0n0w1c

if the universe is deterministic and evolution is true and concious beings as part of the universe are aware of the universe and it is perceptions which collapse the wave functions of the universe which quantifies the states of the universe, does the universe then define it's own existence?
in other words, does the deterministic nature of the universe determine it's perception which defines it's self?

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]

I changed the thread's title to be more consistant with my line of thought.

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]</p>

Synaesthesia

I would be aware of the dangers of falling into the fallacy of composition. Because a candle is burning in my house does not mean my house can accurately be described as burning.


The collapse of the wavefunction is a predictable result of quantum systems. Predictible within the confines of the theory which requires no reference to an "observer".

One-eyed Jack

Synaesthesia, I think I agree with your collapse-of-the-wavefunction statement. The subject is surrounded by what Murray Gell-Mann called "quantum flapdoodle," ie a bunch of probably unwarranted mysticism. A bit of elaboration: according to some theories the wavefunction collapses as soon as a quantum event engenders a quasi-classical one: as soon as the decay of a radioactive atom makes a microscopic track in a crystal of mica the event is no longer subject to any degree of quantum uncertainty. The wavefunction has collapsed.

Even if a conscious observer does not find and observe the track in the mica crystal for millions of years, the collapse of the wavefunction is a done deal. On that picture a conscious observer is unnecessary.

Sure you can't prove that view, or the other view (that the track exists in quantum superposition until observed). That's 'cause you can't do an experiment without at some point observing the results. But it's just like the old tree-in-the-forest puzzler: of course a tree falling unobserved makes a noise. The laws of physics demand it. The laws of physics just as surely demand that the particle from a radioactive decay leave a track in a crystal of mica at the time of the decay.

Therefore, despite the theory of venerable John Wheeler, it seems to me that the universe at large most likely does not depend on a conscious observer. If the universe was birthed in a quantum event the consequences of that birth entered the large-scale, quasiclassical realm 12 to 16 billion years ago. Just like the tree in the forest and the track in the mica, it was a done deal long before there were conscious observers to watch it.

But there might be a greater problem with positing a 'conscious' universe: I don't think it's sensible to talk about a conscious entity which spans frames of reference which can never, even in theory, influence each other. (The part of the universe inside a black hole's event horizon cannot interact with the rest of the universe, for instance; and the unknown percentage of the universe beyond the horizon of visibility is likewise forever cut off from communication with the part of the universe we live in--even the fastest signal, travelling at the speed of light, will never be able to reach us.)

Can a consciousness exist without any possible communication or interaction between some--perhaps the vast majority--of its parts?

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: One-eyed Jack ]</p>

Kharakov

Gravity "propagation" is synchronous. So all of the matter in the universe makes one huge diverse gravitational field. The gravitational field of a galaxy could be developed enough that it could be somewhat conscious- and detect other galaxies through interaction with their gravitational force.

I see it as much more likely that gravitational force is the means of consciousness for large scale conscious entities. I also think it is likely that these entities could not even conceive of the interactions of matter at our level. It would probably appear to be completly random to them when humans finally start manipulating gravitational fields (even by moving around chunks of matter). hehe, get them all flustered, like us and the apparently random behavior of quantum mechanics.

This is all WILD speculation though .

-k

Ierrellus

OnOw1c,

IMO, only genetically prescribed dynamic systems display the phenomenon of consciousness, which entails awareness. (see excreationist's fine distinction between informational processing systems that are aware and those that are not.)

Ierrellus
PAX

Answerer

Well, if the universe has awareness, no doubt it will try to 'communicate' with us.

0n0w1c

i do not see that the universe as a whole is aware, but i believe animate beings such as ourselves are aware. we are a deterministic product which is composed of a part of the universe.

so an aware-less universe through determinnisitc events, awareness comes to be, which collapses wave functions that define the state of the universe. thus the awareness of a component of the universe defines the states of the universe or some portion of the universe.

i agree that it appears logically that observation is not required for functions to collapse, the universe did exist before an observer existed (hmm, nah...) but if not observed then all possibilities exist simultaniously thus the universe is not defined, it is all things in all states.

not that the universe "causes" this occur, just that it seems to have happened. a self-defining universe...

just one of those late friday night mind traps i get myself into... help me! i've fallen and i can't get up!

