-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Cosmic Observer
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
The enquiry may deepen like this.
The form is observed, the eye is the observer.
That (eye) is observed, the mind is the observer.
Mental activities are observed, the witness is the observer.
But that observer is not observed.
...
Is the observer really observed? Who will observe the observer?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yeah, I don't do videos. They waste far too much time. I'd rather read papers.
I've come across Linde. He seems to be one of those people who spends his time at the flaky end of cosmology, dreaming up untestable speculations and building castles in the air. He keeps changing his mind and none of this stuff has been adopted as established science. It is just his personal speculations. The notion of a wavefunction for the entire universe seems utterly unproductive and meaningless. These musings are not science but metaphysics.
I don't know whether you know Jim Baggott's book "Farewell to Reality", but it is a useful corrective to a lot of such things. Peter Woit's blog "Not Even Wrong" is another.
The business of science is to develop testable and predictive models of aspects of nature. When people stop connecting their idea to testable predictions, they cease to do science. That applies to Linde just as much as to you or to me.
gnostic
The Lost One
If you only want discussion, then you have posted your thread in the wrong forum, atanu.
There are sections for “Discussion”, only, and if you only want to debate with only people with same religion as yours, there is the “Same Faith Debates” section.
I don’t understand why you would put your topic in Science and Religion forum, and not discuss “science” at all.
Yes. The business of science is to develop testable hypotheses. But that does not mean that truth is limited by testability. It also does not mean that I must deny that my data, all my experiences, all my interpretations happen in consciousness. What is wrong if a physicist points that out?
You have used unkind words towards a hardcore physicist. I sense arrogance in your post as if you know physics better than Andrei Linde. I have seen this attitude with many posters here. Any scientist who points to the fact that our data exists in consciousness is ridiculed. Why is a scientist not allowed to think forward?
And, I did post material from three other scientists. Not all of them say what Linde says but I posted them as representative thoughts of eminent scientists on the matter.
...
Last edited:
In which forum this thread should go will be the decision of moderators. In the thread, diverse opinions and observations of 4 eminent scientists are included, a full paper is included. Did you study those and offer any scientific observations?
I am not looking for a debate towards a resolution. But we can always discuss in friendly ways the different opinions and the justifications. If you are averse to friendly interaction then we can ignore each other. At least I will do so.
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
There is a song sung that says "we didn't start the fire, it was always burning as the world was turning".
Yet science as an observer, consciousness says when gases were dark.
You are a bio life living inside of a heavenly gas mass, which you totally ignore as being relative.....real vite "quick".
Consciousness bio life owned only is a proven liar. Lying is part of conscious expression...why it was taught as being relative. So science cannot claim I know it all...for consciousness lies...as a totality of expressing "what is self observation".
Seeing the observation of self is first observed before you go about telling stories about what you believe.
The Laws inside of our gas mass....cold clear dark night time sky allows you to see what you did not see before in "consciousness", the light. The light does not allow you see anything other than a light atmospheric gas body.
However you observe using telescopic machines. What you see naturally is what is owned naturally, in the state natural. Another one of the lies of science...about observation. If you talk natural then you be natural in your observations.
Therefore you perceive your information through 2 known gas states, what is cooled and slower and what is light gases burning and faster.
Now if you said I see light in the cosmos as an observer, you would say it was burning....knowing that colder gases are not seen.
So you would claim the higher state in space not seen is cold gases.
If you light up those gases, they disappear and be removed....so light told you that it causes space to exist by burning.
Observation in its actuality. If you human bio life went just as a bio life....which you cannot as first observed law. MY consciousness cannot enter space as owner. Law, natural and naturally observed in presence.
Therefore if you said someone used me in a game of make believe and kicked me like a foot ball into out of space....I would be deceased. Answer to what you observe as an observation as and because of owning a conscious presence.
Then you would look at the next lineage, animals and know science is just a human WANT. And it is not human laws.
Yet science as an observer, consciousness says when gases were dark.
You are a bio life living inside of a heavenly gas mass, which you totally ignore as being relative.....real vite "quick".
