SciPhysicsForums.com

It is generally accepted by scientists that nature exists in and of itself, independently of conscious perception. According to that view, the Big Bang happened before there were any humans to perceive it, and the universe will continue to obey natural law long after there are no more conscious, living entities in existence. Indeed life, and conscious thought, are regarded as physical phenomena of an objectively existing universe.

Quantum physics, however, introduces some challenges to that view. According to some interpretations of the evidence, reality exists in a probabilistic state of potentials. These states of potential may become actualized, but only under certain conditions. These conditions are known by various names, including “measurement,” collapse of a probability wave, and according to some, conscious perception.

Already, one can see that our terminology is insufficient to grasp the underlying concept of what makes reality real. Terms such as “measurement,” tend to suggest conscious perception. Terms such as “collapse of a probability wave,” are imprecise, and thereby subject to interpretation.

The term, “conscious perception,” involves a concept totally unexplained in physics. It is the ineffable concept of inward awareness, awareness of both the external world, and of one’s own internal state of being.

Consciousness, while unexplained in physics, is an undeniable phenomenon. It would be absurd for a physicist to claim that he is not conscious. (Footnote: were it not absurd, I am convinced that many physicists would indeed deny its existence, and logically so.) Despite the inability of physics to explain consciousness, it is generally assumed that consciousness somehow “emerges from” complexity. This is another way of saying that consciousness is somehow a byproduct of the way in which atoms become organized.

The term, “complexity,” however, is itself subjective. Nature makes no distinction between complexity and simplicity. It does not perceive any objective difference between a house and a pile of rubble, the laws of thermodynamics notwithstanding.

It therefore seems a more fruitful approach to physics to consider whether consciousness might be, not an emergent phenomenon of physical reality, but a fundamental basis of it.

If it is, then two other phenomena are so closely related to it that they, too, must be fundamental. These are life and volition.

While the chemical process of life is well explained by physics, life requires a degree of fine tuning that can be explained only by the speculative, mental concoction of a multi-universe. That concoction does not, however, explain anything, since the multi-universe itself must also be finely tuned. From where does this fine tuning come? If, however, life is fundamental to physics, then the fine tuning goes hand in hand with it.

Volition, on the other hand, involves a concept that is an even more radical departure from natural-materialism, so radical in fact, that that it is forbidden. Volition violates both causality and quantum probability.

Yet, without volition, there can be no science. Without volition, scientists are preprogrammed entities which discover only those laws of nature which they are predetermined to discover, whether or not those discoveries are truthful or false.

The nature of reality explains the reality of nature. That may seem a circular statement. Perhaps it is. But it deserves some thought.
.

As far as that goes, probability and uncertainty are only considerations of a mind. How can one instance of an electron leaving an atom to strike a screen be influenced by the probabilities of an infinite number of that same instance. But this infinite number of the same occurrence never happen. Yet this is what the wave-function of quantum mechanics seems to imply. It is only the imagination of a mind trying to consider alternatives that give meaning and are influence by possibilities that don't actually occur. And since the uncertainty principle is derived from probability densities, this also can only be a construct of a mind considering possible alternative that never really happen. Is this uncertainty in physics different than the uncertainty of a mind trying to reach a conclusion? How would you prove that distinction?

RArvay wrote:It is generally accepted by scientists that nature exists in and of itself, independently of conscious perception.

Decoherence seems to adequately confirm the reasonableness of that within QM/QFT 'paradigm' (big word!).

The nature of reality explains the reality of nature. That may seem a circular statement. Perhaps it is. But it deserves some thought.

Your musings remind of a lecture given by Lee Smolin here: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/time-reborn
Sad that someone like Smolin should descend into such vague waffle (note the numbers walking out at various stages of his painful-to-listen talk). I do NOT recommend buying his book 'Time Reborn'.

