Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Jan. 20, 2019 @ 15:19 GMT
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
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 space-less. Both time and space are restrictions of our emerged reality:
ALL time-moments (of past, NOW and future) can be harboured in an eternal basket of time. You can wonder if time can only be experienced through consciousness. Then consciousness is creating order in the infinite chaos of moments. This order we are aware of as: the flow of time (through our consciousness). The same reasoning, I would like to have for the idea space-less. The space-less entity could be imagined as harbouring all possible and for us impossible space-dimensions (n-dimensions), each dimension with its own infinite number of coordinates. ALL these coordinates are independent of each other, they are ALL without reference. Again, here in this Total Simultaneity ORDER out of this CHAOS is created by consciousness. The arrangement of coordinates in our three-dimensional leads to the awareness of “SPACE”. The combination of these two “creations” leads to the experienced reality.
Where is this “Total Simultaneity”?
The answer: EVERYWHERE beyond the Planck length and time. At EACH point (so also points that have a less distance as the Planck length) of our emerged reality we can approach the Planck space and time, and after that frontier (that is not a strict line but a blurry region where TS and reality are fluctuating). Approaching the Planck time-length, the same happens. Total Simultaneity however will NEVER be reachable for agents that inhabit a from consciousness ordered emergent phenomenon that we are calling REALITY, because “there” rules only chaos.
May be, you can imagine that Total Simultaneity also harbours Total Consciousness. Our consciousness is only a tiny part (like our reality) of it, but also part of the origin of our reality.
Wilhelmus de Wilde
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet wrote on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 02:29 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 04:17 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 04:37 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 04:52 GMT
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
Roger Granet replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 04:53 GMT
Georgina: Hi. Thanks for the reply! I'm not necessarily questioning that what the reality we observe emerges from reality (although, I think there are a few other interpretations of quantum mechanics besides this, too), but I got the feeling from the article that Dr. Mueller, or the author, think this explains reality at its most fundamental level (e.g., where does it all come from, why/how, etc.). So, I'd agree with your statement that it's "a leap too far" that only observations or consciousness is fundamentally real. For me, I'm more interested in what is fundamentally real where I don't think we can assume that math or observations are there.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 09:06 GMT
Roger, That ties in with the last essay competition "What is fundamental?" In my entry "Universe soup and sandcastles" I wrote
"A universe can not be constituted of nothing. Nothing can arise from nothing and that is very dull, as is the mathematics of nothing. Something rather than nothing, existence rather than void is a foundational necessity. To be a universe that has physics, chemistry and biology happening, the existent something must have the quality of being able to have different distributions. More here, less there, so that from unknown (as it shares no information about itself),base existence, other kinds of existence can be happening and identified. Then there can be quantities and categories and geometry and mathematics is more interesting."GW
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vesuvius Now wrote on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 05:17 GMT
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 08:54 GMT
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
Vesuvius Now replied on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 23:49 GMT
just go to https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01639
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 00:20 GMT
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
Roger Granet replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 01:07 GMT
Georgina: I think it works if you click on the PDF. I'm like you and can't afford paywalls.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 09:54 GMT
Yes, thank you. Was there something in particular in that article that you wanted to discuss? I think the approach D. Mermin sets out puts too much emphasis on the subjective. While a probability is a subjective expectation it does also have a component that belongs to the material world outside of the mind. The probability of an individual die roll is different from the probability of heads or tails of a coin. Not because the actor thinks so but because of difference in 'pluripotency' of the objects. (Borrowing a word from biology meaning here the ability to give all possible outcomes). A pluripotent die has 6 outcome possibilities a coin only two. The outcome depends on how the method and the particular object (independent of the actor's subjective 'world') work together. Just saying the outcome is how the world responds to the actor skips over that.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 10:21 GMT
I think that pluripotent quality of independent (of the mind) existing objects, being all that they are, having potential,as sources, to lead to different observations is an important difference compared to seen (manifestations of) objects, the space-time observation products of observers; not having pluripotency but limited or partial likenesses within subjective experience. It can also be thought of as the difference between what can be described as a quantum system, with uni-temporal(same time everywhere) time, and a classical (space-time) one.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 22:19 GMT
To be even more useful I'd like to adopt the terms plupotoent and multipotent. An embryonic human stem cell can form all kinds of tissue. That is called being pluripotent. An older stem cell can only form some tissue types and that is called being multipotent. An existing object with no context, such as orientation or method by which it will be observed, is pluripotent. Rather than providing just 6 outcomes possibilities as I said in previous post,the pluripotent die has potential for more. Such as all the possible outcomes should it be thrown into partially set jelly rather than onto a flat surface.When the method has been chosen an artificial constraint has been applied; only the probability of some allowed outcomes are considered. There has been a change from considering a 'wild' multipotent object to considering a context limited multipotent one.
report post as inappropriate
Vesuvius Now replied on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 04:01 GMT
Hi Georgina. What do you think of https://philpapers.org/rec/MERTIN-4 ?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 24, 2019 @ 03:54 GMT
Paul, I have replied on the "Alternative models of reality" page.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 06:58 GMT
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
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 precise framework of lawful behaviour, but with the extra ingredient of irreducible randomness one must ask where such randomness should come from within the framework of mathematics and what should be it’s fundamental place within mathematics.