Consciousness bio life owned only is a proven liar. Lying is part of conscious expression...why it was taught as being relative. So science cannot claim I know it all...for consciousness lies...as a totality of expressing "what is self observation".
Seeing the observation of self is first observed before you go about telling stories about what you believe.
The Laws inside of our gas mass....cold clear dark night time sky allows you to see what you did not see before in "consciousness", the light. The light does not allow you see anything other than a light atmospheric gas body.
However you observe using telescopic machines. What you see naturally is what is owned naturally, in the state natural. Another one of the lies of science...about observation. If you talk natural then you be natural in your observations.
Therefore you perceive your information through 2 known gas states, what is cooled and slower and what is light gases burning and faster.
Now if you said I see light in the cosmos as an observer, you would say it was burning....knowing that colder gases are not seen.
So you would claim the higher state in space not seen is cold gases.
If you light up those gases, they disappear and be removed....so light told you that it causes space to exist by burning.
Observation in its actuality. If you human bio life went just as a bio life....which you cannot as first observed law. MY consciousness cannot enter space as owner. Law, natural and naturally observed in presence.
Therefore if you said someone used me in a game of make believe and kicked me like a foot ball into out of space....I would be deceased. Answer to what you observe as an observation as and because of owning a conscious presence.
Then you would look at the next lineage, animals and know science is just a human WANT. And it is not human laws.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
I personally think the Nasadiya Sukta (RogVeda Mandala 10:129) holds a truth that has lasted over 3500 years - it is in the last part of the OP in blue text - no matter how much creationists may argue otherwise and scientists and others refute them - that - right there
I personally think the Nasadiya Sukta (RigVeda Mandala 10:129) holds a truth that has lasted over 3500 years - it is in the last part of the quotation in the (numbers 6 and 7) in the OP in blue text - my emphasis - no matter how much creationists may argue otherwise and scientists and others refute them - that - right there - IMHO - spells out the truth as it exists today - this is not about evolution - this is about the start of the Universe - "we just don't know" - 'nuff said
I personally think the Nasadiya Sukta (RigVeda Mandala 10:129) holds a truth that has lasted over 3500 years - it is in the last part of the quotation in the (numbers 6 and 7) in the OP in blue text - my emphasis - no matter how much creationists may argue otherwise and scientists and others refute them - that - right there - IMHO - spells out the truth as it exists today - this is not about evolution - this is about the start of the Universe - "we just don't know" - 'nuff said
Yeah. Even the Seer of so-called creation (the manifest universe is evident) may or may not know. That is what verse 7 says, IMO. And so the Veda posits the Seer of the manifest universe, as "na asat". The Seer is not untrue.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Nobody is claiming truth is limited to testability. On the contrary, truth is something rather different.
Nobody is claiming a scientist is not allowed to "think forward", whatever you mean by that. (Perhaps you mean "speculate"?)
However speculations untethered to testability are not a scientific theory. In my opinion, people such as Woit and Baggott perform a service by reminding us of that.
So, to return to the subject of this thread, my position remains that "pure science" does not have any theory implying a "cosmic observer".
Objects of consciousness
The full paper by Hoffman and Prakash is fortunately available. I am pasting below the abstract for a rapid read.
Using evolutionary games, the authors establish that the natural selection could not have favoured a consciousness geared towards finding the truth -- perception only guides the adaptive behaviour. Hoffman et al suggest, based on considerations of both quantum physics and evolutionary biology, a model of 'Conscious agents' with which they are able to arrive correctly at certain quantum predictions. They simply assign the physical parameters such as mass etc. to the conscious agents rather than to particles. The full paper is a fascinating read.
I am certainly not claiming that Hoffman, Linde, Paul Davies or Bernard Carr are 100% correct. But to share works and understanding of scientists who show us an alternative reality that may be better able to bridge the explanatory gap -- the difficulty that physicalist theories have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel when they are experienced.
...
The full paper by Hoffman and Prakash is fortunately available. I am pasting below the abstract for a rapid read.
