The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Why the Problem of Consciousness Is so Hard Options
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:05:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 376
Points: 955
Location: USA
"Bot"-tee-licious wrote:
Unfortunately, jdlaw, while progress is certainly being made, there is still no consensus on the right interpretation of quantum mechanics, the nature of quantum gravity, and even on the nature of consciousness itself. Not even a consensus guess.


Sorry Bot-tee. You of course are right again, but I think the issue here is just that my writing was not as clear there as it should have been. Even though writing is part of my trade, writing was not always my strong suit (high card).

I can often go back and see that the text of what I wrote is not always clear or even what I was actually thinking at the time.

I think what I meant in that statement
Quote:
"We have been given this place where quantum collapse and entanglement may take place to create a consensus reality"
—was simply that
if quantum collapse is what takes place when an observer is inserted into the double slit experiment; and
if "spooky action at a distance" can actually be observed when photons interact

then those phenomena could contain some explanation for how consensus takes place in our minds. That is all. I did not mean to suggest that science has come to a consensus on quantum mechanics.

This gets to the heart of the idea that whatever is 'non-virtual" does not necessarily have to be reality. Whatever is observable (and/or computable as information) in our reality, is the only "Reality" we have.

But, just because there is no instrument (or no living human instrument) in this earth space universe that has the ability to observe something, does not forbid things from existing in another reality. This also introduces a loose concept that what is unobservable (in our reality) will never exist in our reality or "right-hand" rule consistency. i.e. True is always true, but non-false can be many other things

... until you switch coordinate systems.
jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 4:42:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 376
Points: 955
Location: USA
jim wrote:
jdlaw, can you say more about # non-hidden variables being > # hidden variables? i'm still trying to process that one.


What I meant to talk about here is probably best summed up by the "simplest universe" thought experiment (as Seth Lloyd calls it). It goes like this:

Imagine an entire universe that is only particle A and particle B. If A and B have no means to interact, then can "reality" even exist? If however, A has some effect on B, then B "senses" A (even if B cannot understand A).

Then on a macro level take this same experiment to the cosmos:
If I point my Hubble Telescope toward the direction of my right hand and spot a Galaxy calling it "Galaxy A" and detecting that it has a distance from me at 13 Billion light years, and then point my Hubble Telescope toward the direction of my left hand and spot a Galaxy calling it "Galaxy B" and detecting that it has a distance from me at 13 Billion light years.

1. Is the distance from A to B going to be 26 Billion light years?
2. Is the age of the universe going to be 13 Billion or 26 Billion years?
3. Will A ever be able to detect B, even though I can detect them both?

Bell's inequality first borrows from the "many worlds" interpretation of the Copenhagen experiment, by simply postulating that "hidden variables" exist which we can never detect.

We then say that since (obviously if you believe in many worlds) there must be more things that we cannot detect than there are things we can detect. This leads to a notion that there must be more "hidden variables" than there are "non-hidden" variables within those "many worlds."

In our own reality however (our world which is the only reality that matters to us) the inequality requires more non-hidden variables.
"Bot"-tee-licious
Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2020 4:20:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 188
Points: 564
Location: Scotland, UK
Re jdlaw's three posts dated 21 July 2020

Thanks for clarifying eveything for us, jdlaw. You put a lot of effort into those responses. Much appreciated.

"Bot"-tee-licious
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2020 1:28:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 188
Points: 564
Location: Scotland, UK
An Interesting Thread in the I-Ching Forum onlineclarity.co.uk.

jerryd asking the Oracle: "What is a Universal Truth?" > Gua 13

jdlaw
Posted: Sunday, August 02, 2020 5:39:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 376
Points: 955
Location: USA
"Bot"-tee-licious wrote:
An Interesting Thread in the I-Ching Forum onlineclarity.co.uk.

jerryd asking the Oracle: "What is a Universal Truth?" > Gua 13



It is very interesting that the thread discussions tended to remain within the 3-dimensional interpretation of "truth" in order to discuss "universal truth." In doing so and in still not deviating from that 3-d definition of truth, the participants naturally seemed to flow towards a truth definition similar to Hilbert infinite dimensional time-space functionality for truth

Take aways from the thread could solidify the notion that there is an objective consensus reality thar is universal for the reality that we know (which is the only one we've got) but that alternate realities may still exist outside our ability to observe.

Hilbert Space Diagram


"Bot"-tee-licious
Posted: Monday, August 03, 2020 2:18:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 188
Points: 564
Location: Scotland, UK
"Bot"-tee-licious wrote:
An Interesting Thread in the I-Ching Forum onlineclarity.co.uk.

jerryd asking the Oracle: "What is a Universal Truth?" > Gua 13


By the way, the answer was Gua/Hexagram 13 - Fellowship, Like-Minded Persons, Concording People, Cliques.

And, jerryd concludes: ".........it is not likely in this world today a Universal Truth can be found or agreed upon or exist using these criteria. It may only exist as a limited truth agreed upon if you are part of a like-mindedness within a group or society!"

