A portrait of reality

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote:I personally think it is far more easy to consider that “all” is mind stuff existing in varying levels of order and resolution.
It may well be.
seeds wrote:Furthermore, how is it that matter could be the “cause” of phenomena...
Yeah, the language is confusing, however it is put. I had it as 'matter' rather than straight matter, because I have no idea what 'matter' actually is (well apart from being waves and eddies in big bang stuff, or the quantum field of the moment). And then "cause" is so loaded with meaning as to be meaningless. The phenomena which tell us most about the world, are waves; we see electromagnetic 'waves' (you know what I mean) and hear sound waves.
seeds wrote:...when, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, there is nothing implicit in the underlying wavefunctions of matter that could cause them to “collapse” into something displaying “position” (i.e. 3D “phenomena” suspended in a spatial context)?
Working out what a mathematical model 'means' has always been a problem. 2000 years ago, Hipparchus could use his model to work out where planetary retrograde motion would appear, or how long for, but, like Heisenberg, not both. To solve that Ptolemy introduced the equant, which basically meant that while the planet Earth was over here, we were watching the skies from over there. The thing with maths is that you don't have to explain anything: you don't have to explain why time appears to flow in one direction; you don't have to explain how matter warps space to create gravity; you don't have to explain what keeps strings vibrating for nearly 14 billion years. All that is required of a mathematical model is that the sums can be interpreted in such a way that the answers could be mistaken for reality. The trick is not to be fooled into thinking that is what you are actually looking at.
Having said that, there are good models for how electromagnetic and sound waves are generated and propagate, which can be demonstrated simply with physical (i.e. tangible, pick it up and look at it) models. The collapse of wavefunction always sounds as if something is being destroyed, but what it means in practice is that some field or other is manipulated, 'focussed' perhaps, in such a way that a surplus of energy, (another loaded term) is turned into something that will register on whatever detector is being used. People are freaked out by the double slit experiment, it's a bit like asking Ptolemy 'So where the f@£k are we?', but there is simply no way of detecting anything without 'materially' affecting it's environment.
seeds wrote:And if you invoke “decoherence,” then see my response to that in a subsequent post.
Wouldn't dream of it.
seeds wrote:Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with the restructuring of reality by reconfiguring that which resides at the “non-local” level.

It’s like reaching in and changing Bohm’s holographic-like “implicate” level of reality (or Kant’s “noumenal” level, to mix metaphors) in such a way that something uniquely new (like lasers, for example) can appear up at the “explicate” (phenomenal) level of reality.
In a way, the physics is the easy bit. It's taken thousands of years, but eventually we came up with QM. Now all we have to do is work out how consciousness arises from all that stuff. That really is a mystery and while it is perfectly plausible that the underlying stuff that 'causes' (I know, I know) matter, energy, mind, consciousness, time, space and whatnot is actually mental; I think it's a bit early to be jumping to conclusions.
Sorry if any of that seems glib, there's a lot on my plate right now, but I wouldn't want you to think I am ignoring you.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: In a way, the physics is the easy bit. It's taken thousands of years, but eventually we came up with QM. Now all we have to do is work out how consciousness arises from all that stuff.
Or conversely, how “all that stuff” arises from consciousness (mind).
uwot wrote: That really is a mystery and while it is perfectly plausible that the underlying stuff that 'causes' (I know, I know) matter, energy, mind, consciousness, time, space and whatnot is actually mental; I think it's a bit early to be jumping to conclusions.
It’s not a matter of jumping to conclusions; it’s a matter of attempting to view the universe in ways that make more sense than others.

For example, if all of reality is “mental” in nature, then the presumption is that all of the features of reality (suns, planets, water, sand, molecules, electrons, etc.) are literally “alive” as is suggested in the concept of Panpsychism...

...(note: not conscious or self-aware, just imbued with a ubiquitous and universal essence of life in the same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own personal life essence).

In that sense, if life (the basis of consciousness) is already present within the fabric of reality, then it is simply a tiny little step in accepting how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro organisms) in a process that biologists refer to as “abiogenesis.”

The point is that one may never be able to figure out how consciousness “arises from all that stuff” if one is not open to ideas that may not fit in with “scientific” (myopically restricted, materialistic) methods of discovery.
uwot wrote: Sorry if any of that seems glib, there's a lot on my plate right now...
Understood.

