Mind Creates Reality

[grip]

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function, initially in a superposition of several eigenstates, reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation."

When the "observer effect" was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled. It seemed to undermine the basic assumption behind all science, that there is an objective world out there, irrespective of us. If the way the world behaves depends on how - or if - we look at it, what can "reality" mean? But one way or another, it is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked.

The quantum mind is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain consciousness.

The main theoretical argument against the quantum mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. Ordinary nerve signals have to be treated classically. But if you go down to the level of microtubules, a microscopic tubular structure present in numbers in the cytoplasm of cells, sometimes aggregating to form more complex structures. Then there's an extremely good chance that you can get quantum-level activity inside the brain.

One particularly puzzling question is how our conscious minds can experience unique sensations, such as the color red, sounds of a symphony, or the smell of frying bacon. We all know what red is like, but we have no way to communicate the sensation and there is nothing in physics that tells us what it should be like.

Sensations like this are called "qualia". We perceive them as unified properties of the outside world, but in fact, they are products of our consciousness.

It's my suggestion that the universe is in a quantum feedback loop with the human mind. A feedback loop is the part of a system in which some portion (or all) of the system's output is used as input. The five senses transfer information as electrical signals to the brain, wherein the mind formulates an overall determination of its surroundings. The material world is essentially transformed into nonmaterial digital data as conscious thoughts. The human mind, through quantum consciousness, projects this information back into the fuzzy world of quantum field fluctuations, giving particles position, shape, and definition, via the wave function collapse, thereby completing the circuit to create our classic mental version of reality.

It does not, in this view, exactly determine "what is real". It, simply, interactively, creates order and makes sense, on a macroscopic scale, of an incomprehensible quantity of information bombarding a limited brain. In other words, our brains are continuously processing a tremendous amount of data, about the outside world, on a subconscious quantum scale, in order for us to operate and behave in a simpler cohesive manner. We're discovering the underlying, sub-atomic minutia about reality that evolution decided to not make us aware of and over complicate and confuse our relative existence. We generally stay focused on the larger scale of life, in order to adapt to our environment.


BBC - Earth - The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Physicists observe weird quantum fluctuations of empty space—maybe | Science | AAAS

Experimental Demonstration of Coherent Quantum Feedback | SpringerLink

Quantum feedback control of linear stochastic systems with feedback-loop time delays - ScienceDirect

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/275016/

 

[bluesmoke]

In ones’ own mind is the only, as put in other words I can't exactly remember by Marcus Aurelius.

Einstein, Max Planck and another physicist were standing at an exhibit of Planck's at a show he was putting on. It was a physical object sitting on a stand. He asked each to briefly describe what they observed. Planck then asked them to rotate 90 degrees and asked the same question until they had observed the object from 4 sides. Each description was somewhat diff from each other and each position. The object was symmetrical. I can't say that my story is totally correct as I've yet to find what I read so long ago ever again. Shoulda saved it back then.

 

[grip]

In ones’ own mind is the only, as put in other words I can't exactly remember by Marcus Aurelius.

Einstein, Max Planck and another physicist were standing at an exhibit of Planck's at a show he was putting on. It was a physical object sitting on a stand. He asked each to briefly describe what they observed. Planck then asked them to rotate 90 degrees and asked the same question until they had observed the object from 4 sides. Each description was somewhat diff from each other and each position. The object was symmetrical. I can't say that my story is totally correct as I've yet to find what I read so long ago ever again. Shoulda saved it back then.

"In one's own mind is the only reality" is a form of Solipsism.

Objective reality may depend on our individual perception since our interaction appears to directly affect its very nature. Fundamentally, one cannot prove the existence of objective reality. We can only infer its properties through observations, which of course, are subjective.

 

[bluesmoke]

"In one's own mind is the only reality" is a form of Solipsism.

Objective reality may depend on our individual perception since our interaction appears to directly affect its very nature. Fundamentally, one cannot prove the existence of objective reality. We can only infer its properties through observations, which of course, are subjective.

We are all solipsist, whether we know it or not (heh-heh).

The Planck experiment was of perception and the objectivity so changed depending on the position and orientation of the individual affecting that perception to become subjective, being opinion only and that there is no truth. Another Marcus Aurelius thing.

 

[grip]

We are all solipsist, whether we know it or not (heh-heh).

The Planck experiment was of perception and the objectivity so changed depending on the position and orientation of the individual affecting that perception to become subjective, being opinion only and that there is no truth. Another Marcus Aurelius thing.

