Separability, quantum physics, and consciousness

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Separability, quantum physics, and consciousness

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

richrf
 
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 11:46 am
An interesting thought:

At the most minute level, everything is quanta (elementary) particles that can be observed as a wave if someone is setting up an experiment to measure a wave and observed as a particle if if the observer is setting up the experiment to view the particle. Quanta can be either/or but not both simultaneously, due to the limits of classical instruments. Therefore, the results of the experiment is dependent upon how the observer sets up the experiment. There is entanglement.

Whenever to quanta come into contact with each other they become entangled. In human terms, a permanent relationship is formed. There is no separation.

Thus, in any experiment, the moment one conscious being (observer) comes into contact with the object of the experiment, be it matter or another conscious being, the observer is affecting the experiment. There is no way to objectively measure or to dis-entangle the subject from the object.

Einstein hated this, but it is so, and has been shown again and again in experiments dealing with quanta. Once they are entangled, they remain so forever. Independent, objective measurement is impossible. Everything is entangled as determined by the quantum wave function equations (albeit extremely complicated). Some physicists such as Bohm and Wigner interpret the observer as consciousness while others are content with simply calling it the observer.

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 11:52 pm
@richrf,
We do not know what to make of quantum mechanics. There does not seem to be a conceptual model that humans can grasp only a mathematical theory that gives reliable predictions and measurements.
One thing is certain, the newtonian mechanistic determinism model of particles inert and insensate is wrong. For me this brings materialism as a metaphysic into serious question.
quantum "particles" behave more like quantum events which change their behavior based on observation methods. Reality at its core appears to be stochastic (probablistic not deterministic) and ultimate reality seems interconnected and aware of other events in a quite fundamental not mechanical way.

For me this supports the view that reality is more events in relation than particles in motion.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 12:00 am
@prothero,
prothero;92898 wrote:
We do not know what to make of quantum mechanics. There does not seem to be a conceptual model that humans can grasp only a mathematical theory that gives reliable predictions and measurements.
One thing is certain, the newtonian mechanistic determinism model of particles inert and insensate is wrong. For me this brings materialism as a metaphysic into serious question.
quantum "particles" behave more like quantum events which change their behavior based on observation methods. Reality at its core appears to be stochastic (probablistic not deterministic) and ultimate reality seems interconnected and aware of other events in a quite fundamental not mechanical way.

For me this supports the view that reality is more events in relation than particles in motion.


There are many ways to interpret quantum physics and I think it is reasonable to look at things as events.

Let's get a picture of this:

You have two waves (figuratively) becoming entangled with each other. You can consider the two waves as events in themselves, or you can consider them objects. Now the two waves merge and become entangled, creating a new object or you might say there was a new event that represents the entanglement of these two objects.

So, it is a matter of how one wishes to view the process that is going on. It is hard to distinguish the object from the event that created it. An event becomes an object and the object then is involved with a new event. And it goes on.

Thanks for your comment.

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 12:11 am
@richrf,
richrf;92901 wrote:
There are many ways to interpret quantum physics and I think it is reasonable to look at things as events.

So, it is a matter of how one wishes to view the process that is going on. It is hard to distinguish the object from the event that created it. An event becomes an object and the object then is involved with a new event. And it goes on.Rich


We perceive "reality" as both events and substances. One might ask which of these is primary reality? I am a process philosophy supporter so for me events (occasions or moments of experience) are primary (becoming not being). I can conceive of substances as enduring or stable events but I can not conceive of events coming from stable changless substances. Traditionally sustances are given metaphysical priority over events. I think quantum mechaninc calls this materialist assumption into question.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 12:38 am
@prothero,
prothero;92904 wrote:
We perceive "reality" as both events and substances. One might ask which of these is primary reality? I am a process philosophy supporter so for me events (occasions or moments of experience) are primary (becoming not being). I can conceive of substances as enduring or stable events but I can not conceive of events coming from stable changless substances. Traditionally sustances are given metaphysical priority over events. I think quantum mechaninc calls this materialist assumption into question.


Even if your current point of view is event driven, I think it is worth exploring the notion of concurrent dualities. Quantum physics' wave/particle duality along with object/event duality are nice examples. As I suggested, the event creates a new object which in turn can interact with another object/event to create a new object/event - concurrently.

Just like the experiment determines whether you will measure a particle or a wave, so does perspective determine whether you are witnessing an object or an event. I think accepting both as part of the picture helps build a more inclusive picture of the universe.

So, possibly you might want to explore this line of reasoning further, in your own readings and see if you can see what you think of this point of view. It is very much an aspect of quantum physics.

Rich
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 07:36 am
@richrf,
... the Heisenberg Effect haunts us at yet another turn.
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 02:14 pm
@richrf,
[QUOTE=richrf;92907] Even if your current point of view is event driven, I think it is worth exploring the notion of concurrent dualities. Quantum physics' wave/particle duality along with object/event duality are nice examples. As I suggested, the event creates a new object which in turn can interact with another object/event to create a new object/event - concurrently. [/QUOTE] Viewing reality as composed of events and objects comes naturally. In general the objects (substances) are regarded as primary reality especially in a materialism world view. I like the "event creates a new object" statement. At their most fundamental level (quantum level) substances are not composed of particles inert and insensate (billiard balls). At this level particles are "created" by a series of stable events. The traditional concept of "matter" and "Newtonian mechanistic determinism" becomes nonsense at the quantum level of reality.


[QUOTE=richrf;92907] Just like the experiment determines whether you will measure a particle or a wave, so does perspective determine whether you are witnessing an object or an event. I think accepting both as part of the picture helps build a more inclusive picture of the universe. [/QUOTE] There is no fundamental difference between the mental and the material they are just the different aspects or poles of events. Reality is dipolar, events are dipolar. Process is primary reality and "particles, substances, objects" are the objectively perceived result of a stable series of events. I prefer monism (process) to this kind of dualism (substances and events). I have come from materialism to process.


