Can Quantum Fluctuations Occur without time?

I must think about this stuff when I'm sleeping because I woke up this morning with some ideas and a chain of reasoning that I didn't have when I went to bed, which is kind of tragic when you consider that I could have been having erotic dreams about Selma Hayek, but noooooo, apparently I'm thinking about physics.

Anyway, despite the fact that I was being sarcastic with the idea that the real basis of the universe is conceptual, I woke up with an argument that it really is conceptual, at least as far as we are concerned. Bear with me on this and tell me what you think, I'm seeing it for the first time myself and I don't know what to think about it yet either, so I'm quite interested in hearing your input.

OK, so here goes, it occurs to me that perhaps it isn't just in the mind of God and these crazy physicists that the universe is fundamentally conceptual; perhaps it's that way for all of us. Here is the chain of reasoning that I woke up with.

All we really know directly and in an unmediated form is our subjective experience, which is to say, our sensations, the cause of those sensations can only be known by the manner in which we interact with it, which is to say, subjectively. Immanuel Kant is considered the father of modern philosophy for a reason, and Kant's major contribution was to explain to us that the mind is constructive, all we can know is phenomena, and the underlying realty that is causing these sensations is no more than a presumption of sorts. The only knowing there can be is a "mode" of knowing. We pretty much have to presume that there is something "out there" causing these sensations we have "in here", in our mind, but we don't, and can't, know it directly, we can only know it by the uniquely human manner of sensing and knowing available to us.

Consequently, what is commonly referred to as "objective" reality is nothing more than the presumed cause of our sensations, and it is necessarily conceptual, a theoretical construct that is developed by the mind, within the constraints of the structure of the mind, and utilizing the raw materials that the mind produces by processing our sensations. What we call "objective reality" is a projection "out there", of the subjective experience we are having "in here", in our mind. What we end up with, is not reality per se, it is only the kind of reality that our kind of mind produces. Within the mind, our sensations result in perceptions, which are given form by a process of the mind, and which subsequently, results in concepts, which are further given form by a process of the mind. What we call "objective" reality, is something that results from a chain of inferential reasoning, and it is a uniquely human style of inferential reasoning, inferred from a uniquely human set of sensitivities, with a uniquely human way of processing information. You pretty much have to conclude that the world we experience is completely defined by the mind experiencing it, and it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe. So the resulting "objective" reality isn't really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality. Our five primary senses aren't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn't necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.

I'm reminded of that quote by the Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans that "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" and I wonder if in fact, we have any choice but to think of the universe as conceptual in it's true nature, at least as far as we are, and can be, concerned. This also takes my mind to a variation on the perennial question of the tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it, not my favorite variation which is "If a falling tree crushes a lawyer in the words and nobody is there to see it, is it still funny?", but another variation, the tree question now becomes "If a universe doesn't develop conscious minds to observe it, does it really exist?" I'm also reminded of the principle in quantum physics that reality exists as a probability wave function that only becomes "actual" when the act of observation by a conscious mind collapses the wave function. There's a history of some fourteen billions years of universe before conscious minds evolved to observe it to consider, and the question becomes, "How did the wave function collapse to make a possible universe and actual universe during those 14 billion years?" I think the theist answer would be that it was in the mind of God, he was always there to observe it, and the atheist answer would be, "Get real Side, you must be on drugs", but the fact remains that these are valid questions that are implicit in current scientific theory. It also reinforces my fascination with the remarkable correspondence between the old cosmogonic myth and the new cosmogonic myth.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what a sane person makes of this thought process, what do you think?

Typo, I meant to say "How did the wave function collapse to make a possible universe become an actual universe during those 14 billion years?"

At 3/25/2012 4:32:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was wondering if Quantum fluctuations can occur without space-time? If so, how?

This is my Professional Amateur Guesstimizational Formulational of thinky-thought about the question that was raised for discussion... (I am putting on my professorial elbow patched tweed jacket, messing up my hair, glasses at the end of my nose, while bumbling around knocking things over, while writting on a chalkboard/blackboard)

Since all things are 'relative'(Relativity) to itself(Materialism) and with brief moments of interactions(real or perceived with the mind) with other 'relative' things, therefore, all objects must briefly synchronize at the moment of interactiony-ness(do what they do because of what they are). Even at the moment of chaos, the brief acceptance of the other object's reality, shows time must be present.

Time must be involved.

Notice how much faster things appear to be the more miniscule they are?
Example: Blue Whale heart rate, very slow, 5/6 beats per minute, compared to humans. Hummingbird heart beat very fast, 100's beat per minute. All 'relative' to itself but with the brief comparison with each other, time is present.

Fractals(repeating patterns/frequencies/equations) are present in the outcome of things when it comes to time being present.

So at the quantum level, the same must be true also. But, only after the fact of 'existence/space/time' being 'present/here/now'.

What ever makes those itsy-bitsy-smitsy-tiny-winy-biny-tinky-smenky-linky, quatum stuffy-wuffy things opperate, then the time scale for their 'reality' is also, itsy-bitsy-smitsy-tiny-winy-biny-tinky-smenky-linky.

Therefore elements on the quantum level does have time in relative scale to it's reality.

I call it "Quantime".(New word coined by Knologist-Prime. "Quantime.")

LOL.

Is that science-sy enough?

I could be right/correct? (Send me money/research grants and I'll spend 'time' proving it)

Just as anyone one of you, too, could be right/correct.

(my brain hurts now..LOL)

At 7/10/2012 7:44:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
...
"Nice shot Dad."

Lol! Never heard that one before but I saw it coming...Hilarious!

I must think about this stuff when I'm sleeping because I woke up this morning with some ideas and a chain of reasoning that I didn't have when I went to bed, which is kind of tragic when you consider that I could have been having erotic dreams about Selma Hayek, but noooooo, apparently I'm thinking about physics.

She is quite prodigious, I must say! She was great in The Savages, BTW.

Anyway, despite the fact that I was being sarcastic with the idea that the real basis of the universe is conceptual, I woke up with an argument that it really is conceptual, at least as far as we are concerned. Bear with me on this and tell me what you think, I'm seeing it for the first time myself and I don't know what to think about it yet either, so I'm quite interested in hearing your input.

OK, so here goes, it occurs to me that perhaps it isn't just in the mind of God and these crazy physicists that the universe is fundamentally conceptual; perhaps it's that way for all of us. Here is the chain of reasoning that I woke up with.

All we really know directly and in an unmediated form is our subjective experience, which is to say, our sensations, the cause of those sensations can only be known by the manner in which we interact with it, which is to say, subjectively. Immanuel Kant is considered the father of modern philosophy for a reason, and Kant's major contribution was to explain to us that the mind is constructive, all we can know is phenomena, and the underlying realty that is causing these sensations is no more than a presumption of sorts. The only knowing there can be is a "mode" of knowing.

I have no problem with this line of reasoning per se, so long as it is followed to its proper conclusion.

We pretty much have to presume that there is something "out there" causing these sensations we have "in here", in our mind, but we don't, and can't, know it directly, we can only know it by the uniquely human manner of sensing and knowing available to us.

And that's where I part ways. Given this "subjective" Universe, we CANNOT presume that there is something "out there" that's any different than what we subjectively perceive. Why? Because it is a SUBJECTIVE presumption.

Consequently, what is commonly referred to as "objective" reality is nothing more than the presumed cause of our sensations, and it is necessarily conceptual, a theoretical construct that is developed by the mind, within the constraints of the structure of the mind, and utilizing the raw materials that the mind produces by processing our sensations.

But objectivity has no meaning in this framework because it is our SUBJECTIVE understanding of OBJECTIVITY; making it subjective-objectivity. The entire framework of subjectivity IS it self the very embodiment of concept! Subjectivity IS conceptual. So, how do you go from a strictly conceptual Universe to an objective Universe? I don't think you can.

What we call "objective reality" is a projection "out there", of the subjective experience we are having "in here", in our mind. What we end up with, is not reality per se, it is only the kind of reality that our kind of mind produces. Within the mind, our sensations result in perceptions, which are given form by a process of the mind, and which subsequently, results in concepts, which are further given form by a process of the mind.

But given this framework, one CANNOT make claims outside the mind. Any such claims are merely a SUBJECTIVE interpretation and thus NOT really outside the mind!

