Why does Conciousness collapse the wave function?
Let's be clear on something, the collapse of the wave function of consciousness is not an objective phenomenon; A collapse caused by consciousness is one which governs our perception.
The world, the objective reality outside of the subjective experience is a world which exists independantly of the human being, indeed any creature that might have a complex awareness and even structural consciousness. The world outside has never been seen by any living organism on Earth.
The reason why is because the subjective experience we all come to agree on, like the asymptotic nature of time, the presence of spatially-seperated objects, the colour of grass the feeling and texture of things upon touch are all chemical inbalances inside our craniums. These signals are mostly electrical signals that are transported by neural transmitters that become inevitably intercepted by the common intelligence that is inside us. Unaware of this common subjective intelligence, the mind completely independant of will somehow measures two dimensional images and recasts them into the three dimensional phenomenon we call reality and experience.
So if our observations are never really present in the world, as an objective feature of the material and the corporeal, what is it we are measuring, if indeed it is all just ''imprint'' or for a better word, a ''holograph'' of the outside world?
Arguably, there are many implications. One being that which reality is the true reality? Well, arguably, relative to the human, the only reality which should make sense is the one we can measure directly. This is not only a matter of relativity but a matter of fact. The world we ''see'' is afterall, not the world ''out there''.
Why Should we Beleive in a Wave Function of Conscious Possibilities?
There are some major reasons why we should believe in a wave function governing choice. Note from now on, when I infer the use of ''choice'' I mean it to mean a conscious act or decision as it so happens, that determinism and choice do not necesserily clash. The act of choice can lye as a miscondrued action independant of any physical ties, rules or boundaries.
Again, the reason is because of the sphere of perception; not only are electrical signals which dominate our sense of perception, but choice is also a matter of the human senses. We can believe readily in the illusion that somehow we have a choice, when really the ability to believe such a thing has been created most likely from evolution, a mind desperately trying to conceive the world around it to the best of it's abilities. A recent topic I discussed, but not unrelated to consciousness, was the matter of time and perception.
Physics clearly states (and without delving into this part too deeply) that there is no past or future, not in the real objective sense. Subjectively, we order events and memorize them in such a way that the human mind believes there is such a thing. The only time which exists now, is the present time and even in the passing moments afterwards and the murky moments that past before us. There is only one ''present moment which defines all of the universe.'' The present moment is not an artefact which states there is a present moment existing in the future which sits side by side our present moment in the present, this would contradict the relativity of simultaneity. Instead, the future is paradoxically happening in it's own frame of reference.
In much the same sense and arguements brought forward about choice and the ability to think we have an indeterministic choice, is the same paradox of time. The mind, a conscious one simply could not exist in a world were it did not consider the illusory concepts of a past and expecting a future to occur. For some inherent reason, the ability to have consciousness is the ability to erreneously discern such a possibility.
Choice and the order of events inside our bubble of perception are all parts of an finely interconnected woven fabric which partially resembles the world outside. But saying that consciousness cannot exist within quantum mechanics is almost like saying that consciousness does not really exist within time or space. Such a seperation may prove to be one of the biggest fallacies of modern quantum science and relativity. There is every liklihood that consciousness and our perception follows many probabilistic natures that we often associate to matter in the objective world. One of these properties is wave function, a field itself which may govern every aspect of choice, the acts of thought or thinking. To have a thought under this model for instance, would require a collapse of the wave function.
Is it so hard to imagine?
Scientists today often attribute the state vector (the condition in which the wave function that can describe the entire state of something) even over the entire universe. The first scientist to propose a type of universal wave function was Hugh Everett the third. If consciousness is not outside of quantum mechanics completely (meaning that the ability to have consciousness is a universally self-contained object) then the wave function describing everything in the universe also attributes those probabilities internally as well as externally.
The only way a mind could not be seperate to the universe is if it was an absolute copy of the universe at large. Now as far as we know, consciousness is very good at the ability to ''recreate'' the universe inside this sphere of perception, but I would believe that almost any scientist would agree with me it is hardly an exact copy. No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. Because of this, it stands to reason on this mathematical level alone that consciousness is not seperate of the universe. It exists within the universe as not being an exact copy.
Why is Wigners Friend Bunk?
I won't explain this in large detail, but Wigners friend assumes that consciousness objectively collapses the wave function. In my model, the wave function governs the internal world of perception, not the other way around, however, if the ability to have choices, the acts of choice, thinking and the acts of thinking are all due to superpositioning principles and collapses of the wave function, then our world inside can be modelled as an analog to the wave function which effects the ordinary quantum and atomic and semi-classical macroscopic objects of the world outside.
Wigners Friend is too decisive on it's treating of consciousness directly to collapses in the objective sense, whereas I believe we don't collapse the state of a system at all. We may effect what we see because the information outside is what is telling us how it is, by showing us these signals and then effecting the wave function inside the perception of the human.
I have already given a short but yet straight to the point mathematical overline of how choice, determinism and collapses upon conscious decisions arise from a wave function here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111296 - I posted it in psuedoscience, but I should have maybe posted it in speculations.
