RArvay wrote:...materialist physics does not explain consciousness, rather, consciousness gives rise to much of physical phenomena.
RArvay wrote:Here are some of my thoughts:
While Tegmark is apparently formulating a proto-theory that
consciousness arises from physical substance,
it seems to me that he is unintentionally going in the
opposite direction.
My inexpert view is that consciousness is at least as fundamental as are
quarks, space and energy. In other words, materialist physics does not
explain consciousness, rather, consciousness gives rise to
much of physical phenomena.
I am not a physicist, but I have presented my view in detail here
and elsewhere.
Comments are solicited.
Ben6993 wrote:It is sometimes said in the popular science press that a wavefunction collapse requires a conscious observer but I do not see why that is necessary.
minkwe wrote:Ben6993 wrote:It is sometimes said in the popular science press that a wavefunction collapse requires a conscious observer but I do not see why that is necessary.
I think they are right to a certain degree, "wavefunction collapse" is a mathematical, non-physical thing which requires a brain to happen. There is no such thing as "wavefunction collapse" happening to particles or anything physical. The collapse happens in equations in our brain.
Joy Christian wrote:This is quite a different thing to say form saying that wavefunction is simply a product of our brain, in the sense that our knowledge of the observed system changes when the "collapse" happens, not the system itself changes, as the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics maintains.
There is one big problem with this last position, however. It is quite mysterious why our subjective knowledge (i.e, the wavefunction) evolves following a precise dynamical equation -- namely, the Schrödinger equation.
minkwe wrote:Probability Theory
Heinera wrote:minkwe wrote:Probability Theory
Is this the same theory that predicts that a random subsample of a larger set will have the same expected mean as the larger set?
minkwe wrote:Joy Christian wrote:This is quite a different thing to say form saying that wavefunction is simply a product of our brain, in the sense that our knowledge of the observed system changes when the "collapse" happens, not the system itself changes, as the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics maintains.
There is one big problem with this last position, however. It is quite mysterious why our subjective knowledge (i.e, the wavefunction) evolves following a precise dynamical equation -- namely, the Schrödinger equation.
It is not a problem at all if you interpret quantum mechanics as a kind of probability theory, with the dynamical equations simply providing a consistent framework for calculating experimental expectations. In that sense, it is not that our "subjective" knowledge evolves according to the dynamical equation, rather it is that we can use the dynamical equations to calculate the correct expectations which we should rationally believe would obtain upon measurement. Just like Probability Theory which does not tell us how our "subjective" knowledge changes, but rather provides a framework of precise equations we can used to reason rationally from incomplete information.
Joy Christian wrote:It is still puzzling to me why a physical system left alone by all observers for unspecified amount of time would evolve precisely according to Schrödinger equation.
I can imagine a system left alone on Mars for millions of years by one set of observers until rediscovered by an entirely different set of observers and they find that during all that time the system has evolved according to Schrödinger equation.
With the above Bayesian interpretation of wavefunction that would suggest that time too is somehow a byproduct of our degree of belief.
Your definition of consciousness, precludes scientific study. If consciousness is inward and cannot be observed, then why are we discussing it in a scientific forum. You will never be able to know whether a rock is conscious or not, by observing the rock.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 75 guests