This is going to be a stretch. Today, when i was out, i decided in the back of my mind, i wanted to elaborate a bit more on consciousness. So far, i've shown work deciding that the universe is [somehow] observer-dependant: The pertinant question here is why? To answer that, i've shown that matter, before any resolution is transpired, exists as a ghost of probability... But what about Copenhagen? Why should it even be taken seriously? Why is it so successful? How can one picture the observer from this in interpretation? I wanted to enhance the observers role. I want to make some kind of side dish to the Copenhagen Interpretation, and stretch the boundaries for which is allowed. To start off, lets tackle each question individually. ''Why should Copenhagen be taken seriously? There are a few problems with Copenhagen actually. As much as it is the most successful theory ever in mankind, it is unfortunately not fully mathematical. Whilst it derives the Uncertainty Principle and Schrodingers wave equation, a lot of it is simply mathematical language. Instead of providing calculus to why the macroscopic world is free from the subatomic effects, it simply says that ''objects are too big.'' But it is still very successful, and will continue to be. Why is it so successful? This bothers scientists. They think this is far too vague. Though an answer recently came about called Decoherence. This is when a very soft and delicate proceedure between particle waves are affected by their environments. In other words, the waves collapsed into particles. Some scientists thought this meant that Copenhagen was wrong and erroneous, because now the collapse could be answered for through Decoherence, but they 'it turned out,' where incorrect. These particles where still very virtual, in the sense they had not been defined from the point of view which really counts... the human being. On the other hand, Copenhagen has been able to answer why the electron didn't radiate away energy and fall into the nucleus, and why everything cannot ever be known. This has profound affects on the Unified Field Theories in development. This mean that Chaos can take over at any t>1, the future time. Though, it remains to be said, that reality already holds unimaginable possibilities, as we are going to see. How can one picture the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation? This turns out to be very strange indeed, (i think). In the parallel universe theory, whenever the observer resolves a function, or if something comes into contact with something else, the universe splits into a branch, proportional to the amount x of possibilities. But the observer is also a pert of the collapse, meaning that the observer also moves with what is happening. But in Copenhagen, this is different. The Observer exists [somehow] outside the conventional physical rules of Quantum theory. Whenever the observer observes a system, she does not collapse with the object, but instead the object collapses ''under'' her influence. If she is above the affect, then [somehow] we can now picture the observer as some type of holographic hyperdimension, inextricably linked into both space and time. The holographic principle of the human does not stop here. It also means that it is intimately related to the ethereal world of time... in fact, coupling this theory with Copenhagen says that the holographic network of the mind is [somehow] time*... Thus it goes to say, the mind is the imaginal dimension... The imaginary space leg (a^2i+b^2i=c^2i)... So, Einstein wouldn't have been very happy with this interprtetation, as we have all seen in the history books. He had enough problems accepting that the observer could create such drastic effects on the world, but he was proven wrong. For me, this was his greatest blunder... Not the Cosmological Constant! * If you don't agree with this interprtetation of time, it is actually a well-known theory on physics. You will find reference of it in Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's book, 'Parallel Universe.' Reiku :m:
the universe is [somehow] observer-dependant: The pertinant question here is why? because we are limited.
if we are limited than we are part of some other universe with other sets of laws... think of this...our world has general laws of physics were F=ma...as we go to quantum world these rules dissipate as the location of objects is unknown and such...in the same respect is the world which we are part of...our own universe is part of a small quantum particle in a teapot of a man in another universe (lame example).
look...its all hypothetical...but imagine this: we exist in a universe created inside a lab of some bigger dimensional universe, whereas that universe is created by another lab in another universe...and all these universes exist simultaneously. Also we will create in future another universe in a lab and that universe will create a universe in itself as well. However besides universes creating universes within themselves and being parts of other universes...perhaps every particle in our universe is a universe itself...and they all have universes within themselves...and so on. Our future universe creates our own universe's past. At the same time universe expands at one point it is also collapses unto itself in the next point. Now...there is more...but Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! its something to think of.
if there is a mouse inside a black box...the mouse only knows of black box...but if the mouse made a hole in the box it would discover that it is located inside a huge room full of cheese...of course if the mouse only knew that this room is not the only thing there is...outside the room are hungry cats which want to devour the mouse. But if the mouse was to know that would it think there is anything else? because all those halls between the room which are filled with cats are all part of a huge ship. But if the mouse were to know that there is a big ship would it care to know that the ship is sinking is already submerge beneath ocean on 5km? Of course even if the mouse knew that would it think that there is anything else besides the ship and the ocean? Because outside the ocean are exploding nuclear discharges which cause all these ships to sink in the first place. But back to the mouse...its inside a black box...never bothered to make a hole...died thinking the universe is as it is.
I don't think physics allows it, or perhaps these scales are what we deal with, because there isn't a simpler theory. I knew someone who believed in ''Micro Gods,'' and they extrapolated past big bang as micro-micro organisms... I defended his theory for a while using quantum mechanics, before i moved on. How are you anyhow Draqon?
good and you? I am a follower of Mahayana Buddhism and for me it is important to explain universe as cyclic...perhaps there are no microuniverses and we are not a microuniverse within a Megauniverse....
Fine actually. I'm seriously thinking about getting an early night... need to get up early. Been out recently during the nights? Out on the bike for a midnight run?
yeah I have...I bike here and there. Got stopped by a cop, he told me to have lights on my bike in order to drive on major roads. Cause usually I just drive at night nearside the cars passing by me. you sleep well.
