The Universe as a Hologram

Originally posted by black beetle
Since you admit that they are used merely in order to describe "some aspect of reality" -I would add over here: "as we perceive it subjectively thanks to our 6 senses"-, you probably admit that they both cannot provide an holistic objective aspect of all the reality that exist; therefore, these "aspects of reality" are all subjective because they are al ...[text shortened]... f time propagation because I simply wanted to point out that even our t=0 is axiomatic
😵

Yes, our 6 senses are flawed to some degree. That's why scientists attempt to use measurements that avoid these flaws; there really isn't much subjectivity involved in looking at a digital display for example. This problem also underlines the importance of trying to establish theories based on measurements arrived at using different methods.

An "observer" in quantum physics is not a person or a consciousness, at least not in any fundamental theoretical way. Rather, it simply describes some kind of unknown interaction with a macroscopic system... a sort of bridge between the quantum world and the Newtonian one. Consequently a "measurement" has nothing to do with people or consciousness. This is just my interpretation though, physicists have varying opinions on this subject. But intuitively (although I have learned to mistrust it) it seems very weird - and arrogant, as I stated - to me that humans or consciousness would have some kind of special significance in the laws of nature.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, our 6 senses are flawed to some degree. That's why scientists attempt to use measurements that avoid these flaws; there really isn't much subjectivity involved in looking at a digital display for example. This problem also underlines the importance of trying to establish theories based on measurements arrived at using different methods.

An "obse ...[text shortened]... umans or consciousness would have some kind of special significance in the laws of nature.

There is as much subjectivity involved as it gets in looking at a digital display as far as it concerns the meaning we bring up by means of looking at it: a digital display lacks of inherent existence because it is a product of the human mind. Furthermore, the measurements per se are of the greatest importance when it boils down to a meaning that we want to extract by means of conducting them: the experiments/ measurements are simply our own way to examine how exactly are we getting to establish our units of knowledge, and how this knowledge will be used in order to ease us to come closer to an 1:1 analogy between our perception and the environment during our struggle to bring up an accurate theory of reality. Objectivity is an illusion; our science and our philosophy are brought up out of our collective subjectivity alone.


On the other hand, “observer” is whatever -a rock, a cloud, our planet, the whole universe, the gravity, any phenomenon, any sentient being, energy fields. Over here I join hands with Acerbi (The Epiontic Principle, Time and the Laws of Physics): an observer is a physical system capable of memorizing or handling elements of reality, therefore in this context it is not at all “a sort of bridge between the quantum world and the Newtonian”. Since the quantum world and the Newtonian world are merely aspects of the reality, and since the proper reality of an observer is made up only of the elements of reality the observer knows, anything that is not a known element of reality is not defined. We are conducting measurements in order to define the reality the way we perceive it by means of our 6 senses alone: Math and Physics etc etc are purely subjective epistemic instruments because they are the mind-dependent means we are using in order to conduct our observations over specific epistemic objects.



Edit: "But intuitively (although I have learned to mistrust it) it seems very weird - and arrogant, as I stated - to me that humans or consciousness would have some kind of special significance in the laws of nature."

Then you probably lost my post to you at the first page of this thread regarding this matter, so I repeat: this assumption of yours is false. The idea is that every sentient being shapes reality according to its cognizance alone; therefore, there are as many realities as sentient beings -all of them real and relative.
Briefly, now: when you don’t see it, it’s a wave/ particle and still it remains one indivisible thing. And when you see it, it’s a particle -and this is the case with light wave/ particles, protons, atoms, electrons and molecules alike. It is false to assume that an individual can intentionally collapse a wavefunction by focusing intentionally her/ his mind: I never claimed such a thing. I simply assume that this process appears to take place at a level beneath our conceptual awareness, and it is related to the nature of our mind. If the time propagation is big enough, we could see even the sun dissolving away into a quantum void (the sun appears to be there seemingly eternally because it is huge and the process is very slow). Mind you, you accept that a quantum particle can dissolve away into quantum uncertainty within a nanosecond, but although you know well that the sun will do just the same after some billion years you appear to believe that the sun is not as “illusionary” as a quantum particle merely because the process is “too long”!
Well, methinks eternity is non-existent, for sooner or later everything dissolves away into quantum uncertainty. Of course this belief of mine is subjective and must not be seen as “absolute truth”
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
There is as much subjectivity involved as it gets in looking at a digital display as far as it concerns the meaning we bring up by means of looking at it: a digital display lacks of inherent existence because it is a product of the human mind.