What we call "objective" reality, is something that results from a chain of inferential reasoning, and it is a uniquely human style of inferential reasoning, inferred from a uniquely human set of sensitivities, with a uniquely human way of processing information.

But again, objective has no meaning in this framework. Objectivity is in essence no different than Subjectivity which is conceptual, thus making objectivity conceptual as well.

You pretty much have to conclude that the world we experience is completely defined by the mind experiencing it, and it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe.

But again, you cannot make claims outside your own mind, and so someone else's "mind" is a concept within your mind.

So the resulting "objective" reality isn't really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality. Our five primary senses aren't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn't necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.

And so then it begs the question! But let's grant this so. The logical conclusion here is that there really is no difference between subjective & objective: they are both conceptual. Yet why can we not conceptualize things into being?

I'm reminded of that quote by the Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans that "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" and I wonder if in fact, we have any choice but to think of the universe as conceptual in it's true nature, at least as far as we are, and can be, concerned. This also takes my mind to a variation on the perennial question of the tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it, not my favorite variation which is "If a falling tree crushes a lawyer in the woods and nobody is there to see it, is it still funny?",

Hahaha! The answer is yes!

...but another variation, the tree question now becomes "If a universe doesn't develop conscious minds to observe it, does it really exist?"

Of course! Existence is not predicated on minds, be they conscious or unconscious!

I'm also reminded of the principle in quantum physics that reality exists as a probability wave function that only becomes "actual" when the act of observation by a conscious mind collapses the wave function. There's a history of some fourteen billions years of universe before conscious minds evolved to observe it to consider, and the question becomes, "How did the wave function collapse to make a possible universe and actual universe during those 14 billion years?"

Bingo!

I think the theist answer would be that it was in the mind of God, he was always there to observe it...

True, but then ALL wave functions in the Universe would be collapsed for an omniscient being, no? (Someone else posited this on DDO. I thought that it was quite clever.) By answer is (1) consciousness doesn't collapse a thing (2) God can know the "actual" WITHOUT collapse of the wave function (specially since he is omniscient.)

...and the atheist answer would be, "Get real Side, you must be on drugs", but the fact remains that these are valid questions that are implicit in current scientific theory. It also reinforces my fascination with the remarkable correspondence between the old cosmogonic myth and the new cosmogonic myth.

Yep. But realize that it's not all physicists that have such a "mystical" interpretation of QM.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what a sane person makes of this thought process, what do you think?

Well, hopefully a not-so-sane person's thought process will do!

At 7/11/2012 8:31:05 AM, Knologist_Prime wrote:
Notice how much faster things appear to be the more miniscule they are?

Huh?

Example: Blue Whale heart rate, very slow, 5/6 beats per minute, compared to humans. Hummingbird heart beat very fast, 100's beat per minute. All 'relative' to itself but with the brief comparison with each other, time is present.

What does biology have to do with it? Care to explain a comet that is a WEEEEEEEEE bit bigger than a Blue whale and travels at 1,440,000 MPH?

Fractals(repeating patterns/frequencies/equations) are present in the outcome of things when it comes to time being present.

So at the quantum level, the same must be true also. But, only after the fact of 'existence/space/time' being 'present/here/now'.

Existence is transcendental: it does not require time or space; instead, time & space require existence.

What ever makes those itsy-bitsy-smitsy-tiny-winy-biny-tinky-smenky-linky, quatum stuffy-wuffy things opperate, then the time scale for their 'reality' is also, itsy-bitsy-smitsy-tiny-winy-biny-tinky-smenky-linky.

No, "time scale" is dependent on speed relative to c.

Therefore elements on the quantum level does have time in relative scale to it's reality.

I call it "Quantime".(New word coined by Knologist-Prime. "Quantime.")

LOL.

Is that science-sy enough?

I could be right/correct? (Send me money/research grants and I'll spend 'time' proving it)

No and no.

Just as anyone one of you, too, could be right/correct.

And no again!

(my brain hurts now..LOL)

it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe.

If you're going to make that presumption, then how are you and I not in different universes?

We haven't found life in this universe (apart from ours), so it's possible that an alien sentient being would be found outside our physical universe anyway, with its own finely tuned laws of physics and an Earth of its own (a haven of favorable circumstances within a vast sea of chaotic conditions).

