How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What always bugs me about these experiment explanations is that there is always not just two observers .. there's always another one observing the likes of both Wigner and his friend and its that one who is always preserving the objective reality. Its assumed that the third person (Ie: the passive narrator of the experiment .. Carroll .. an Everettian) is already part of the objective reality under test .. which completely undermines the whole purpose of the experiment.

I'm not sure objective reality needs preserving, it's the interpretation of that reality by conscious observers that's important to conscious observers - we like our shared objective reality to be consistent - and to establish that means comparing experiences.

Also, as was pointed out, a quantum measurement or observation occurs when a quantum system in superposition interacts with the environment and the superposition decoheres, leaving a record in the environment. Photons that interact in isolation just become entangled (with each other), but are not making a measurement - unless and until they interact with the environment.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm not sure objective reality needs preserving, it's the interpretation of that reality by conscious observers that's important to conscious observers - we like our shared objective reality to be consistent - and to establish that means comparing experiences.

I have no problems with what you're saying there, but I am not so sure about many of Carroll's statements in his 'Reality Remains Intact' essay. He clearly states that he 'thinks' that objective reality (truly?) exists, although not for the same reasons I'm laying out.
I'm not fully clear how/whether his self-declared belief there, affects the direction he lays out in that article, (which I find disappointing ... especially coming from him .. I think he should be declaring his self-check-in tests about that belief and the ensuing results).

Also, as was pointed out, a quantum measurement or observation occurs when a quantum system in superposition interacts with the environment and the superposition decoheres, leaving a record in the environment. Photons that interact in isolation just become entangled (with each other), but are not making a measurement - unless and until they interact with the environment.

... maybe .. Its certainly a reasonable and a currently popular interpretation.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure objective reality needs preserving, it's the interpretation of that reality by conscious observers that's important to conscious observers - we like our shared objective reality to be consistent - and to establish that means comparing experiences.

Also, as was pointed out, a quantum measurement or observation occurs when a quantum system in superposition interacts with the environment and the superposition decoheres, leaving a record in the environment. Photons that interact in isolation just become entangled (with each other), but are not making a measurement - unless and until they interact with the environment.

This is where Henry Stapp for example disagrees with that interpretation that the environment or measuring device is what is colapsing the wave function when he argues that

“From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is where Henry Stapp for example disagrees with that interpretation that the environment or measuring device is what is colapsing the wave function when he argues that

“From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device… Our bodies and brains thus become…parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation.

I don't agree with some of the ideas Stapp has proposed, but what you quote there is simply the post-Early Copenhagen view of quantum measurement, moving from treating the measurement apparatus as a classical system to treating it as a quantum system. The last sentence just echoes Everett's now generally accepted 'Universal Wave Function' idea from 1956...

Perhaps you could explain how it contradicts my post?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have no problems with what you're saying there, but I am not so sure about many of Carroll's statements in his 'Reality Remains Intact' essay. He clearly states that he 'thinks' that objective reality (truly?) exists, although not for the same reasons I'm laying out.
I'm not fully clear how/whether his self-declared belief there, affects the direction he lays out in that article, (which I find disappointing ... especially coming from him .. I think he should be declaring his self-check-in tests about that belief and the ensuing results).

AIUI, he thinks that reality is a vector in Hilbert space, modeled by a (universal) wave function. QM describes how the wave function behaves.

Different observers are, of course, part of that wavefunction, but have a limited and partial view of it. What may appear, to naive observers, to be conflicting accounts of quantum measurements, are always (to date!) found to correspond to the predictions of QM, and so in accord with objective reality.

As for what he means by 'objective reality', this blog post gives a reasonable description (though not actually his!).

... maybe .. Its certainly a reasonable and a currently popular interpretation.

The relevant bit really concerns a reasonable definition of when a 'measurement' is made, whether your interpretation involves wave function collapse or not - i.e. it's when a definite outcome can be observed, which implies that superposition interference is no longer possible, which means decoherence, which means a definite macroscopic record has been made.

