Universe for Observer

If electrons and protons etc. all are in a cloud of probabilities until observed wouldn't the universe itself at the beginning (small as it was) had been in a cloud of probabilities until one of the probabilities for the universe resulted in a observer?

Perhaps that can explain why everything is so finely tuned for life to exist (cause if life didn't exist, the universe would only be in a state of probabilities).

Why not? If no one is here to observe the universe, what would be the difference from a fantasy, what hold would it have against all other possibilities?

Also, since the universe support awareness by default (remember: it would only be in a state of probabilities otherwise), the universe wavefunction collapsed would be a universe with harmony...well to say exactly what it is we need to know what awareness is...so...but anyway, that observers had to see the universe before it became in it's current form (and whatever else that was needed for the observer to come about) is a nice way of producing a functional universe if you had only one try.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

''If electrons and protons etc. all are in a cloud of probabilities until observed wouldn't the universe itself at the beginning (small as it was) had been in a cloud of probabilities until one of the probabilities for the universe resulted in a observer?''

Yes. In fact, the universe had to choose from an infinite amount of set up conditions. Also, all of matter, since there was no observer, was spread out through the expansion as nothing but probability waves.

''Perhaps that can explain why everything is so finely tuned for life to exist (cause if life didn't exist, the universe would only be in a state of probabilities).''

That makes sense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for supporting it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, oh I've edited a bit more too, I find new things to this all the time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Somehow, the observer is reality. No other reality can exist without the observer, because nothing would be specified. We tune into reality... because there is a certain frequency demonstrating a particular arrangement.
The observer somehow exists outside that vacua we call spacetime, as it isn't really projected in spacetime but in some type of holograph. This holograph is [somehow] anothe dimension of space and time. In fact, some theories claim that the mind is the time dimension, that imaginary dimension of space.

 

No not really, you're using only one interpretation of QM, it could be the other way around, the observer was in a cloud of probablities until this universe resulted

Could also be explained by the first observer ... in this universe

Well the problem is that there's a variation of different QM interpretations and currently no empirical evidence distinguishing which is true

Well what makes you think the universe exists independantly and causes anything?

 

Yeah its been said thousands of years ago by Gautama Buddha, Hindu Sages, Krishna, some Ancient Greeks, etc...

The big shocker will come when its confirmed to be true, the many-worlds and many-minds interpreation that is,...will also have to be true, everything will be just the way the ancients explained it

 

I'll make a risky prediction. Withint the next 20 years, string theory will either become sucessesful or it will faid away. I don't think we will find the Higgs Boson within the next year (as we are informed). I don't think this Boson exists. I do however, think that certain exotic particles, maybe even dark matter will result of the experiments at the LHC at Cern Switzerland.
The observer will also have a make or break time this next 50 years. Parallel Universes might not be able to proove. The law of self consistency forbids us to know the locations and information aout aother universe whilst still in this one. This is a big problem. We can't even think of black hole travel a prospect, because anything that jumps into a black hole is mangled, and spat out in another time in this universe.

 

I don't know, there's talks about creating quantum worlds in labs, this would be evidence for the many-worlds interpretation...

 

But the observer (human) would be of the universe, thus also in a cloud of probabilities, but in that level (where awareness and observation is due) the rest of the universe must be fine tuned to fit that probability. I don't think we were in a cloud of probabilities a part from the rest of the universe, but if the probabilities for the universe resulted in someone to observe it, then the laws of that universe would be finely tuned to fit that condition. Depending on the window of awareness, that universe would be very "perfect", so as in order to finely adjust the entire universe to the frame of one window of awareness.

You mean that the first observer would be so finely tuned as to exist in the universe? Sure, but that doesn't explain why the laws are so finely tuned as to allow observers to exist at all, given the conditions for life in any conceivable form to exist (and would it be more probable for a unconcievable form?) evidence shows that carbon is a excellent base for life of any form, because of it's ability to adjust itself and find new forms and if no stars where around, what kind of life could we expect? Etc. Etc.

Yes, but this variation is widely accepted, and the basis for my little hypothesis

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, not the other interpretations, but perhaps they could make the basis for a equal hypothesis with a few adjustions to the hypothesis?