So the resulting "objective" reality isn't really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality. Our five primary senses aren't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn't necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.

Your definition of "universe" means a great deal to your ideas... My beliefs of morality transcend the physical nature of our being so I would insist that other beings would operate under similar moral rules as we do; many physical aspects of their "universe" may be different, but there would still exist balances to living existence that cannot be changed. For example, a being that is conscious must make the decision of whether to be selfless or selfish. I cannot fathom conscious existence without morality.

I'm reminded of that quote by the Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans that "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" and I wonder if in fact, we have any choice but to think of the universe as conceptual in it's true nature, at least as far as we are, and can be, concerned. This also takes my mind to a variation on the perennial question of the tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it, not my favorite variation which is "If a falling tree crushes a lawyer in the words and nobody is there to see it, is it still funny?", but another variation, the tree question now becomes "If a universe doesn't develop conscious minds to observe it, does it really exist?" I'm also reminded of the principle in quantum physics that reality exists as a probability wave function that only becomes "actual" when the act of observation by a conscious mind collapses the wave function. There's a history of some fourteen billions years of universe before conscious minds evolved to observe it to consider, and the question becomes, "How did the wave function collapse to make a possible universe and actual universe during those 14 billion years?" I think the theist answer would be that it was in the mind of God, he was always there to observe it, and the atheist answer would be, "Get real Side, you must be on drugs", but the fact remains that these are valid questions that are implicit in current scientific theory. It also reinforces my fascination with the remarkable correspondence between the old cosmogonic myth and the new cosmogonic myth.

I obviously cannot back up anything I say with scientific rigor, but FREEDO posted a video on here a couple years back which really changed my perception of consciousness, and it would answer your inquiries perfectly. Consciousness is thought to be a fundamental particle of sorts, existing in all things. A human is ultimately conscious, a dog is mostly conscious, a butterfly is a little conscious, and a rock would be barely conscious - but the element of consciousness is within everything. Somehow it is concentrated in us... we just had a discussion regarding robotics in which someone supposed that an artificial being with a brain as complex as ours would achieve consciousness somehow. But how, exactly? We don't even know what consciousness is. If it is a particle or energy of some type, then we have yet to find it. There's no good reason to say that once we do discover its nature that we couldn't bombard a rock with consciousness and make it just as self-aware as we are. Again, there's no real evidence for this belief system but it does fit quite nicely in certain frameworks, like explaining how lower life-forms share some of our ethical concern. And if you extend consciousness this way to the lowest life forms and even inanimate objects, then your concerns about the first 14 billion years become moot. I've noticed that there are many scientific and philosophical problems that this line of reasoning solves.

Speaking of which, me and Mr. Pickens were trying to get a hold of an experiment that demonstrates that passive observation (if it can be truly passive) can affect physical change. If you could explain it to us in better detail or better yet tell us what it was called that would be really helpful, as you seem to have knowledge of the generalities concerning it already anyway. The experiment had an apparatus with a tube leading in, a chamber at the center, and a tube leading out. The particles they sent in could exist in one of two different states, and had a 50% chance of existing in either one once they entered in inner chamber. They would record the particle coming out and if it appeared in the end tube then they'd know it existed in a certain state within the chamber, and if it disappeared before exiting then they'd know it existed in the other state. When they somehow cut the chamber off from outside observation, all of a sudden the particles jumped from a 50% incidence to a 100% incidence in the exiting tube, indicating that because the chamber was essentially cut off from any chance of outside observation, that the particle now was going to exist in both states within the chamber (until we started looking again and the wave function recollapsed). Could you assist us in explaining or identifying what experiment this is? It was posted to DDO years back and I can't find it. Mr. Pickens is adamant that there must be some active, physical change/interference to do with the observation that is indeed responsible for the change, while I believe the interpretation of the experiment that was trying to be espoused by the researchers was that it was solely the inherent observability of the particle that mattered, not the actual interference from the act of observing it.

At 7/11/2012 3:09:32 PM, Lasagna wrote:

it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe.

If you're going to make that presumption, then how are you and I not in different universes?

True.

We haven't found life in this universe (apart from ours), so it's possible that an alien sentient being would be found outside our physical universe anyway, with its own finely tuned laws of physics and an Earth of its own (a haven of favorable circumstances within a vast sea of chaotic conditions).

