God and Quantum Mechanics

[Dancing David]

No, perceptions of reality reflect the observer. Actual objective reality doesn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what I think about it. My perceptions will shape the model of reality that I construct within my consciousness, but the reality of the universe is not altered by my opinions or desires regarding how it works

Yay!

 

[Singularitarian]

No, perceptions of reality reflect the observer. Actual objective reality doesn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys what I think about it. My perceptions will shape the model of reality that I construct within my consciousness, but the reality of the universe is not altered by my opinions or desires regarding how it works

Incontrivertibly wrong.

Whether or not the universe has a consciousness ''to care'' about what we think, that it a question left for the philosophers who care of such matters.

Consciousness however does exist, and we do reflect the reality we observe through complex biochemical changes, from that one single photon absorbed by the retina. The world we see at large is indeed only a representational view of the reality at large, this has been a known fact of quantum physics and nuerosciences for a very long time. The world we project however has one of the most impossible connections to the metric of a space, and that is through time.

My studies, which have been considerably vast, has finally come to ask, ''Is time an emergent property of space?'' And from here, i conclused scientifically and logically that geometric time was only ever experienced by a conscious observer, the same geometric time we deal with in the geometry of Minkowskian Space. The quantization of time however, is something beyond the threshold of any consciousness. The major thing to remember here, is that the speed of consciousness (or thought-processes and electrical signal processing) are in fact considerably slower than the quantized time model of quantum physics. The fundamental time versus the geometric time is considerable, as to suggest that we emerge from complex structures of the
fundamental statistical averages, into the three-dimensional phenomenon of our own perception, smeared if you like as a projection slowely evaluating moments in time, whilst the fundemental time vanishes and reapears just as quick in [latex]10^{-44}[/latex]. My perception of the world at large then, is not only not the three-dimensional world at large but some holographic presentation of consciousness, but fundamental isn't even effective in the speed of consciousness, meaning we effectively cannot be within it's strict temporal rules, but we mysteriously seem to be an emergent property of it.

The point of all this? Well, going back to whether ''the universe cares'' becomes irrelevent. Why?

Since above we can clearly state we ourselves, these complex bioforms of carbon and electrons, which can ask such questions due to a level of conscious intelligence, then if we truely are an emergent property of the fundamental time (as described under metric physics), then we are actually not all that independant of the vacuum itself. No surprise really, since we require vacuum flucuations to even have a consciousness, these some [latex]10^{26}[/latex] particles that whizz around inside of my head. We by definition, are the vacuum; a conscious emergent property of vacuum ingredients. So in a sense, the vacuum does care, because essentially, we are the vacuum. If one completely dismisses that our consciousness has no ties to the world at large, are greately mistaken. Our very thoughts could even be emergent properties of the ZPF as according to Shiuji Inomata, a Japanese scientist who has worked on the theories of ZPF for many years now.

The fact we observe the world, is evidence enough that what we are seeing is a description of a reality which seems real to us. Nothing more counts really from a philosophical mannor, for, what would reality really account for if there was no conscious observer to measure its beauty and vastness?

 

[medeyle]

HIP (Indeterminancy Principle) is a statement that the knowledge about the relative vector and position are related to QM, due to the wave form of particles, it is based upon the fact that one variables certainty will mean indeterminancy in another.

I understood it to be velocity, not vector? Genuinely asking, as I am wondering if there's some subtlety I don't know. Thank you!

 

[Singularitarian]

I kept this from the work originally, because i didn't want to get too philosophical with the work, but it is interesting (hence the point why i am going to post it now) to eliminate theories of physics using the model that there does indeed exist a being with an ''all-seeing'' eye over the vast plain of time.

Excerpt

If God did exist, then it would mean we can eliminate certain identities of physics we have come to call theories. Considering there is some superintelligence, with the knowledge of everything scoped throughout time, not defying the uncertainty principle, then the wave function must have pilot waves governing them. No respectable theory of physics could stand the presence of such an observer in spacetime, such as a God following the description in this case it was given. An all-knowing God, according to the natural laws of physics would imply the wave function must have already collapsed, just as you might find in the Bohmian Interpretation of physics. An all-knowing God would be a sufficient measurer to collapse the wave function, and should, if he or she can define the universe.

A few problems that has persisted, can be removed, and this all comes down to reletivity.

