I have been pardoned. I will not post anything conscious-related in the physics ever again. My original post Should consciousness have a place in physics? For many years, a little over 9 years I have studied what quantum mechanics has had to say about consciousness. In light of this area of science many developments have been made which attempt to talk about consciousness in terms of experiencing time, (which may include) space and energy. I could talk about many idea's here, but that was not my goal for this post. I want to ask the scientists here what there opinion is on whether science will actually need to explain consciousness. In other words, do you think consciousness is a phenomenon outside of physics, or as a general theory of everything, will it need to account for consciousness? Andre Linde has asked a similar question. In fact, many top scientists to mark have asked similar questions. CapatinBork stated The answer to your question is "no", to date there's still no experimental grounds for such fantasies. Please refrain from quoting Fred Alan Wolf. Kthxbye I would like the rest who are interested on this subject to participate.
Kwilborn stated I think the main answer you will get here is no, however I would say consciousness does belong. This is not an original debate, and the debate itself is called. "Quantum mind–body problem" (link below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem I think the consensus from Sciforums will be consciousness does not cause collapse, but some theories depend on that andntil any are proven then it would be unethical to close those patterns of thought.
Over the next few days, I will myself post some implications of quantum mechanics. The biggest idea I have had recently involves choice and the collapse of the wave function. I even have a slight mathematical representation for this as well. Before any of this comes about, I will ask: ''Having a choice is similar to having a superpositioning of values in which no choice is found until it has transpired and will be an analog to the collapse, then atleast mathematically surely that when we do decide upon something, all other choices collapse to reveal one single outcome?''
One major part of understanding the possibility of choices as the possibilities of states is that free will can be understood in terms of a non-deterministic wave function. However, if one is to believe there is no such thing as a free will, then the same wave function which describes possibilities inherent inside our own heads is the same as believing the state vector is described by Pilot Waves.
Does it not already have a place or role? Has physics been conducted in the emptiness of blindsight, deafhearing, and anesthesia touch all these centuries? "Yes, these are indeed some astounding results that came out of your team's recent non-manifested experiment. I'll take this non-manifested work down to the non-manifested peer review department immediately!" "Watch out, Dirac, there goes an invisible theoretical construct in your blank thoughts -- apprehend it before it gets away!"
Not according to biassed Sciforums moderators. cough prometheus, Note: A complaint thread about prometheus was started here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2868461#post2868461 (I didn't even start it) about prometheus. feel free to chime in. I'd like to keep that thread active as long as the "What makes fart sounds" lasted in the science forum. It's fine to talk about any pidly subject there, but if something interesting pops up then any idiot mod can throw it into the cesspool, where this topic was thrown btw. by (cough) prometheus.
All outcomes would eventually happen, the probable ones more often. One has to be careful what ends up in one's repertoire, such as some rare bad action.
The state of a system, indeed any system, whether that be described as being tangible ''outside'' or even the construction of the incorporeal inside, that of subjective experience should be described by a state vector, given as \(|\Psi>\). The state of a vector is the overall description of the possibilities that may arise when a collapse of the wave function has appeared. The collapse of the wave function happens upon a measurement. Observable's are resultant from measurements. Observables in the language of quantum mechanics are Hermitian Matrices which means it will produce a real number. The definition, in totally mathematical terms right now, is given by the following. \(<a| M^{\dagger}|b>^{*}\) where the <a| is acting like a complex conjugate, in fact, this has been complex conjugated where all rows and columns have been interchanged. Incidently, M on <a| will give you a vector, but M and <a| after this onto |b> will give you a number. It won't give you a vector in this case, it's just a number. So you get from \(<b|M|a>\) to the expression \(<a| M^{\dagger}|b>^{*}\) by complex conjugating it. In fact, if it is Hermitian you can now state it as \(<b|M|a> = <a| M|b>^{*}\) where we have just erased the conjugation dagger sign. This just means it is equal to it's Hermitian conjugate. This is the true definition of the meaning of Hermitian. Now the wave function, the ''configuration'' of states of a system describes all possible solutions which may or may