. Mermin paper, and your own ideas and terminology re. Now and the present moment.
Markus Mueller’s attempt to reconcile consciousness with an external world is worth reading and digesting and I thank him for having taken the effort to write those 81 pages and publish them.
Nonetheless the main tools of this approach are, in my opinion, somewhat fuzzy, like for example “mathematics” and “irreducible randomness”. Surely, we know mathematics as THE rock solid and...
view entire post
Nonetheless the main tools of this approach are, in my opinion, somewhat fuzzy, like for example “mathematics” and “irreducible randomness”. Surely, we know mathematics as THE rock solid and...
view entire post
Consciousness forges our perception of the universe, not the universe itself.
"the quantum physicist’s radical new take on reality seems to suggest that the world we see emerges from our observations." This is not new. It was obvious to the ancient Greek philosophers. The problem is, physicists have failed to grasp the distinction that the "world we see" is not the same sort of thing as...
view entire post
"the quantum physicist’s radical new take on reality seems to suggest that the world we see emerges from our observations." This is not new. It was obvious to the ancient Greek philosophers. The problem is, physicists have failed to grasp the distinction that the "world we see" is not the same sort of thing as...
view entire post
Like.
"For example, before we measure a quantum system, it can hold contradictory properties" SH. I think the contradiction comes from labeling the object or phenomenon with the possible outcome states which can not be found simultaneously, only one. Rather than allowing it the potential to manifest different states according to the unfolding of the circumstances of the test that is carried out, and the condition of the test subject entering the test. It is contradictory to say a coin is heads outcome and tails outcome prior to testing but not to say it has the potential to manifest either outcome. (A coin unlike a subatomic particle that can only give one result, can give more than one outcome- if tossed onto a glass table both outcomes could be seen if allowed by the chosen method at the outset.)
report post as inappropriate
"For example, before we measure a quantum system, it can hold contradictory properties" SH. I think the contradiction comes from labeling the object or phenomenon with the possible outcome states which can not be found simultaneously, only one. Rather than allowing it the potential to manifest different states according to the unfolding of the circumstances of the test that is carried out, and the condition of the test subject entering the test. It is contradictory to say a coin is heads outcome and tails outcome prior to testing but not to say it has the potential to manifest either outcome. (A coin unlike a subatomic particle that can only give one result, can give more than one outcome- if tossed onto a glass table both outcomes could be seen if allowed by the chosen method at the outset.)
"A coin unlike a subatomic particle that can only give one result" Not "unlike".
Subatomic particles behave the same way. That is what the Stern-Gerlach experiments revealed.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Subatomic particles behave the same way. That is what the Stern-Gerlach experiments revealed.
Rob McEachern
Robert, sorry my statement in brackets was ambiguous. I meant a single coin could potentially, if the chosen method allowed, be seen as both outcomes simultaneously. The method is imposing the constraints. But the single sub atomic particle can only be seen as one outcome. It was just a thought that popped into my mind, not important, but I thought you might like it as you so frequently mention quantum systems only being able to give 1 bit outcomes
report post as inappropriate
We are conscious.What is this consciousness? we are Inside a physicality in improvement, in optimisation of matters and consciousness. Why ? why all these codes of evolution.Must we consider an infinite Eternal consciousness creating this physicality? it seems that the answer is rational , yes for me,we are still youngs universally speaking
report post as inappropriate
This consciousness even can be ranked,it exists Indeed different groups considering this consciousness. We think so we are …..
report post as inappropriate
Markus Mueller's suggestion that the world we see emerges from our observations does not appear to be that radical or new after all in view of the revelations that the universe emerges from a human being, similarly as a mighty tree emerges from its parent seed. According to that world view the universe is a human being's way of making human beings in its own image, just as a tree is the seed's way of making seeds in its own image. We have the delusion that nonlife managed to generate the universe and life, when in fact the universe is the product of life. We are being exposed to plenty of irrational babbling about life's origin from simpler forms of life, and eventually from nonlife, but the stark fact is that life's origin from anything lesser than itself has never been demonstrated. We must keep in mind science's stand on the subject of biogenesis: "The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material" (The Oxford Dictionary of Biology, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2000). This law has never been falsified.
report post as inappropriate
The universe includes all matter, energy and space available, considered a whole. The current universe has no dimensions yet
There are many conflicting assumptions about the Last Fate of the Universe. Physicists and philosophers are still unsure of what, if anything, predates the Big Bang. Many people object to the predictions, doubting any information from this prior state can be collected. There are many theories about the multiverse, in which some cosmologists propose that the Universe could be one of many universes coexisting in parallel.
Consciousness in the galaxy is very small, we are not outside, but consciousness does not create the universe because the universe is still something so far away that people have not understood dk
report post as inappropriate
There are many conflicting assumptions about the Last Fate of the Universe. Physicists and philosophers are still unsure of what, if anything, predates the Big Bang. Many people object to the predictions, doubting any information from this prior state can be collected. There are many theories about the multiverse, in which some cosmologists propose that the Universe could be one of many universes coexisting in parallel.
Consciousness in the galaxy is very small, we are not outside, but consciousness does not create the universe because the universe is still something so far away that people have not understood dk
I think a universe designed by a Mind is the best way to explain the fine tuned physics constants.
report post as inappropriate
"That is, instead of a world or physical laws, it is the local state of the observer alone that determines those probabilities. Surprisingly, despite its solipsistic foundation, I show that the resulting theory recovers many features of our established physical worldview: it predicts that it appears to observers as if there was an external world that evolves according to simple, computable, probabilistic laws. In contrast to the standard view, objective reality is not assumed on this approach but rather provably emerges as an asymptotic statistical phenomenon."
Interesting. Kantish. I would expect though if you take a slice of external reality, being that of the observer and use algorithmic probability so associated, you absolutely must reach the said external world, otherwise, Newtonian science wouldn't work between humans. Is it any different, apart from conceptually, than taking atoms in the conception of the external world and determining the probability they comprise a brick when they indeed do.
report post as inappropriate
Interesting. Kantish. I would expect though if you take a slice of external reality, being that of the observer and use algorithmic probability so associated, you absolutely must reach the said external world, otherwise, Newtonian science wouldn't work between humans. Is it any different, apart from conceptually, than taking atoms in the conception of the external world and determining the probability they comprise a brick when they indeed do.
Login or create account to post reply or comment.