The Mental Universe (2005) [pdf]

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.Universe.pdf

by MichaelAO • 11 years ago

34 26 11 years ago

henry.pha.jhu.edu

monochr• 11 years ago

And who exactly makes the observations? Is a cat good enough? A chimp? If we get someone really smart to look at an electron can we collapse it better?

The brain centered quantum mechanics I've seen become fashionable to lay people in the last 20 years are a last gasp of homo-centrism that really should have died a very long time ago.

attackvectors2• 11 years ago

No one said animals are not good enough to do it. It is not homo-centrism, it is consciousness-centrism if you wish to name it.

attackvectors2• 11 years ago

In a shared hallucinated dream/reality our bodies and planet, if not real, may serve as a metaphoric language for some purpose. Perhaps as a classroom or habitat for gods.

justinpombrio• 11 years ago

Except that quantum mechanics does say there is "underlying stuff"; it's called the wave function. And it's in no way mental.

I'd like to recommend the QM explanation on lesswrong. Unlike most other explanations out there, it attempts to take away, rather than add, mystery.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/

dedward• 11 years ago

Everything you observe, your entire perception of reality is mental.

honzzz• 11 years ago

The article seems interesting but I am afraid I do not understand quantum physics well enough to understand it fully - could someone more knowledgeable please try to explain it like I am five? How would quantum mechanical perception of the world for common people look like?

hliyan4• 11 years ago

I explain quantum physics (or at least the underlying principles) to myself this way:

1. Quantum fluctuations are the random number generator function of the universe. Without which, the universe will be utterly uniform and lacking detail. All detail (or information) is born through quantum fluctuations.

2. The universe has a finite resolution -- you zoom in enough and you reach a point where you 'see' the 'pixels' of the universe and see no further. This applies to matter, energy, space and time.

I may be oversimplifying or even understanding it wrong, but to me, denying either (1) or (2) eventually leads to a reductio ad absurdum -- 1) a universe that is a uniform, featureless soup, or 2) infinite information density.

* As a side-note, denying (1) also results in denying free will -- all future states of the universe becomes classically predictable, including the thoughts and behaviors of conscious beings in it.

EDIT: sorry, I know you asked about perception. I've never quite been able to explain waveform collapse to myself. Intuitively, it feels like the universe does lazy evaluation -- all variables are in flux until read?

diogofranco• 11 years ago

"As a side-note, denying (1) also results in denying free will."

Denying (1) clearly denies free will since we are talking about a purely deterministic universe. But notice that (1) holding true doesn't really open up any space for free will anyway.

With (1) you now have randomness as well as causality in the universe, but how does that mix produce free will? If the conscious beings thoughts and behaviours are stuck in determinism/randomness, there is no free will.

I've seen that quantum argument for free will thrown around, but random events in the brain giving rise to our thoughts and actions is still the antithesis of free will. Whether you're doing something because of a chain of cause and effect, or because of random fluctuations in the very small, you're not doing it because you want to do it.

onetimeuser982• 11 years ago

I don't agree but beware - non-educated unscientific rant ahead, personal view only

You can only measure nature with nature ..or universe with the same universe, - or - universe can only measure it self with/by itself; now measurement is an interaction - you have to interact(either directly or indirectly) with what you are trying to measure to get some information. Since you are using "parts" of the universe(like photon/electron beams, stones, chopsticks) to measure other parts of the same universe, of course there are limits on your precision and artifacts within those measurements. Lets do a gedankenexperiment; imagine that you just entered a porcelain shop but your vision is based on arbitrary-sized plastic projectile gun and a (smart)detector wall that detects all projectiles that bumped of a scanned surface within a certain angle. Now there is only a range of momentums(velocity/weight combinations) that would let you scan that environment within an acceptable resolution - the point is that you can't have an arbitrary resolution(either there is air-resistance or unavoidable damage to the environment or or).. I'll jump ahead a few steps and go right to the underlying question, and that is whether the universe is deterministic or not - which in context of the above is actually pretty straight-forward(again, personal view) - since as "inhabitants" of the universe we want to measure we are bound to use parts of the universe to do our measurements, newtons predicable clockwork universe indeed has its limitations(and I really don't see why this is such an issue when c is accepted without friction, if you have no problems dealing with c why on earth do you have such problems with this which directly follows). Regardless of whether we live in a deterministic universe or not we can't have arbitrary resolution so from practical point of view - for us - its the same as if the universe "at-its-core" was not deterministic(there is no way to get that probability line under control when time increases). Now as a pure philosophical question, whether our universe is really deterministic or not depends on the model we use(in "bubble-like-multiverses" there is no interaction between universe-bubbles possible hence deterministic, in eternal inflation models it gets spread from deterministic to non-deterministic but for all models with interacting universes - only your imagination is the limit, seriously, very potent drug) All in all, one thing is sure - we are the universe experiencing it self sooo enjoy

malka• 11 years ago

I've never quite been able to explain waveform collapse to myself. Intuitively, it feels like the universe does lazy evaluation -- all variables are in flux until read?

There are many interpretation. This page could be relevant to your interest : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...

mangeletti2• 11 years ago

Worth noting is that this idea of quantum randomness has recently been all but proven wrong in an experiment involving water ripples[1].

Einstein had this idea of "hidden information" (i.e., just because we're not advanced enough yet to observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but it has always been regarded as ludicrous.

In other words, the resolution of the universe may not be finite, but since the parts involved in infinity are impossible to comprehend or list in a peer reviewed paper, this drives mathematicians bananas.

In the end, the human ego might prove to be the real Strong Force in the universe.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/09/quantum-p...

altrego99• 11 years ago

Also, the random numbers generally interact like 2-dimensional vectors when not observed, and in a different way, like probabilities between 0 to 1, the moment they are observed.

heed• 11 years ago

All experimental evidence points to space being continuous, not discrete.

amelius• 11 years ago

If the universe is purely mental, then why does it follow a set of rules so precisely? Why doesn't it just dream up the best possible thoughts it can have?

Also, why are different parts of this mental process disconnected from each other? For example, if you and i are both part of the same mental process, then why do we intuitively believe that we are different, disconnected entities?

skidoo• 11 years ago

I blame subconscious denial. Seriously.

mgregory22• 11 years ago

1. We don't know if the universe follows any rules precisely. We can never know because the only way to know that a rule is being followed unconditionally would be to exhaustively verify every event in the universe to see if it follows that rule, which is impossible.

2. There's not just one mental process. There are an infinite number (most likely) of mental processes. But even though we're not both part of the same mental process, we're both part of the same causal process. The reason we perceive ourselves as discrete entities is: 1. mental processes (thoughts) can be both true and false, 2. true thoughts are more rare than false thoughts, 3. false thoughts are still capable of doing work, and therefore, our survival has relied on the false thought that each of us is a separate individual, even though the truth is that we're causally dependent on one another, our environment, etc.

unusximmortalis2• 11 years ago

"we intuitively believe that we are different, disconnected entities"

my take is that we intuitively know we are one, not disconnected. but the short site, not listening to that intuition, is seeing only duality.

the universe is a projection of the sum of all thoughts it is not better because we all as a sum do not create it better :)

unusximmortalis2• 11 years ago

"THE ALL is MIND; The Universe is Mental." — The Kybalion.

find and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalion

the idea that the univers is mental is old, very old. it's funny how these scientists discover all of the sudden new ideas. and it's funny how we attribute discoveries to someone... the biggest minds that lived didn't attributed to themselves the ideas they had. modesty? honesty? :)

The Mental Universe (2005) [pdf]

Related Stories