Albeit the paper of Mueller isn’t a metaphysical discussion about the meaning of maths, Solomonoff induction gives us the impression that lawful behaviour in the mathematical sense is somewhat timeless, enduring and non-changing. But irreducible randomness seems to counteract this impression. Therefore one has to assume that there is a timeless law, eduring and non-changing that dictates that the information-theoretic processes Müller wrote of should be somewhat linked to the permanent appearance of irreducible randomness (random bit-strings).
With this, mathematics turns out to be a dynamical “thing”, since irreducible randomness is somewhat fed into the deterministical equations of classical maths. Moreover, it isn’t quite clear what irreducible randomness should definitely mean. It could well be that within an infinitely long irreducible bit-string, there are parts of it that represent “lawful patterns”.
It seems clear to me that one way or the other, by asking for the fundamentals of physical reality, one has to assume some kind of emergence of physical reality from some underlying truth. If that truth should be identified as pure randomness (an infinitely long irreducible bit-string with some “lawful patterns” within it), randomness and lawful patterns wouldn’t be anymore what we thought them to be – since they obviously are able to generate non-fluctuating observations that moreover enable some kind of Solomonoff induction about them. Besides the quest for the nature of conscious observation within this (crazy?) framework (remember, within this framework, “maths” and “irreducible randomness” do at least begin to grasp their own existence and interplay), there must exist something deeper that enables these conscious observers to trace back the emergence of an external world to some underlying dynamics. If lawful patterns (classical maths) and irreducible randomness are able to do just that, we either have to radically redefine our notion of both or to assume that both aren’t the very end of the story.
By the way, Solomonoff induction enables one to induce that consciousness does not necessarily need a physical vehicle. One only has to study the huge body of near-death studies and experiences, together with the moral teachings of the world religions. In essence, they all converge asymtotically into the statement that there is a more real realm beyond physical reality. Granted that physical reality should then emerge in some way or another from that more real realm. The thing that is important about Mueller’s approach is that “more or less real” must be understood in terms of information-theoretic simulations arguments, since we have no other clue about its real nature. But if we take information-theoretic arguments serious, we can conclude that “information” at its fundamental level, should, one way or the other, have something to do what have called in my latest fqxi essay as “truth”.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 16:16 GMT
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
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 the "world as it is."
"Our theory says that only observations are fundamentally ’real’." I think, therefore I am: Our thoughts are the only thing that we ever perceive. But what we think nature is, and what it actually is, are two very different things.
"questioning one of our most basic assumptions that we operate on as human beings: that reality is objective and pre-dates us." Our reality is entirely subjective - a virtual reality created entirely by our brain - that, among other things, attempts to construct models of reality, that physicists subsequently confuse for reality itself.
"For example, before we measure a quantum system, it can hold contradictory properties" No. It merely seems contradictory, because the constructed model fails to correctly account for the behavior of entities that manifest only a single-bit-of-information.
"When we observe it, we force the system to assume a particular state" No. We only force our model of it, not the thing itself, into a particular state. A coin does not suddenly become one-sided, simply because an observer "calls it" either "heads" or "tails".
"Can that give you something that allows you to predict what you’ll see" No. Deductive logic can only derive conclusions that follow from some premises. But it cannot establish the validity of the premises. Information, in Shannon's Information Theory, is, in essence, defined to be "that which is not predictable."
"algorithmic information theory will find many applications in physics in the future" True. But it is Shannon's original Information Theory, that really explains the nature of quantum theory, not the later-developed, algorithmic information theory.
"Surely the defining feature of agents should be that they act?" And the most fundamental possible action, is to simply detect the existence of something else- by interacting with it. That is what single-bit detection, is all about.
"Choosing one’s actions is a secondary notion that should not be a fundamental part of any physical theory" No. You do not get to choose to act with something, until AFTER that something has been detected. "choosing" what to detect in the first-place, DEFINES the things you can interact with.
