Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/27/20 at 16:18pm UTC, wrote Robert and Malcom, See me itinerant and a bit worried by Feynman’s...

Joe Fisher: on 2/19/20 at 18:57pm UTC, wrote A visible person could dig or bore a fixed hole with visible sides in a...

Robert McEachern: on 2/18/20 at 16:09pm UTC, wrote Eckard, I would argue that all symbolic representation (and thus all of...

Joe Fisher: on 2/17/20 at 16:18pm UTC, wrote Not one visible person has ever had any invisible finite “free-will.”...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/17/20 at 4:03am UTC, wrote There are at least the following arguments against generalizing Fourier...

Joe Fisher: on 2/16/20 at 21:52pm UTC, wrote Dear science supporters, please do not remove my reality post as being...

Robert McEachern: on 2/16/20 at 17:26pm UTC, wrote Malcolm, I am not merely suggesting it, I am attempting to point-out that...

Malcolm Riddoch: on 2/16/20 at 4:04am UTC, wrote @Rob, are you suggesting that photons objectively travel across the lab...



FQXi FORUM
February 27, 2020

ARTICLE: The Quantum Agent [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Jack James wrote on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 02:59 GMT
"if the input is x, then do y"

Where then, y=f(x) and y is the so-called agent, but it really an action/output undertaken automatically/deterministically from x's.

And so no one is conscious y, but consciousness results from x brain states as emergent y, and another set of x brain states that produce y consciousness “observe” in as much as groups of x brain states produce y's.

If so, there are a lot of resulting consciousnesses, because there are a lot of brain states, but no one is actually conscious in the freewill capacity.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3360

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Roger Granet wrote on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 03:21 GMT
I wonder if an agent, or the act of observation, is kind of like causing a nucleation site to form, thereby allowing the "crystallization", or formation, of the state of affairs (e.g., what is observed) to proceed. What I'm thinking is as follows. Let's say that reality is made of little, jiggling membranes. One might call these strings, loops, or whatever. They have the potential to cause the formation of other membranes around them. This potential is what is called quantum probability. But, while the membranes are jiggling, there's no stable, unmoving surface that can serve as a nucleation site for this potential, or quantum probability, to collapse and cause the formation of the new surrounding membranes. This means, then, that the act of observation by an agent is just the ability to temporarily stop the jiggling of a membrane, thereby allowing a stable surface to be present and act as a nucleation site to allow the surrounding quantum probability to "crystallize", or collapse, and causing the formation of the new surrounding membranes and the appearance of the observer-caused state of affairs.

Just an idea I've been working on based on my own thinking. Thanks.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Feb. 12, 2020 @ 14:09 GMT
"Steinberg’s work on measurement, information-storage and erasure is intimately tied to a fundamental theorem of quantum physics that says quantum information can’t be perfectly copied."

In Shannon's Information Theory, any data or state that cannot be perfectly copied, is not information in the first place; When a system contains both "signal" and "noise", only the signal (AKA information) can be perfectly copied - that is the defining property of "information". Quantum states cannot be copied, precisely because they contain a great deal of noise, and not just signal; a single bit of information (like spin-up or spin-down) cannot exist without noise being present, since reducing the noise will necessarily enable more than a single bit to be detected.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Feb. 13, 2020 @ 16:35 GMT
Only humanly contrived finite mathematical symbols are functional. It would be physically impossible to add, subtract, multiply or divide any amount of INFINITE VISIBLE surface in order to increase or decrease its visibility. There are no finite fractions of the INFINITE VISIBLE surface. There are no finite decimals of the INFINITE VISIBLE surface.

Joe Fisher, Visible Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Malcolm Riddoch wrote on Feb. 15, 2020 @ 03:23 GMT
Regarding the quantum measurement process in ‘interferometer experiments’ where ‘photons are made to travel along different paths’, as I understand it there’s a photon emitter (laser) and a receiver (such as a photosensitive plate), and some measurable distance between them as part of the whole laboratory setup. This is the observer’s lab world and for them there is an actual fact of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 15, 2020 @ 15:24 GMT
Malcolm,

I live in a community in which every path (street) is a dead-end or cul-de-sac. There is only one way out. Hence, to catch (detect) a burglar trying to flee the community in a vehicle, the police do not have to send police cars to search out every possible path through the community; it is sufficient to simply put one detector at the only exit. All roads lead to that exist,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Malcolm Riddoch replied on Feb. 16, 2020 @ 04:04 GMT
@Rob, are you suggesting that photons objectively travel across the lab space as individual physical entities like a thief in a cul-de-sac?

This sort of classical simile for quantum realities is precisely the question isn't it?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Feb. 16, 2020 @ 17:26 GMT
Malcolm,

I am not merely suggesting it, I am attempting to point-out that the actual facts demand it. Photons travel like phonemes in a sound wave; a distinct, recognizable entity, but one that is only detectable/recognizable, to another entity that knows, a priori, how to properly detect it, in its entirety - all or nothing - just like identifying and catching an actual...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Feb. 16, 2020 @ 21:52 GMT
Dear science supporters, please do not remove my reality post as being inappropriate. Grow up.

Like crazed graffiti artists, visible credentialed physicists have gone around daubing radioactive material on solid object surfaces and stupidly announced that they could scientifically tell that a particular rock was “older” than some other particular rock was.” All matter, be it solid, liquid, plastic or vaporous has ONE VISIBLE INFINITE contrasting surface. It would be physically impossible for the visible surface of a cloud to be “older” or “younger” than the visible surface of a puddle of water was. It would be physically impossible for the visible surface of the sky to be “older” or “younger” than the visible surface of the moon or the sun was.

Joe Fisher, Visible Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Feb. 17, 2020 @ 16:18 GMT
Not one visible person has ever had any invisible finite “free-will.” Not one visible person has ever had any invisible finite optional “will” or “won’t.” Please do try to keep this in mind: All humanly contrived finite written information is unnatural, unreal and UNTRUE. Every visible person has always had a visible surface and that was because every VISIBLE credentialed physicist who has ever lived has only been able to prove one true fact about real matter and that was that whether it was seemingly solid, liquid, plastic, or vaporous, animate or inanimate matter always had ONE VISIBLE surface. No VISIBLE physicist has ever proven that any empty space has ever existed. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE INFINITE VISIBLE contrasting surface eternally occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension while always mostly being illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Visible Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 18:57 GMT
A visible person could dig or bore a fixed hole with visible sides in a visible solid surface. Nature has allowed us to see visible fixed craters on the visible solid surface of the moon. Yet it is physically impossible for a fixed hole to appear on the visible surface of a liquid. Competent visible cigarette smokers can blow visible smoke rings out of their visible mouths, but those smoke rings are only visible briefly. Supposedly highly intelligent credentialed visible physicists insist that they have visible mathematical proof that invisible black holes abound in invisible outer space and have done so unchanged for the past 13.75 billion light-years. The visible physicists do modestly admit that they are unsure if an invisible black hole could have finitely assembled before the invisible big bang took place.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.