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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

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

Kamilla Kamilla: on 4/10/16 at 17:16pm UTC, wrote I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every...

NN: on 11/5/09 at 13:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Casey, i am happy to visit yo u again. Do you associate mind with...

Casey Blood: on 11/3/09 at 14:17pm UTC, wrote Hi Frank, My thoughts. Perceptions, emotions and thoughts have a neural...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 10/30/09 at 23:34pm UTC, wrote Hi Casey. I am reviewing your essay, and I will provide more comments. ...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 10/19/09 at 4:05am UTC, wrote Hi Casey. I will gladly review and comment on your essay. The following...

Casey Blood: on 10/18/09 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote Hi Frank, Thanks for your comments. I would be more comfortable with your...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 10/18/09 at 18:05pm UTC, wrote Hi Casey. Thoughts are bodily (and physically) interactive. The natural and...

Casey Blood: on 10/17/09 at 19:10pm UTC, wrote Thanks again. As you can see from the ratings, there is an enormous amount...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar assertion: ..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Robert McEachern: "In the case of a polarized coin, the "matched filter" detector simply adds..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Quantum Mechanics and the Source of Awareness by Casey Blood [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 17:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

Quantum mechanics gives many simultaneously existing versions of reality, but we are aware of only a single, particular one. Quantum mechanics does not specify which one we are aware of, so interpretations of the mathematics have arisen, hoping to explain how the particular version is chosen. It is argued that there is little reason to be optimistic that any of the three primary interpretations, particles, collapse, or many-worlds, is correct. In the current state of physics, the most reasonable interpretation, the only one that requires no changes or amendments to the highly successful mathematics, is that we each harbor a non-physical Mind, outside the laws of physics, which is the source of our awareness. This Mind only perceives; it does not alter the wave function in any way. An experimental test of the Mind interpretation is proposed.

Author Bio

Casey Blood, professor emeritus of physics, was on the Rutgers University physics faculty for 30 years. He is currently an author, speaker, and researcher on the implications of quantum mechanics. He received his PhD from Case Western Reserve and held postdoctoral positions at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the University of Rochester.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 01:09 GMT
The very structure of our experience is dependent upon the interactive and integrated extensiveness of our thought/thinking, and upon the comprehensiveness and consistency of our intention and concern as well. Consider dream and waking experience. The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. The natural and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time.

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
Dr. Casey Blood,

Thank you for posting your entry into the essay contest. I appreciate reading your opinion. However, I was left feeling empty. Please use my message, if you wish, as a means to further support your view.

"The particle which travels on the trajectory has no awareness of its own."

"In addition, since the particle itself has no awareness,..."

How do you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 12:50 GMT
To Frank DiMeglio

I didn't understand the thrust of your comments.

But you seem to be talking about the brain-based thoughts.

I am alluding to "non-brain-based thoughts."

Casey BLood

Bookmark and Share



Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 13:55 GMT
Response to James Putnam, Sept. 17, 09

Your objection that particles may carry awareness is certainly warranted. I cannot prove that particles have no awareness.

I have thought about this possibility but am unable to make a coherent scheme from aware particles. Perhaps you can explain such a scheme to me.

A few thoughts:

(1) There is no evidence for particles. Here...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 15:18 GMT
Hi James,

Second post, because the topic is important.

If we have a particulate electron associated with an electron wave function, what is the particulate electron aware of?

If we have a particulate photon associated with a photon wave function, what is that particulate photon aware of?

If we have a detector that records a count, what are the particles that make up the detector aware of?

If we have a brain wave function in a certain configuration, what are the particles associated with that brain wave function aware of?

Can you explain in more detail why the particled version of the brain wave function corresponds to our awarenes wile the non-particled verion, with a perfectly valid wave function, does not?

Casey

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 15:40 GMT
Dear Casey Blood,

I worked on the issue of "particle"-awareness and have an essay about it here in the contest. If you would like to take a look, feel free to do so

here.