The idea is that the universe would be indistinguishable (sp?) from a fantasy if no one was to observe it, would perhaps be indistinguishable from nothing even...perhaps would it be nothing?

 

I don't beleive multiple universe theory; granted, i don't dislike the theory as much as string theory now. I have come to accept that multiple universe might be a real probability - but i'm not ready to jump on the wagon yet.
The real problem concerning the observer and parallel universes, is that the observer is not very special - not fraom an anthropic universal point of view, neither from an observer-dependant veiw... alas.

 

But we are special, we are aware of the universe and of ourselves as a part of it. Might be that the universe would have less meaning if we weren't here, or perhaps no meaning at all, but the real point I think is that if there were no observation on the behalf of the universe, on what level would it exist?

 

Yes... of course.

I was comparing the human importance in a multiple universe scenario, because than there are an infinite amount of universes where you exist, so no universe is very important when life is concerned. In a single universe, that is very different.

 

I can stretch myself to ponder the idea of multiple universes existing in potential form, that there are alot of destinies that may happen in our point of view, I also think that the way we live our life may determine to a certain degree the destiny we arrive at, and the road we walk on. If this is not a reality, then it is a fantasy that reflects a reality of what happens anyway, but nevermind that.

The human importance should be looked at individually, not as a mass of bodies, cause the importance of humans is on a individual level (the observer).

If there are multiple universes and several versions of myself exists at the same time, and time is merely the path that I take through this array of universes (and versions of myself), then that is very very sad.

Because then the persons we meet in reality aren't the same as we met just a minute ago, if we merely choose a path that seperated the different versions of ourselves and we would never know, we would be truly alone.

Instead of that, I think that there is only one reality and whatever fits with that reality is the reality we all share, if we harm someone, we harm a unique individual, not a mass production. Since that is what we are - unique individuals.

 

Ditto

 

That is the exact question I have been pondering, and I think it's an often overlooked one at that. If there was not one single thing in the infinite scale of reality itself to observe reality itself, what consequences would that have on reality? I wonder if an observer is a required part of the universe/ multiverse/ parallel dimensions, etc.

 

Its not overlooked in Copehagen. This interpretation evidently states that meaning comes with the observer.

 

I think so, perhaps it could "be" in it's own way, but if no one were ever there to observe it, and no one observed it to be there from elsewhere or in another fashion, then it had no meaning (if not as a required part for a bigger scene in which there is a observer).

Another thing that I have thought about, is that since no observer is there, time would travel infinitly fast since there would be no meaning to have time without an observer. The whole of the time of the universe would be there, but it would be over since no one was there to experiance it.

I also think that because we are aware, we are unique, cause there cannot be two persons in different places (like different universes even) as those two would experiance the same awareness and that just can't happen, being at two places at once.

I can stretch myself to think that two persons can share awareness on a different level, not different universes, but perhaps if they share their views and so on.


I've started other threads that dig deeper into these subjects:
Many Worlds
Twin Paradox

 

I'm old enough that I was taught about electron shells at school which I still prefer. OK, maybe not rings like Saturn but set (average) distances from nucleii. The outer electron shell gives the element it's properties. We still talk of electrons being moved to higher and lower levels which at least would mean a number of mainly spherical clouds/shells around the central nucleus.

If protons can move about so are only in probable positions (first I have heard of it), this would suggest a possibility where all could be in such a place so as to not have sufficient attraction for all of their electrons and so lose some. I would not find it impossible to believe that protons and neutrons in a nucleus could change from one form to another.

 

mmmm.... I don't know. What do you mean specifically K?

 

Reiku. A neutron left to it's own devices has a half life of 10.3 minutes yet somehow becomes stable in a nucleus. Why not have neutron-proton pairs in the nucleus where a neutron can decay into a proton and in doing so upgrade a proton into a neutron, which then decays back to a proton, etc? This could then suggest a possibility that even an atom's shell is not stable but that that swaps particles with the nucleus which ejects them out with set energies back into the shell as it takes in electrons. Overall random chance would mean that anything that managed to escape would be absorbed by surrounding atoms which in turn would release particles which that atom would catch to balance up.

Just idle conjecture.