45 replies to this topic

[StarMountainKid]

[quote name='Rlyeh']Where would these consciousness reside if no worlds are split?['quote]

They would reside in their own split consciousnesses. Each state of consciousness residing in its own awareness that was configured by the wave function collapse.

Think of it as similar to the many worlds interpretation, except this is the many minds interpretation. Just exchange 'consciousnesses' for 'worlds'.

[encouraged]

Rlyeh, on 06 September 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

I would hope man has learnt that the Tower of Babel is fiction.

Yes. Better said the TOB story.

[encouraged]

After seeing the fairly lengthy list of quantum effect explanations (theories), I am getting the feeling that there will probably be one I can "intellectually tolerate", not that I am smart, Just seem to trip over things that possibly haven't been considered.

So, I'm thinking that I can jump on the band wagon and enjoy more of this.

I have had such a hard time keeping up I am not surprised... assuming "You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Rlyeh." is addressed to me. It certainly hasn't been intentional, so I'll look back heaps and see if I can assimilate, digest and comment on your entries.

I have read them all and they have made influence but apparently I haven't discussed them.

Thanks for pointing that out though!

[Rlyeh]

StarMountainKid, on 06 September 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

They would reside in their own split consciousnesses. Each state of consciousness residing in its own awareness that was configured by the wave function collapse.

Think of it as similar to the many worlds interpretation, except this is the many minds interpretation. Just exchange 'consciousnesses' for 'worlds'.

That doesn't address the problem.

My consciousness resides in this world in my brain, which in turn controls my body, it is also aware of this world. You're making more consciousness than there are worlds or bodies to contain them.

If what you say is true, I should have very little control over my body with the amount of other consciousness I have to share it with.

Edit: It seems the only way to resolve this "many minds" is to accept solipsism, every consciousness creates its own world.

Edited by Rlyeh, 07 September 2011 - 09:47 AM.

[encouraged]

Rlyeh, on 07 September 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

That doesn't address the problem.

My consciousness resides in this world in my brain, which in turn controls my body, it is also aware of this world. You're making more consciousness than there are worlds or bodies to contain them.

If what you say is true, I should have very little control over my body with the amount of other consciousness I have to share it with.

Edit: It seems the only way to resolve this "many minds" is to accept solipsism, every consciousness creates its own world.

Sounds a lot like multiple personality disorder.

Remember guys, I don't see the number of incomplete reports being typed up, that would be true and would be an indicator of such a universe if we were simply a random pick.

Here is another observation. If every possibility has to be represented, then the choice of bearing a child when labor begins is a choice. There is not substantial enough a population of mothers and babies dying (the alternative of that choice) to imply that the other possibility is represented. Da Nada! It doesn't explain well enough the world we are in. How can it explain the world's we are not in?

Or shall we ask if the world's population of all the kinds of events that are possible did indeed suddenly change after we started experimenting with where the position of that quantum state resides? i.e. there are things that would not otherwise happen, that would suddenly start to happen in this world, upon the beginning of quantum experimentings.

My consciousness resides in this world in my brain, better said would be: "Assuming, my consciousness resides in this world in my brain..." since the mind-brain problem has not yet been solved, unless you accept the solution in my book which would mean at least duality and not materialism or singular-ism.

You would have to be agreeable to metaphysics in order to discuss that one much further anyway, IMO.

Edited by encouraged, 07 September 2011 - 03:48 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

Rlyeh said:

That doesn't address the problem.

In my understanding, the Many Minds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics goes something like:

If mind is not a creation of the physical brain, but is one part of a universal mind or consciousness, and our observed reality depends on wave function collapses which 'choose' that particular reality we observe out of many possible realities, and if all those other possible realities are also realized, who observes them?

It can only be that our consciousness splits into those other realized realities so they can be observed. (The other realities must have observers to observe them or they wouldn't be realized!)

This is all pretty funny in its own way, but who knows? I personally don't indorse this Interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor am I liable for any consequences resulting from having influenced others into believing this Interpretation, nor do I claim any rights, copyrights or any other entitlements thereof.