Objects of consciousness
Donald D. Hoffman1* and
Chetan Prakash2
...
Donald D. Hoffman1* and
- 1Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
- 2Department of Mathematics, California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA
...
Using evolutionary games, the authors establish that the natural selection could not have favoured a consciousness geared towards finding the truth -- perception only guides the adaptive behaviour. Hoffman et al suggest, based on considerations of both quantum physics and evolutionary biology, a model of 'Conscious agents' with which they are able to arrive correctly at certain quantum predictions. They simply assign the physical parameters such as mass etc. to the conscious agents rather than to particles. The full paper is a fascinating read.
I am certainly not claiming that Hoffman, Linde, Paul Davies or Bernard Carr are 100% correct. But to share works and understanding of scientists who show us an alternative reality that may be better able to bridge the explanatory gap -- the difficulty that physicalist theories have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel when they are experienced.
...
exchemist
Veteran Member
Objects of consciousness
The full paper by Hoffman and Prakash is fortunately available. I am pasting below the abstract for a rapid read.
Objects of consciousness
Chetan Prakash2
Current models of visual perception typically assume that human vision estimates true properties of physical objects, properties that exist even if unperceived. However, recent studies of perceptual evolution, using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms, reveal that natural selection often drives true perceptions to extinction when they compete with perceptions tuned to fitness rather than truth: Perception guides adaptive behavior; it does not estimate a preexisting physical truth. Moreover, shifting from evolutionary biology to quantum physics, there is reason to disbelieve in preexisting physical truths: Certain interpretations of quantum theory deny that dynamical properties of physical objects have definite values when unobserved. In some of these interpretations the observer is fundamental, and wave functions are compendia of subjective probabilities, not preexisting elements of physical reality. These two considerations, from evolutionary biology and quantum physics, suggest that current models of object perception require fundamental reformulation. Here we begin such a reformulation, starting with a formal model of consciousness that we call a “conscious agent.” We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths. We sketch how this approach might extend to the perception of relativistic quantum objects, and to classical objects of macroscopic scale.
- 1Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
- 2Department of Mathematics, California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA
...
Using evolutionary games, the authors establish that the natural selection could not have favoured a consciousness geared towards finding the truth -- perception only guides the adaptive behaviour. Hoffman et al suggest, based on considerations of both quantum physics and evolutionary biology, a model of 'Conscious agents' with which they are able to arrive correctly at certain quantum predictions. They simply assign the physical parameters such as mass etc. to the conscious agents rather than to particles. The full paper is a fascinating read.
I am certainly not claiming that Hoffman, Linde, Paul Davies or Bernard Carr are 100% correct. But to share works and understanding of scientists who show us an alternative reality that may be better able to bridge the explanatory gap -- the difficulty that physicalist theories have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel when they are experienced.
...
This is yet more speculation untethered to observation, in a journal whose publisher (Frontiers Media) appeared on Beall's List, though its inclusion was admittedly controversial.
I'm afraid fail to see how attributing everything to "conscious agents" helps solve the (in my view imaginary) "explanatory gap". If everything is "conscious" you have just made life more difficult, because now you have to explain what "conscious" means in order to do any physics at all. As for the idea that objects don't exist unless observed, that just looks like a rehash of Bishop Berkeley and seems to me extraordinarily unhelpful in doing science.
I am perfectly sure that if you trawl the internet you can find a few handfuls of stuff like this. What you cannot argue, though, is that consciousness plays a role in any established theory of physics, or that there is any trend towards it doing so.
As for "physicalist science", that is a bogus concept. Physicalism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
Objects of consciousness
The full paper by Hoffman and Prakash is fortunately available. I am pasting below the abstract for a rapid read.
Objects of consciousnessUsing evolutionary games, the authors establish that the natural selection could not have favoured a consciousness geared towards finding the truth -- perception only guides the adaptive behaviour. Hoffman et al suggest, based on considerations of both quantum physics and evolutionary biology, a model of 'Conscious agents' with which they are able to arrive correctly at certain quantum predictions. They simply assign the physical parameters such as mass etc. to the conscious agents rather than to particles. The full paper is a fascinating read.