Stefan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Owen Cunningham wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
I would like to address the "non-physical" existence enjoyed by the MIND conjectured in this paper. What I have been able to gather is that "non-physical" is intended to mean "not made of or interacting with particles of any kind." This is not something with which I automatically have a problem. Yet, MIND is still something to which _behavior_ is attributed: being aware of something, perceiving something, are behaviors. The way we typically explain the behavior of an entity is by functionally decomposing it into smaller, simpler entities and studying the behaviors/interactions among those component entities. Presumably this process of "zooming in" to an entity can be repeated until we reach some "bottom level" where there are no subcomponents to be studied. My question is, if MIND is an entity that is "not made of interacting with particles of any kind," then what is the nature of the subcomponents that make it up? Do you propose that MIND has no subcomponents? If so, where does the richness of MIND's behavior come from? As any AI researcher or neuroscientist can tell you, the behavior we call "seeing," for instance, is fantastically complex. Should we add "perception" to the periodic table of elements?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Owen,

Thanks for your comments.

My goal is to try to show from quantum mechanics that there must be an "awareness" ouside physical existence. An even more ambitious goal would be the one you suggest--to learn about the structure of "existence outside physical existence." My feeling is that, as you correctly imply, it must have a complex structure. But not a structure made from particles or material objects.

Just for fun, one might try constructing non-physical existence out of "atoms" of "thought." One possible candidate 5-element set, with their basic meanings, might be:

Earth: Form, structure (the precursor of space, noun-like).

Water: Sequence (the precursor of time).

Fire: Emotion, energy, action, intelligence (verb-like).

Air: Hierarchy, combination, potential.

Ether: Essence, evaluation (adjective-like).

These would then be compounded together to give extremely complex "molecules" of thought.

Casey Blood

Bookmark and Share



Owen Cunningham wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 17:42 GMT
Thanks for your quick response. I guess my point is this: the overall goal of thinking about things like this is to explain the more complex in terms of the less complex. You have attempted to explain something more complex (quantum mechanics) by invoking MIND, which is arguably at least as complex as the thing we wish to explain. This strikes me as an example of "begging the question" much like the way Intelligent Design proponents beg the question by invoking God to explain biodiversity.

I don't mean to sound completely unsympathetic to the idea that the existence of all things material/physical owes some debt to the existence of a certain thing that is immaterial/nonphysical. A tangentially-treated implication of my own paper (and something that is explicitly the focus of Dean Rickles's submission) is that the universe essentially bootstrapped itself out of nothing but mathematics. Max Tegmark was interviewed in Wired magazine a while back and discussed the same idea, that "everything is made of math" and that physical reality is somehow a logically necessary implication of the consistency of mathematics.

So, in the end, I am skeptical of your idea of MINDfulness, but to the extent that it is similar to the competing idea of MATHfulness, I can't fight it too vigorously.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Owen,

Yes, I certainly appreciate the "bootstrap" point of view.

But my goal is not to explain the more complex in terms of the less complex.

My goal is to find a way to make sense of quantum mechanics. Although each step can be questioned, the logic is this:

(1) No reason to suspect anything besides the wave function exists.

(2) No reason to suspect collapse.

(3) Existence of the wave function alone, with all its branches, cannot account for the probability law, so it cannot be correct.

So what does this leave?

Casey

PS. Thanks for your clear writing, which seems to be in somewhat short supply.

Bookmark and Share



amrit wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Casey Blood

According to my research awareness in scientific experiment is from consciousness itself. Observer is consciousness. Through every scientist eye is watching same consciousness. Mind is processing perception and most scientists are not aware who is experiencing. They are identified with the mind. Once a scientist starts watching the mind he discovers that space-time is a mind model and that quantum space itself is timeless.

perception -- processing in model of space-time -- experience

Yours amrit

attachments: 2_FROM_SPACETIME_TO_TIMELESS_QUANTUM_SPACE.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 22:39 GMT
PS

consciousness is a basic frequency of quantum space

attachments: 8_IIGSS_BASIC_FREQUENCY.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 23:35 GMT
Mr. Blood,

Thank you for a well written and thought provoking essay.

