It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Quantum Theory is a bad host for Consciousness

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
this thread is supplement to previous thread, in partial answer to the question from member Kashai

"if the Universe is a hologram what rational explanation would exist for a holographic Universe to develop consciousness?"



as always, it is quite longwinded (but with pictures!)




posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
pt1. "what are Things?"



^^^ a chaotic 'eigenstate' ^^^


all Things (capital 'T') are in a state of transition.

within every boundary between THIS and THAT we find a potential well (*1 on drawing) of energy. some systems "rest" completely within their respective well, and a great many other systems maintain themselves very near to the critical threshold (*2) of their transition state (*3). it is within this transition state that all phenomena which are measurable exist.

thus, all (measurable) Things are in a state of transition.

note #1: it is important to note that if it were possible for a Thing to persist as a static (unmoving) within its potential well, it would be undetectable (though it might be said to still "exist" in terms of its relative, latent, potential).



if we look at these potential wells as "bumps" down the hill toward maximum entropy, we can ask the question: "what are these 'bumps' made of?" in simplest terms, they are made of relationships..... a nebulous term. nevertheless, it is manifestly true that all things are comprised of an internal conformation of constituent 'things' (small 't') which are in contextually optimal relationships.

so, not only are all Things in a state of transition, but all things are in relationships.


 

SUMMARY: 'things' are not Things (see note #1). relationships are Things.


^^^ another representation of 'eigenstate' ^^^



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
pt2. it's time to throw the book at 'quantum snobbery'



^^^ atomic (spherical) 'eigenstates' ^^^


and so we obtain the first and foundational falsehood of modern science, so old now that it is often conflated with the very definition of the word "science" itself: particles.

this is our first realization along the path toward understanding quantum theory, which gives us the 'measurement problem', which tells us succinctly that a measurement represents a static; and yet, as noted before, a thing which is static is unmeasurable (see note #1).

quantum theory is a subset of the much grander Chaos Theory (and systems theory in general), which is the study of the relationships of things at or near the critical threshold (*2 in drawing) of their transition state (*3).

due to the insistence upon the existence of the particle, physics has reached a dead end.... represented sadly as a 'perfectly stable particle' sunken to the bottom of its potential well. it is a mire of things which dont exist (see note #1): an inhospitable ground for the study of consciousness (the one thing we all know FOR CERTAIN exists.)

i suppose there must be terror in the minds of some physicists at the proposal that the eigenstate is easily explained as a natural consequence of chaotic systems, because in so doing they will be forced to give equal access of their cherished theorms to those who have rightly associated 'consiousness', and even Life itself, with chaotic systems.

unhappy bedfellows, for sure.


begrudgingly, they will have to retire use of the term "woo-woo", held onto so long like a toddler to a security blanket. (yes, that was nothing more than a self gratifying jab at the purveyors of quantum snobbery.)




^^^ consciousness == an eigenstate ^^^


thanks for reading.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


I agree with much of your thread, and you make a lot of nice points and expressions. You say all is in transition, so in a way there are no things (yay or nay)? How then is the stability of objects explained, is a rock not a thing that can exist for millions of years? In that relatively long and short amount of time, how does that thing not exist as a thing? Yes in the biggest picture, there is no conceivable substance or material that can stable exist as a thing or object for literal eternity (besides the pure and primal substance/energy/reality itself). So I understand what you mean, but I dont know what you are getting at, what is the point of your statements?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Well I think our universe acts like a hologram because we are a computer simulation.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


hi there, Fungi. nice to see you.

the persistence of Things is explained twofold:

1)


....some systems "rest" completely within their respective well, and a great many other systems maintain themselves very near to the critical threshold (*2) of their transition state (*3)....


i have plotted only one generic system of energetic transition here, but there are a large number of systems, most notably quantum phase (electronic, etc.) and physical phase (solid, liquid, etc...) which must find stability to result in a Thing.

2)
things like rocks are considered 'hard'. the meaning of 'hard' is that the gap width between the bottom of the potential well and the critical state is quite large. because of this, a transition of this particular matter into another state requires a significant amount of energy. because a rock persists at quite some distance from its critical state, the chaotic eigenstates are relatively simple and well ordered.

...

what i am getting at here in this thread is, really, just the same as in the previous one. which is that the principles of quantum theory are as common and easily understandable as the principles of kicking a football. but, no one insists that football-kicking is something far removed from human comprehension.

also, this is necessary conceptual groundwork for understanding why it is entirely possible that Biology will require a dedicated system of physics which is applicable only to living matter. although, i have not said much about that in this particular thread.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Truth is not objective, nor is it subjective. The truth is that reality has no ground, no essence, and is therefore empty. All the ten thousand things arise in relation to all other things and no thing in particular has any substantial existence in and of itself. Reality, unlike a this video, has infinite resolution. That means it cannot be reduce to some smaller components or pixels, it goes on and on, receding into itself forever.

"Just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind." Buddha


Source

Sound familiar?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


i agree. but the characteristics, the harware, the software, of this computer are somewhat different from what i am typing on right now. and accordingly, the term 'hologram' requires a certain amount of tweaking.

but many of the significant hallmarks of 'hologram' and 'computer' have already been empirically established.