My personal opinion is the Evil Vulgarians created this universe out of childish spite, and configured it so as to confuse and confound us into producing conflicting theories as to its internal mechanism. This is the well-known Vulgarian Interpretation, which includes all possible theories at once coexisting as true and false concurrently, therefore satisfying everyone and no one simultaneously, the result being that every theory can be refuted as well as having some proof of being correct.

[encouraged]

StarMountainKid, on 07 September 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

In my understanding, the Many Minds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics goes something like:

If mind ... This is the well-known Vulgarian Interpretation, which includes all possible theories at once coexisting as true and false concurrently, therefore satisfying everyone and no one simultaneously, the result being that every theory can be refuted as well as having some proof of being correct.

Man have mercy an old guy like me rolling around on the floor laughing will cause pain tomorrow! LMAO!

I was going to suggest the Star Trek Que solution--such a childish adolescent!

Could we be so close to the threshold of something that it has become unknowable, out of our range of being able to interpret, too hideously obscure, etc. I feel like I have joined the membership of Z-ray believers. (see: Scientific American anniversary edition, pre-1986, I think.)

Well, if nothing else, I know there are some other poor folks who think like I do!

There was a gunslinger who came upon a western town. Everyone was calling him Jim. So, he asked his sidekick to find out why. The sidekick said that he heard about a man named Jim who looked like him. That this Jim lived in that town.

The gunslinger told his sidekick, "I'm gonna go kill that Jim right this minute!"

The sidekick said, "Yeah, you better. He might ruin your reputation."

The gunslinger said, "No, boy! This is a mercy killing. He is next to the ugliest man on earth."

So much for self-degradation! LOL!

I absolutely don't know what to think, or for that matter, what to say. The whole thing is so strange.

I think I'm going to move into the two black holes, the one eating the other one up! See if I can conjecture something right over there. If the two membrane theory is right the white holes, the two universe, would they be merging? hummm.

Edited by encouraged, 07 September 2011 - 06:45 PM.

[encouraged]

I thought I saw an article on two black holes that were merging, but not! And not ScienceDaily.com. I wonder about Scvience News? Nope!

[Rlyeh]

StarMountainKid, on 07 September 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

If mind is not a creation of the physical brain, but is one part of a universal mind or consciousness

Even if this is so, the mind still interacts through a biological body.

Quote

our observed reality depends on wave function collapses which 'choose' that particular reality we observe out of many possible realities, and if all those other possible realities are also realized, who observes them?

How do you observe without the means to?

For example, someone is doing a measurement, their consciousness "splits" for every possible outcome. Which of these consciousness stores the memory in the brain? Which one controls the body?


After reading the wiki article on many-minds, it sounds like the minds don't split, there are infinite minds for every observer. The fact the observer doesn't "experience" all the outcomes (but rather one), makes this interpretation sound like garbage.

Edited by Rlyeh, 07 September 2011 - 08:26 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

Rlyeh said:

After reading the wiki article on many-minds, it sounds like the minds don't split, there are infinite minds for every observer. The fact the observer doesn't "experience" all the outcomes (but rather one), makes this interpretation sound like garbage.

Only one mind per observer, please, I guess. If each one of us has an infinite number of minds, 'you' are still going to be aware of only one of these minds, the one you have. Everything you experience happens in this mind. All the other of your minds experience reality differently, but 'you're mind' is not connected to all the other 'you' minds'.

In other words, the reality we experience is through mind. If quantum events create many slightly different realities, your infinite mind also experiences all these slightly different realities.

There is no special 'your mind'. 'Your mind' is just a random 'your mind' that experiences random quantum events as does all the other 'your mind's'. You remain yourself as all the other 'you's' remain themselves.

Each of your infinite minds experience slightly different realities, determined by random quantum events creating slightly different realities.

This only works if mind is separate from and not a function of the brain.

Yeah, this all sounds pretty stupid. But how stupid-sounding are all the other theories of quantum events, or the weirdness of quantum events themselves?

[Rlyeh]

StarMountainKid, on 07 September 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Yeah, this all sounds pretty stupid. But how stupid-sounding are all the other theories of quantum events, or the weirdness of quantum events themselves?

These 'consciousness causes collapse' interpretations are a new presentation of the philosophical riddle "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around..".

However not all interpretations require the consciousness factor, such as Copenhagen/Consistent histories.

