Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

[seeds]

Well, I think you're being very much overly rejective of decoherence. You may not believe it, I don't expect you to accept that it's TRUE, but your overconfidence that decoherence over collapse isn't even a possibility worth considering, and that anybody who is considering so must be making a very foolish mistake, is I think unwarranted.

Decoherence IS an alternative to collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_d ... nvironment.

Decoherence has been used to understand the possibility of the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides a framework for apparent wave-function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wave function are decoupled from a coherent system and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. With respect to the measurement problem, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

It's not some crackpot idea I made up man haha. It's totally fine if your opinion is (And again, no, "decoherence" is not the answer.) But it seems more like you're demanding I reject decoherence as the answer, rather than just stating that as your own personal position. I don't need you to demand anything of me.

Theoretical physicist - Sabine Hossenfelder - has a blog site called "BackRe(Action)".

The following is copy and pasted from a short exchange I had with Sabine last year on this very subject (slightly altered by adding boldings and size adjustments to certain portions) (Here's the link: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/0 ... you%20have)

It's from her blog post titled: "Schrödinger’s Cat – Still Not Dead"

I extracted the following quote from Sabine's OP:

"...As you have undoubtedly noticed, cats are usually either dead or alive, not both. The reason is that even tiny interactions with a quantum system have the same effect as a measurement, and large objects, like cats, just constantly interact with something, like air or the cosmic background radiation. And that’s already sufficient to destroy a quantum superposition of a cat so quickly we’d never observe it..."

To which I responded with:

Sabine, you have taught me to never make any assumptions about the things you say. Nevertheless, out of curiosity, are you alluding to "decoherence" in the above quote?

If not, then please say so. But if you are, then according to Wiki:

"...Decoherence was first introduced in 1970 by the German physicist H Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s. Decoherence has been developed into a complete framework, but it does not solve the measurement problem, as the founders of decoherence theory admit in their seminal papers....Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse...."

Now you may have had something else in mind, but does the fact that the Wiki quote states that decoherence...

"...does not generate actual wave-function collapse..." thus, "...does not solve the measurement problem..."

...have any bearing on what you said about the alleged collapse that occurs simply by cats interacting with "air" or "cosmic radiation"?

After all, isn't it a fact that certain interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that the "unmeasured" cosmic background radiation would itself exist in a state of superposition that would, in theory, be entangled with the "unmeasured" cat's superposition, and thus simply form a larger and more complex wavefunction that contains no inherent means for collapsing itself?

Again, decoherence "...does not generate actual wave-function collapse..."
_______

To which Sabine replied:

"Yes, it refers to decoherence. It is correct that decoherence does not collapse the wave-function. I didn't say it does."

Forgive me, Flannel Jesus, for my shameless appeal to authority, but I just wanted to show you that I too have referenced the Wiki article on "quantum decoherence" in these sorts of debates. However, in my case, it was to point out how decoherence cannot be used as the reason for the collapse of the wave function.

And, of course (as always), that doesn't mean I cannot be wrong about these mysterious issues. So, you are absolutely correct to point out that I have no right to demand that you reject your own position on decoherence and replace it with mine.

As an amusing sidenote, notice how Sabine stated that...

"...It is correct that decoherence does not collapse the wave-function. I didn't say it does..."

Yet, if you read the initial quote from her at the top of this post, she clearly states that,...

"...even tiny interactions with a quantum system have the same effect as a measurement, and large objects, like cats, just constantly interact with something, like air or the cosmic background radiation...."

...of which she admitted was a reference to decoherence. She then went on to say...

"...And that’s already sufficient to destroy a quantum superposition of a cat so quickly we’d never observe it..."

Anyway, based on other conversations I had with her on that site, if I would have pressed her on what seemed to be a contradiction, she probably would have cussed at me like a sailor and told me how confused she thinks I am.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

It's not some crackpot idea I made up man haha. It's totally fine if your opinion is (And again, no, "decoherence" is not the answer.) But it seems more like you're demanding I reject decoherence as the answer, rather than just stating that as your own personal position. I don't need you to demand anything of me.

To be honest, I think that the idea of wave functions "collapsing" is just a clunky way of describing a process that is more "holographic-like" in nature, as was pointed out in one of our earlier exchanges...

However, I think it's worth nothing about this last paragraph: "causes the substance to conform to whatever it is our measuring devices are looking for" -- our measuring devices are made up of the same information-based substances that they're measuring. Our measuring devices, and our bodies and our eyes, are also made up of electrons and photons and neutrons, which are part of (and themselves arguably a higher-level facade over) the information-based layer of reality.

You're preaching to the choir, brother.

And that is all part and parcel of the question as to why everything in the entire universe doesn't simply merge together and always exist as one big superpositioned field of information with no inherent means to transform (collapse) its ever-moving (ever-evolving) quantum waves into positionally-fixed, three-dimensional phenomena.

Hence, the reason why it is suggested that consciousness may be involved in the process in a way that is "loosely" similar to how the laser in the laser hologram...