(not to mention that i have collected very convincing subjective evidence as well.)



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


i am gonna fend off the counter-argument to the idea of "infinite resolution" in that quote. it is oft cited that the planck constant (hbar) is the physical limit of the universe. not quite true.

hbar is the physical limit on our ability to measure the universe.

that may or may not be the same thing.


A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!"
—Hawking, 1988



turtles....all the way down.



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


I remember a theory years ago that offered that the Big Bang was an explosion in space-time. Matter is then, individualized packets of space-time that have folded into itself. With decay meaning, the matter returns to space time in general, as its structure losses cohesion.

One way of looking at is that what happens when two Universes collide. I mean given that they are four dimensional what affect would at the point of impact would be in relation to time?



Because energy appears only in wave formations (swirls), we believe that time appears in the same form, in quants (energetic space), and proceeds together with energetic creation (masses). The phrase “Time is ticking away” in essence means that energy does away with time. Every phase has its time, after which its “genes” of energetic matter transfer to the next phase or to space.


Source

Any thoughts?



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Bunch of question:

At what scale is an eigenstate? Is it only a fraction of something or does it go up and/or down in scale for infinity?

I can visualize a particle and a wave. (but I cannot visualize a wave collapsing into a particle.) Is an eigenstate a fraction of a wave or the overall shape of a wave or the frequency of a wave or what?

What controls the wells/frequency of an eigenstate?

Are eigenstates able to come into contact with other eigenstates; and if so, why does contact not create complete disorder? If they do not come into contact with one another, what keeps them separate?

And last but not least, how would you say change, as a whole, effects eigenstates? For example, what correlative effect would eigenstates have on evolution and vice versa?


p.s. On the other thread, I thought you were thinking of the cause of this dynamic reality, yet it seems you have stopped short. What do you think is the controlling factor of change? What is the limiter/delimiter of change?



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tgidkp
 

At what scale is an eigenstate? Is it only a fraction of something or does it go up and/or down in scale for infinity?


an eigenstate, as an entity within a chaotic system, can be observed at any scale of reality. it is not a "fraction of something"....quite the opposite, it is the whole of that particular something.



I can visualize a particle and a wave. (but I cannot visualize a wave collapsing into a particle.) Is an eigenstate a fraction of a wave or the overall shape of a wave or the frequency of a wave or what?

the eigenstate is the "quantum" in "quantum mechanics". it is most easily visualized as harmonic modes on a vibrating string (a guitar, for instance). you can never have a partial mode.... they ONLY EVER come in whole units. descriptions of phenomena in quantum theory should (but often dont) refer to eigenstates within eigenstates (also known as a "statistical ensemble"). mathematically, this is how we end up with umpteen dimensions, because each of these states require a unique degree of freedom for their description (degree of freedom = dimension).

the wave is the relationship is the eigenstate is the Thing. the particle, as a static unit, is a weak statistical approximation that falls within the domain of the eigenstate.



What controls the wells/frequency of an eigenstate?

oooooohhhhhh...... good question. (for sake of confusion, let us use "node" instead of "well")

in both quantum theory and chaos theory, there is this idea that a stable state is incredibly fragile and rare. but, obviously, they are terribly common and mundane. the critical idea here is that the eigenstate is the result of ALL possible conditions within the system coming into consonance. and, yeah, i guess that given that vast number of variables, it can be easy to see the fragility.

but to show you how common such a thing is, i often reflect upon an afternoon that i was visiting my father. he has this contraption into which you put your feet and it massages and vibrates your cares away. on this occasion, i was entering into a state of bliss and i took notice of the cup of tea resting on my knee. upon the surface of this liquid was a really interesting standing oscillation. i took a sip.....and it was gone. i took another sip.....and a new one showed up!

i am sure that you can use your imagination to answer what it is that "controls" the eigenstate.

it is very very important to point out here that if we were to zoom in upon the surface of that standing liquid oscillation.....all of those tiny droplets of water would be indistinguishable from random noise. the ESSENTIAL notion of chaos is that of long-range correlation, or in quantum physics parlance, "spooky action at a distance". all things considered, not really all that spooky.

......cont..



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 




Are eigenstates able to come into contact with other eigenstates; and if so, why does contact not create complete disorder? If they do not come into contact with one another, what keeps them separate?


disorder is entirely possible. disordered states far outnumber ordered states. implicit within a feynman diagram are all of the bajillions of states that it took to arrive at the curvy line that made it to the page. but also entirely possible is that you will generate an even more complex eigenstate than the first..... just take another sip of tea.

as a general rule, the further apart your states are in terms of size and/or absolute transition energy, the less success you will have in joining them. that should be fairly obvious, tho. there are some extremely deep potential wells out there that will join with almost nothing.