Am I understanding this correctly "physics" outside o "physics"? Are you positing a Multiverse scenario?

I cannot fathom conscious existence without morality.

Dogs and cats are conscious (when they're not sleeping, of course) or almost any other such animal, but I wouldn't really consider them moral agents. Still, it would be nice if any such intelligent beings from another "world" were merely as moral as your average dog. If that were so, they'd probably be nicer than your average person!

I obviously cannot back up anything I say with scientific rigor, but FREEDO posted a video on here a couple years back which really changed my perception of consciousness, and it would answer your inquiries perfectly. Consciousness is thought to be a fundamental particle of sorts, existing in all things. A human is ultimately conscious, a dog is mostly conscious, a butterfly is a little conscious, and a rock would be barely conscious - but the element of consciousness is within everything. Somehow it is concentrated in us...

It's a very spiritual way of looking at it I suppose, but this is more of a belief and not something knowledgeable. As is evidenced by you admission that you cannot back this up with scientific rigor. Seems to me a rather constructive belief rather than destructive.

...we just had a discussion regarding robotics in which someone supposed that an artificial being with a brain as complex as ours would achieve consciousness somehow.

I don't see why not. Perhaps not in my lifetime or yours but...you never know!

But how, exactly? We don't even know what consciousness is.

It's not that we don't know what it is, it is that consciousness is a subjective term. But, didn't you just finished telling us what it is?

If it is a particle or energy of some type, then we have yet to find it. There's no good reason to say that once we do discover its nature that we couldn't bombard a rock with consciousness and make it just as self-aware as we are.

Not unless we make it grow a brain!

Again, there's no real evidence for this belief system but it does fit quite nicely in certain frameworks, like explaining how lower life-forms share some of our ethical concern.

What, biological prerogatives?

And if you extend consciousness this way to the lowest life forms and even inanimate objects, then your concerns about the first 14 billion years become moot. I've noticed that there are many scientific and philosophical problems that this line of reasoning solves.

Moot? I don't understand?

Speaking of which, me and Mr. Pickens were trying to get a hold of an experiment that demonstrates that passive observation (if it can be truly passive) can affect physical change. If you could explain it to us in better detail or better yet tell us what it was called that would be really helpful, as you seem to have knowledge of the generalities concerning it already anyway. The experiment had an apparatus with a tube leading in, a chamber at the center, and a tube leading out. The particles they sent in could exist in one of two different states, and had a 50% chance of existing in either one once they entered in inner chamber. They would record the particle coming out and if it appeared in the end tube then they'd know it existed in a certain state within the chamber, and if it disappeared before exiting then they'd know it existed in the other state. When they somehow cut the chamber off from outside observation, all of a sudden the particles jumped from a 50% incidence to a 100% incidence in the exiting tube, indicating that because the chamber was essentially cut off from any chance of outside observation, that the particle now was going to exist in both states within the chamber (until we started looking again and the wave function recollapsed). Could you assist us in explaining or identifying what experiment this is? It was posted to DDO years back and I can't find it. Mr. Pickens is adamant that there must be some active, physical change/interference to do with the observation that is indeed responsible for the change, while I believe the interpretation of the experiment that was trying to be espoused by the researchers was that it was solely the inherent observability of the particle that mattered, not the actual interference from the act of observing it.

Good luck!

At 7/11/2012 3:09:32 PM, Lasagna wrote:

... in a different universe.

If you're going to make that presumption, then how are you and I not in different universes?

I didn't say a different mind, I said a different kind of mind, as in not human.

We haven't found life in this universe (apart from ours), so it's possible that an alien sentient being would be found outside our physical universe anyway, with its own finely tuned laws of physics and an Earth of its own (a haven of favorable circumstances within a vast sea of chaotic conditions).

Outside our physical universe? Where would that be exactly?

...would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.