I'm also acutely aware of the limited capacity of reason to penetrate and comprehend this strange world we live in. Although, perhaps, Universal facts do, in fact, exist, and can be progressively discovered as we evolve as a human species.

jdlaw wrote:
.......the participants naturally seemed to flow towards a truth definition similar to Hilbert infinite-dimensional time-space functionality for truth.

Sorry, jdlaw, I've no idea what Hilbert Space is, however, I'm sure your analysis is right on point! I'll need to check online in the hope that I can find some articles that can explain this concept to me in simple layman's terms.

jdlaw wrote:
......but that alternate realities may still exist outside our ability to observe.

Good point, jdlaw.

jdlaw
Posted: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 1:08:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 376
Points: 955
Location: USA
Quote:
Sorry, jdlaw, I've no idea what Hilbert Space is,


In laymen's terms, Hilbert Space in our reality is the same reason we need imaginary numbers to produce calculations in electricity, partial differential equations, quantum mechanics, Fourier transformations (signal processing and heat transfer equations).
"Bot"-tee-licious
Posted: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 3:27:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 188
Points: 564
Location: Scotland, UK
jdlaw wrote:
Quote:
Sorry, jdlaw, I've no idea what Hilbert Space is,


In laymen's terms, Hilbert Space in our reality is the same reason we need imaginary numbers to produce calculations in electricity, partial differential equations, quantum mechanics, Fourier transformations (signal processing and heat transfer equations).


Thanks a lot for that information, jdlaw.

Also, interestingly, I found on the question-and-answer website 'Quora,' the following answer to the question of why a single qubit is a state in 2D Hilbert Space and not 3D or higher.

Quote:
A two-dimensional Hilbert space is very different from two spatial dimensions. In particular, two spatial directions (up/down and left/right) are described by two real parameters. A two-dimensional Hilbert space corresponds to two complex parameters, i.e. 4 real parameters. That said, quantum states have a constraint (normalisation) which means that there are effectively only three relevant parameters. This is why, if we want to visualise a qubit, we use something called the Bloch sphere in three spatial dimensions.


"Bot"-tee-licious
Posted: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 1:38:59 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 188
Points: 564
Location: Scotland, UK
jim wrote:
Interesting article on why consciousness is so difficult to grasp...

https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/why-the-problem-of-consciousness-is-so-hard-121d6a2d51f

"The reason that humans are having such a hard time understanding consciousness is that it’s an illusion, and the thing that’s trying to understand it is the illusion itself.”


I'd just like to mention that, in the comments section, the author of the article has a very in-depth discussion with the commenter Chaitra Ramaiah (second from the top), where he describes non-duality as the "natural state," although it's not really a state; it's the end of the illusion of states. There are a good number of responses, a response for every response, but please, keep on trucking right to the end of the thread as it makes for a very interesting, and enlightening read.

Duncan also references the book/article: Natural Perfection: Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen (translated by Keith Dowman), which, supposedly, gives an extensive description of the "natural state." And, it's not just "emptiness."

Furthermore, he states that: "Mind/Consciousness is an illusion. This is why psychological research cannot discover what it is. Perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are, apparently, activities of the brain."

jim
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 2:12:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 928
Points: 2,790
"Bot"-tee-licious wrote:

I'd just like to mention that, in the comments section, the author of the article has a very in-depth discussion with the commenter Chaitra Ramaiah (second from the top), where he describes non-duality as the "natural state," although it's not really a state; it's the end of the illusion of states. There are a good number of responses, a response for every response, but please, keep on trucking right to the end of the thread as it makes for a very interesting, and enlightening read.

Duncan also references the book/article: Natural Perfection: Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen (translated by Keith Dowman), which, supposedly, gives an extensive description of the "natural state." And, it's not just "emptiness."

Furthermore, he states that: "Mind/Consciousness is an illusion. This is why psychological research cannot discover what it is. Perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are, apparently, activities of the brain."


Thanks, Bot, for reminding us to read on. More thought-provoking stuff.
We also have another thread going that relates to the idea of whether or not feelings, emotions, and thoughts are in the brain or in the soul.

By the way, I reset your points. Like me you probably don't care much, but somehow I hate seeing the Forum analytics mess up the points of a great contributor. :)

"Bot"-tee-licious
Posted: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 4:47:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 7/22/2012
Posts: 188
Points: 564
Location: Scotland, UK
jim wrote:
We also have another thread going that relates to the idea of whether or not feelings, emotions, and thoughts are in the brain or in the soul.

Oops, sorry jim, I'm focussing too much attention on this particular thread and, just like a trainee pilot under instruction, I need to remember to, "Keep my scan going - don't fixate!"

jim wrote:
By the way, I reset your points. Like me, you probably don't care much, but somehow I hate seeing the Forum analytics mess up the points of a great contributor. :)

Lol, jim, I never ever paid much attention to the points system but thanks, anyway, for restoring them. Also, thanks a lot for the lovely compliment. Much appreciated. :-)

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.