In reading the discussion of your three proposed basic alternative interpretations (particle, collapse, and many-worlds) I was reminded of what appears to be yet a fourth possible interpretation which was outlined by Lee Smolin in his book 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.' Described as being a "relational quantum theory," the ideas are said to have been developed by Smolin, Louis Crane, and Carlo Rovelli, with further work on the concept having been done by Fotini Markopoulou. Smolin summarizes the idea as "... One universe seen by many observers, rather than many universes, seen by one mythical observer outside the universe." (p.48, TRTQG)

Unfortunately, the book was copyrighted in 2001, and I am not aware of the current status of thinking on this topic by Smolin, et al. Would you happen to have any information on a more current status by any chance? As outlined in 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity,' the concept does appear to offer an interesting and attractive alternative to the three you listed.

Thanks again for an interesting essay.

jcns

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 00:36 GMT
Dear JCN Smith,

I do not know that approach. I found just a little at the end of the arXiv article hep-th/0303185v2 by Lee Smolin. There is also a little in the Wikipedia article on interpretations. But I still don't really understand.

Thanks for you interest.

Casey Blood

Bookmark and Share



J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 02:48 GMT
Mr. Blood,

Inasmuch as Smolin, Crane, Rovelli, and Markopoulou are all members of FQXi, it seems not unreasonable to hope that one of them might learn of this discussion and provide an update on the current status of their thinking. You will find a brief description of their ideas in Chapter 3 of 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity,' but, as previously noted, that material is now a bit dated. Ideas, like the universe itself, do have a way of evolving.

Cheers,

jcns

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 12:35 GMT
Thanks

I would appreciate it if you could indicate, even if in a sketchy way, how the probability law comes about in their scheme.

Casey

Bookmark and Share



J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 14:00 GMT
Rather than paraphrasing or summarizing (and thereby probably distorting) Smolin's thinking, please allow me to quote from Chapter 3 of 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.'

". . . to formulate a theory of cosmology we must acknowledge that different observers see partly different, partial views of the universe. From this starting point it makes no sense to try to treat the whole universe as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 14:49 GMT
Thanks so much for the extended quote.

Read your essay and enjoyed it.

I see the problem of time a little differently.

Quantum mechanics gives many versions of reality, "many universes."

Our path "through time" consists, in part, of the choice of versions (however that choice is made). If you limit existence to the wave function, there is probably no way to untangle all those choices and get back to a previous time. And no way to anticipate the future choices and travel to the future (except that sometimes, many choices may lead to nearly the same future).

Going back to Smolin, the Achilles heel of the Everett many-worlds interpretation is that it cannot accommodate the probability law. So I was

wondering how, in the Smolin approach, they dealt with this most critical issue. How can a probability law follow if every version of the observer always perceives their particular associated version of reality? There is no probability in a scheme of existence in which only the wave function exists.

Casey

Bookmark and Share



James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
Dr. Casey Blood,

Thank you for your extended reply. I guess you have given me my homework assignment. The first act I will perform is to carefully reread your essay. I want to be sure that I use your time productively. I see these forums as the means to allow authors to go beyond the ten page limit. Hopefully anything I say further will be of assistance to your efforts to communicate your ideas.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 16:16 GMT
Mr. Blood,

You wrote, ". . . I was wondering how, in the Smolin approach, they dealt with this most critical issue. How can a probability law follow if every version of the observer always perceives their particular associated version of reality?"

As I understand the Smolin approach, there is only one version of each observer and only one universe. Each observer has a unique view of this one universe, but the views of all the observers must be consistent, as also the history of the one universe must be consistent for all observers. This view coincides well with my concept of "the flow of time" being nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe. In a nutshell, it is what it is, but each observer will see it differently. Their different view are all equally valid, but there must also be consistency among them.

It would be helpful if the originators of what we're calling "the Smolin approach" (i.e., what he termed "relational quantum theory") could perhaps give us an update or a reference to an update on their latest thinking along these lines.

jcns

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear James,

Your initial question/comment on "mind-in-matter" or panpsychism was a great help to me, because it made me sharpen my thinking in that direction.

You are in good com[any on this idea. There are many reputable scientists and philosophers, including David Chalmers, the pre-eminent philosopher on consciousness (and a board member of FQXi) who find panpsychism appealing. But I think they have not fully thought through the roadblocks to this position raised by quantum mechanics. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. But I'm going to be on the road Sept. 20-Oct. 1, so the responses may not be immediate.