Your definition of "universe" means a great deal to your ideas... My beliefs of morality transcend the physical nature of our being so I would insist that other beings would operate under similar moral rules as we do; many physical aspects of their "universe" may be different, but there would still exist balances to living existence that cannot be changed. For example, a being that is conscious must make the decision of whether to be selfless or selfish. I cannot fathom conscious existence without morality.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I personally choose to believe in the objectivity of value and purpose, not because it is based on evidence, but because it is an axiom that makes a life of faith possible, and this makes morality a matter of discernment and response, rather than a matter of making decisions in a social context. Consequently, if there are other conscious intelligent beings, it logically follows that for them, morality would be a matter of discernment and response to those same objective values. On some level, I think we are both saying the same thing here.

I obviously cannot back up anything I say with scientific rigor, but FREEDO posted a video on here a couple years back which really changed my perception of consciousness, and it would answer your inquiries perfectly. Consciousness is thought to be a fundamental particle of sorts, existing in all things. A human is ultimately conscious, a dog is mostly conscious, a butterfly is a little conscious, and a rock would be barely conscious - but the element of consciousness is within everything. Somehow it is concentrated in us...

Except for the weird particle thing, what you are describing is a philosophical system called panpsychism; as wiggy as it sounds, it's considered an intellectually respectable philosophic belief, and it's actually pretty prevalent. It comes in a lot of different forms but essentially it is the belief that the entire universe, and everything in it has some kind of mental aspect, that it feels like something to be a rock. Most pre-literate societies were Animistic, and I'm pretty sure panpsychism evolved as a psychology from Animism. The first Greek philosopher, Thales ascribed to Panpsychism along with over half of the ancient Greek philosophers, as did Spinoza, Liebnitsz, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, David Chalmers, and one of my favorite authors, Pierre Tielhard deChardin. My own maternal spiritual heritage is essentially a form of panpsychism, so I'll tell you right now, I'm not saying anything negative about panpsychism, not even going to think about it even. My Grandmother was a heap big Cherokee Spirit Woman and I'm afraid she might come back from the dead and turn me into a newt or something.

we just had a discussion regarding robotics in which someone supposed that an artificial being with a brain as complex as ours would achieve consciousness somehow. But how, exactly?

I'm not buying that, so it doesn't matter how.

We don't even know what consciousness is. If it is a particle or energy of some type, then we have yet to find it. There's no good reason to say that once we do discover its nature that we couldn't bombard a rock with consciousness and make it just as self-aware as we are.

Nope, I'm not buying that either, but I do think you could probably make a rock as self aware as my little sister. In any event, I think a better experiment would be to take that idea and bombard it with a rock.

Again, there's no real evidence for this belief system but it does fit quite nicely in certain frameworks, like explaining how lower life-forms share some of our ethical concern. And if you extend consciousness this way to the lowest life forms and even inanimate objects, then your concerns about the first 14 billion years become moot. I've noticed that there are many scientific and philosophical problems that this line of reasoning solves.

If we are talking about panpsychism, without consciousness particles and rock experiments, then I'll say there may not be any scientific evidence for it, but there's no scientific evidence against it either, and it's an inferentially valid conclusion that can logically be drawn from scientific research. It can logically follow from holding two pretty widely held philosophical positions, one, that consciousness is different in kind and therefore irreducible to strictly physical processes (I agree), and two, the rejection of emergentism, the belief that consciousness just magically emerges from a certain degree of complexity, as if complexity is some kind of magical pixie dust or something. It's not the only philosophy that can result from holding these two prior beliefs, but it's an intellectually respectable and completely logical conclusion that can be drawn from them.

Speaking of which, me and Mr. Pickens were trying to get a hold of an experiment that demonstrates that passive observation (if it can be truly passive) can affect physical change. If you could explain it to us in better detail or better yet tell us what it was called that would be really helpful, as you seem to have knowledge of the generalities concerning it already anyway. The experiment had an apparatus with a tube leading in, a chamber at the center, and a tube leading out. The particles they sent in could exist in one of two different states, and had a 50% chance of existing in either one once they entered in inner chamber. They would record the particle coming out and if it appeared in the end tube then they'd know it existed in a certain state within the chamber, and if it disappeared before exiting then they'd know it existed in the other state. When they somehow cut the chamber off from outside observation, all of a sudden the particles jumped from a 50% incidence to a 100% incidence in the exiting tube, indicating that because the chamber was essentially cut off from any chance of outside observation, that the particle now was going to exist in both states within the chamber (until we started looking again and the wave function recollapsed). Could you assist us in explaining or identifying what experiment this is? It was posted to DDO years back and I can't find it.