It seems like perception and interpretation are all that matters concerning reality. Some of those Greeks and Romans were way ahead of their time.

 

[watsup]

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function, initially in a superposition of several eigenstates, reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation."

When the "observer effect" was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled. It seemed to undermine the basic assumption behind all science, that there is an objective world out there, irrespective of us. If the way the world behaves depends on how - or if - we look at it, what can "reality" mean? But one way or another, it is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked.

The quantum mind is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain consciousness.

The main theoretical argument against the quantum mind hypothesis is the assertion that quantum states in the brain would lose coherency before they reached a scale where they could be useful for neural processing. Ordinary nerve signals have to be treated classically. But if you go down to the level of microtubules, a microscopic tubular structure present in numbers in the cytoplasm of cells, sometimes aggregating to form more complex structures. Then there's an extremely good chance that you can get quantum-level activity inside the brain.

One particularly puzzling question is how our conscious minds can experience unique sensations, such as the color red, sounds of a symphony, or the smell of frying bacon. We all know what red is like, but we have no way to communicate the sensation and there is nothing in physics that tells us what it should be like.

Sensations like this are called "qualia". We perceive them as unified properties of the outside world, but in fact, they are products of our consciousness.

It's my suggestion that the universe is in a quantum feedback loop with the human mind. A feedback loop is the part of a system in which some portion (or all) of the system's output is used as input. The five senses transfer information as electrical signals to the brain, wherein the mind formulates an overall determination of its surroundings. The material world is essentially transformed into nonmaterial digital data as conscious thoughts. The human mind, through quantum consciousness, projects this information back into the fuzzy world of quantum field fluctuations, giving particles position, shape, and definition, via the wave function collapse, thereby completing the circuit to create our classic mental version of reality.

It does not, in this view, exactly determine "what is real". It, simply, interactively, creates order and makes sense, on a macroscopic scale, of an incomprehensible quantity of information bombarding a limited brain. In other words, our brains are continuously processing a tremendous amount of data, about the outside world, on a subconscious quantum scale, in order for us to operate and behave in a simpler cohesive manner. We're discovering the underlying, sub-atomic minutia about reality that evolution decided to not make us aware of and over complicate and confuse our relative existence. We generally stay focused on the larger scale of life, in order to adapt to our environment.


BBC - Earth - The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Physicists observe weird quantum fluctuations of empty space—maybe | Science | AAAS

Experimental Demonstration of Coherent Quantum Feedback | SpringerLink

Quantum feedback control of linear stochastic systems with feedback-loop time delays - ScienceDirect

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/275016/

That's all fine and good, but I hope that you are not then implying that this somehow indicates that there is a God.

 

[NWO_Spook]

That's all fine and good, but I hope that you are not then implying that this somehow indicates that there is a God.

Not at all, well not at this point. It's is simply that one's perception of reality is determined by one's experience, and on a sub atomic level, it can be slightly altered by the act of observation itself. However, the material world on a macro level is determined by the laws of physics which are a constant, but having said that, our perception of it is mutable.

Although, I find this statement to be a little odd:

We're discovering the underlying, sub-atomic minutia about reality that evolution decided to not make us aware of and over complicate and confuse our relative existence.

Evolution doesn't 'decide' anything, but it may be employed in a metaphorical sense.

We generally stay focused on the larger scale of life, in order to adapt to our environment.

Indeed owing to the limitations of our senses, and the impact of the environment upon our development.

 

[zyzygy]

That's all fine and good, but I hope that you are not then implying that this somehow indicates that there is a God.

Or that there were minds hanging around and creating reality when the Big Bang happened.

 

[grip]

Not at all, well not at this point. It's is simply that one's perception of reality is determined by one's experience, and on a sub atomic level, it can be slightly altered by the act of observation itself. However, the material world on a macro level is determined by the laws of physics which are a constant, but having said that, our perception of it is mutable.

Although, I find this statement to be a little odd:

We're discovering the underlying, sub-atomic minutia about reality that evolution decided to not make us aware of and over complicate and confuse our relative existence.

Evolution doesn't 'decide' anything, but it may be employed in a metaphorical sense.



Indeed owing to the limitations of our senses, and the impact of the environment upon our development.

Physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences were discovered with experiments and equipment not provided naturally but created by man. If human senses had evolved to translate all microscopic data individually for conscious mental evaluation, we would be preoccupied with sensory information that does not aid in our adaptation and survival.

For example, the eye's see electromagnetic waves as light and colors refracted on the retina, not each separate individual photon. We consciously sense our environment on a macroscopic level, not subatomic.