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 21:56 GMT
Dear Dr. Casey Blood,

It will take more time to prepare to answer to your message; however, since you will not be able to answer soon, I have something quick to ask: Myself and perhaps other readers would benefit if you would say more about this part of your essay:

"But instead of doing a long series of runs before looking at the result, suppose we look at the results of single events, in real time, as the experiments are being run. If we repeat this many times, and if the Mind interpretation is correct, then we would expect the probabilities to differ from the standard x y p , p."

Specifically, why will the proof of the individual runs not be the same as the proof of the many runs? I think the experimental test you propose is as important as the the case you lay out before it. I know you give some references. Still, is there more that you can say here to clarify the above distinction.

Thank you,

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 23:41 GMT
Owen and Casey:

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. The natural and integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought go hand-in-hand.

The question is: How do we transcend, and yet partake of, the forces of physics? Answer: The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light is (of necessity) comprehensively reflected in our experience -- that is, in both our dream and waking experiences. Dreams make sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism) more like thought.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 18, 2009 @ 23:47 GMT
CORRECTION -- The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light is (of necessity) reflected in our experience -- that is, in our dream experience.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 13:39 GMT
Hi James,

I’ll see what I can do. This is from reference [1] (arXiv.org, in the physics section the quantum physics sub-section, click on find. Then put in Blood in the author part, do search, click on v2, click on PDF) page 9.

Suppose the observer is “sensitive to” the amplitude, and suppose, for example, that the “sensitivity” rule for me perceiving an event with amplitude A is

|A|^2+.25|A|^2(1-|A|^2)(.5-|A|^2), where a higher “sensitivity” means I am

more likely to perceive that state, and zero sensitivity means I will never

perceive that state. The A refers to the amplitude of the state being perceived.

We do an experiment on a two-state system, with coefficients a(1) and a(2). If we perceive the results of every outcome, and consider the number of states 1 perceived, then the appropriate value for A is a(1), and the probability of perception is |a(1)|^2+.25|a(1)^2(1-|a(1)|^2) (.5-|a(1)|^2).

But now suppose we perceive only the final result. Then the amplitude squared of the perceived state, for N runs with m states 1 perceived, is

|A|^2=(N!/m!(n-m)!)a(1)^(2m) a(2)^2(N-m). As a function of m, this has a sharp maximum at m/N=a(1)^2. Thus the sensitivity |A|^2+.25|A|^2(1-|A|^2) (.5-|A|^2) will also have a sharp maximum for that value of m (from the chain rule for the derivative), so that in the vast majority of cases, the maximizing m, which agrees with the probability law, will be what the observer perceives.

The point is that the amplitude that is plugged into the sensitivity law depends on whether you perceive each individual event or just the final result. And if you perceive just the final result, the combinatoric factor forces a maximum (no matter what the “sensitivity” rule, so long as it is monotone increasing) at the usual probability law value for m.

I hope this is of some help.

Casey

Bookmark and Share



James Putnam wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear Dr. Casey Blood,

That will do fine thank you.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Leshan wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Casey Blood,

Your Mind interpretation of quantum mechanics is VERY doubtful for following reasons:

1. The Mind interpretation contradicts to quantum mechanics:

'The individual Mind perceives only the wave function of the individual brain'

Quantum mechanics do not know such notion as 'perceives'. Quantum mechanics know only the notion 'measurement'. Then...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 19, 2009 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Leshan,

I'm going away tomorrow so I'm a bit rushed, but I wanted to respond to your criticisms. Perhaps it is best to start with a summary:

(1) No evidence for particles.

(2) No evidence for collapse.

Therefore, the current best assumption is that only the wave function exists, with all its branches.

(3) The Everett interpretation, which assumes only the wave funciton exists, is just wrong.

So something besides the wave function must exist.

We are stuck. What do we do? I assume the perceiving Mind exists.

The Mind only perceives; it does not interfere with or influence the wave function in any way. It does not collapse the wave function.

I realize the Mind interpretation is quite unconventional. But if you assume no particles, no collapse, and realize that the Everett interpretation is invalaid, what interpretation does this leave? I'm open to suggestions. The Copenhagen interpretation, as I understand it, essentially says there is no use speculating on what lies beneath the classical world we perceive. But I think that's giving up too easily.