Let's be clear on something, the collapse of the wave function of consciousness is not an objective phenomenon; A collapse caused by consciousness is one which governs our perception.
The world, the objective reality outside of the subjective experience is a world which exists independantly of the human being, indeed any creature that might have a complex awareness and even structural consciousness. The world outside has never been seen by any living organism on Earth.
The reason why is because the subjective experience we all come to agree on, like the asymptotic nature of time, the presence of spatially-seperated objects, the colour of grass the feeling and texture of things upon touch are all chemical inbalances inside our craniums. These signals are mostly electrical signals that are transported by neural transmitters that become inevitably intercepted by the common intelligence that is inside us. Unaware of this common subjective intelligence, the mind completely independant of will somehow measures two dimensional images and recasts them into the three dimensional phenomenon we call reality and experience.
So if our observations are never really present in the world, as an objective feature of the material and the corporeal, what is it we are measuring, if indeed it is all just ''imprint'' or for a better word, a ''holograph'' of the outside world?
Arguably, there are many implications. One being that which reality is the true reality? Well, arguably, relative to the human, the only reality which should make sense is the one we can measure directly. This is not only a matter of relativity but a matter of fact. The world we ''see'' is afterall, not the world ''out there''.
Why Should we Beleive in a Wave Function of Conscious Possibilities?
There are some major reasons why we should believe in a wave function governing choice. Note from now on, when I infer the use of ''choice'' I mean it to mean a conscious act or decision as it so happens, that determinism and choice do not necesserily clash. The act of choice can lye as a miscondrued action independant of any physical ties, rules or boundaries.
Again, the reason is because of the sphere of perception; not only are electrical signals which dominate our sense of perception, but choice is also a matter of the human senses. We can believe readily in the illusion that somehow we have a choice, when really the ability to believe such a thing has been created most likely from evolution, a mind desperately trying to conceive the world around it to the best of it's abilities. A recent topic I discussed, but not unrelated to consciousness, was the matter of time and perception.
Physics clearly states (and without delving into this part too deeply) that there is no past or future, not in the real objective sense. Subjectively, we order events and memorize them in such a way that the human mind believes there is such a thing. The only time which exists now, is the present time and even in the passing moments afterwards and the murky moments that past before us. There is only one ''present moment which defines all of the universe.'' The present moment is not an artefact which states there is a present moment existing in the future which sits side by side our present moment in the present, this would contradict the relativity of simultaneity. Instead, the future is paradoxically happening in it's own frame of reference.
In much the same sense and arguements brought forward about choice and the ability to think we have an indeterministic choice, is the same paradox of time. The mind, a conscious one simply could not exist in a world were it did not consider the illusory concepts of a past and expecting a future to occur. For some inherent reason, the ability to have consciousness is the ability to erreneously discern such a possibility.
Choice and the order of events inside our bubble of perception are all parts of an finely interconnected woven fabric which partially resembles the world outside. But saying that consciousness cannot exist within quantum mechanics is almost like saying that consciousness does not really exist within time or space. Such a seperation may prove to be one of the biggest fallacies of modern quantum science and relativity. There is every liklihood that consciousness and our perception follows many probabilistic natures that we often associate to matter in the objective world. One of these properties is wave function, a field itself which may govern every aspect of choice, the acts of thought or thinking. To have a thought under this model for instance, would require a collapse of the wave function.
Is it so hard to imagine?
Scientists today often attribute the state vector (the condition in which the wave function that can describe the entire state of something) even over the entire universe. The first scientist to propose a type of universal wave function was Hugh Everett the third. If consciousness is not outside of quantum mechanics completely (meaning that the ability to have consciousness is a universally self-contained object) then the wave function describing everything in the universe also attributes those probabilities internally as well as externally.
The only way a mind could not be seperate to the universe is if it was an absolute copy of the universe at large. Now as far as we know, consciousness is very good at the ability to ''recreate'' the universe inside this sphere of perception, but I would believe that almost any scientist would agree with me it is hardly an exact copy. No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. Because of this, it stands to reason on this mathematical level alone that consciousness is not seperate of the universe. It exists within the universe as not being an exact copy.
Why is Wigners Friend Bunk?
I won't explain this in large detail, but Wigners friend assumes that consciousness objectively collapses the wave function. In my model, the wave function governs the internal world of perception, not the other way around, however, if the ability to have choices, the acts of choice, thinking and the acts of thinking are all due to superpositioning principles and collapses of the wave function, then our world inside can be modelled as an analog to the wave function which effects the ordinary quantum and atomic and semi-classical macroscopic objects of the world outside.
Wigners Friend is too decisive on it's treating of consciousness directly to collapses in the objective sense, whereas I believe we don't collapse the state of a system at all. We may effect what we see because the information outside is what is telling us how it is, by showing us these signals and then effecting the wave function inside the perception of the human.
I have already given a short but yet straight to the point mathematical overline of how choice, determinism and collapses upon conscious decisions arise from a wave function here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111296 - I posted it in psuedoscience, but I should have maybe posted it in speculations.
Last edited: