Even possible?

[masterchafed]

Hope this makes sense to someone.

 

Quantum theory provides a basis for atoms to exist in multiple places at a time. Although most people prefer to think of this as evidence for alternate universes, it seems more likely that every atom in our own universe is constructed purely of the same proton, electron, and neutron all of which have a different quantum state allowing that atom (or construction of protons, electrons, and neutrons) to occupy an infinite number of places at once (infinite being a relative number to suggest that it may occupy as many places as there is enough energy to support.)

 

Now, if a single hydrogen atom can have a nearly infinite number of positions due to a large number of quantum states, and that no single atom can be determined to exist, or exist in a particular area in space, until it is observed, then atoms occupy all possible spaces at once. Upon being measured, observed, etc. the atom makes a “choice” so to speak. When completing this choice the atom is observed at its present state. These elementary decisions seem to support the idea that intelligence is a law of physics, not an absurd accident of the universe. If the quantum state were not decided, the atom would not exist upon observation.

 

Even if the universe is inherently intelligent it has no ability to observe itself without tools making it an idea rather than a physical manifestation. As humans create tools for observation of itself and the universe it resides in, an intelligent universe creates life for the same purpose, life which obeys the physical law of intelligence. Intelligent life has the ability observe the universe directly from within and prove the existence of the universe.

 

Why is it important for the universe to be intelligent for the universe to support intelligent life? The simple answer is that anything within our universe tends to follow universal rules. Gravity attracts and is directly related to the amount of mass contained within an object. Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, etc. If intelligence exists in a form that can be proven (human beings for example) then intelligence must exist in the universe as a rule. This is a positive sign that intelligence is highly distributed throughout the universe even if it does not exist in a familiar form.

 

Intelligence is a very loose term in this instance. For example, a computer processing unit (cpu) can manipulate energy through channels to create an intelligent output based on input received. Human beings observe this phenomenon and claim it as their invention; however, human beings operate on a very similar mechanism. The brain collects input from its input devices (eyes, ears, touch, smell, etc.), processes the information, and then provides usable output.

 

Human beings often comment on these topics by asking questions such as “where would be if computers didn’t exist?” The answer is simple; human beings would not exist. The lack of a physical law of intelligence would not allow computers to work in this universe and indeed life in general would not exist either. On the smallest scale, intelligence is simply the transfer of information from one molecule, atom, etc. to another. If an electron is excited and driven to a grounded point, and along the way creates some sort of useful information, it has succeeded at proving the intellectual capacity of the atom. The simple act of creating life, arranging atoms into a form where they can manipulate themselves, proves the intelligence of the universe.

 

This does not imply that the universe is conscious; however it does imply that the universe contains the ability to be conscious even if by accident. Earlier it was mentioned that atoms make choices, because they have a single observable state. The term “choices” was used because it is a familiar term, implying an atom has the ability to solidify one of two or more possible states. This doesn’t mean the atom has a conscious decision to make, but simply states that between two possible outcomes the atom only becomes one.

 

This is an interesting idea to explore because at the moment of the big bang, if only one atom were created and that atom could occupy any space and could also pop into and out of existence randomly, that all possible choices were explored, creating the universe we see today. The universe was created as we see it because this is the outcome of a single atom being observed in all possible quantum states as supported by the initial energy contained within the big bang.

 

This supports quantum theory and the Schrodinger experiment even though any act of observation does not indicate any apparent change. The atoms have made their “choices” already, and are only where they can be at this given point in time.

[SamBridge]

The phenomena that you are referring to is called "superpostion", but I don't think you are interpreting it correctly. Superposition is just the property of a field. A field such as a gravitational field automatically exists in every location that it has propagated to at the speed of light, there is no physical motion involved in this, and particles can be described as fields in quantum field theory and so are predicted to also possess this property. Everything else you're saying just seems to be more like fringe extrapolations, the universe has no scientific need to observe itself and with our current physics the universe would have had to existed prior to the existence of any life in order to create conditions to form life, and the universe doesn't fit under the current biological definition of a living thing.

Quantum theories don't need you to support them, there's many tests that speak for themselves.