Your beautiful - soon to be published - project must take up a lot of your intellectual focus (which, btw, I have found some more grammar issues, if you are interested).
_______
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote:The point is that one may never be able to figure out how consciousness “arises from all that stuff” if one is not open to ideas that may not fit in with “scientific” (myopically restricted, materialistic) methods of discovery.
I used to tell my daughters that once upon a time, there was a teeny-tiny thought. The teeny-tiny thought was everywhere, it knew everything and it could do anything it was possible to do. But there was nowhere to go, no stories to hear and nothing to do. So the teeny-tiny thought made itself very, very big so that it could have adventures. The Sun, the Moon and the stars are all part of that adventure, and so are we. It's our job to be a good part of the adventure.
The point about scientific methods of discovery is not that they reveal the truth about the universe, they simply tell you what you can do about it. For many physicists, philosophy of science begins and ends with Popper's falsificationism; we can never know what is true, but we can be quite certain what is false.
seeds wrote:...I have found some more grammar issues, if you are interested.
Yes please.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: The point is that one may never be able to figure out how consciousness “arises from all that stuff” if one is not open to ideas that may not fit in with “scientific” (myopically restricted, materialistic) methods of discovery.
uwot wrote: I used to tell my daughters that once upon a time, there was a teeny-tiny thought. The teeny-tiny thought was everywhere, it knew everything and it could do anything it was possible to do. But there was nowhere to go, no stories to hear and nothing to do. So the teeny-tiny thought made itself very, very big so that it could have adventures. The Sun, the Moon and the stars are all part of that adventure, and so are we. It's our job to be a good part of the adventure.
Does that represent the extent to which you have allowed yourself any sort of metaphysical speculation regarding the universe?

Clearly you are quite adept and comfortable in your positioning within the firmer context of the physically tangible and analyzable properties of the “material” world, yet you are extremely tentative and non-committal when it comes to metaphysical thought.

Keeping in mind that this is a “philosophy” forum, please allow me to take license with a key feature of quantum mechanics (for the sake of metaphor) in order to suggest that there is kind of a “particle/wave” duality in play here when it comes to physics and metaphysics...

...(or perhaps the duality between mind and matter would be a better framing of the analogy).

And the point of the metaphor is that the more intensely you focus on either side of the issue (while ignoring the other), then the more likely you are to miss the implication that mind and matter seem to be two complementary aspects of the same fundamental substance (as seen in my earlier reference to Spinoza’s “oneness” substance), and that neither could exist in any logical context without the other.

With that in mind, while you skillfully focus on the “particle” aspect of the issue (the physical side) in your “portrait of reality,” allow me to focus on the much more difficult ( :P ) “wave” aspect of the issue (the metaphysical side).

(Continued in the next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
uwot wrote: The phenomena which tell us most about the world, are waves; we see electromagnetic 'waves' (you know what I mean) and hear sound waves...

...The collapse of wavefunction always sounds as if something is being destroyed, but what it means in practice is that some field or other is manipulated, 'focussed' perhaps, in such a way that a surplus of energy, (another loaded term) is turned into something that will register on whatever detector is being used.
Let’s look a little deeper into what qualifies as being a “detector.”

To slightly paraphrase something I have written elsewhere...

...the “electromagnetic waves” to which you are referring can be thought of as an assemblage of algorithmic processes that conspire together at the “non-local” level of reality to create the “promise” of a round, red, and juicy object called an apple, for example.

However, according to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, without the presence of a conscious entity (a form of “detector”) to decode and explicate that which the algorithmic processes represent, then the apple will not “appear” in its three-dimensional form.

I realize that this is all highly speculative, but to understand what I am getting at, consider the photographic plate of a laser hologram seen below...

Image

There could be multiple holographic images encoded in the wave-like patterns above.

The problem is that without the laser (a loose analogy for “consciousness”) to merge with the patterns in order to explicate the images into their three-dimensional forms, then they will remain in their informationally-based context.

The point is that when it comes to the moving and dynamic reality of the universe, you just need to imagine that the patterns of information in the image above are in motion and represent the all-encompassing “universal wavefunction” which incorporates the totality of the universe itself.

And without the presence of consciousness (in any form) to merge with the waving patterns of quantum information, then similar to the hologram (sans laser), 3-D reality will reside in limbo somewhere between existence and non-existence...

...(or as “noumena” as opposed to “phenomena” in deference to Kant – or as “potentia” in deference to Heisenberg).

To be honest, I’m not a fan of the term “collapse of the wavefunction.”

As a Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish idealist who believes that the entire universe is a product of mental processes, I suggest that whatever the mechanism is that allows the eye of our mind to transform waves of information into the three-dimensional phenomena of our vivid dreams when we look inward...

...likewise, is the same mechanism that transforms waves of information into three-dimensional phenomena when we look outward.