To measure the energy of something, like the universe for instance, you must be outside of the universe first. Just as though we where going to measure the energy eigenstate of a particle, we must observe it by colliding them with other particles, or scrutanize them under a power telescope. For the universe to have a defined energy under the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics, one then must sit outside spacetime, but relativity concludes (without adaptation) that there is no outside to the universe. There may be a multidimensional bulk, a static sea in which our dimensional vacuum seems to be a collapse in the structure of the bulk itself. This is a string theory model of spacetime, but maneuvering around this, due to the superfluous amount of dimensions required, normally, we would consider the measuring of the energy inconsistent, for the universe at large is ultimately self-contained. However, even energy itself can exist within the information of the wave function, and if God knows everything, and the universe is ruled by defined laws initially set at big bang, then the energy emergent in the vacuum is also a consequence of this. So if you have a model with a theory of God, you cannot by logic have a normal definition of the big bang, but it seems to take more of a Bohmian approach. One might even speculate that if such an entity like God did exist, then it would very possibly be his or her existence which brought the universe into being, but the age-old question of philosophy asks, ''then who created God?''

 

[Singularitarian]

Excuse me, no wonder you like to post in R&P, no consequence to silly statements.

HIP (Indeterminancy Principle) is a statement that the knowledge about the relative vector and position are related to QM, due to the wave form of particles, it is based uypon the fact that one variables certainty will mean indeterminancy in another.

God can not know the absolute values for a partcile because they don't exist. Waveforms stay waveforms, they do not become absolute:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Hi David,

The uncertainty principle, most associated with the universal expression of [latex]\Delta p \Delta x \approx h/2[/latex] where any cetainty in momentum [latex]p[/latex] such as an observation causing a collapse in the wave function [latex]\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2[/latex] (which is maybe what you meant ?) makes the position [latex]x[/latex] more indetermined. If God knew everything, then these attributes such as location and position would be simultaneously known if he was all-knowing, completely omnipotent. This causes a violation, hence why i suggested a possiblity of a God doing this, due to the two scientists paper i had shown. The absolute values (which by i think you mean a collapse in the wave function) would be suffice to suggest that God can violate the uncertainty principle following the mathematical laws contained within the paper, which suggest you can know for certainty within the present time the location and position of a particle if you are able to make a measurement of the particles position or trajectory in the past, and its remaining path or trajectory in the future, an know both without properly violating the laws of quantum mechanics. This is given as a mechanism.

 

[BNRT]

[...]Since above we can clearly state we ourselves, these complex bioforms of carbon and electrons, which can ask such questions due to a level of conscious intelligence, then if we truely are an emergent property of the fundamental time (as described under metric physics), then we are actually not all that independant of the vacuum itself. No surprise really, since we require vacuum flucuations to even have a consciousness, these some [latex]10^{26}[/latex] particles that whizz around inside of my head. We by definition, are the vacuum; a conscious emergent property of vacuum ingredients. So in a sense, the vacuum does care, because essentially, we are the vacuum. If one completely dismisses that our consciousness has no ties to the world at large, are greately mistaken. Our very thoughts could even be emergent properties of the ZPF as according to Shiuji Inomata, a Japanese scientist who has worked on the theories of ZPF for many years now.

The fact we observe the world, is evidence enough that what we are seeing is a description of a reality which seems real to us. Nothing more counts really from a philosophical mannor, for, what would reality really account for if there was no conscious observer to measure its beauty and vastness?

Bolding mine.

In the bold phrases, which I perceive to be at the center of your argument, you seem to be either saying that:

A) Humans 'care' about things. Humans are made from/with bits of vacuum. The universe is made from/with bits of vacuum. Therefore the universe 'cares'.

or

B) Humans are made from/with bits of vacuum. Humans 'care'. Therefore there are bits of vacuum that care.

Both these arugments do not really sound valid, so you might mean something else. Argument A misses something that justifies the step from bits of vacuum to the vacuum in the whole universe. Argument B seems tautological.

 

[Singularitarian]

Of course the observer is part of reality.

But what I said is that , in QM (Quantum Mechanivs) the perception of 'things' as matter breaks down at the small scale. Everything is energy, and we can model it as waveforms. part of this is HIP ( also called the Uncertainty Principle). There are values that are correlates of each other, and as the determination of one goes up the other goes down. So you can know position but momentum gets indeterminate (at a very small scale). The waveforms of large scale obejects are different, they sort of cancel out.