Chetan Prakash2
Current models of visual perception typically assume that human vision estimates true properties of physical objects, properties that exist even if unperceived. However, recent studies of perceptual evolution, using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms, reveal that natural selection often drives true perceptions to extinction when they compete with perceptions tuned to fitness rather than truth: Perception guides adaptive behavior; it does not estimate a preexisting physical truth. Moreover, shifting from evolutionary biology to quantum physics, there is reason to disbelieve in preexisting physical truths: Certain interpretations of quantum theory deny that dynamical properties of physical objects have definite values when unobserved. In some of these interpretations the observer is fundamental, and wave functions are compendia of subjective probabilities, not preexisting elements of physical reality. These two considerations, from evolutionary biology and quantum physics, suggest that current models of object perception require fundamental reformulation. Here we begin such a reformulation, starting with a formal model of consciousness that we call a “conscious agent.” We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths. We sketch how this approach might extend to the perception of relativistic quantum objects, and to classical objects of macroscopic scale.
- 1Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
- 2Department of Mathematics, California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA
...
I am certainly not claiming that Hoffman, Linde, Paul Davies or Bernard Carr are 100% correct. But to share works and understanding of scientists who show us an alternative reality that may be better able to bridge the explanatory gap -- the difficulty that physicalist theories have in explaining how physical properties give rise to the way things feel when they are experienced.
...
Donald Hoffman's study suggests that what we see (internally) of the external world is a dashboard and not the actual external world. Seeing the truth as it is can be inefficient and even fatal. His evolutionary model game shows that the 'Truth' cannot be the result of natural selection. Hoffman further proposes and constructs a model with inter-linked conscious agents to validate his thesis.
Science can never be absolutism -- those who accept or reject propositions and findings in absolute terms, in my opinion, are not of scientific temperament. So, I am not saying that Hoffman is correct. I am sharing with others that Hoffman has some data and findings that point to 'Observer' being intrinsic to the universe.
The opposition to this idea comes from those who have a very strong entrenched belief that there is an objective universe apart from the consciousness that cognises. Such folks, although claiming to be scientists, carry acid buckets ready to throw acid on anyone who even suggests an alternative view. But actually, a slight bit of calm thinking will allow one to see that nothing that we know directly or through report or nothing that we feel or imagine happens outside of consciousness. Subdue the 'mind-sense consciousness' and the self disappears and the world disappears -- as it happens in deep sleep.
There are three separate scientific findings that support Donald Hoffman's thesis that what we see of the universe is a dashboard and not the universe itself. These three works are listed below with short descriptions so that readers (if any) can drill deep themselves.
1. An experimental test of non-local realism
Simon Gröblacher et al. 2007 in 'An experimental test of non-local realism' destroy the hope for non-local realism -- that there is an objective reality independent of the observation itself.
2. Relational Quantum Mechanics
Physicist Carlo Rovelli in his relational quantum mechanics (RQM), shows that there should be no absolute, observer-independent physical quantities. All physical quantities—the whole physical universe—must be relative to the observer. The notion that we all share the same physical environment must, therefore, be an illusion.
It seems dangerously close to solipsism but it is not if seen from the perspective of ‘objective idealism’. Making sense of RQM by inferring that our surrounding environment is essentially mental—a view called ‘objective idealism’—avoids solipsism.
Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have validated RQM of Carlo Rovelli.
Experimental test of local observer-independence
I note that RQM essentially upholds the Copenhagen Interpretation. Thus this version of Quantum Mechanics suggests that there may well be no objective physical world. .
3. Cognitive Dynamics: From Attractors to Active Inference - IEEE Journals & Magazine
Karl Friston et al., 2014 have shown that, if an organism is to represent the states of the external environment in order to properly navigate this environment, it must do so in an encoded, inferential manner. If the organism were to simply mirror the states of the external environment in its own internal states, it would not be able to maintain its structural integrity. Perceptual encoding is necessary for the organism to resist entropy and thus remain alive.
