Memory is not only in synapses. Thought is not confined to brains.
PSI research, especially the REG experiments of Jahn and Dunne
Bell’s Theorem is a proof that the observer participates in the creation of reality.
QM of many-particle systems
Quantum Zeno Effect
What will our world look like after the coming paradigm shift?
I don't know about 4 - IIRC Bell wasn't necessary endorsing conscious observers? I know Wheeler definitely suggested a computer of some kind could be an observer.
I do agree quantum biology in tandem with materialism diminishing in prominence could result in a paradigm shift though.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
To me, a computer as an observer is like a piece of driftwood washed up on a beach. It marks the position reached by a high tide. In that sense it is keeping a record, making an observation. But ... it doesn't seem to carry any particular significance. What is it about an observer which is the significant factor, its essence? (rhetorical - unless anyone has any suggestions).
Reply
(This post was last modified: 2020-01-04, 10:35 PM by Typoz.)
(2020-01-04, 10:08 PM)Typoz Wrote: To me, a computer as an observer is like a piece of driftwood washed up on a beach. It marks the position reached by a high tide. In that sense it is keeping a record, making an observation. But ... it doesn't seem to carry any particular significance. What is it about an observer which is the significant factor, its essence? (rhetorical - unless anyone has any suggestions).
I have the same issues, but "observer" as Wheeler intended had a specific connection to physics. I recall Wheeler had a long-ish paper where he elaborated on this question beyond the "It from Bit" work Information, Physics, Quantum: Search for Links....I'll try to find it...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
Reply
1
The following 1 user Likes Sci's post:1 user Likes Sci's post • Typoz
(2020-01-05, 05:49 AM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I have the same issues, but "observer" as Wheeler intended had a specific connection to physics. I recall Wheeler had a long-ish paper where he elaborated on this question beyond the "It from Bit" work Information, Physics, Quantum: Search for Links....I'll try to find it...
Heinz-Dieter Zeh, the guy who actually discovered quantum decoherence (the loss of coherence), didn't seem to think decoherence by itself, was a replacement for 'observers', because he postulated the many-minds interpretation of QM - which is a sort of minimal fix for Everetts f***ed-up many-worlds idea. The many-worlds now being many-minds... this is fundamentally the closest macro interpretation to my own ideas that I have so far read...
The many-minds interpretation of quantum theory is many-worlds with the distinction between worlds constructed at the level of the individual observer. Rather than the worlds that branch, it is the observer’s mind.[6]
The purpose of this interpretation is to overcome the fundamentally strange concept of observers being in a superposition with themselves. In their 1988 paper, Albert and Loewer argue that it simply makes no sense for one to think of the mind of an observer to be in an indefinite state. Rather, when someone answers the question about which state of a system they have observed, they must answer with complete certainty. If they are in a superposition of states, then this certainty is not possible and we arrive at a contradiction.[2] To overcome this, they then suggest that it is merely the “bodies” of the minds that are in a superposition, and that the minds must have definite states that are never in superposition[2]
When an observer measures a quantum system and becomes entangled with it, it now constitutes a larger quantum system. In regards to each possibility within the wave function, a mental state of the brain corresponds. And ultimately, only one mind is experienced, leading the others to branch off and become inaccessible, albeit real.[7] In this way, every sentient being is attributed with an infinity of minds, whose prevalence correspond to the amplitude of the wavefunction. As an observer checks a measurement, the probability of realizing a specific measurement directly correlates to the number of minds they have where they see that measurement. It is in this way that the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements are obtained by the Many-minds Interpretation.
Decoherence on it's own (interference?), could perhaps be thought of as reducing an observers degrees of freedom, closing down the options. But observers still seem to choose what to measure (perhaps where there is sufficient similarity between their options that they can make a difference - i.e. break a deadlock), and my own belief is that this all happens by adding-up classical patterns, in a non-classical way.
But I'm stressing again, many-minds - and other interpretations - are 'macro' interpretations of the fundamental deep QM rules we've discovered, which are really the deep things that are dictating why these interpretations are only different ways of attempting to explain in a in a 'macro' sense (philosophical/sociological etc), what is going on.
Informational-wise, perhaps you might think of the objective-world/nature as analogous to having made a calibration, to get you as close as possible to the correct informational position, where upon final choice to resolve deadlocks/similarities must be done by yourself?
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Reply
(This post was last modified: 2020-01-05, 02:12 PM by Max_B.)
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
Mastodon