Objectivity rocks. But at the QM scale nothing is certain and it hops around.

The quantum waves in which you are referring to, do not normally cancel out for billions upon billions of lightyears. Even my wave function, albiet, as small as it is, it still extends way past pluto due to the statistical nature of the wave function. Space and time is scrammbled with this ghostly potential information in the form of the wave function, it even governs entire stars and planets, and even the entire universe, as you would find from a Wheeler-de Witt Equation of the universe, where time has no value or energy change.

 

[Singularitarian]

Bolding mine.

In the bold phrases, which I perceive to be at the center of your argument, you seem to be either saying that:

A) Humans 'care' about things. Humans are made from/with bits of vacuum. The universe is made from/with bits of vacuum. Therefore the universe 'cares'.

or

B) Humans are made from/with bits of vacuum. Humans 'care'. Therefore there are bits of vacuum that care.

Both these arugments do not really sound valid, so you might mean something else. Argument A misses something that justifies the step from bits of vacuum to the vacuum in the whole universe. Argument B seems tautological.

It's logic right?

Let's go over this again, in a different way. If everything that counts is contained within space and time, then consciousness must also be an emergent property of the vacuum. This cannot be disputed.

With a little thought, if we are by definition just another emergent property that is contained within spacetime, then spacetime itself by definition is the consciousness we feel and objectively know. As wierd as it sounds, it's inescapable, because when you get down to it, our consciousness cannot be independant from the same things which make a vacuum, a vacuum.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's logic right?

Wrong.

Let's go over this again, in a different way. If everything that counts is contained within space and time, then consciousness must also be an emergent property of the vacuum.

Non-sequitur.

This cannot be disputed.

Except for one tiny problem - it's complete nonsense.

With a little thought, if we are by definition just another emergent property that is contained within spacetime, then spacetime itself by definition is the consciousness we feel and objectively know.

Non-sequitur, fallacy of decomposition.

 

[BNRT]

[...]If everything that counts is contained within space and time, then consciousness [is] an emergent property of the vacuum. This cannot be disputed.

Watch me. Why would everything that counts being contained within space and time have anything to do with the fabrics of consciousness? I am afraid it is not a very coherent argument, as I understand it.

With a little thought, if we are by definition just another emergent property that is contained within spacetime, then spacetime itself by definition is the consciousness we feel and objectively know. As wierd as it sounds, it's inescapable, because when you get down to it, our consciousness cannot be independant from the same things which make a vacuum, a vacuum.

Bolding mine.

Are you saying that if Humans are spatial and temporal, then consciousness is also spatial and temporal because consciousness is part of Humans? Do you mean to say that, on a larger scale, consciousness is made up of the electrical and chemical reactions between molecules and cells?

 

[Singularitarian]

Watch me. Why would everything that counts being contained within space and time have anything to do with the fabrics of consciousness? I am afraid it is not a very coherent argument, as I understand it.



Bolding mine.

Are you saying that if Humans are spatial and temporal, then consciousness is also spatial and temporal because consciousness is part of Humans? Do you mean to say that, on a larger scale, consciousness is made up of the electrical and chemical reactions between molecules and cells?

Funny, I've never used the term ''fabric of consciousness'' before, but it sounds good. Anyway, this fabric is completely imaginal. There seems to be no physicality to the holograph we observe. The world at large is not what we see, as it is a complete translation of electrical signals, and the information brings to us a cloud of knowledge.

Now, if consciousness is real, which we think it is, since i can do this, observe what i can, measure the time passing, i am myself not only part of special relativistic mathematics as an inertial observer, but i am also ''conscious'' because tiny fluctuations (matter and energy) allow me to have some kind of cogency. To allay any suspicion that consciousness is some kind of hidden dimension itself and somehow independant of the vacuum, our consciousness does nevertheless require matter and energy. This means our consciousness is an emergent property of the vacuum, since according to relativity, you cannot have space and time, without mass and energy.

As for the latter, no. Read above. Remember, in special relativity, we find it to be an observer-dependant theory, and i'm not just talking about atoms, but actual human observers. Whether or not you accept we ae but part and parcel of the great whole,you still cannot deny we are going to have to involve a model of consciousness due to special relativity into any unified model of physics. As the Dirac Medal Winner Andre Lindt once said, ''Would neglecting a description of percpection leave any final theory incomplete.'' Evenn Einstein once said, ''Humans are part of the whole we call universe.''