Thanks for your interest,

Casey Blood

Bookmark and Share



Leshan wrote on Sep. 22, 2009 @ 01:38 GMT
Dear Casey Blood,

You wrote: I'm open to suggestions.

I'm sure the true interpretation of quantum mechanics exists. We must find the correct theory. Please try to create another interpretation of quantum mechanics without Mind. I suggest you a Hole Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The virtual holes in space-time are able to explain the most part of quantum mechanical phenomena as wave-particle duality, Heisenberg uncertainty principle ets. The basic idea is that the teleportation of particles is a 'built in' property of matter. Therefore, the appearance of virtual holes causes the wave properties of particles. We can build and publish together this theory. I look for a QM scientist to create this theory together.

Sincerely,

Leshan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Dr. Blood,

I am trying to understand your paper, and I see that you use the Schrodinger's cat example. However, I do not see anywhere in your essay any reference to superselection rules which prohibit nonsensical half-dead half-alive state for the cat (because mathematically it is impossible to have a consistent description of a mixture of a classical system with a quantum one). Can you please elaborate on those points? Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 14:42 GMT
I admire your essay's exposition concerning how Physics we are doing gets related to the level of awareness that one may have. The human mind is the human resource to enable us to do science. It is necessary that we pay adequate attention to this fact in order to sharpen both the Physics and the mind. Awareness is tied to a broader term ' consciousness ' and somehow it is getting involved in how we conduct our science. Let us work on to quantify such connections in order to make our science better and sharper. Lately, we are hardly getting breakthroughs in Physics. In my essay , i have attempted to emphsize a closure relationship between physical and life sciences. Though the former has no apparent depence on the latter, may be if we work closely we may learn something to orient our mind better to result in breakthroughs in Physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


casey blood wrote on Sep. 24, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
To Florin Moldoveneau

You are quite right about the superselection rule. In contrast to much of what one reads QM itself does indeed prohiblt the simultaneous perception of two versions of reality. But QM does not say how the version we perceive is "selected." And the Sch equation part of QM does not say how the probability law arises.

Casey Blood

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Sep. 26, 2009 @ 18:45 GMT
Dr. Casey Blood,

I appreciate your courteous response to my questions. I can't respond to your questions in short messages. What I have done is to post my response, in two parts, in my own forum. I did this to avoid filling your forum with my ideas. If there is anything I say that you would like to discuss, then please just quote it here in your forum and I will respond. If you want my messages posted here, then I will do that.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Casey,

i note that my comments are not finding any worth for you to respond. My essay on this forum also has a parallel discussion on the role of human mind in the physics we are doing. I also consider ' consciousness ' as an important non-physical ingredient that has a tremendous role. In my essay site, i have added another mss ' Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences ' as an additional post. i shall appreciate to see what are your response to the same.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Narendra,

It's not that I don't find any worth in your thoughts (and I was on vacation for several days). I agree that there is almost certainly an underlyng awareness/consciousness. The trick is to deduce the existence of that awareness from the physics. It is not so easy. I think the only way is to find a "proof" that there can be no particles (hidden variables) and no collapse. Can't think of another way.

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 03:09 GMT
Dr. Casey Blood,

Quoting you:

"Suppose you were God (?) and wanted to make a universe in which Intelligence had scope to express itself, but there was still some structure. Then a good candidate would seem to be to "invent" a mathematical structure within which intelligence could operate. That is what I think our physical universe is a mathematical playground for intelligence to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 13:54 GMT
Hi James,

I may see your point. When all there is is intelligence, how can anything "real" exist? That is, I think you are concerned about duality. I agree, although the place where duality becomes unity is a long journey from here. Don't know if this is the sort of thing you envision, but here is a quote from chapter 20 of my book.

TENNIS, COVENANTS & THE GAME OF LOVE

We are beings who have "agreed" to subject ourselves to the rules of quantum mechanics. To give this view a more picturesque form, consider the game of tennis. The players of the game agree that, to gain the benefits of play, they will follow certain rules. The rules are related to the court (a rectangle marked off on the ground to delineate the confines of the game) and the net (the barrier).