I hesitated to include that last line in isolation.
The intent was to couple physical reality (as recognized by modern physics)
with consciousness, a phenomenon for which physics has no explanatory formulae,
and by extension, to couple it with life and volition.
In other words, it may be no coincidence that the universe is finely tuned
to support life, consciousness and volition (and thereby, technological civilization and science),
because all of existence is intertwined, just as are space and time, mass and energy.
Yes, that does venture into the metaphysical, but I don't think that science can long avoid that venture.

RArvay wrote:I hesitated to include that last line in isolation.
The intent was to couple physical reality (as recognized by modern physics)
with consciousness, a phenomenon for which physics has no explanatory formulae,
and by extension, to couple it with life and volition.
In other words, it may be no coincidence that the universe is finely tuned
to support life, consciousness and volition (and thereby, technological civilization and science),
because all of existence is intertwined, just as are space and time, mass and energy.
Yes, that does venture into the metaphysical, but I don't think that science can long avoid that venture.

Full marks for not reacting with invective to my last post. I know plenty of folks who would have. The point being made was that if you wish to present a thesis and have it taken seriously, it must be tight and rigorous. You probably know of Richard Feynman's famous contempt for philosophers on just their use of slick verbiage that merely gives the impression of sound argument. In some ways as an agnostic I am sympathetic to your sense of there being something more to existence, and in particular the emergence of consciousness, than mere physical interaction. Governed by no more than rigid laws and evolving according to blind chance. There are some trying to put that notion of 'something more' into a rigorous mathematical/physical framework. It's a work in progress worth following imo, but otoh philosophical hand waving will never cut it.

RArvay wrote:It is generally accepted by scientists that nature exists in and of itself, independently of conscious perception. According to that view, the Big Bang happened before there were any humans to perceive it, and the universe will continue to obey natural law long after there are no more conscious, living entities in existence. Indeed life, and conscious thought, are regarded as physical phenomena of an objectively existing universe.

Quantum physics, however, introduces some challenges to that view. According to some interpretations of the evidence, reality exists in a probabilistic state of potentials. These states of potential may become actualized, but only under certain conditions. These conditions are known by various names, including “measurement,” collapse of a probability wave, and according to some, conscious perception.

Already, one can see that our terminology is insufficient to grasp the underlying concept of what makes reality real. Terms such as “measurement,” tend to suggest conscious perception. Terms such as “collapse of a probability wave,” are imprecise, and thereby subject to interpretation.

Quantum probabilistic states assume specific values after and through interaction with a physical measurement apparatus which has nothing to do with a conscious observer (other than setting up the measurement apparatus). There is interpretation and debate about whether the probability wave is in some sense real or just a mathematical artefact but any interpretation that imputes the necessity of a conscious observer arises from the mistake of making a semantic tail wave an ontological dog.

Q-reeus wrote:Quantum probabilistic states assume specific values after and through interaction with a physical measurement apparatus which has nothing to do with a conscious observer (other than setting up the measurement apparatus). There is interpretation and debate about whether the probability wave is in some sense real or just a mathematical artefact but any interpretation that imputes the necessity of a conscious observer arises from the mistake of making a semantic tail wave an ontological dog.

Most physicists seem to agree with your view, but not all.
The debate involves many aspects of quantum theory, not all of which are crystal clear.
The connection of measurement to conscious perception is more than a matter of semantics.
Trying to define measurement without resort to consciousness is an exercise that does not resolve the issue finally,
and of course inward consciousness itself is as yet not clearly defined.
My thoughts on the matter may amount to "philosophical hand-waving," according to some.
I am, with limited intellect, attempting to understand matters with which the great minds of
science have struggled for decades without them reaching a final consensus.
My limited understanding has been increased by the popular literature, but it is futile for me to try to rise to the doctorate level
in these matters.
So I comment as best I can, and absorb what I can from the responses, for which I am grateful to those who respond.

Guest - your above post has just come to my attention. As should be clear, the quoted part you respond to was made by Tony_r not myself. I do though agree with that quote.