Puzzling NDE questions

Neil said:
But the quantum mathematics would calculate that from the interplay between process, structure, activity, and substance, that you would have a mixture state of different possible outcomes. Why do we only experience one of them? If the world exists independently of our observation, there must be a solution to the measurement problem. What is that solution? The original paper said decoherence, but this is not true, which is what prompted this topic.
Click to expand...
The world does not exist completely disconnected from observation and other bio-informatic processes. Quantum calculations predict a reality that is flexible to changing information in the environment. I don't have a measurement "problem" such as you must.

The "why" of experiencing a holistic physical environment is a metaphysical discourse. Pragmatically it is what is expected. Maybe if you cite Bynum specifically in the paper using decoherence in an inappropriate manner, I can comment.
 
Stephen Wright said:
The world does not exist completely disconnected from observation and other bio-informatic processes. Quantum calculations predict a reality that is flexible to changing information in the environment. I don't have a measurement "problem" such as you must.

The "why" of experiencing a holistic physical environment is a metaphysical discourse. Pragmatically it is what is expected. Maybe if you cite Bynum specifically in the paper using decoherence in an inappropriate manner, I can comment.
Click to expand...

He claims realism based on decoherence solving the measurement problem, which is false.
 
Laird said:
Partly I'm asking about the combination problem, yes, but more so asking about why any solution to that problem would apply only to the brain as a whole, and not also to any portion of it. We have a unitary experience of consciousness (an individual psyche) which, I understand, IIT attributes to the "integrated information" associated with our entire brain. So, does IIT also predict a unitary experience of consciousness (an individual psyche) associated with (the integrated information of) half of our brain? And with a quarter? Etc etc? In other words, how many individual psyches are associated with all of the possible subsets of integrated information derivable from the overall set of integrated information in our brain, and if it is only one, then why only one?

I can think of one "sort-of" answer: that individual psyches are associated only with locally maximal phi. OK, fine, but that's only a "sort-of" answer because it doesn't explain why individual psyches are associated only with locally maximal phi.
Click to expand...

I have thought more about this and it seems that there is a better answer than what I gave before.

When you have individual complexes that have a certain phi, and they then have the connections and required types of interactions with each other, once the phi of the system exceeds the phi of the individual complexes, the experience of the individual complexes are subsumed into the larger complex of maximally irreducible conceptual structure.

It is the quantum state of this entire higher phi system that is then experienced by absolute consciousness, resulting in the unitary internal experience of the system with the highest phi.
 
In thinking about my post immediately before this one, I have thought of another aspect that I find to be a fascinating possibility.

Could it be that some of these lower phi complexes, normally subsumed into our normal conscious awareness, could have something to do with such things as multiple personality disorder? Could people that have this disorder have some sort of issue with some sort of brain activity involved with integration, which may result in other potential complexes taking over on occasion?
 
Neil said:
Why do we only experience one of them? If the world exists independently of our observation
Click to expand...
The real "world" in its entirety - clear as day - does not exist independent of our bio-information processing!
IR (informational realism) is a reductive approach! Physical events happen in a stochastic manner and the propensity of objects to obey the laws of physics is measurable.

Informational events happen in a stochastic manner and the propensity of information objects to obey the laws of logic, thermodynamics and communication theory, likewise are measurable. Events can be broken down to a combined underlying set of principals. Minds don't cause force or have mass. However, bio-minds can restructure information objects so that they change real world possibilities, through enforced intention of their individual or societal goals.
 
That raises two questions for me.
1. If our minds generate reality, why do we all perceive the same reality?
2. If our minds generate reality, what is limiting our ability to affect it?

The latter might be trickier to figure out, but the former bears looking into.
 
Stephen Wright said:
The real "world" in its entirety - clear as day - does not exist independent of our bio-information processing!
IR (informational realism) is a reductive approach! Physical events happen in a stochastic manner and the propensity of objects to obey the laws of physics is measurable.

Informational events happen in a stochastic manner and the propensity of information objects to obey the laws of logic, thermodynamics and communication theory, likewise are measurable. Events can be broken down to a combined underlying set of principals. Minds don't cause force or have mass. However, bio-minds can restructure information objects so that they change real world possibilities, through enforced intention of their individual or societal goals.
Click to expand...

So if all life disappeared, would the world continue to exist objectively?
 
Imperial Philosopher said:
That raises two questions for me.
1. If our minds generate reality, why do we all perceive the same reality?
2. If our minds generate reality, what is limiting our ability to affect it?

The latter might be trickier to figure out, but the former bears looking into.
Click to expand...

It's not really the mind that generates reality, at least not in the sense of the objective outcomes of quantum experiments. Minds are involved in probing actions, and influencing the world, but it is the pure consciousness itself that experiences these outcomes and "generates reality" which is experienced through minds. The reason we all perceive the same reality is that our minds all share the same common pure consciousness which is the ground of being, viz. there is only one pure abstract consciousness that collapses the wave function through experience.
 
Neil said:
So if all life disappeared, would the world continue to exist objectively?
Click to expand...
good thought-experiment
Yes of course, it would await bio-information processing where-by living things structure information objects that conjoin real-world probabilities.

This stance also applies to the "big-bang philosophical outlook", where matter evolves to be conscious. The real world existed and evolved physically and informatively before life. Life as it develops becomes participatory (Wheeler) with its activity in the infosphere (Floridi).
 