I don't think I'm familiar with the experiment that you described here, but maybe, you might be talking about an experiment conducted at the Weizmann Institute of Physics in Israel. These Weizmann folks are smart and if it isn't the same experiment, it might apply just as well to your point. They created a device that could observe electrons without interfering with them in any way, and when they used it in the double slit experiment they found the act of observing changed the outcome of the experiment, they also found that the more they observed, the greater the effect it had on outcome…or something like that. It's been quite a while since I read about it and I remember thinking it was exciting news and that it should have gotten a lot more press than it did, but I haven't since heard of it being replicated either, so now I'm wondering what ever happened with it.

At 7/11/2012 3:09:32 PM, Lasagna wrote:

Mr. Pickens is adamant that there must be some active, physical change/interference to do with the observation that is indeed responsible for the change, while I believe the interpretation of the experiment that was trying to be espoused by the researchers was that it was solely the inherent observability of the particle that mattered, not the actual interference from the act of observing it.

What I can tell you about this is that Mr. Pickens and I both shake our heads in dismay at some of the things the quantum physicists are trying to feed us, but the fact is that the defacto standard Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, at least in its classical form, explicitly says it isn't a matter of "some active, physical change/interference", it is the conscious observation itself that alters reality. Heisenberg and Bohr developed the Copenhagen Interpretation and they both strongly asserted that point, Einstein strongly disagreed so there are some very smart people on both sides of this dispute. Keep in mind that ontologically speaking, the Copenhagen interpretation is very aggressive, in effect it says that unobserved reality is meaningless, and that the electron doesn't even exist until you observe it. It's kind of hard to fathom that the universe vanishes out of existence when I close my eyes, but then again, quantum physics is about as counterintuitive as anything gets, and there are some pretty unfathomable logical conclusions coming out of quantum physics' experimental results.

I'm pretty good at figuring out what words to use for a Google search, I'll go see if I can find the experiment I was referring to, if I can I'll come back with a link and we'll see if that's what you were looking for.

At 7/11/2012 7:33:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I must think about this stuff when I'm sleeping because I woke up this morning with some ideas and a chain of reasoning that I didn't have when I went to bed, which is kind of tragic when you consider that I could have been having erotic dreams about Selma Hayek, but noooooo, apparently I'm thinking about physics.

Anyway, despite the fact that I was being sarcastic with the idea that the real basis of the universe is conceptual, I woke up with an argument that it really is conceptual, at least as far as we are concerned. Bear with me on this and tell me what you think, I'm seeing it for the first time myself and I don't know what to think about it yet either, so I'm quite interested in hearing your input.

OK, so here goes, it occurs to me that perhaps it isn't just in the mind of God and these crazy physicists that the universe is fundamentally conceptual; perhaps it's that way for all of us. Here is the chain of reasoning that I woke up with.

All we really know directly and in an unmediated form is our subjective experience, which is to say, our sensations, the cause of those sensations can only be known by the manner in which we interact with it, which is to say, subjectively. Immanuel Kant is considered the father of modern philosophy for a reason, and Kant's major contribution was to explain to us that the mind is constructive, all we can know is phenomena, and the underlying realty that is causing these sensations is no more than a presumption of sorts. The only knowing there can be is a "mode" of knowing. We pretty much have to presume that there is something "out there" causing these sensations we have "in here", in our mind, but we don't, and can't, know it directly, we can only know it by the uniquely human manner of sensing and knowing available to us.

Consequently, what is commonly referred to as "objective" reality is nothing more than the presumed cause of our sensations, and it is necessarily conceptual, a theoretical construct that is developed by the mind, within the constraints of the structure of the mind, and utilizing the raw materials that the mind produces by processing our sensations. What we call "objective reality" is a projection "out there", of the subjective experience we are having "in here", in our mind. What we end up with, is not reality per se, it is only the kind of reality that our kind of mind produces. Within the mind, our sensations result in perceptions, which are given form by a process of the mind, and which subsequently, results in concepts, which are further given form by a process of the mind. What we call "objective" reality, is something that results from a chain of inferential reasoning, and it is a uniquely human style of inferential reasoning, inferred from a uniquely human set of sensitivities, with a uniquely human way of processing information. You pretty much have to conclude that the world we experience is completely defined by the mind experiencing it, and it logically follows that a different kind of mind would experience a different kind of reality, and they would live and move and have their being in a different universe. So the resulting "objective" reality isn't really all that objective, it is nothing more than a mental construct extrapolated from our uniquely human, and completely subjective, way of experiencing reality. Our five primary senses aren't exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, and our process of thinking isn't necessarily the only way of thinking, an intelligent being with a different set of senses than ours, and with a different manner of reasoning, a different kind of mind so to speak, would necessarily experience a different universe than the one we experience.