 

[BNRT]

Funny, I've never used the term ''fabric of consciousness'' before, but it sounds good. Anyway, this fabric is completely imaginal. There seems to be no physicality to the holograph we observe. The world at large is not what we see, as it is a complete translation of electrical signals, and the information brings to us a cloud of knowledge.

Imaginal is not a word, is it? Is the reason we do not see the world as it is because we only see light? Does that matter? Seeing light still gives us observations.

Now, if consciousness is real, which we think it is, since i can do this, observe what i can, measure the time passing, i am myself not only part of special relativistic mathematics as an inertial observer, but i am also ''conscious'' because tiny fluctuations (matter and energy) allow me to have some kind of cogency. To allay any suspicion that consciousness is some kind of hidden dimension itself and somehow independant of the vacuum, our consciousness does nevertheless require matter and energy. This means our consciousness is an emergent property of the vacuum, since according to relativity, you cannot have space and time, without mass and energy.

What do matter and energy have to do with a vacuum? Why can't you have space and time without matter and energy? I thought a vacuum was the absence of both.

As for the latter, no. Read above. Remember, in special relativity, we find it to be an observer-dependant theory, and i'm not just talking about atoms, but actual human observers. Whether or not you accept we ae but part and parcel of the great whole,you still cannot deny we are going to have to involve a model of consciousness due to special relativity into any unified model of physics. As the Dirac Medal Winner Andre Lindt once said, ''Would neglecting a description of percpection leave any final theory incomplete.'' Evenn Einstein once said, ''Humans are part of the whole we call universe.''

Bolding mine and it is utter bonkers. I learnt my special relativity with trains and frames of reference. No human observers ever came into play.

 

[Singularitarian]

Imaginal is not a word, is it? Is the reason we do not see the world as it is because we only see light? Does that matter? Seeing light still gives us observations.



What do matter and energy have to do with a vacuum? Why can't you have space and time without matter and energy? I thought a vacuum was the absence of both.



Bolding mine and it is utter bonkers. I learnt my special relativity with trains and frames of reference. No human observers ever came into play.

Wait a minute. Before i even address your post entirely, are you refuting the fact that special relativity does not use conscious measuring observers i.e. us? Humans? Such as the twin paradox perhaps?

 

[BNRT]

The twin paradox would work just as well with two clocks. Also, why is it a paradox?

 

[ben m]

Wait a minute. Before i even address your post entirely, are you refuting the fact that special relativity does not use conscious measuring observers i.e. us? Humans? Such as the twin paradox perhaps?

Special relativity doesn't give a whit for conscious observers. It cares about inertial reference frames, which are defined purely with respect to physics.

We usually teach it by making up problems involving conscious observers, but only because it's easier to ask a student to visualize things like "what does Bob feel when the rocket accelerates?" rather than "how much has the comoving clock elapsed when the test particle strikes it?" or whatever. (We do the same thing with Galilean relativity. "One observer is in a car moving at 5 kph ...", but you would not say that Newton's Laws have a privileged position for conscious observers.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let's go over this again, in a different way. If everything that counts is contained within space and time, then consciousness must also be an emergent property of the vacuum. This cannot be disputed.

What??

That's like saying the functions of an automobile (like accelerating, making turns, stopping, etc.) are emergent properties of quarks or atoms rather than higher levels like brakes, drivetrain, etc..

At every level of organization, you have emergent properties. Consciousness only emerges at the highest levels of organization (not the level of the atom, or the molecule, or the cell, or tissue, but only perhaps at the level of organ or organ system).

If you have ANY evidence of consciousness that emerges at the level of a vacuum, I'd love to see it!

 

[PixyMisa]

Imaginal is not a word, is it?

It is, actually - but it refers to adult insects. (Larva, pupa, imago.)

 

[Foster Zygote]

Incontrivertibly wrong.

Aren't you the one who told UncaYimmy that you were familiar with the theory he referred to, only to be told that it was from an episode of Star Trek?

 

[Foster Zygote]

-> Foster
As far as I know Quantum Physics or how it is called in English says the contrary.

What in quantum physics suggests this to you?

However, I do.

You do what?

 

[lionking]

Imaginal is not a word, is it?

Get used to it if you are going to continue to read singularatarian's posts. As well as made up words, there are a great many made up formulae and concepts.

And spellcheckers are fairly easy to come by.