We don't see radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, and gamma rays because evolution determined it not necessary for survival, yet we know they exist from the analysis of testing thru experiments.

 

[grip]

Or that there were minds hanging around and creating reality when the Big Bang happened.

My theory doesn't say that objective reality doesn't exist without a mind, only that subjective reality doesn't. And that's the one that interprets what both are.

 

[zyzygy]

My theory doesn't say that objective reality doesn't exist without a mind, only that subjective reality doesn't. And that's the one that interprets what both are.

I disagree with your final sentence.

 

[grip]

That's all fine and good, but I hope that you are not then implying that this somehow indicates that there is a God.

This indicates that nature operates on a level that we don't comprehend yet. But it doesn't mean that nature doesn't comprehend it.

 

[grip]

I disagree with your final sentence.

What other mind, besides animals, determines what reality is?

 

[watsup]

This indicates that nature operates on a level that we don't comprehend yet. But it doesn't mean that nature doesn't comprehend it.

Huh?.....

 

[grip]

Huh?.....

If every reaction is the result of an action, then what was nature's first act?

 

[watsup]

If every reaction is the result of an action, then what was nature's first act?

The Big Bang?

 

[Sweden]

My theory doesn't say that objective reality doesn't exist without a mind, only that subjective reality doesn't. And that's the one that interprets what both are.

Of course. Without a subject there can be no subjectivity. Not really all that difficult or profound is it?

 

[grip]

Here's a new article, out recently, that leans into Big Eye's and my own.

The second way is to start from physics. We know that quantum mechanics works pretty well on small scales and general relativity works pretty well on large scales, but so far we were not able to reconcile the two theories in a unified framework. This is known as the problem of quantum gravity. Clearly, we are missing something big, but to make matters worse we do not even know how to handle observers. This is known as the measurement problem in context of quantum mechanics and the measure problem in context of cosmology.

Then one might argue that there are not two, but three phenomena that need to be unified: quantum mechanics, general relativity and observers. 99% of physicists would tell you that quantum mechanics is the main one and everything else should somehow emerge from it, but nobody knows exactly how that can be done. In this paper I consider another possibility that a microscopic neural network is the fundamental structure and everything else, i.e. quantum mechanics, general relativity and macroscopic observers, emerges from it. So far things look rather promising.

Physicist: The Entire Universe Might Be a Neural Network

 

[grip]

The Big Bang?

That was the first reaction.

Of course. Without a subject there can be no subjectivity. Not really all that difficult or profound is it?

But what came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, the subject does not exist as we perceive it until we observe it. So, does objectivity truly exist, without subjective perception, or are they a mutual byproduct of each other?

 

[RAMOSS]

Here's a new article, out recently, that leans into Big Eye's and my own.

"Futurism.com" Look at the lead in for the article "The idea is definitely crazy, but if it is crazy enough to be true? That remains to be seen.

 

[watsup]

"Futurism.com" Look at the lead in for the article "The idea is definitely crazy, but if it is crazy enough to be true? That remains to be seen.

In other words, just speculating for the fun of it, not really meant to be taken seriously from a scientific viewpoint.

 

[grip]

"Futurism.com" Look at the lead in for the article "The idea is definitely crazy, but if it is crazy enough to be true? That remains to be seen.

That sounds close to what they said about Copernicus.

 

[grip]

In other words, just speculating for the fun of it, not really meant to be taken seriously from a scientific viewpoint.

You're out of your depth.

 

[RAMOSS]

In other words, just speculating for the fun of it, not really meant to be taken seriously from a scientific viewpoint.

Basically. Now, the idea that seems to have more credibility to getting relativity and QM to meld recently came out when some physics went and used one of the potential implications of relativity, that particles exist that are faster than light. That had been discounted, because it was thought that it would cause lots of causality paradoxes. However, these physicists, just to see what would happen, assumed that faster than light particles DID exist. From an interview with them
Does relativity lie at the source of quantum exoticism?

"We posed the question: what happens if—for the time being without entering into the physicality or non-physicality of the solutions—we take seriously not part of the special theory of relativity, but all of it, together with the superluminal system? We expected cause-effect paradoxes. Meanwhile, we saw exactly those effects that form the deepest core of quantum mechanics," say Dr. Dragan and Prof. Ekert.

Mind you, a lot of this is very preliminary stuff. It will be interesting to see if this continues to hold true.

 

[RAMOSS]

That sounds close to what they said about Copernicus.

Well, 95% of all ideas turn out to be junk. Somehow, I don't think this will be one of the ones that get past the bs stage.