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: 0n0w1c ]</p>

0n0w1c

jack, would you (or someone) elaborate on this more...

"...a quantum event engenders a quasi-classical one..."?
a quantum event "causes" a quasi-classical one.. what is quasi-classical?

are you saying quantum events "cause" classical events? i thought classical events were more like "manifestations" of multiple quantum events.

i am fairly ignorant on these topics. interesting but require a more brain power than i seem to have... but i am trying.

One-eyed Jack

Karakhov: "Gravity 'propagation' is synchronous..."

Gravity propagates at the speed of light. In smoothly-varying systems like our solar system the laws of physics force the vector of gravitational attraction to advance such that the vector always points to the apparent instantandous position of the attractor. For example, the Earth is always attracted to the Sun's instantaneous position in space despite the fact that if the Sun were to miraculously disappear it would take some 8 minutes for the change in gravitational attraction to be 'felt' by the Earth.

It's a deep subject and isn't treated at all in the first-year college physics texts I've seen. Newtonian gravity does indeed treat propagation as instantaneous (which troubled Newton greatly) but it was known by about 1900 that the conservation laws would be broken if the electrostatic and/or the gravitational forces propagated instantaneously, and mathematics forcing the aberration I described were well in place.

Like I said, it's a tough subject. Here's a link to a stronger explanation than I can hope to give, including some mathematics: <a href="http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-08/6-08.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-08/6-08.htm</a>.

There's a non-technical paper on the subject at <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html" target="_blank">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html</a>

Finally, the noted loony ex-astronomer Tom Van Flandern has proposed that gravity does propagate at greater than the speed of light, and Steve Carlip took the trouble to write a formal refutation of Van Flandern's work--I'll try to dig up a link, it's available on a physics preprint server somewhere, I know. Basically, though, every physicist I have emailed or whose work I have read says Van Flandern is wrong--formally, frontally, and mathematically.

Sorry to be so long-winded. This particular quirk of physics is not at all intuitive or obvious, though, so it bears some explaining!
-----------

0n0w1c: a little more on quantum versus quasiclassical.

As I understand it, an event like the precise moment a radioactive atom decays is governed by quantum probability: you cannot say, even if you knew every possible characteristic of an individual atom, that it would decay in precisely 23.5619 seconds. I'm not a physicist, but let's say that an alpha particle is produced in this decay, and that it shoots off in a random direction: like the moment of decay, you cannot even in theory predict which direction the particle goes.

The moment of decay and the direction taken by the particle are governed by quantum probability, not by classical ("Newtonian") mechanics.

By contrast, given the velocity, mass, and motions of balls on a pool table we can predict very precisely how the balls will interact--which balls will move in certain directions when struck by another ball.

The pool balls are macroscopic objects and are said to be governed by "quasiclassical" mechanics. Why "quasiclassical"? Because there remains a minute quantum uncertainty: there is a finite possiblity that one of the balls will suddenly move one inch to the left due to quantum effects. Mind you, such an event is so unlikely that one would probably have to wait something like a billion times the current lifetime of the universe to have a 50% chance of witnessing it, but the chance exists.

OK, to tie it together: in Gell-Mann's view (if I remember his book accurately) once a quantum-indeterminate event like the emission of an alpha particle from an atom during radioactive decay affects a large-scale system which has virtually no quantum uncertainty associated with it--a pool ball, a crystal of mica--then the uncertainty virtually disappears. On the probability-wave picture, the escaping alpha particle has a wave-shaped probability curve describing its position, but that wave 'collapses' as soon as the track in the mica begins to form: the event is fixed.

I have to say that not everyone agrees with this. Some maintain that a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the probability wavefunction. I happen to find Gell-Mann's explanation more satisfying.

But I ain't no expert! So have a grain of salt or two, amigo!