Imperial Philosopher said:
That raises two questions for me.
1. If our minds generate reality, why do we all perceive the same reality?
2. If our minds generate reality, what is limiting our ability to affect it?

The latter might be trickier to figure out, but the former bears looking into.
Click to expand...

I would say that the minds participate (not generate completely) in the structuring of real-world information objects. There used to be slavery, as a common economic solution. Now, the "time has come" for an idea to shape reality. And slavery is being reduced and highlighted where it exists. The idea that slavery is wrong, categorically, is a structure in the common and shared infosphere of humans at this time on earth.

All minds can readily generate is structure, destruction and restructuring of informational relata. These may manifest or not, depending on will, physical means and cultural acceptance.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Wright said:
good thought-experiment
Yes of course, it would await bio-information processing where-by living things structure information objects that conjoin real-world probabilities.

This stance also applies to the "big-bang philosophical outlook", where matter evolves to be conscious. The real world existed and evolved physically and informatively before life. Life as it develops becomes participatory (Wheeler) with its activity in the infosphere (Floridi).
Click to expand...

So without life, the world continues to evolve as indefinite physical states?
 
Imperial Philosopher said:
That raises two questions for me.
1. If our minds generate reality, why do we all perceive the same reality?
2. If our minds generate reality, what is limiting our ability to affect it?

The latter might be trickier to figure out, but the former bears looking into.
Click to expand...

author.gif
BernardoKastrup.jpg
author.gif

-------------------www.bernardokastrup.com
 
Neil said:
So without life, the world continues to evolve as indefinite physical states?
Click to expand...
What is an "indefinite physical state"?

Before life evolved I think that real solar systems formed with spherical planets and with water on their surfaces. Observation by minds exports information from a system and the presence of mutual information in the system's environment causes changes in real-world probabilities. I don't see how this makes physical states indefinite. Order emerged in the pattern of mass and energy, so that the relatively stable environment of earth occurred. The organization of the solar system's environment predates biological life.

What is indefinite about the environment of pre-biological earth? It clearly had the right kind of informational environment to support life. As well as the right physical platform, which could support life as well.
 
Stephen Wright said:
What is an "indefinite physical state"?
Click to expand...

The outcome of quantum equations specify quantum mixture states, which are macroscopic indeterminate physical states. In other words, a measuring device would be a mixture state of both "yes" and "no."

Stephen Wright said:
Before life evolved I think that real solar systems formed with spherical planets and with water on their surfaces. Observation by minds exports information from a system and the presence of mutual information in the system's environment causes changes in real-world probabilities. I don't see how this makes physical states indefinite. Order emerged in the pattern of mass and energy, so that the relatively stable environment of earth occurred. The organization of the solar system's environment predates biological life.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you are logically justifying the existence of a world in a definite state prior to any observation by living organisms. The physical states would be indefinite because of what the quantum mathematics says.

Stephen Wright said:
What is indefinite about the environment of pre-biological earth? It clearly had the right kind of informational environment to support life. As well as the right physical platform, which could support life as well.
Click to expand...

How are you justifying the claim that there was a definite state to the physical world prior to life on earth?
 
Neil said:
The outcome of quantum equations specify quantum mixture states, which are macroscopic indeterminate physical states. In other words, a measuring device would be a mixture state of both "yes" and "no."
Click to expand...

An indeterminate ability to measure - is not at all a claim about the nature of reality - other than it is about how and when our knowledge systems are capable or not.

Your jump away from empirical macro results being real - to they are undetermined by an inability to have measurement answers. This is a subjective problem about the role of information. It is the way the world is and should be, objective but structured by information as well as forces and masses.

Objectively, the real world (in my opinion) generates data that is fixed in single-outcome certainty in the present; but is not so fixed in the future or past. It is information about the future or past. Super-positions were real when they were probable. Not so much, when they are not probable at a future time.

I have no idea what you mean by "a measuring device would be a mixture state of both "yes" and "no." Are you referring to cats in boxes.
 
Stephen Wright said:
An indeterminate ability to measure - is not at all a claim about the nature of reality - other than it is about how and when our knowledge systems are capable or not.
Click to expand...

It's not an inability to measure or an epistemic problem; fundamentally the states are indeterminate. Experiment demonstrate this quite clearly.

Stephen Wright said:
Your jump away from empirical macro results being real - to they are undetermined by an inability to have measurement answers. This is a subjective problem about the role of information. It is the way the world is and should be, objective but structured by information as well as forces and masses.

Objectively, the real world (in my opinion) generates data that is fixed in single-outcome certainty in the present; but is not so fixed in the future or past. It is information about the future or past. Super-positions were real when they were probable. Not so much, when they are not probable at a future time.

I have no idea what you mean by "a measuring device would be a mixture state of both "yes" and "no." Are you referring to cats in boxes.
Click to expand...

I mean that the state of the measuring device would not a single outcome; it would not be in either the definite state of "yes" or "no." A mixture state is an indeterminate state, or the potentialities for the objective outcome.

You are saying I am jumping away from the macro being real, but I am saying that based on our empirical evidence, you have no justification to assume that the macro is real and objective independent of our observation. You are, essentially, assuming that the macro is objective and "real," but because of empirical evidence and the predictions of quantum theory, it appears that this assumption is wrong. Now perhaps this is wrong, but it certainly would require some sort of justification for the claim of the objectivity of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top