In which case, the “collapse of the wavefunction” is just some clunky and materialistic way of referring to a very “natural” and mind-based process.
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by Greta »

definitely not uwot :) wrote:For example, if all of reality is “mental” in nature, then the presumption is that all of the features of reality (suns, planets, water, sand, molecules, electrons, etc.) are literally “alive” as is suggested in the concept of Panpsychism...

...(note: not conscious or self-aware, just imbued with a ubiquitous and universal essence of life in the same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own personal life essence).

In that sense, if life (the basis of consciousness) is already present within the fabric of reality, then it is simply a tiny little step in accepting how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro organisms) in a process that biologists refer to as “abiogenesis.”
That's my impression. It seems to me that geology just needs to be much larger than biology does in order to develop the complexity and flexibility needed to form living systems.
Last edited by Greta on Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by seeds »

Greta wrote: [......]
Hi Greta, in the quote you are referencing in your post above this one, you have written uwot as being its author, when it was me.

uwot might not appreciate that :D
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by Greta »

seeds wrote:
Greta wrote: [......]
Hi Greta, in the quote you are referencing in your post above this one, you have written uwot as being its author, when it was me.

uwot might not appreciate that :D
_______
Thanks Seeds. Have made the correction.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by seeds »

Greta wrote:
definitely not uwot :) wrote:For example, if all of reality is “mental” in nature, then the presumption is that all of the features of reality (suns, planets, water, sand, molecules, electrons, etc.) are literally “alive” as is suggested in the concept of Panpsychism...

...(note: not conscious or self-aware, just imbued with a ubiquitous and universal essence of life in the same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own personal life essence).

In that sense, if life (the basis of consciousness) is already present within the fabric of reality, then it is simply a tiny little step in accepting how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro organisms) in a process that biologists refer to as “abiogenesis.”
That's my impression. It seems to me that geology just needs to be much larger than biology does in order to develop the complexity and flexibility needed to form living systems.
Not just larger, but remarkably (no, make that “miraculously”) accommodating.

That being said, would you please elaborate on what you mean?
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by Greta »

seeds wrote:
Greta wrote:
definitely not uwot :) wrote:For example, if all of reality is “mental” in nature, then the presumption is that all of the features of reality (suns, planets, water, sand, molecules, electrons, etc.) are literally “alive” as is suggested in the concept of Panpsychism...

...(note: not conscious or self-aware, just imbued with a ubiquitous and universal essence of life in the same way that your own dreams are imbued with your own personal life essence).

In that sense, if life (the basis of consciousness) is already present within the fabric of reality, then it is simply a tiny little step in accepting how inanimate (yet living) matter could become animate matter (evolvable micro organisms) in a process that biologists refer to as “abiogenesis.”
That's my impression. It seems to me that geology just needs to be much larger than biology does in order to develop the complexity and flexibility needed to form living systems.
Not just larger, but remarkably (no, make that “miraculously”) accommodating.

That being said, would you please elaborate on what you mean?
_______
Basically, I see planets, moons, stars, black holes and galaxies as living entities. I don't think that "life started" with abiogenesis, rather that that event marked a change in its nature.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by seeds »

Greta wrote: Basically, I see planets, moons, stars, black holes and galaxies as living entities. I don't think that "life started" with abiogenesis, rather that that event marked a change in its nature.
It kind of makes the idea of the Mars rover, sifting through the Martian soils in the hope of discovering life, seem a bit ironic, no?

Because if what you and I believe is true, then not only is everything the rover touches - alive, likewise, the rover itself is alive (in the deeper context).
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by Greta »

seeds wrote:
Greta wrote: Basically, I see planets, moons, stars, black holes and galaxies as living entities. I don't think that "life started" with abiogenesis, rather that that event marked a change in its nature.
It kind of makes the idea of the Mars rover, sifting through the Martian soils in the hope of discovering life, seem a bit ironic, no?

Because if what you and I believe is true, then not only is everything the rover touches - alive, likewise, the rover itself is alive (in the deeper context).
_______
Not wishing to be contrary but I'd say it's not ironic because researchers have been much enthused about signs of what could be called geological life on Mars, past and present - atmosphere, dust devils, vulcanism, flowing water and glaciers and so forth. They often casually refer to planets. moons and stars as 'dead" or "alive" in clear recognition of their systematisation.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by uwot »