And last but not least, how would you say change, as a whole, effects eigenstates? For example, what correlative effect would eigenstates have on evolution and vice versa?


chaos theory is widely applicable.... WIDELY. the majority of the observable phenomena in our direct perception give a cursory analysis of being merely noise. but, as i said before, chaos is about long-range correlations. "long-range" can refer to a span of time just as easily as it refers to physical distance. this is the primary reason that in its proper context, quantum physics is not mapped onto a time domain. in other words, eigenstates are persistent through time.

this is the foundation of the concept of entanglement. what appears to be noise is, in fact, part of an eigensystem. (whether or not we are able to account for that eigensystem, aka "hidden variables")



p.s. On the other thread, I thought you were thinking of the cause of this dynamic reality, yet it seems you have stopped short. What do you think is the controlling factor of change? What is the limiter/delimiter of change?




the measurement problem, and resulting uncertainty, is the story of our lives. at all levels.

it is the uncertainty, and its resolution via nested systems (infinity+1 from the other thread), which takes on the appearance at first glance as noise but is resolved as an eigenstate. one great big noisy (coherent) eigensystem.

it is the coherence, encoded as "noise", which gives us the metaphor for 'hologram'. (this answers Fungi's question)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Um....the question is asking what? A holographic dream lab school. Purpose to let kids make messes and then learn from them, till they overcome war, starvation, greed and all things within themselves and progress.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
By the way, holograms are constructs, they prove a higher plane, and a Higher Mind.

Some like to think of our universal plane as if its alive and we're its feelers learning, over and over again, and seemingly never gaining any knowledge or changing behavior, how to murder, enslave, be enslaved, starved, tortured, mistreated, over and over again. The universal ALL/ONE is a stupid bear as the children's book goes, circles just circles.

Please explain the purpose of such a system compared to infinite progression, which is what the Holographic Universe is.
edit on 4-8-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I think it all boils down to whether we're just a random pattern in a random universe or we're instead the supernatural creation of a higher being with a potential special purpose in this life.

Is there a purpose to this universe or is it just a random universe.

When I look at some spiders outside and watch how they fish for bugs with their webs, I can't help but think they're doing what we're doing: surviving. Is that all there is to this life?

It's easy to believe that's all there is. I've never had any rationale reason to think there's anything more than that. Why should I think I'm any different than any other creature on earth? Just because humans dominate earth, does not mean anything to me. Earth is one planet among how many others? How many other galaxies? We might yet become extinct and we're not innocent, either. We're participants in this evolutionary game just as the bugs or bacteria or the other forms of life.

The best we can hope for is we die and wake up from this dream. But maybe I shouldn't be so confident. What will we wake up to? Maybe it'll be worse than the dream we woke up from.

I get the impression people want a feel-good explanation for things. But what if the explanation doesn't feel good? What if you were bug #2309290234390235 that flew into the spider's web? What if humans are the ant crossing the road that gets smashed by the passing car? What if we're prisoners locked away in a hole somewhere and we spend our lives in this virtual dungeon universe? What if we periodically wake up from this fantasy and realize just how pitiful and hopeless our lives are?

So what do I think? I think all creatures are mortal and we're here to survive and we make up our own reasons for existing. I think ignorance will always exist and so will conflict. The beauty (or horror) is I can look in a spider's eyes (or its prey's eyes) and see my nature there.

This doesn't mean I have no morals. To survive in this life you have to cooperate with others on some level. That means some morals. You do it enough to survive and to, more broadly, ensure the survival of your species. Lets face it, for our species to even exist, evolution has probably hard-wired some cooperation into us. Anyway, I don't have to believe in God to know right and wrong. Right and wrong is not complicated. It's about survival of the species. It's about not cheating too much. It's generally about paying for selfishness with some selflessness. It's give and take. Nothing is free.
edit on 4-8-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite

So what do I think? I think all creatures are mortal and we're here to survive and we make up our own reasons for existing.

Have you never had a conversation with a discarnate?



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


You are speaking of nature the mastery of which allows for a form of life to evolve.

To be apparent the idea of a God creating it as cruel to allow such things as possible in some context. Simply stated for reality to be valid these conditions need exist and in so far as the potential of evolution?

I would not jump to any real conclusions as to the future

Neither in respect to the potential of the
present.

In reality though we are evolving.

There is simply more to it than what our brains are able to observe in exactitude with the five common senses.

These observations while allowing us to have some semblance of reality, seems only enough to allow for development IMO. We see only internal representations with respect to the common senses, occurring in the brain. So when you see for example a spider eating a fly you only see a small aspect of what has actually occurred.

In my opinion to judge nature would require a perfect understanding of it.


Any thoughts?

edit on 4-8-2013 by Kashai because: modfed content



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOd
 


your question does not make clear your position on or understanding of the coherence of the chaotic eigenstate.

and I respond in kind to those who posted before you: does the model of reality put forward in the op help or hinder your effort to understand what a proper study of consciousness might entail?

is a disembodied "person" a coherent entity with which you can discuss? how?



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
By the way, holograms are constructs, they prove a higher plane, and a Higher Mind.




Some like to think of our universal plane as if its alive and we're its feelers learning, over and over again, and seemingly never gaining any knowledge or changing behavior, how to murder, enslave, be enslaved, starved, tortured, mistreated, over and over again. The universal ALL/ONE is a stupid bear as the children's book goes, circles just circles.


A Möbius strip is more along the lines the Universe is often described, in 4 dimensions.
edit on 4-8-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join