I'm reminded of that quote by the Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans that "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" and I wonder if in fact, we have any choice but to think of the universe as conceptual in it's true nature, at least as far as we are, and can be, concerned. This also takes my mind to a variation on the perennial question of the tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it, not my favorite variation which is "If a falling tree crushes a lawyer in the words and nobody is there to see it, is it still funny?", but another variation, the tree question now becomes "If a universe doesn't develop conscious minds to observe it, does it really exist?" I'm also reminded of the principle in quantum physics that reality exists as a probability wave function that only becomes "actual" when the act of observation by a conscious mind collapses the wave function. There's a history of some fourteen billions years of universe before conscious minds evolved to observe it to consider, and the question becomes, "How did the wave function collapse to make a possible universe and actual universe during those 14 billion years?" I think the theist answer would be that it was in the mind of God, he was always there to observe it, and the atheist answer would be, "Get real Side, you must be on drugs", but the fact remains that these are valid questions that are implicit in current scientific theory. It also reinforces my fascination with the remarkable correspondence between the old cosmogonic myth and the new cosmogonic myth.

Anyway, I'm interested in hearing what a sane person makes of this thought process, what do you think?

The Fool: The think in it self can be graps by pure Reason, mathmatics/logic/geometry, that is why all physics in the end turn as formulas of pure reason.

At 3/25/2012 4:32:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was wondering if Quantum fluctuations can occur without space-time? If so, how?

The Fool: Time is a finite measurement of change. Thus if there is flucuation/(change) its overtime by necessity..

Lasagna,

Here's an article about the experiment I was referring to, is this the one you were looking for information on?

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

At 7/11/2012 12:10:10 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 7/10/2012 7:44:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
...
"Nice shot Dad."

Lol! Never heard that one before but I saw it coming...Hilarious!

Jesus, Moses and the old man are still playing golf and they come to an even longer hole with another water hazard in front of the green. Jesus pulls out his driver, but Moses says, "Hold on Jesus, maybe Jack Nicklaus could get on the green from here, but you better take out a four iron and lay up in front of the water". Jesus says, "No way, I think I can make it" and then he drives the ball and kersplash, it lands in the lake.

When they get to the lake Jesus walks across the water to his ball, rolls up his sleeve, reaches down into the water to retrieve his ball, and starts walking back across the water to the bank with his ball in hand. A passing golfer sees this spectacle and yells over to Moses, "Holy smoke, who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?"

Moses yells back, "No, he is Jesus Christ, but he thinks he's Jack Nicklaus".

OK, I'm heading to bed, will respond to the rest tomorrow..good night.

At 7/12/2012 12:04:01 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

At 7/11/2012 12:10:10 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

At 7/10/2012 7:44:38 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
...
"Nice shot Dad."

Lol! Never heard that one before but I saw it coming...Hilarious!

Jesus, Moses and the old man are still playing golf and they come to an even longer hole with another water hazard in front of the green. Jesus pulls out his driver, but Moses says, "Hold on Jesus, maybe Jack Nicklaus could get on the green from here, but you better take out a four iron and lay up in front of the water". Jesus says, "No way, I think I can make it" and then he drives the ball and kersplash, it lands in the lake.

When they get to the lake Jesus walks across the water to his ball, rolls up his sleeve, reaches down into the water to retrieve his ball, and starts walking back across the water to the bank with his ball in hand. A passing golfer sees this spectacle and yells over to Moses, "Holy smoke, who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?"

Moses yells back, "No, he is Jesus Christ, but he thinks he's Jack Nicklaus".




OK, I'm heading to bed, will respond to the rest tomorrow..good night.

Hahaha!