[QUOTE=richrf;92907] So, possibly you might want to explore this line of reasoning further, in your own readings and see if you can see what you think of this point of view. It is very much an aspect of quantum physics. [/QUOTE] wave-particle, mind-matter, space-time, all interconnected, interdependent
The notion that these things represent different events or substances instead of different methods of perceiving the "same"reality is an illusion.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 02:56 pm
@prothero,
prothero;93076 wrote:
The notion that these things represent different events or substances instead of different methods of perceiving the "same"reality is an illusion.


My own perspective is not to treat some things as illusions and others as not, since once I entertain such a thought it becomes problematic which of the illusions are illusions. My own preference is to treat every experience as equal and then attempting to understand what are the differences and what are the similarities.

Rich
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 10:55 pm
@richrf,
richrf;93088 wrote:
My own perspective is not to treat some things as illusions and others as not, since once I entertain such a thought it becomes problematic which of the illusions are illusions. My own preference is to treat every experience as equal and then attempting to understand what are the differences and what are the similarities.
Rich

Lets us go back to basics here for a moment. Do you draw any conclusions from quantum behavior especially quantum pairing and entaglement?
For me quantum mechanics implies:

1.That Laplace like determinism in not only impossible in practice but dead wrong in theory as well. The laws of nature are stochastic not deterministic. There are ordered possiblities and some degree of indeterminism and freedom at the most fundamental level.

2. That materialism as understood in the newtonian mechanistic view of the world is wrong. That the concept of "matter" as particles inert (with no awareness of their relations to other things except by mechanical interaction) is wrong. That quantum behavior is more event like than particle like although particle like behavior is observed as the result of some events and some types of observations. Insensate matter is somehow "aware" or "perceptive" of what happens to another particle separated in space. This perception occurrs at speeds faster than light. There is something profoundly wrong with the particle, object, substance, material view and newtonian mechanistic view of reality.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 11:50 pm
@prothero,
prothero;93228 wrote:
Lets us go back to basics here for a moment. Do you draw any conclusions from quantum behavior especially quantum pairing and entaglement?
For me quantum mechanics implies:

1.That Laplace like determinism in not only impossible in practice but dead wrong in theory as well. The laws of nature are stochastic not deterministic. There are ordered possiblities and some degree of indeterminism and freedom at the most fundamental level.


Here is a short answer from Wikipedia:

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.


There are many ways to interpret quantum physics equations and results. I pulled this paragraph from Wikipedia which I believe presents a balanced viewpoint:

Determinism and Quantum Physics

Quote:
Although matters are still subject to some measure of dispute, quantum mechanics makes statistical predictions which would be violated if some local hidden variables existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify those predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated, though many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the question. (See Bell test experiments.) It is possible, however, to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics.


The above paragraph supports your views, but there are still possibilities that a scenario can be created would incorporate non-local hidden variables such as Bohm's quantum force waves which carries quantum particles. But then there would be non-local action that stretches to infinity. Of note, Bohm does suggest that consciousness would also be enfolded into the quantum force field and there would be a degree of free will as a result. It is an interesting model.

prothero;93228 wrote:
2. That materialism as understood in the newtonian mechanistic view of the world is wrong. That the concept of "matter" as particles inert (with no awareness of their relations to other things except by mechanical interaction) is wrong. That quantum behavior is more event like than particle like although particle like behavior is observed as the result of some events and some types of observations. Insensate matter is somehow "aware" or "perceptive" of what happens to another particle separated in space. This perception occurrs at speeds faster than light. There is something profoundly wrong with the particle, object, substance, material view and newtonian mechanistic view of reality.


All of the above is certainly implied by most interpretations of the quantum mechanics equations. The non-local action was proposed by Einstein's EPR, formalized by Bell's Inequality, and supported by evidence by Aspect's experiments and others that followed.

In brief, no one knows what are elementary particles. They can only be described at this time by wave function equations.

Rich
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 11:51 pm
@prothero,
prothero;93228 wrote:
...Insensate matter is somehow "aware" or "perceptive" of what happens to another particle separated in space. This perception occurrs at speeds faster than light.



Here is an interesting study that was published on this 'perception', last year:

Testing the speed of spooky action at a distance wrote:
"We performed a Bell test over more than 24 hours between two villages separated by 18 km and approximately east-west oriented, with the source located precisely in the middle. We continuously observed two-photon interferences well above the Bell inequality threshold. Taking advantage of the Earth's rotation, the configuration of our experiment allowed us to determine, for any hypothetically privileged frame, a lower bound for the speed of the influence. For example, if such a privileged reference frame exists and is such that the Earth's speed in this frame is less than 10-3 times that of the speed of light, then the speed of the influence would have to exceed that of light by at least four orders of magnitude."
Access : Testing the speed of |[lsquo]|spooky action at a distance|[rsquo]| : Nature
 
prothero
 
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 11:56 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss;93236 wrote:
Here is an interesting study that was published on this 'perception', last year:

Access : Testing the speed of |[lsquo]|spooky action at a distance|[rsquo]| : Nature


My suggestion, radical as it may seem, is to consider tossing the mechanistic deterministic model of materialism entirely. Consider the possiblity that nature is perceptive (non sense or sense organ dependent perception) to its very core. the doctrine of panexperientialism, psychialism or panpsychism. That together with the notion that reality is composed of events in relation not substances in motion.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Separability, quantum physics, and consciousness
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 06:34:14