I think any argument that we create reality is lost the moment you accept the existence of other sentient beings observing the same reality. Any shared properties between two realities observed by two beings cannot have been created by the observers, and I believe that is a large part of what most of us call reality.

Briefly, now: when you don’t see it, it’s a wave/ particle and still it remains one indivisible thing.
Quantum mechanics has been grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by people wanting to subscribe to something equivalent to your created reality, but I believe that is totally the wrong interpretation.
I do not believe observation in any way affects or changes reality.
I do think that it is possible that quantum mechanics could be interpreted as time itself is in some ways an illusion. We see all possible pasts - and all possible futures.

Originally posted by black beetle
There is as much subjectivity involved as it gets in looking at a digital display as far as it concerns the meaning we bring up by means of looking at it: a digital display lacks of inherent existence because it is a product of the human mind. Furthermore, the measurements per se are of the greatest importance when it boils down to a meaning that we wan ...[text shortened]... inty. Of course this belief of mine is subjective and must not be seen as “absolute truth”
😵

The thing is that we don't really know what wavefunction collapse means - whether it is a fundamental aspect of nature or just some artifact of us not knowing the full quantum physical description of the system at hand.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, our 6 senses are flawed to some degree. That's why scientists attempt to use measurements that avoid these flaws; there really isn't much subjectivity involved in looking at a digital display for example. This problem also underlines the importance of trying to establish theories based on measurements arrived at using different methods.

An "obse ...[text shortened]... umans or consciousness would have some kind of special significance in the laws of nature.

Edit: "An "observer" in quantum physics is not a person or a consciousness, at least not in any fundamental theoretical way. Rather, it simply describes some kind of unknown interaction with a macroscopic system... a sort of bridge between the quantum world and the Newtonian one. Consequently a "measurement" has nothing to do with people or consciousness."

First you definitely declare "An "observer" is not a person (correct there, imo) or a consciousness.." But then you talk of "an unknown interaction...a sort of bridge between the quantum world and the Newtonian one". The again you declare with all definiteness .."has nothing to do with..consciousness". I do not follow the "consequently" at all.

These statements appear quite contradictory in nature. First it is something unknown, then its definitely NOT something. If the nature of this "bridge" is unknown, it is equally difficult to say what it isn't as well as what it is.

It appears like many such common "jump over the difficult bit" statements to be an unestablished a priori assumption.

It is proposed that this unifying holistic ordering "bridge" is a consciousness/awareness-like ground. It would seem to be certainly not related to simply one observer or a species, but to be universal and primal and essential to ordered structuring.

I use ther term "conciousness-like" because we relate consciousness and awareness to biological nervous systems. This primal universal ground that is proposed is obviously not, although the properties of conciousness are later more fully demonstrated and focussed by such.

I relate such discussions also to the established fact of quantum entanglement and superposition with presents an uncanny similarity to an holistic awareness. It appears to be the basis of structural interconnection which more fully formed enhances later biological nervous systems.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think any argument that we create reality is lost the moment you accept the existence of other sentient beings observing the same reality. Any shared properties between two realities observed by two beings cannot have been created by the observers, and I believe that is a large part of what most of us call reality.

[b]Briefly, now: when you don’t see ...[text shortened]... s time itself is in some ways an illusion. We see all possible pasts - and all possible futures.

Edit: “I think any argument that we create reality is lost the moment you accept the existence of other sentient beings observing the same reality. Any shared properties between two realities observed by two beings cannot have been created by the observers, and I believe that is a large part of what most of us call reality.”

But my argument is that the reality is the same and yet every sentient being gives a different shape to this reality according to its perception. And, “perception” is a tricky thing: you see, the reality of a ball floating on the surface of the ocean is different to me and to my wife when I play with the ball, different to you that you see us playing with that ball from your sailing boat, different to the stalking white pointer who is ready to attack me from the deep and different to the diver who is safe in his cage and takes footage of the shark who prepares his assault.



Edit: “Quantum mechanics has been grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted by people wanting to subscribe to something equivalent to your created reality, but I believe that is totally the wrong interpretation.”

Then, kindly please offer your own interpretation about the wave/ particle aspect;



Edit: “I do not believe observation in any way affects or changes reality.”

Of course it does. Observation affects reality big time. Centuries ago the people were sure that the sun and the moon were gods, and this idea was a product of their perception and their observations. Today we know better, yet the sun and the moon are the same as previously. As a result, the world of a Zoroastrian is not the same to my world herenow. In fact, our observation by means of our 6 senses alone is the ground of being of the shape of the specific, ever changing reality we attribute at every given herenow to the observer universe and to the observers included in.



Edit: “I do think that it is possible that quantum mechanics could be interpreted as time itself is in some ways an illusion. We see all possible pasts - and all possible futures.”

Time is an illusion: the past, the present and the future do not exist substantially since they are unfixed and are mutually established, and since they change constantly whilst they are not self-established. Since time lacks of inherent being, the “past”, the “present” and the “future” are merely discriminations
😵

I don't know why my above text is bold, excuse me for the inconvenience;

Originally posted by black beetle
But my argument is that the reality is the same and yet every sentient being gives a different shape to this reality according to its perception.

Well then I have no dispute with that.
However, you tend to imply that the shape we give to reality is significantly different from reality and significantly different from person to person. I am less convinced about the significance of these differences.

Then, kindly please offer your own interpretation about the wave/ particle aspect;
I did try to, but it is not that easy to explain in a few words. I believe the waves arise due to the illusion of time.

Of course it does. Observation affects reality big time. Centuries ago the people were sure that the sun and the moon were gods, and this idea was a product of their perception and their observations.
You are confusing two very separate issues: whether observation affects reality, and whether reality is created in our minds. I do not believe that the sun and moon were ever gods, do you? Are you arguing that because some people once thought they were then they were?
(I also don't believe that nearly as many people thought they were gods as is popularly suggested).

Time is an illusion: the past, the present and the future do not exist substantially since they are unfixed and are mutually established, and since they change constantly whilst they are not self-established. Since time lacks of inherent being, the “past”, the “present” and the “future” are merely discriminations
😵
I do not believe they change at all.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The thing is that we don't really know what wavefunction collapse means - whether it is a fundamental aspect of nature or just some artifact of us not knowing the full quantum physical description of the system at hand.

When we attribute the description of the fundamental unobserved reality of a system to a mathematical realm of potential existence, each potential possibility of the formula assigns a probability that a specific outcome will result when the system in question is measured. So, the mathematical description of the potential existence is the wavefunction.
What is the meaning of the wavefunction? What is the exact nature of the mechanism of the collapse? And what is the connection between the classical and the quantum realm?
I evaluate the physical reality as a spacetime related string of pieces of information that rules tendencies for experiential events to occur: therefore, our perception alone strengthens the possibility of the same perception manifesting at a later spacetime point. Whenever our perception observes different pieces of information in the same context of the observation of the same system in question, the tendencies for experiential events to occur are changing: this is how our various theories of reality are born and how they die, offering their place to new, more accurate herenow theories and concepts.

This is the reason why I believe that the exact nature of the mechanism of the collapse (the process of the reality) has the nature of the consciousness. Consciousness alone unentangles the universal tendency to entanglement. Over here, all I see is mind (a fundamental field of consciousness and awareness) and a mind-related reality. In other words, I see merely a mind-only (mind-dependent) reality -a reality dependently arisen
😵

Edit: “I did try to, but it is not that easy to explain in a few words. I believe the waves arise due to the illusion of time.”

Whenever you have the time I will wait for your explanation regardless of the length of your reply, and I thank you in advance.
On the other hand, should I conclude that you believe that the waves are not factual?



Edit: “You are confusing two very separate issues: whether observation affects reality, and whether reality is created in our minds. I do not believe that the sun and moon were ever gods, do you? Are you arguing that because some people once thought they were then they were?
(I also don't believe that nearly as many people thought they were gods as is popularly suggested).”

The reality of the existence of the observer universe is not affected. Affected is the shape of the reality we attribute to the reality we perceive as real according to our collective subjectivity. The observer universe is existent; the way we make sense out of our interaction with this observer creates relative realities according to the way we unfold our consciousness in order to become able to envelop specific events. I cannot pass through Earth, a neutrino can. And our vishvahetu can well claim that Lord Krsna can pass through Earth faster than a neutrino. Is a neutrino part of the reality of every sentient being?
I assume that in a given environment the reality of each sentient being is different, subjective and consciousness-dependent.



Edit: “I do not believe they change at all.”

So do I. Then, what exactly changes when you start a measurement at a given t=0? Isn't this but a convention we are using for our convenience?
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Edit: "An "observer" in quantum physics is not a person or a consciousness, at least not in any fundamental theoretical way. Rather, it simply describes some kind of unknown interaction with a macroscopic system... a sort of bridge between the quantum world and the Newtonian one. Consequently a "measurement" has nothing to do with people or consciousness."
...[text shortened]... ies, but to be universal and primal and essential to ordered structuring.

You're right, I phrased my comment badly. What I meant to say is that in quantum theory, there is no need for any consciousness to collapse wavefunctions. If you'd do the double slit experiment for e.g. in some closed room with no one near, and you'd check back the next day you'd get the same result as when you were there to see things as they happened. Of course you can't know that for sure, since a person always has to be there to check the measurement in some way, but the theory at least does not require it.

Originally posted by black beetle
Is a neutrino part of the reality of every sentient being?

I don't see why not. Can you prove that there is a single particle of existence that exists for you but not for me? How would you prove that?

I assume that in a given environment the reality of each sentient being is different, subjective and consciousness-dependent.
That is because you use 'reality' to mean various things at various times - hence my point that you are confusing the various meanings.
I on the other hand do not consider what we thing reality to be to be reality itself and would not call it such.

Then, what exactly changes when you start a measurement at a given t=0? Isn't this but a convention we are using for our convenience?
😵
I say time is an illusion. There is the present, the possible pasts and the possible futures. The apparent flow of time is an illusion.

Edit: “I don't see why not. Can you prove that there is a single particle of existence that exists for you but not for me? How would you prove that?”

I don’t mean this, of course we agree over this issue due to the fact that our respectful subjectivities over here are in agreement. I will rephrase: Do you think that a neutrino is a part of the reality of a cat, of a dog, of a dolphin (of every sentient being), the same way as it is a part of the reality of the human beings?



Edit: “That is because you use 'reality' to mean various things at various times - hence my point that you are confusing the various meanings.”

I acknowledge two realities: the first is the empty/ relative reality of the Floating World (of the physical world), which to me is a subjective measuring wavefunction that derives out of the superposition of the subjective wavefunctions of all the sentient beings that manifests as “objective/ identical to the members of each specific species environmental wavefunction”. This conceptual (awareness-consciousness grounded) reality is as palpable as a rainbow: it’s merely an illusion that has to be taken seriously. Thus, I see all phenomena in the Floating World as mind-only.
The second reality I acknowledge is a reality empty of the phenomena of the Floating World;



Edit: “I say time is an illusion. There is the present, the possible pasts and the possible futures. The apparent flow of time is an illusion.”

I agree that the apparent flow of time is an illusion, however I add that this illusion has to be taken seriously. Mind you, when I inform you I was born on May 16, 1964 and that today I am almost 47yo, is my age caused out of an illusionary flow of the time and therefore, as such, is it illusionary? Or am I ageless since the apparent flow of time is an illusion? Or what?
Furthermore, how can you establish your own relative motion when you leave home and go to your office, if the apparent flow of time is an illusion?
Finally, if the present alone has own being, the possible pasts and the possible futures would be a real too because they would be established on the absolute reality of the present. However methinks you are unable to establish the own being of the present because, since it is mutually established with the past and the future and it cannot exist without them, it too lacks of inherent existence. Methinks the present, the past and the future are mind-dependent discriminations
😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're right, I phrased my comment badly. What I meant to say is that in quantum theory, there is no need for any consciousness to collapse wavefunctions. If you'd do the double slit experiment for e.g. in some closed room with no one near, and you'd check back the next day you'd get the same result as when you were there to see things as they happened. ...[text shortened]... be there to check the measurement in some way, but the theory at least does not require it.

Yes, I agree it would still have the same result - for that structured experiment.

I am not persuaded of the argument that individuals collapse wave-functions, but that some conscious-like field is involved and all, including us, are involved in it.

The Universe does not need a sentient mind to "collapse" it. To me it is rather self-emergent and with consciousness-like qualities from the beginning, or even prior to "the beginning".

The quandaries of the double split experiment become more difficult when the nature of the experimental set up is changed, seeking to catch those "particles" out at their own game, so to speak. In some way there appears inexplicable "awareness" of the change and adaptation by the particles, in which they appear to know in advance what the other particles are going to do, or vice versa.

My take on it is that neither the particles are "aware" nor that the observer is
effecting the experiment causing collapse.

Rather,to me, for what a non-professional's idea is worth, it is a reflection of:

1. the quantum entanglement of all in the current "field" of the experiment, and;

2. inherent unknown limits within that field that prevent the particles acting in any other way and making it appear is if they "know" what is happening. The limits, it appears to me, are probably related to the time-space causative nature of the quantum field.

It appears consciousness-like and consciousness-linked for these reasons. The appearance to me has validity but must be interpreted very carefully.