not occur for a system. A photon bouncing of a mirror does not take one path alone, in fact, will take every angle possible to account for the wave function which smears every possibility over a given region. Given a large enough region, you may even call it infinite. And now, given all this information, I ask, what is a set of possibilities, if not the analog of such a wave function? In fact, as history goes, when phsyicists realized that a wave function existed, they believed it was a product of the mind, simply, just a way for us to catalogue the events. This subjective idea of the wave function soon diminished and we realized atleast in principle, there was something physical behind this [1]. However, if we take the basic idea of the wave function seriously, then it should not be bound to physical objects alone. That even subjective experiences may be subject to such a phenomenon as well. Suppose that every experience is ruled by a wave of possibilities, given as \(\Psi\). This description will state that before anything has been resolved by the action of a human being, or maybe even by thought, the wave function itself will be spread among many different possibilities. The probability of finding any one of those experiences, or thoughts or actions result in a collapse of the wave function, traditionally given by the probability postulate as \(\mathbf{Tr} \rho = \mathcal{1}\) The density matrix here, in case anyone jumps down my throat, is given by the unit matric which will give a Hermitian Operator, which is by definition as we have covered, an observable. The trace is simply the sum over all possible Eigenstates given as \(\lambda_i\) where \(i = (1,2...n)\). In quantum mechanics, rather than applying matrix mechanics, we will find the probability of a system to be \(\int_{\Omega} |\psi|^2\) Where \(\Omega\) is our boundary [2]. The real crux of this arguement, is that consciousness, the acts of consciousness or/and the conscious acts of decisions are subject to collapses of the wave function. You could have the choice of turning two playing cards over that have been placed in front of you. Those cards will be represented by a wave function: \(|\Psi> = \frac{1}{2}i|A> + \frac{1}{2}|B>\) This will, not in a physical sense, but a subjective sense describe the possibilities that may arise from either state which depend on their orientation to each state in the complex plane. Upon measurement, of either playing card in the subjective subliminal sense will yeild the value upon the measurement of either card to account for the collapse of the wave function postulate. So, it can easily be shown that somehow probabilities and the wave function generally describe the actions of choice and will have perhaps massive implications to the philosophical arguements between, determinism vs indeterminism. [1] - I provided evidence recently that the wave function was physical when pressed by alphanumeric. [2] - In dirac notation \(<\psi_n|\psi_m> = 0\) unless psi_m and psi_n correspond to the same eigenvectors.
Arguing that the wave function cannot physically describe consciousness will be a valid arguement. Arguing that the wave function cannot describe consciousness period, will not.
I want to apologize upfront if no one here so far who may read this does not understand the quantum mechanics of quantum entanglement, but this paper is considered important http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/Bass_1.pdf Is there one consciousness? And yes, CPTbork, don't wet your pants, I know I have now cited a page cited by the one and only Fred Wolf. It's not his work however, it is by a student of the Legendary Schroedinger!
Wolf and the rest of the characters from his bygone clique, the Fundamental Fysiks Group, actually got their flag waved briefly, earlier in the year at physorg.com: Hippie days: How a handful of countercultural scientists changed the course of physics in the 1970s ...David Kaiser asserts in his new book, 'How the Hippies Saved Physics', published this month by W.W. Norton, the group’s members actually helped to steer physics in a new direction: They revived scientific interest in the puzzling foundations of quantum mechanics, provided new insights about entanglement, and laid the intellectual groundwork for the field of quantum information science, which today produces cutting-edge computing and encryption research...
If anyone here has had the pleasure of speaking to Mr. Wolf, anyone with any scientific crudentials will know how informed he is. He is an enigma!
More people watch over psuedo than it is here... is there a reason? I will dispatch parts of this to other parts in hope of a true discussion.
I doubt it. Consciousness is a higher-level phenomenon than the ones physics normally deals with. Unless there is something fundamental about consciousness, that is... I don't think it has very much to say about that at all. Got any references I can look at? Since physics is the base science, no science is outside physics. Consciousness is a phenomenon associated with physical things (people etc.), so it most likely has a physical explanation. That explanation is likely to be complicated though, and better framed in terms of neurons and brains than in terms of fundamental particles.