seeds wrote:Clearly you are quite adept and comfortable in your positioning within the firmer context of the physically tangible and analyzable properties of the “material” world, yet you are extremely tentative and non-committal when it comes to metaphysical thought.
The irony is that even a hard nosed materialist philosophy is metaphysical. Tell that to a materialist, and you are likely to discover just how hard your own nose is. I think my philosophical education was fairly bog standard. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz in one corner, Locke, Berkeley and Hume in the other. Bit of handbags and along comes Kant to try and calm it down.
Natural philosophers get the pox of it and start doing 'science' instead. The Joker in the pack is Berkeley. Because while science, in particular physics, is all very empirical and remaining silent whereof it cannot speak (Wittgenstein, for those that don't know), Berkeley points out that any story that is consistent with the evidence could be true. The problems only really arise when people commit to a particular story, because there are a huge number of humans who despite being grown ups, hate anyone who tells them that they are wrong.
seeds wrote:Keeping in mind that this is a “philosophy” forum, please allow me to take license with a key feature of quantum mechanics (for the sake of metaphor) in order to suggest that there is kind of a “particle/wave” duality in play here when it comes to physics and metaphysics...
Go nuts. I like stories.
seeds wrote:...(or perhaps the duality between mind and matter would be a better framing of the analogy).
Do you think physics/metaphysics equates to mind/matter?
seeds wrote:And the point of the metaphor is that the more intensely you focus on either side of the issue (while ignoring the other), then the more likely you are to miss the implication that mind and matter seem to be two complementary aspects of the same fundamental substance (as seen in my earlier reference to Spinoza’s “oneness” substance)...
Well, that's epiphenomenalism for you.
seeds wrote:...and that neither could exist in any logical context without the other.
Ah, now, logic. I'm not a great logician, I think logic is massively overrated and only really of use to computer scientists (yay for them) and dreary 'analytic' philosophers who are usually buffoonishly pedantic, religious nuts or both; but even I can see that doesn't follow.
seeds wrote:With that in mind, while you skillfully focus on the “particle” aspect of the issue (the physical side) in your “portrait of reality,”...
See, even that's too metaphysical for me. It's really the phenomenal aspect that I'm addressing and there is a strategically placed Philosophy Warning! exactly where I suggest that the most plausible explanation, for all the phenomena that looks like a universe made of some stuff, is that there is a universe made of some stuff.
seeds wrote:...allow me to focus on the much more difficult ( :P ) “wave” aspect of the issue (the metaphysical side).
Be my guest, all I can say with any confidence is that if there is some stuff, it behaves pretty much as I have described it. The actually nature, or origin of this stuff, like you say, is waaaaay more difficult. As Faraday said: All this is a dream. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency...to be continued.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by uwot »

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote:Let’s look a little deeper into what qualifies as being a “detector.”...without the presence of a conscious entity (a form of “detector”) to decode and explicate that which the algorithmic processes represent, then the apple will not “appear” in its three-dimensional form.
The thing is, if there is no detector, there is no 'meaning' to "appear". It's the sound of trees falling in the woods, or Einstein asking Bohr whether he believed the moon exists if no one is looking at it.
seeds wrote:I realize that this is all highly speculative, but to understand what I am getting at, consider the photographic plate of a laser hologram seen below...
There could be multiple holographic images encoded in the wave-like patterns above.
Yeah, I get that, but while it is true that ultimately all 'material' things, you, me, the universe, are explicable in terms that apply to the individual bits that make them up, QM, there are certain configurations of tiny things that are stable, and the more relatively stable states of quantum particles (I know) the harder it becomes to coax them into producing the sort of behaviour that people go Cor blimey! about.
seeds wrote:The problem is that without the laser (a loose analogy for “consciousness”) to merge with the patterns in order to explicate the images into their three-dimensional forms, then they will remain in their informationally-based context.
Maybe. How would you test that?
seeds wrote:To be honest, I’m not a fan of the term “collapse of the wavefunction.”
I agree; it's a rotten term.
seeds wrote:As a Panentheistic/Berkeleyanish idealist who believes that the entire universe is a product of mental processes, I suggest that whatever the mechanism is that allows the eye of our mind to transform waves of information into the three-dimensional phenomena of our vivid dreams when we look inward...
Could be.
seeds wrote:In which case, the “collapse of the wavefunction” is just some clunky and materialistic way of referring to a very “natural” and mind-based process.
Nah, it's the mathematicians lamenting that the abstract has turned into something actual.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A portrait of reality

Post by Greta »

uwot wrote:...Berkeley points out that any story that is consistent with the evidence could be true. The problems only really arise when people commit to a particular story ...
'Problems' for whom? Commitment to a story is a time-honoured way of living a life, so there are many reflexive and shallow theists and atheists who seem to have no problem, having settled the major existential issues in their own minds and moved on with life, as they'd see it.
Post Reply