[encouraged]

There still remains for discussion the comment about if the quantum delemma and the experiment (the observer's interpretation of the experiments) are the two primary factors, why do we only look at it as a problem involving the particle? Why can't we say, "The location of the particle has been resolved prior to the experiment, as well as after the experiment, but the observer is incapable of realizing it before the experiment because of a strange property he has, not the particle has. I.E., Maybe the quantum mechanical thing is a property of the observer and not the particle. We should attempt assumming the particle is behaving like any other would and make some theories and experiments about the observer. Are there other things an observer causes to be unpredictable?

The mind discussion above still contains a particle in an unresolved state/in supersuspension (or whatever that is called) prior to the experiment. Have I explained my point or muddied things even more?

I guess I need an article on Bohr's original split experiment.

Wouldn't it be funny if it all came back to a property of moiré...

[StarMountainKid]

I'm wondering if we need to define 'observer' here. When an observer makes an observation he must interact with that being observed by making a measurement of some kind. If that act of measurement changes what is being measured, then the observer/measurement becomes part of what is being measured.

And superposition:
The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is (wave function), it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check. It is the measurement itself that causes the object to be limited to a single possibility.
http://searchcio-mid...superposition  

Therefore the act of measurement itself must be included in a definition of the observed state. In this sense the observer making a measurement 'creates' what he observes and is a component of the resultant observation.

[encouraged]

Quote

It was shown experimentally in 1972 that in a double-slit system where only one slit was open at any time, interference was nonetheless observed provided the path difference was such that the detected photon could have come from either slit The experimental conditions were such that the photon density in the system was much less than unity.
http://en.wikipedia....n_of_experiment

I have worked with lines of interference in one way or another most of my adult life. We use them to verify the filament sizes of X-ray tubes. Back 30 years ago when you paid $12,000 for a tube, you want to be sure you got what you ordered. Also, in the analysis of X-ray images and other machine tests.

It was also an extensive influence in publishing and printing. I developed an Adobe Acrobat Distiller Job Options control file that was good for both the screen and for the press way before Adobe did and before screen resolution became so nice. The secrete was to come up with a tolerable close but not an exact multiple of 72 dpi and 300 dpi. The moire would make the press look bad on the screen, both horizontally and vertically.

The above quote implies to me that the lines of interference are not due to the light passing through both slits, then interfering with each other, as is the interpretation of the other experiments, thereby bringing about gaps and accumulations of light. To me, that calls into question the original interpretations of the double-split experiments!

So, I have to assume that the above single-cover, double-split experiment's patterns are a manifestation of various factors like:

• the slits being slightly offset, the waveforms thereby entering the slits at a different 0 to 360 degree sinusoidal wave angle than the head-on wave angle--whatever that is--in single split experiments
  
• the beam's wavelength interfering with the offset necessary when two slits are present
  
• the beam's wavelength interference as a multiple of the slits width
  
• the beams single particle stream resolution (how close the particles are to one another in the stream) interference with any of the above
  
• other resolutions or patterns I may not have thought of yet

Experiments could be setup where the double slits are aligned as head-on to one and the other at a necessary angle using the same center to center slit distance as the double slit experiment demands. Then each slit could be covered, one then the other and the data recorded.

I wish I had the setup here to investigate all this for myself. LOL! Now I will go read that article, too.

Edited by encouraged, 09 September 2011 - 03:11 AM.

[encouraged]

StarMountainKid, on 08 September 2011 - 11:55 PM, said:

I'm wondering ... is a component of the resultant observation.

Thanks! That will be very helpful!

Oh, the stanford/qm-many-worlds link I have read most of!

Quote

Relational interpretation

According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo Rovelli,[30] observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer and the object being observed, not any absolute property possessed by the object. In the case of an electron, if it is initially observed at a particular slit, then the observer/particle interaction includes information about the electron's position. This partially constrains the particle's eventual location at the screen. If it is observed not at a particular slit but rather at the screen, then there is no "which path" information as part of the interaction, so the electron's observed position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function.

Yes! That takes into account the observers contribution to the strange property.

Also, the entry should add that, "and the observer/particle interaction also includes information about what the observer was observing.

Same source as above.

Edited by encouraged, 09 September 2011 - 03:35 AM.