 

[SelfSim]

AIUI, he thinks that reality is a vector in Hilbert space, modeled by a (universal) wave function. QM describes how the wave function behaves.

Different observers are, of course, part of that wavefunction, but have a limited and partial view of it. What may appear, to naive observers, to be conflicting accounts of quantum measurements, are always (to date!) found to correspond to the predictions of QM, and so in accord with objective reality.

Hmm .. a QM led 'recovery', as far as he's concerned ..

The underlined

As for what he means by 'objective reality', this blog post gives a reasonable description (though not actually his!).

I think I like, (maybe even concur with), the gist of this blog post, except for Cole's: 'I’m really tired of other people telling me what my words mean'. He/she can't reasonably claim to have an absolute knowledge of the meaning of those words .. especially operationally defined ones.

The relevant bit really concerns a reasonable definition of when a 'measurement' is made, whether your interpretation involves wave function collapse or not - i.e. it's when a definite outcome can be observed, which implies that superposition interference is no longer possible, which means decoherence, which means a definite macroscopic record has been made.

The same would possibly apply in the case of a human observation .. with the exception that our senses are doing what they do, in a largely unconstrained environment we call 'a mind'. We are constantly bombarded simultaneously with abundant information, from abundant uncorrelated sources. Our minds seem to specialise in distinguishing and organising desired/selected streams (patterns) of information from a noisy background in the form of (presumably) superpositions of already collapsed wavefunctions ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think I like, (maybe even concur with), the gist of this blog post, except for Cole's: 'I’m really tired of other people telling me what my words mean'. He/she can't reasonably claim to have an absolute knowledge of the meaning of those words .. especially operationally defined ones.

Perhaps what he really means is that he's really tired of people telling him what he means by the words he uses - although I hesitate to put words in his mouth

The same would possibly apply in the case of a human observation .. with the exception that our senses are doing what they do, in a largely unconstrained environment we call 'a mind'. We are constantly bombarded simultaneously with abundant information, from abundant uncorrelated sources. Our minds seem to specialise in distinguishing and organising desired/selected streams (patterns) of information from a noisy background in the form of (presumably) superpositions of already collapsed wavefunctions ..

I don't know what you mean by "superpositions of already collapsed wavefunctions". A wavefunction is in a superposition until it collapses...

Nevertheless, superposed wavefunctions from the outside world won't reach our brains - collapse due to 'measurement' occurs long before that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK I will simply things. These are the papers I linked several times now supporting the idea that there is no objective reality and that the subject/observer has an influence on reality.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
This is the paper the above report is talking about which is linked within the report
Experimental test of local observer independence
Experimental test of local observer independence

Facts are Relative: The extended Wigner’s friend experiment
https://vrs.amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/92/2021/01/paviour_alex_vrs-report.pdf

Incidentally, I just came across Sabine Hossenfelder's recent video on whether consciousness influences quantum effects - it's well worth watching. I would strongly recommend her book "Existential Physics", which covers a lot of the questions we discuss on these forums. I don't always agree with her commentary, but her physics is impeccable and her conclusions impartial.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't know what you mean by "superpositions of already collapsed wavefunctions". A wavefunction is in a superposition until it collapses...

The superposition principle is not limited to just QM wavefunctions.

Nevertheless, superposed wavefunctions from the outside world won't reach our brains - collapse due to 'measurement' occurs long before that.

.. (thank goodness!) I agree that particular model leads to more practical outcomes than the alternative one of acting only in a QM domain. Arguably, most of the highly successful medical sciences rely on the brain as being modelled as a semi-open thermodynamic (classical) system, with several barriers separating it from other thermodynamic systems (including its surroundings). Compare this with any tanglible (or even claimed) usefulness of considering a (brain facilitated) mind, being distributed amongst a most likely uncountable infinite number of universe possibilities! Its also doubtful that our minds even would fit into such a 'super' universe(?)

(However, its also likely our brain chemistry's emergent mind also relies on sub-atomic QM behaviours in achieving its ToE level conceived purpose).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The superposition principle is not limited to just QM wavefunctions.

OK, what did you have in mind?

.. (thank goodness!) I agree that particular model leads to more practical outcomes than the alternative one of acting only in a QM domain. Arguably, most of the highly successful medical sciences rely on the brain as being modelled as a semi-open thermodynamic (classical) system, with several barriers separating it from other thermodynamic systems (including its surroundings). Compare this with any tanglible (or even claimed) usefulness of considering a (brain facilitated) mind, being distributed amongst a most likely uncountable infinite number of universe possibilities! Its also doubtful that our minds even would fit into such a 'super' universe(?)

?? I was suggesting that an isolated system in a coherent quantum superposition, e.g. a photon, would collapse & decohere long before reaching the brain; but If you're referring to a 'Many Worlds'-like interpretation, that decoherence would mean the environment had effectively joined the superposition (making it no longer coherent and so unable to interfere). This decohered superposition would spread out, encompassing observers and their brains, so there would be no problem of a single mind distributed among multiple universes - the body & brain would be in a superposition of having encountered each outcome, but the 'branches' of the superposition could not interfere with each other in any way because of the decoherence. There would effectively be two separate observers on two separate, non-interacting 'branches' of the universal wavefunction. That's what the unadorned QM formalism seems to imply.

But I get the feeling I may have misunderstood what you meant...

(However, its also likely our brain chemistry's emergent mind also relies on sub-atomic QM behaviours in achieving its ToE level conceived purpose).

Certainly, as chemistry relies on QM. It's possible that higher-level, macro-scale QM effects could be involved, perhaps as processing optimizations, but there's currently no reason to think that's the case.

 

[stevevw]

I don't agree with some of the ideas Stapp has proposed, but what you quote there is simply the post-Early Copenhagen view of quantum measurement, moving from treating the measurement apparatus as a classical system to treating it as a quantum system. The last sentence just echoes Everett's now generally accepted 'Universal Wave Function' idea from 1956...

Perhaps you could explain how it contradicts my post?

I think what Stapp is saying is that the observers Mind should be treated differently to the environment. Like many of these ideas such as Wheeler's anthropic participatory principle and Qbism they posit that its the observer doing the de-cohering. That's because knowledge is fundamental and its the questions and measures the observer does that reveals what is happening.

The environment is always in potentialities including the measuring device. So the observers mind is different here as it is not physical or environmental in nature that makes the difference in collapsing the wave potentialities.

It makes sense in that everything is waves and energy as far as the interface of material reality is concerned but our mind is not so when observing reality at the fundamental level its what is happening in the Mind that is going to reveal the true nature of reality and not what is happening out at some measuring device. Just like reality is not something out there beyond mind but what is happening in the mind that creates reality.

That is why he says making Mind fundamental is a more elegant and simple explanation that can account for what we find in quantum physics.

 

[stevevw]

Incidentally, I just came across Sabine Hossenfelder's recent video on whether consciousness influences quantum effects - it's well worth watching. I would strongly recommend her book "Existential Physics", which covers a lot of the questions we discuss on these forums. I don't always agree with her commentary, but her physics is impeccable and her conclusions impartial.

OK will check it out, thanks

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think what Stapp is saying is that the observers Mind should be treated differently to the environment.

That's definitely not what the quote you posted is saying.

Like many of these ideas such as Wheeler's anthropic participatory principle and Qbism they posit that its the observer doing the de-cohering. That's because knowledge is fundamental and its the questions and measures the observer does that reveals what is happening.

Revealing what is happening is not the same as making it happen. In QM, an 'observer' is any measuring device. A conscious observer only gets to make a quantum measurement via some measuring apparatus; IOW, wavefunction collapse & decoherence occurs long before a conscious observer is involved - although, obviously, the results obtained depend on the kind of measurement that takes place.

Hossenfelder's video should clarify things for you.

The environment is always in potentialities including the measuring device. So the observers mind is different here as it is not physical or environmental in nature that makes the difference in collapsing the wave potentialities.

It makes sense in that everything is waves and energy as far as the interface of material reality is concerned but our mind is not so when observing reality at the fundamental level its what is happening in the Mind that is going to reveal the true nature of reality and not what is happening out at some measuring device. Just like reality is not something out there beyond mind but what is happening in the mind that creates reality.

Word salad.

 

[SelfSim]

OK, what did you have in mind?

The patterns of electrical activity in the various brain centres are what I was referring to there. Its not all that important though .. just some speculation on my part.

?? I was suggesting that an isolated system in a coherent quantum superposition, e.g. a photon, would collapse & decohere long before reaching the brain; but If you're referring to a 'Many Worlds'-like interpretation, that decoherence would mean the environment had effectively joined the superposition (making it no longer coherent and so unable to interfere). This decohered superposition would spread out, encompassing observers and their brains, so there would be no problem of a single mind distributed among multiple universes - the body & brain would be in a superposition of having encountered each outcome, but the 'branches' of the superposition could not interfere with each other in any way because of the decoherence. There would effectively be two separate observers on two separate, non-interacting 'branches' of the universal wavefunction. That's what the unadorned QM formalism seems to imply.

Nonetheless, its interesting to notice that that scenario can be conceived by a single human mind .. which would suggest that a single human mind is unconstrained even by the multiverse its conceives. Is there no limit to what our minds can conceive?
If not, then what would be the practical purpose of that mode of thinking?

But I get the feeling I may have misunderstood what you meant...

I'm really just musing here .. Hey .. gotta do it once in a while to demonstrate that anyone can partake in unbounded speculation .. even scientifically thinking 'types' can do it .. (ie: its not just limited to faith based religious thinkers and Panpsychists). They key is in actually recognising the unbounded nature of that mode of thinking and that it serves no practical purpose if its not destined for testing and ends up being more about, like: 'Hey .. notice me and how I must be special because maybe only I can think beyond the scientific box'.

Certainly, as chemistry relies on QM. It's possible that higher-level, macro-scale QM effects could be involved, perhaps as processing optimizations, but there's currently no reason to think that's the case.

I still have issues with applying QM thinking at the macro scales. There are known QM limiting concepts such as when the reduced Compton Wavelength becomes comparable with the Schwarzchild radius and the consequential un-measurability at those scales (the HUP).
I wonder if Carroll has written anything on that?

 

[SelfSim]

Hossenfelder's video should clarify things for you.

Thanks for that link.

I may have missed it amongst the typically highly compressed knowledge in her videos, but has the idea that QM is telling us more about how our minds acquire knowledge rather than being about what post-measured particles do, ever been considered in any of the history there?
I'll watch it again, but I think she vaguely touches on it, then immediately skips over it(?)

Say we admit we have no idea about particles, or their spins, but the description we've developed called 'the wavefunction' convinces us that we will once we actually make the attempt of of finding out. That's obvious one might say, but somehow the wavefunction becomes considered as being more about the particle's post-measurement property behaviours, rather than being a description covering what typically happens once we make the attempt of finding out such knowledge(?) We have to remember that 'particles' is also a model .. and (not likely) something which stands independently from the mind which conceives that model.

She mentions the acquisition of knowledge being 'instantaneous' .. which is not surprising, given that's basically what happens as math 'materialises' a solution to an equation/formula before our eyes(?)

I might be brain-dead wrong in asking this question .. (most likely, I am).
(Will watch it again and be on the lookout for this .. which would make this query rhetorical).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... its interesting to notice that that scenario can be conceived by a single human mind .. which would suggest that a single human mind is unconstrained even by the multiverse its conceives.

I don't see how being able to conceive something affects whether we're constrained by it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If not, then what would be the practical purpose of that mode of thinking?

I suspect there was (is?) selective advantage in being able to generate models (hypotheses) of the way the world might be based on limited evidence... in this case, there's no obvious utility beyond intellectual challenge and interest, but that's not unusual when we exercise our capabilities.

I still have issues with applying QM thinking at the macro scales. There are known QM limiting concepts such as when the reduced Compton Wavelength becomes comparable with the Schwarzchild radius and the consequential un-measurability at those scales (the HUP).
I wonder if Carroll has written anything on that?

He's talked in his blog about quantum effects in photosynthesis. But it's Jim Al-Khalili (from my old university) who's been most active in publicising the field of Quantum Biology recently - here he gives the history and an explanation of the field: Quantum Biology [Jim Al-Khalili,a* Samuele Lilliub].

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Say we admit we have no idea about particles, or their spins, but the description we've developed called 'the wavefunction' convinces us that we will once we actually make the attempt of of finding out. That's obvious one might say, but somehow the wavefunction becomes considered as being more about the particle's post-measurement property behaviours, rather than being a description covering what typically happens once we make the attempt of finding out such knowledge(?) We have to remember that 'particles' is also a model .. and (not likely) something which stands independently from the mind which conceives that model.

The wavefunction is a model that fully describes the particle's state, both before and after the measurement of a given property. Once a definite measurement outcome is observed, the probability amplitude given by the wavefunction for the observed value of that property will be 100%, i.e. in respect of that property, the wavefunction has collapsed, and subsequent measurements of that property will give the same outcome (with certain caveats).

 

[SelfSim]

The wavefunction is a model that fully describes the particle's state, both before and after the measurement of a given property. Once a definite measurement outcome is observed, the probability amplitude given by the wavefunction for the observed value of that property will be 100%, i.e. in respect of that property, the wavefunction has collapsed, and subsequent measurements of that property will give the same outcome (with certain caveats).

'Particle' is still a model. The wavefunction model is the means for establishing parameter/state values (via measurements) to the particle model.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

'Particle' is still a model. The wavefunction model is the means for establishing parameter/state values (via measurements) to the particle model.

Yes, of course.

 

[stevevw]

That's definitely not what the quote you posted is saying.

I disagree. For example Stapp points out

Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device…

So its in the Mind that we can know what's happening at the fundamental level and not some device outside the mind. We cannot know that the device collapses the wave because we have to introduce ourselves into the equation and we cannot get outside ourselves to see if the measuring device clasped the waves.

Therefore Mind is fundamental and it creates reality as Stapp and others also propose.

Revealing what is happening is not the same as making it happen. In QM, an 'observer' is any measuring device. A conscious observer only gets to make a quantum measurement via some measuring apparatus; IOW, wavefunction collapse & decoherence occurs long before a conscious observer is involved - although, obviously, the results obtained depend on the kind of measurement that takes place.

There are interpretations pf the quantum findings that make the conscious observer creating reality. For example Wheelers Anthropic Participatory Principle which Stapp bases his view on and QBism. The Boltzmann brain is another idea along these lines.


“von Neumann–Wigner interpretation”, also described as “consciousness causes collapse” of Ψ, postulates that consciousness is an essential factor in quantum measurements.

Word salad.

If fundamental reality is Mind like and not as classical physics explains then its what is happening in the observers Minds which reveals its nature. Everything is waves and energy until a conscious mind is introduced into the equation.

Hasn't there been experiments such as Wigner's extended ones that show the level of observation effects the level of decoherence. Also the Delayed Choice experiments where measurements show observations can even effect past events.

Quantum experiment in space confirms that reality is what you make it
https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-experiment-space-confirms-reality-what-you-make-it-0

Is human consciousness creating reality?