"radically different approaches are, in my opinion, desperately needed." I agree. But this one is not radical enough.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2019 @ 23:12 GMT
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
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 30, 2019 @ 17:19 GMT
"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
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 31, 2019 @ 23:50 GMT
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
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 1, 2019 @ 14:10 GMT
"I meant a single coin could potentially, if the chosen method allowed, be seen as both outcomes simultaneously." Exactly. That is what a superposition is.
"But the single sub atomic particle can only be seen as one outcome." No. It is exactly like the coin. That is what a superposition is.
A bit only has one value AFTER something has made a decision. But prior to that decision, it has the potential to be either of two values, depending entirely on how the decision is made. That is what a superposition is - the value is a "property" of the decision process. It is not a property of the coin, particle or bit, which merely have the property of being in a superposition, which thereby enables such two-state decisions to be made.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 2, 2019 @ 02:46 GMT
I wrote 'can only be seen as one outcome" i.e.the result. It can't be measured twice at the same time. Re. coin: I think the outcome is in part the coin's orientation on landing and part the choice of how to call the result. Same orientation on landing could be called by exposing the coin as it lies or it can be flipped over onto the other hand and then called. With the Stern Gerlach apparatus used for particle pairs; each of the partners can not be giving a truly random outcome as it has to be opposite to its partner making half of the outcomes that could happen with superposition of all outcomes prohibited. I think the condition of the particle at outset challenged by the environment of the apparatus generates the outcome ie. not pre-existing as a superposition. How it is seen depends on the condition of the particle and choice of X Y or Z orientation of field.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 3, 2019 @ 18:21 GMT
Forget about "landing" - the coins and particles are drifting through space - they never land. You are confusing entanglement with Stern-Gerlach. There are no entangled pairs involved in a Stern-Gerlach experiment; There are no pairs at all - there is just a set of particles, like random-oriented coins, such that half appear "heads or up" and the other half "tails or down". They are not "paired" in any way.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 3, 2019 @ 21:44 GMT
But aren't two sets of the apparatus used to test each of the partners of a pair? Else how do we know they retain their opposite-ness for the same orientation test, whatever the separation?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 4, 2019 @ 13:58 GMT
There are no "partners of a pair" because there are no pairs. Stern-Gerlach experiments have nothing to do with entangled (paired opposites) particles. There are two SETS of unrelated particles, not one set of paired-particles, as would be the case in Bell tests and the EPR paradox.
Imagine having one set of coins that are lying on a table, with about half Heads-up and the other half Tails-up. Then ask someone to slide them around, in order to separate them into two sets; one that is entirely heads-up and the other entirely tails-up. That is the first step in the experiment. Now ask the same person to reexamine the two sets, to see if anything has changed. Nothing has; there are still two sets, one all heads and the other all tails. Now ask another person, who has never seen the coins before, to get down on his or her knees and examine the two sets from ONLY a perfectly edge-on angle, and try to "call each coin" - they are likely to incorrectly call each set as approximately 50% heads and 50% tails, since they cannot actually see what they are at all, and are consequently likely to, in effect, simply guess that they are randomly oriented. That is all that is happening in Stern-Gerlach experiments.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 4, 2019 @ 21:30 GMT
how are 'entangled' particles tested?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 5, 2019 @ 00:33 GMT
Via Bell tests, in which the two particles, in each entangled pair, are simultaneously measured at different, random (polarization or spin) angles. The correlation statistics between these pairs, are then computed, after the fact. The December 2018 issue of Scientific American has a good article describing recent experiments, along with the standard (incorrect) interpretation of why the correlations occur.
The Matlab code in my vixra paper performs exactly this type of test on 1,000,000 polarized coins, and demonstrates that, contrary to popular belief, the correlations can be reproduced classically, and have nothing to do with either spooky action at a distance, or hidden variables, which are usually assumed to be the ONLY two possible explanations for the correlations.
I sent a Letter to the Editors of Scientific American, about this, over two months ago. But I doubt that it will ever be published - too controversial.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vesuvius Now wrote on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 04:00 GMT
What do people think of
https://philpapers.org/rec/MERTIN-4
?
report post as inappropriate
azag wrote on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 04:30 GMT
Tom Campbell has a book based on this. Check "My big toe"
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 1, 2019 @ 13:03 GMT
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
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 18, 2019 @ 14:21 GMT
This consciousness even can be ranked,it exists Indeed different groups considering this consciousness. We think so we are …..
report post as inappropriate
Kazmer Ujvarosy wrote on Jun. 11, 2019 @ 05:39 GMT
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
gamesbx 716 wrote on Sep. 28, 2019 @ 02:56 GMT
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
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Dec. 19, 2019 @ 02:55 GMT
I think a universe designed by a Mind is the best way to explain the fine tuned physics constants.
report post as inappropriate
Jack James wrote on Feb. 10, 2020 @ 07:34 GMT
"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
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.