…
The findings of the above three studies support each other but seen from the perspective of ‘realism’ seem weird. On the other hand, seen from the perspective of ‘objective idealism’ these three findings make sense.
YMMV.
Last edited:
As the presenter said, most physicists, ( 90% in my view) believe that observation can be done by any measurement system (like a thermometer) that can change it's state in a predictable manner when information about another system's property (a hot water bottle's heat energy) enters into it. Thus a thermometer can perform an observation... and that all there is to it regarding observation. Reading and doing physics myself, including teaching quantum mechanics at PG level... I agree with this majority view. Observation is no longer considered to pose much of a problem in physics now that information theory is reasonably well understood.You can listen to some real physicists instead of to me.Remember that I am not taking any side.
I agree. But did you also listen to the view of Paul Davies, Bernard Carr, and Linde as to why we are not to be considered objects of entanglement? Linde, in his talk, explains it well. I do not know whether you saw it or not. Even Alan Guth conveys a sense that the understanding we have now is, works but is not necessarily correct.
Furthermore, in the next few posts I have linked the works of Donald Hoffman, RQM of Carlo Rovelli, Simon Gröblacher on realism, and cognitive dynamics of Karl Friston. These suggest that the realism that we take for granted is misplaced, to say the least. What we perceive is a dashboard and not the actual universe, as per these studies.
...
I don't follow realism, I was only taking about whether measurement requires consciousness. I would disagree with Hoff saying measurement does not require consciousness, but I would agree with others in that realism is false in that reality is created only through "measurement-type" interactions and that there is no interaction independent state of reality out there.
Thus, the moon exists because of it being incessantly interacting or measured by the environment around it. But conscious observers like us need not be part of this interaction system for the moon to exist.
A good but technical reference
Quantum theory of the classical: quantum jumps, Born’s Rule and objective classical reality via quantum Darwinism
Last edited:
I don't follow realism, I was only taking about whether measurement requires consciousness. I would disagree with Hoff saying measurement does not require consciousness, but I would agree with others in that realism is false in that reality is created only through "measurement-type" interactions and that there is no interaction independent state of reality out there.
Thus, the moon exists because of it being incessantly interacting or measured by the environment around it. But conscious observers like us need not be part of this interaction system for the moon to exist.
A good but technical reference
Quantum theory of the classical: quantum jumps, Born’s Rule and objective classical reality via quantum Darwinism
I miss your point. If you reject realism then you are already accepting that the observed classical cosmos is because of observation. Now, do you want to say that the sun, moon, star etc. are all seen by inert recorders and cameras?
I cannot conceive that. We may agree to differ.
I point out that by the word consciousness I do not mean individual conscious at all. In objective idealism, mind or consciousness is the basis that pervades and illumines all forms. We share such a consciousness. The mind of the objective idealism is not an individual mind.I will go by the arguments of Hoffman, Davies, Linde, Carr and others. Some of them have pointed out that two billiards balls may interact but to know that interaction has taken place, the competence for discernment must exist — and actually consciousness is given in any situation. What really changes in experiments like the double-slit or delayed choice is the decision/choice of the experimenter. How is that ‘choice’ factored in? Apparently currently the computations can give correct results by factoring in entanglement. But the fact is that the experimenter has made a choice and interpreted the results.
Linde and others point this out only. As Linde explains in his Closer to truth interview “I must also be included in the system”. Without including ‘us’ the cosmological model cannot ever be complete.
Linde is clear that quantum cosmological model of the cosmos has to be seen as two: one the observed and another the observer, else the quantum wave function will generate a dead, inert, unchanging cosmos.
But all these discussions apart, I do not have any doubt from Godel’s Incompleteness theorem point of view that either the ‘I awareness’ is an ontological primitive consciousness of infinite capability or if consciousness is born of mechanism ( as some in science aver) then there will remain unsolvable problems in mathematics and physics.
...