It is, I believe, the same with existence. The court and the net correspond to the physical laws (quantum mechanics), and the rules and strategies of the game correspond to the psychological laws ( brain structure and function) of life on earth. We, each of the souls here, have made a covenant with one another and with "God" that we would play the physical universe game. From this point of view, physical existence corresponds simply to a set of agreed-upon restrictions and rules [the equations of QM] —but wondrous rules, rules that allow us to play the game of love.

In the end, I think, there can be no "mechanical" reality. But its a long journey to the actual experience of this. The only way to make the journey, it seems, is through meditative practices. The magic carpet to take us there is, figuratively speaking, the prayer rug.

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 21:24 GMT
Dear Casey Blood,

Your article is much interesting and useful to me and I try to interpret this for a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, though your descriptions are based on Lambda-CDM model of cosmology:

In a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, the radioactive decay is described as the dissociation of terminal cluster-matters into elementary matters and they cluster into elementary-cluster-matters that are propagators for the cyclic wave propagation in a matrix. The observer itself is a cyclic cluster-matter and may be in a 'coherent' or 'incoherent' state in relevant to the propagator. For an observer in relevant to a propagator, its 'awareness' is 'true' when it is 'coherent' and it is 'false' when it is 'incoherent'. When the observer is 'aware', that is 'coherent', there is energy-mass transfer from the propagator by cyclic action. A cluster-matter is 'aware' inherently for a propagator that is coherent to it and thereby the wave function is not applicable for this model.

But the energy-mass transfer in a cyclic action by space-bubble shift phenomenon may have some mathematical similarities with 'Collapse Interpretation' mathematic formulation without probability assignments, whereas the trajectory is substituted by cyclic action.

The 'Many-worlds Interpretation' described by the wave function in Lambda-CDM model of cosmology is expressed as the existence of incoherent cluster-matters for a cluster-matter in the trifurcated tree hierarchy of cluster-matter universe, that is a single-version physical world.

Thereby in this model the source awareness is expressed as the coherency of a cluster-mater for another cluster-matter that is the propagator.

I think the neurological 'awareness' is also physical in which 'collective awareness' is the level of consciousness the mind perceives, that may be a path integral in matrix, mathematically; so interesting the physics and nature, thank you.

With best wishes,

jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 13:08 GMT
i saw your response, Casey. If one keeps in touch with the develpments inlife sciences, one may note that it has become possible to measure the internal electric field within a singe cell as well as in a membrane. The former is far higher than the latter. The measurements were done using nanostructured dyes that can reside locally to the confine of a single cell and then act as nano voltmeter there. Soon it may become possible to understand how the cells communicate with its enviroment more locally as well as distantly within a body structure. Then it may welll become possible to start understanding how the mind works and what role the degrees of awareness/ consciousness play in such communications.

That is the reasone of my suggestion at the end of my own essay on this forum, where i suggest close collaboration between physical and life scientists and not merely providing the latter with their advanced technological tools!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
Hi Narendra,

I find it hard to imagine an experiment in the life sciences that would reveal awareness or consciousness outside the laws of physics. Perhaps you could give an exazmple (or perhaps you wish to find aware/consc within the laws of quantum mechanics).

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 23:38 GMT
Dear Casey Blood,

A number of your points are easy to agree with-- for instance, "collapse of the wave-function" and "many worlds" seem to lack experimental means of verification. You state that "awareness cannot be ignored in physics. While difficult to frame experimentally, this seems intuitively obvious. I believe that the most significant problem in physics is that it fails to address...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 21:11 GMT
Dear Casey Blood,

Your key point is that:

Only the wave function, with all its branches, physically exists.

and claim it's reasonable that only the wave function, with all its branches, exists, so something besides the wave function must exist and must be responsible for our awareness of one specific branch, because in any given instance, there is always one quantum version...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nath wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 02:51 GMT
Casey,

Do you think that the universe's creation was a pure physical process when we do not know anything about what exited prior to it. Physics is just a desriptional science about the physical nature in our visible tiny part of the Universe. We are still in the dark about the 96% dark matter/energy.

