Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
Lorelyen, Yes, observer measurement collapses the quantum probability wave (say, of a single particle into a single point. There's no way to view the other outcomes from our vantage in this slice (our universe) of the quantum multiverse. Within our universe, the particle when measured will have a definite outcome (its position when measured).
However if we don't measure the outcome of the particle and allow it to randomly exit from one of (say) two locations, we can observe the outcomes after the fact, which represents all the possible outcomes of a particle from either location and which (in the classic double-slit experiment) exactly resembles a 2-wave interference pattern. In effect, the particle occupies every possible location in this universe at point X, given its prior exit from both location 1 and 2, until and unless it is observed/measured. The measurement coalesces the wave probability into a location, impacting reality at the quantum particle level.
There are many other aspects to the hard problem of consciousness, but this test and many other similar laboratory outcomes have led many researchers to grudgingly conclude that consciousness appears to be a fundamental aspect of the universe (such as, consciousness is or "exists" a priori to or "beyond" the universe, such that the universe is "embedded" in a field of consciousness), even if we do not as yet have a full grasp of its scope or how to best or most accurately convey (the nature of) this (i.e., our) reality.
And also yes, the research is never done and no perspective is (or should be IMO) final or finalised 
Peace & blessings 
7L |
Taken me a while to reply as I didn’t want to turn it into a quantum physics forum. LOL Besides, I’m ok with the narrative but it’s a big subject and trying to formulate a condensed reply was difficult. Perhaps I'm just dense.
I’ve tended to take the standard definition of human consciousness as acceptable in practice: “the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings”, a view that’s held over the centuries and at the foundation of an organism’s survival. As such I’ve wondered whether there’s any point in bothering about how it works. Does it matter? I suppose it does because we sometimes seem able to detect aberrations or there's recognised damage, and perhaps it would be nice if we could make adjustments, depending on where the aberration lies (in the statistical normal or the individual ‘case’. Examples would follow if there were time and space). If we’re redefining what consciousness is then it would be a good idea to lay forth that definition. Stray into the non-physical and it can take on whatever meaning an exponent cares to give it and discussion ends there.
I’m familiar with the measurement problem. A lesson from this is: be careful drawing inferences from incomplete evidence. Science isn’t about proving but rather discarding hypotheses no longer valid. To me it’s about experiment based on observation to find explanations about which one can hypothesise; and a hypothesis can be knocked down tomorrow. If the observation raises a problem then…then what?
Intuitively I’m unsure how the wave function collapse could be validated… because the measurement problem denies validation. I ask how an observer watching the process can turn the overlapping waves into a particle, landing site determined by probabilities. If a measuring instrument was involved an explanation would follow no doubt. (I've just responded to a post (above) that makes this point.) But ok, I’ll accept the alleged results as they are.
Bringing it to consciousness, I see a plethora of what ifs, possibilities, probabilities. Whatever consciousness might be in wider philosophical terms, however it may rest within the universe or the universe rest within it, the process by which it occurs in the human (and such animate life that seems to possess it) can only be processed through some part of the physiology – unless a) we assume we don’t exist in what’s been thought so far as ‘the flesh’ and b) unless quantum physicists are trying to persuade us that as we’re bathed in this universal consciousness, the body somehow sucks in a share of it and – as quantum physics would have it, liable to continuous change… which in practice would mean we’re never the same person for anything from picoseconds (or less) to…whenever. (Ok, a fact of it that we aren’t but in mundane terms change would proceed by small increments.) Otherwise, it IS a thought and I suppose remotely possible; and if our awareness does change a trillion times a second, it carries everything with it to give a sense of persistence to whatever we’re doing like typing this. (I have no trouble with 10^-12 time intervals. They’re all relative.)
But it would make what we perceive (in real life) as the body’s sense receptors redundant and the brain more or less an autonomous machine if not also redundant: choices are made for us by this universal consciousness. It contains our experiences and by extension therefore our memories (or is such memory as we have merely probabilistic implants? And if so (and it’s prone to change) is the construct of memory valid)? Sure, that allows quanta to make us individuals based on probability – but how on earth we can move forward with research at the physical level beats me – yet we do. How do you explain the pre-conscious processing that we know happens in the brain to protect us? How should we alter society re things like rule of law if people are not strictly responsible for their conduct?
So, then, unless we’re totally reliant on this universal consciousness for our survival and individuality, where in the human does the processing occur – that awareness of self and interaction with our environ? Where indeed in the human lies the reception of the imposed consciousness or parts thereof and how does free-will (i.e an ability to make moment by moment decisions when occasion needs) work… because as soon as anyone says “ah but there’s feedback into this universal consciousness” then they’re admitting a human process partially independent of it exists after all. How would it tie in with the autonomous functions of our bodies maintaining homeostasis that we can function as we do; and deal with harms that call upon the autonomous to remedy? How does it deal with shock that can divert our consciousness drastically?
I maintain that very near to 100% of the
information and processing is in the brain, not our big toes or hearts or whatever. Organic life is about survival and propagation. Humans seek more answers though and tend to invoke non-physical energies, entities, channels to explain the hitherto inexplicable. That’s fine. It could be that such instruments exist. If quantum mechanics, in spite of the inconclusiveness so far and what ifs, can one day answer some of the questions, great. But as yet it’s all laboratory thinking. There’ll never be proof and evidence will be sparse. Perhaps the next step in the evolutionary cycle will be better equipped to sort some of this out; but for sure, it’s dangerous to latch onto this thinking as if it’s fact. It isn’t.
Until then it remains
the hard problem. So, excuse me cutting it down to just these few paragraphs. It’s a huge subject and a lot more could be said. And in parting, I also
accept consciousness as a fundamental aspect of the universe but how that relates to its human application I haven't tried to think.
If you yourself are a researcher, I hold you in high respect. Unfortunately actual research is denied me. So I’m not conversant with every name and their hypotheses in the field let alone what seems endless debate. One tries. I’m as eager for answers as anyone else!
Peace, love and light to you, 7luminaries.
Linear Mode