...explicates the three-dimensional objects from the patterns of information encoded in the photographic emulsion.

In other words, it is the conjoined relationship between consciousness and that of the fields of quantum information (working together in tandem) that (to borrow from the Kantian script) transforms "noumena" into "phenomena."
_______

However, what I really think is taking place is that whatever the natural and inherent "process" is that allows us to look into our minds and explicate the three-dimensional features of our dreams into existence (from fields of information) whenever we direct our consciousness inward,...

...is the same process that allows us to explicate the three-dimensional features of the universe into existence (from fields of information) whenever we direct our consciousness outward.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

...Any concpetion of QM which implies collapse happens because of Human Minds or observeration or whatever puts US at a special unique place in the universe - and I don't think there's much reason to believe the universe cares about us.

I realize that you're no doubt going to completely reject this, but I suggest that the human mind represents the fulfilment of one of the prime reasons for the very existence of the universe.
_______

[Flannel Jesus]

You bring up all these quotes of this person saying decoherence doesn't cause collapse as if that's something I disagree with. You're fundamentally misunderstanding something here.

I don't think decoherence causes collapse either. It's an alternative to collapse, not a cause of collapse. "Collapse happens" and "Decoherence happens" are alternative explanations of some of the same things. Just like Sabine, I also have never said decoherence *causes* collapse.

I feel like you're actively misreading my posts, and Sabine's words as well. You keep trying to come up with GOTCHA! moments where there is none. We all agree, decoherence doesn't cause collapse. Let's move on from that.

[seeds]

However, it brings us to that perennial issue regarding the question of what it is that transforms that "raw data" into the phenomenal (physical) features of the universe.

The mind has the ability to experience the qualia,...

I suggest that the "I Am-ness" that sits at the throne of our consciousness, which is metaphorically represented by the large "eye" at the center of the following illustration...



...is what has the ability to experience qualia.

While, on the other hand, the mind is simply the subjective "arena" in which the experiencing takes place (which is represented in the above illustration by the bubble-like enclosure in which the "eye" is the locus and owner of the mind).

...qualia have form therefore it carries information.

Firstly, describe the "form" of the qualia (or quale) that presents itself as the sensation of pain, or the taste of this...



And secondly, I have no doubt that "information" is involved in the process of experiencing qualia. However, the quote you cited was extracted from a post in which I was responding to Scott Mayers stating that he was agreeing with something in my OP,...

I agree and like that .gif for representing it. My own theory is based on structure being 'manifest' this way. "Manifest" means how Nature expresses the informative raw data to us as something 'physical'.

...to which I pointed out that we're still left with the mystery of what it is that transforms his abovementioned "raw data" into something "physical" (which lies at the heart of the "measurement problem" that me and Flannel Jesus have been fussing over).

Now, if you, bahman, are suggesting that "mind" has something to do with that transformation,...

(i.e., that mind is somehow involved in the explication of the universe's three-dimensional "phenomenal" features from its "noumenal-like" informational underpinning)

...then you and I are finally in agreement about something.
_______

[bahman]

However, it brings us to that perennial issue regarding the question of what it is that transforms that "raw data" into the phenomenal (physical) features of the universe.

The mind has the ability to experience the qualia,...

I suggest that the "I Am-ness" that sits at the throne of our consciousness, which is metaphorically represented by the large "eye" at the center of the following illustration...



...is what has the ability to experience qualia.

Ok.

While, on the other hand, the mind is simply the subjective "arena" in which the experiencing takes place (which is represented in the above illustration by the bubble-like enclosure in which the "eye" is the locus and owner of the mind).

...qualia have form therefore it carries information.

Firstly, describe the "form" of the qualia (or quale) that presents itself as the sensation of pain, or the taste of this...

Not all forms are geometric. By form, I mean that the subject of experience is distinguishable from others.

And secondly, I have no doubt that "information" is involved in the process of experiencing qualia. However, the quote you cited was extracted from a post in which I was responding to Scott Mayers stating that he was agreeing with something in my OP,...

I agree and like that .gif for representing it. My own theory is based on structure being 'manifest' this way. "Manifest" means how Nature expresses the informative raw data to us as something 'physical'.

...to which I pointed out that we're still left with the mystery of what it is that transforms his abovementioned "raw data" into something "physical" (which lies at the heart of the "measurement problem" that me and Flannel Jesus have been fussing over).

Now, if you, bahman, are suggesting that "mind" has something to do with that transformation,...

(i.e., that mind is somehow involved in the explication of the universe's three-dimensional "phenomenal" features from its "noumenal-like" informational underpinning)

...then you and I are finally in agreement about something.
_______

It is kinda odd to find someone agreeing with you in this forum! But I would be glad if that is the case for me and you. I simply believe in substance dualism that there are two substances, mind and qualia which the second one is subject to change due to the mind. What you call the raw data to me is the form of qualia. Physical is the substance of qualia which is the subject of experience.

[Atla]

Sabine an authority?