If we continue to fix the methodology for doing Physics what has been done thus far, we will be stopping ourselves from solving the unsolved mysteries. Path breaking ideas may well involve modifying the methodology being adopted. We ahve encountered such things already in Physics when we needed to understand things that defied existing concepts in the explanation. Just see what was the need for Einstein to express an opinion that he thought that one day an alternate theory will replace Quantum echanics. He simply did not like that everything has a 100% random origin. Just a look at the evolution design of the universe thus far, we sense a highly intelligent logical component in it.Can we attempt to say why the universe pattern had to be like it is. We study onlt the what's and how's and not the why's in all sciences. The creator has kept something to Himself. Let us broaden our approach continuously,as i feel close collaboration of Physics with life sciences is bound to benefit Physics of today. Life force is truly a mystery to quantify!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 13:00 GMT
Hi Nath,

Not sure I understand where you are going with your remark.

Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory.

What I'm trying to do is show it is incomplete; it cannot account for everyting about our perceptions.

Then I'm arguing that, to complete it, something outside current physics (quantum mechanics), something like a "mind," is needed.

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 20:45 GMT
Hi Darryl,

Thanks for your post.

In such a theory, one ewould expect one version of reality to be singled out--either the Sch cat alive version or the Sch cat dead version. I couldln't see how the singling out is done in a quick read of your article. Is there collapse?

Also, how do you handle probability?

And free will?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnnam wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 03:58 GMT
Dr. Casey Blood,

Hello again. I am preparing to write an opinion of your essay. I think your work along with some other participants who are attempting to move beyond mechanical style theoretical physics and account for the existence of intelligent life is an important contribution to this contest. For the moment though I have a single question. I must assume this is the fault of my own limitations. The question is: You state that "We know from everyday experience that observer 1 and observer 2 (and the cat) must be in agreement. And we know from quantum mechanics itself that two observers can never disagree. ..." Can you please say something about why your second sentence is true? What is it about quantum mechanics that does not allow two observers to disagree? Thank you.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 13:10 GMT
Hi James,

Thanks. I also believe an accurate non-mechanistic view of existence is extremely important at this time.

To illustrate the two-observer *problem*, suppose we do Sch cat with two observers. Then the wave function/state vector is

[|obs 1, v1 sees cat alive> |obs 2, v1 sees cat alive> |cat alive>]

+

[|obs 1, v2 sees cat dead> |obs 2, v2 sees cat dead> |cat dead>]

We then have the second observer ask the first observer what he saw. The point is that the two versions of reality are in entirely different, non-communicating universes. So |obs 2, v1> can only ask |obs 1, v1> (and not |obs 1, v2>) and

|obs 2, v2> can only ask |obs 1, v2>. Thus, on each branch of the wave function, what obs 1 tells obs 2 will always agree with obs 2’s perceptions.

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 18:44 GMT
Dr. Casey Blood,

I think that your work recognizing the existence of intelligent life and its interrelatedness as a central part of the nature of the universe advances theoretical physics beyond its current limitation of mechanical type ideas. I see various efforts in this contest to move this obvious need forward. It is heartening. I do not know what the best path is; and, I have not reached the point where I can show this kind of progress. So, I am very appreciative of the work by others to bring ourselves, i.e. intelligent human life, into the solutions of theoretical physics.

We are definitely here. We must be accounted for. Any final or even near final theoretical explanation of the universe must be able to show a clear, direct connection between us and the fundamental nature of universe. Mechanical theories that lay claim to bringing intelligence into existence are, I think, trying to grab credit simply by association. The universe is usually defined mechanically and yet it is clearly seen that intelligent life exists. The conclusion that this association shows that mechanics leads to intelligence is unscientific.

You are not shackled by this artificial constraint, and, your work to bring intelligent effects and mechancial level effects together is an important contribution to scientific learning.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 19:10 GMT
Thanks again.

As you can see from the ratings, there is an enormous amount of resistance to a non-mechanical theory. I just don't understand it, either from a common-sense point of view, or from a detailed technical analysis. Fear of, or scorn for religion, I guess. But *religion* is very different from the real understanding. I hope you keep at your quest. **When you can tell the container from the contents, then you will have knowledge.**

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 18:05 GMT
Hi Casey. Thoughts are bodily (and physically) interactive. The natural and integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought go hand-in-hand.

Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. The brain is vision/a visual experience. Thought(s) are not identical with vision(s).

Kindly consider rating and commenting upon my essay. It is the fourth from the top. Thanks.

Schrodinger suggested "a new type of physical law" regarding life/thought and inanimate/animate. The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light in a fourth dimension of space is this new physical law. The physical structure, form, and sensory experience of this law is/occurs in dream experience.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 19:36 GMT
Hi Frank,

Thanks for your comments.

I would be more comfortable with your essay if I understood how the ideas relate to what is known about the brain. Sensory perceptions, reasoned thoughts, and emotions all have neural correlates--the firing of neurons in certain specific areas of the brain. All indications are that the same is true of dreams; the visual and emotional regions in particular are activated. How does this relate to your ideas? Why should the firing of neurons relate to theories of electromagnetism and gravity?

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 04:05 GMT
Hi Casey. I will gladly review and comment on your essay. The following will be of use to you.

I discuss the relative disintegration of vision in dreams, including the fact that the dream is an emotionally centered experience. I explain how all of this relates to, and involves, the [gravitational] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought and sense. I also explain how dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (includng gravity and electromagnetism/light). The firing of neurons is not necessary/essential to my position. That is clear when carefully reading and considering the essay. The [waking] extensiveness of thought is reduced by the higher (and emotional) feeling of the dream.

What certain essay contestants on here fail to realize is that time has 3 parts -- past, present, and future. Any TOE must not only address the integrated extensiveness of experience in general, but it must address this as well. You cannot have a TOE whereby time is dimininished, in other words. The integrated extensiveness of being/thought/experience must address the integrated extensiveness of time. The totality of time must be understood in conjunction with, and inseparable from, the present. Physics, to date, has failed miserably at this.

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

This is a FACT, and it is perfectly written. The limits of both physics and the understanding in general cannot be properly understood apart from this central and most important idea.

The mathematical union of gravity AND electromagnetism/light with the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory is undeniable. The physical reality, structure, and sensory experience of this unification occurs in/as dream experience. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). To think that the unification of Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light is not plainly and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest blunders/omissions of common sense that has ever occurred.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by making gravity repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light is required. I have clearly and thoroughly demonstrated this, including demonstrating electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space (in the experience of dreams). The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space in dreams is central to balancing/unifying scale in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. You have to read, and very carefully consider, my entire essay (including ALL OF my posts underneath it.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 23:34 GMT
Hi Casey. I am reviewing your essay, and I will provide more comments.

Thought(s) is/are different from vision/visual experiences. (Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.) However, there is no denying the fundamentally interactive nature of being, thought, experience, and space.

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." -- Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell – "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows:

This physical and "general" law is the known unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis of this law (and unification) is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

What are your thoughts on all of this please?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Casey Blood wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 14:17 GMT
Hi Frank,

My thoughts.

Perceptions, emotions and thoughts have a neural correlate.

The trick is to try and deduce FROM QM that there is some intelligence,

awareness and emotion in addition to the brain.

But you must know how the brain functions pretty well before you can begin

to draw conclusions.

Casey

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 13:41 GMT
Dear Casey,

i am happy to visit yo u again. Do you associate mind with the organ brain entirely or you differentiate between the two and if so how? It seems you agree that consciousness is playing a discrete role in our knowledge of Physics. Klingman has explained in detail what he feels on the subject. yes, QM has been successful to explain things in the microworld but only when we take illustrative help from the classical picture, to accept the concepts involved.

There has been a Internet site report attributed to a Nobel Leaurete, Prof. Eccles of Oxford. While studying the Supplementary Area (SMA) of the brain, he observed unlikely activity of the neurons therein. he attributes it to some kind of external signals affecting that activity inside the brain. He further believes that such interactions appear to get recorded in a non-physical sheath covering the SMA.That record therefore does not die with the death of that body. It is an intersting statement from a biological scientist that may help us understand the human mind and consciousness associated. it is for this reason and others that i suggest in my essay on this forum that physicists need to colloborate closely with the lfe scientists and not just provide them the sophisticated physical instruments they use to their studies

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kamilla Kamilla wrote on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 17:16 GMT
I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the new stuff you post.

192.168.1.254

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.