Synthesising currently available scientific data, an ‘objective idealistic’ worldview seems easier to explain and seems more parsimonious. To some extent, Hoffman’s work is a step in that direction — they introduce ‘conscious agents’ into their model and then derive the outcomes. Hoffman et al claim, in their peer-reviewed paper, that it works. Contrast this with the main point of Linde that without partitioning the cosmos into the observer and the observer, the wave function generates a dead universe.
...
I have typed a lot on phone - an achievement. Pardon me any mistake.
Last edited:
I read the text only. I skipped the math, which as such I will not understand without devoting much time. I liked this paper.
The paper tries to explain the transition from quantum to classical states, recognizing the role of the environment. The methodology is built upon Everett's ‘relative state interpretation’, with certain modifications to include environment and preferred states (choice?) in the scheme.
The author begins with the derivation of preferred sets of states that help to define what exists in our everyday classical reality. This derivation, the author explains, accounts for the appearance of quantum jumps and the emergence of preferred pointer states consistent with those obtained via environment-induced superselection, or einselection. In a completely quantum Universe (Everrett's formulation), one is forced to seek sets of preferred, effectively classical but ultimately quantum, states that can define what exists and that allow observers to keep reliable records.
The author then says that the preferred quantum states defined by the einselection are still ultimately quantum. Therefore, they cannot be found out by initially ignorant observers through direct measurement without getting disrupted (reprepared). Yet, the states of macroscopic systems in our everyday world seem to exist objectively. So, according to the author, if we are to explain the emergence of everyday objective classical reality, we need to identify the quantum origin of objective existence.
The author further says "In decoherence theory, the environment is the collection of degrees of freedom where quantum coherence (and hence phase information) is lost. However, in ‘real-life’, the role of the environment is in effect that of a witness to the state of the system of interest, and a communication channel through which the information reaches us, the observers. This mechanism for the emergence of the classical objective reality is the subject of the theory of quantum Darwinism.".
In contrast to classical physics (where unknown states can be found out by an initially ignorant observer), the quantum axiom limits the predictive attributes of the state compared with what they were in the classical domain. Measurement outcomes are limited to eigenstates of the measured observable and in any given run of a measurement, an outcome is just one such state. As per the author, although Everett settled (or at least bypassed) the ‘collapse’ part of the problem with the premise 'an observer perceives the state of the rest of the Universe relative to his/her records', quantum states actually do not exist objectively, as in the classical domain.
The author further discusses that while Bohr gave primacy to perception leading to collapse, Everett’s alternative to Bohr’s approach was to abandon the literal collapse and recognize that, once the observer is included in the wave function, one can consistently interpret the consequences of such correlations. The author says that with Everett, we land into 'basis ambiguity'. Consequently, before there is an (apparent) collapse in the sense of Everett, a set of preferred states—one of which is selected by (or, at the very least, consistent with) the observer’s records—must be chosen. There is nothing in the writings of Everett that would even hint that he was aware of basis ambiguity and the questions it leads to.
For the current work, the author says "Surprisingly enough, deducing preferred states from our ‘quantum credo’ turns out to be simple. The possibility of repeated confirmation of an outcome is all that is needed to establish an effectively classical domain within the quantum Universe and to define events such as measurement outcomes."
Then follows a quantum mechanical application that I cannot get my teeth into -- and is not required for my purpose.
In summary, the author shows how the classical domain of our experience emerges from the quantum substrate through derivation of preferred pointer states and the envariant derivation of probabilities and finally through quantum Darwinism -- which is as stated before is the inclusion of the environment. The author notes that although Everett approach of relative states formed the basis of the work, Everett offers no element of 'preferred outcome'. In Everett's formulation, all outcomes are equally probable.
Finally, the author cites 'it from many bits -- where information was the source of existence' of John Wheeler to conclude that interdependence of existence and information was the main finding.
The author begins with the derivation of preferred sets of states that help to define what exists in our everyday classical reality. This derivation, the author explains, accounts for the appearance of quantum jumps and the emergence of preferred pointer states consistent with those obtained via environment-induced superselection, or einselection. In a completely quantum Universe (Everrett's formulation), one is forced to seek sets of preferred, effectively classical but ultimately quantum, states that can define what exists and that allow observers to keep reliable records.
