The relation between mind and quantum mechanics

#1
Sciborg S Patel (who else :) ) posted this link recently, but it was buried inside another discussion. Having read it, I think it is worth discussing on its own.

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone-cannot-explain-the-riddle-of-consciousness

The author is a physicist, and describes the problems that swirl round the connection between QM and mind in a particularly cogent way, yet without getting into technicalities.

I think he makes a strong case that QM and mind almost have to be interlinked.
 
#3
I think it's completely absurd to claim you need biological consciousness like humans/animals for the measurement problem. This thing keeps getting brought up it's very frustrating. To what I know, knowledge of the particle is involved with the measurement process, the knowledge can be obtained just by an experimental device without any humans/animals involved. I think the problem is "observer"
, the only way I can think of is that the universe has its own mind and a non conscious measuring device is part of it.
 
#4
I think it's completely absurd to claim you need biological consciousness like humans/animals for the measurement problem. This thing keeps getting brought up it's very frustrating. To what I know, knowledge of the particle is involved with the measurement process, the knowledge can be obtained just by an experimental device without any humans/animals involved. I think the problem is "observer"
, the only way I can think of is that the universe has its own mind and a non conscious measuring device is part of it.
Well physicists - such as the one I quoted - and Roger Penrose bring it up. Read the article and you will see why - please discuss the contents of the article rather than just making a bald statement.

David
 
#5
...the only way I can think of is that the universe has its own mind and a non conscious measuring device is part of it.
Aha! The Michio Kaku loophole. The thing is that would come fairly close to the concept of "god", and most people working in this environment would rather cut off an arm than go there.

In general, the catch 22 is that the instrument can't interpret the measurement. See the delayed choice quantum eraser, a variant of the quantum eraser, for example. Wheeler designed that one with all the intention of proving his stance on this very matter.

Edit: And if you wonder what that is, look up "participatory universe".
 
Last edited:
#9
Would a follicularly prodigious statement be any better?
Well my point was that if someone posts a link at the head of a thread, it would make sense to at least read a bit of the link and discuss the ideas raised therein!

I am conscious that some debates on the forum can degenerate into variants of:

A) You do realise that you are wrong don't you?

B) Of course I am not, this is well known!

C) Some people might think it is true but in fact it is known to be false (link to large textbook)

etc.

The attraction of the many-worlds interpretation, for instance, is its ability to keep the reality in the mathematical physics. In this view, yes, the wave function is real and, yes, it describes a world of matter that obeys mathematical rules, whether someone is watching or not. The price you pay for this position is an infinite number of parallel universes that are infinitely splitting off into an infinity of other parallel universes that then split off into … well, you get the picture. There is a big price to pay for the psi-epistemologist positions too. Physics from this perspective is no longer a description of the world in-and-of itself. Instead, it’s a description of the rules for our interaction with the world. As the American theorist Joseph Eberly says: ‘It’s not the electron’s wave function, it’s your wave function.’
David
 
#10
Well my point was that if someone posts a link at the head of a thread, it would make sense to at least read a bit of the link and discuss the ideas raised therein!

I am conscious that some debates on the forum can degenerate into variants of:

A) You do realise that you are wrong don't you?

B) Of course I am not, this is well known!

C) Some people might think it is true but in fact it is known to be false (link to large textbook)

etc.



David
David, I was just messing with you. I understand your argument, but you wrote "bald" instead of "bold". Follicularly prodigious means "hairy", and I was asking if a comment of that nature would have been better.
 
#15
I've heard both. Maybe it's easier to tell if someone is lying if they're clean shaven...

....Have the deepest mysteries of the universe become blasé? lol

I just had a thought... what if most people's death experience is like a kid's first visit to a theme park, but for those of us who have stared down the numinous our whole lives, what if when we die, we then think, "meh... I was expecting something more..."
 
#16
I've heard both.
Sure, but that's neither here nor there. Perhaps people say bald when they mean bald and bold when they mean bold? Or do people just make noises with no idea what they are saying ;)

edit: not wishing to labour the point, I agree we should drop this distraction. Still, the two meanings are completely different. It would be possible to make a bald but timid statement. Or conversely one might make a bold assertion, backed up with evidence and references.
 
Last edited:
#17
I think it's completely absurd to claim you need biological consciousness like humans/animals for the measurement problem.
Just as absurd is ignoring that information processing by living things is part of the ongoing variables in understanding reality. Living things alter the organizational levels in their environments - to benefit themselves. Living things gather mutual information, reconfigure mutual information about their environments, so that their personal information is connected. They can then can form signals within themselves and outward to the environment to meet their goals.

Measurement is an informational transformation where mutual information is standardized by unit and then transferred to recorded data. Living things measure their environments.

Mutual information is one of many quantities that measures how much one random variables tells us about another. It is a dimensionless quantity with (generally) units of bits, and can be thought of as the reduction in uncertainty about one random variable given knowledge of another. High mutual information indicates a large reduction in uncertainty; low mutual information indicates a small reduction; and zero mutual information between two random variables means the variables are independent.
 
Top