The author then says that the preferred quantum states defined by the einselection are still ultimately quantum. Therefore, they cannot be found out by initially ignorant observers through direct measurement without getting disrupted (reprepared). Yet, the states of macroscopic systems in our everyday world seem to exist objectively. So, according to the author, if we are to explain the emergence of everyday objective classical reality, we need to identify the quantum origin of objective existence.
The author further says "In decoherence theory, the environment is the collection of degrees of freedom where quantum coherence (and hence phase information) is lost. However, in ‘real-life’, the role of the environment is in effect that of a witness to the state of the system of interest, and a communication channel through which the information reaches us, the observers. This mechanism for the emergence of the classical objective reality is the subject of the theory of quantum Darwinism.".
In contrast to classical physics (where unknown states can be found out by an initially ignorant observer), the quantum axiom limits the predictive attributes of the state compared with what they were in the classical domain. Measurement outcomes are limited to eigenstates of the measured observable and in any given run of a measurement, an outcome is just one such state. As per the author, although Everett settled (or at least bypassed) the ‘collapse’ part of the problem with the premise 'an observer perceives the state of the rest of the Universe relative to his/her records', quantum states actually do not exist objectively, as in the classical domain.
The author further discusses that while Bohr gave primacy to perception leading to collapse, Everett’s alternative to Bohr’s approach was to abandon the literal collapse and recognize that, once the observer is included in the wave function, one can consistently interpret the consequences of such correlations. The author says that with Everett, we land into 'basis ambiguity'. Consequently, before there is an (apparent) collapse in the sense of Everett, a set of preferred states—one of which is selected by (or, at the very least, consistent with) the observer’s records—must be chosen. There is nothing in the writings of Everett that would even hint that he was aware of basis ambiguity and the questions it leads to.
For the current work, the author says "Surprisingly enough, deducing preferred states from our ‘quantum credo’ turns out to be simple. The possibility of repeated confirmation of an outcome is all that is needed to establish an effectively classical domain within the quantum Universe and to define events such as measurement outcomes."
Then follows a quantum mechanical application that I cannot get my teeth into -- and is not required for my purpose.
In summary, the author shows how the classical domain of our experience emerges from the quantum substrate through derivation of preferred pointer states and the envariant derivation of probabilities and finally through quantum Darwinism -- which is as stated before is the inclusion of the environment. The author notes that although Everett approach of relative states formed the basis of the work, Everett offers no element of 'preferred outcome'. In Everett's formulation, all outcomes are equally probable.
Finally, the author cites 'it from many bits -- where information was the source of existence' of John Wheeler to conclude that interdependence of existence and information was the main finding.
My understanding could be faulty but I understand the following to be the key points:
- The paper tries to explain the transition from quantum to classical states, recognizing the role of the environment. The methodology is built upon Everett's ‘relative state interpretation’, with certain modifications to include environment and 'preferred states' (choice?) in the scheme.
- In decoherence theory, the environment is the collection of degrees of freedom where quantum coherence (and hence phase information) is lost. However, in ‘real-life’, the role of the environment is in effect that of a witness to the state of the system of interest, and a communication channel through which the information reaches us, the observers. This mechanism for the emergence of the classical objective reality is the subject of the theory of quantum Darwinism.
- Use of postulate 'Immediate repetition of measurement yields the same outcome' for deriving 'the preferred states', in the paper, seems to me to be a route to include conscious observer's consistent experience.
- The methodology includes fragmenting the system into the observed and the observer among which information excange happens.
- Information and its exchange is the source of existence.
...
Last edited:
I think you provided a good summary. In a nutshell, I think the paper says that the environment in which a system is immersed in is constantly "measuring" the system countless number of times, and out of this innumerable micro-measurement type interactiobs, the classical property values, that we traditionally characterize the system's reality by, emergent. So reality is emergent from system-environment interactions and does not exist without such interactions.
The quantum theory as is understood here is very close to the dependent-origination-flux model that Buddha proposed about reality.