Edited January 20, 2013 by SamBridge

[eytan_il]

The phenomena that you are referring to is called "superpostion", but I don't think you are interpreting it correctly. Superposition is just the property of a field. A field such as a gravitational field automatically exists in every location that it has propagated to at the speed of light, there is no physical motion involved in this, and particles can be described as fields in quantum field theory and so are predicted to also possess this property. Everything else you're saying just seems to be more like fringe extrapolations, the universe has no scientific need to observe itself and with our current physics the universe would have had to existed prior to the existence of any life in order to create conditions to form life, and the universe doesn't fit under the current biological definition of a living thing.

Quantum theories don't need you to support them, there's many tests that speak for themselves.

Nope, “supercahfed” talks about a quantum state machine. It has nothing to do with locality and non locality or with superposition of waves that solve any linear partial differential equation. He addressed the problem that a quantum state machine has all the states possible until observed. Whether the observed state can exist without an observer is a very deep question that is not within the reach of physics. Will a photon hit a detector if there is no observer ? If there is no observer, then there is no detector. An observer is implicitly conscious. That fact can’t be swept under the carpet just as a matter of convenience. As a friend of mine once said, “philosophy is the watchdog of science”.

Indeed I agree that this subject is not only on the fringes of physics but out of its jurisdiction. The term “observer” is often used in quantum mechanics but to fully understand it we have to be familiar with the excellent work by the deceased neurophysiologist philosopher and MD, professor Yeshyahu Leibowitz and his prodigious essay, “Foundations of the Psychophysical Problem”.

If a subject is stabbed in his toe by a needle, then the pulse from the wound to the brain can be measured by both an external observer and by the tested subject. So are the neural activities, say 20 pulses per second from neuron 31 to neuron 15, 10 pulses from neuron 26 to neuron 65 etc. The entire neural process is accessible to the observer just as it is accessible by measurement to the tested subject. However, the pain is felt by the tested subject alone. If the observer wants to out-wise the problem and objectively feel the pain that the tested subject feels, the observer connects a neural fiber from his/her brain to the tested subject’s brain. But then the observer will experience the pain through his media/brain and thus his feeling will be subjective again. The experience is split between two worlds, publicly owned physical world and privately owned psychic world. There is apparent correlation between the two. More pulses per second mean more pain. However, does correlation mean causation? The answer is no. We can roughly say the pulses per second are a “report” from the physical report. This report can be disrupted by drugs or by illness, however, pain and pleasure will never be accessible by physical units of Volts, Meter per Second, Joules or by pulses per second. There is no meaning to the phrase “the neural network generates pain” or “the neural process generates pain/pleasure”. It has no comprehensible meaning. The neuro-sensory integration theories - and there are many - fail to grasp this problem. All the integration and the processing that the brain does can’t describe pain and pleasure in terms of mathematics and/or in terms of physics. I would finish with a known sentence from Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “Its not the brain that thinks, it is the owner of the brain who thinks with the brain”. Our brains or maybe we, are capable of more than just using mathematics as a prosthetic tool of consciousness. Physics is not a science whose goal is to make us fail the Turing test.

Edited January 23, 2013 by eytan_il

[SamBridge]

Nope, “supercahfed” talks about a quantum state machine. It has nothing to do with locality and non locality or with superposition of waves that solve any linear partial differential equation. He addressed the problem that a quantum state machine has all the states possible until observed. Whether the observed state can exist without an observer is a very deep question that is not within the reach of physics. Will a photon hit a detector if there is no observer ? If there is no observer, then there is no detector. An observer is implicitly conscious. That fact can’t be swept under the carpet just as a matter of convenience. As a friend of mine once said, “philosophy is the watchdog of science”.

Yes, and possessing all possible states is called superposition,as I had mentioned before. We can model how particles act, because so far out science has shown that particles tend to act like oscillating fields of probability. While we cannot directly measure this phenomena ourselves, we can clearly see this in various scientific experiments.

Also, you don't need a complex organism to be an observer, a machine can be an observer, I recommend using a simple machine in place of a person. What you're saying in regards to feeling plain, it isn't split between two worlds exactly so much as it is that we don't know why exactly we perceive it in the first place, We know that the signal travels through nerves and into neurons, but we don't know why someone actually consciously perceives that, but that has little to do with quantum mechanics itself because you do not need a human or any sort of living organism to measure signals or any quantum state, the measuring of quantum states is really a pretty simple phenomena and happens all the time, it's not anything that should be the basis for justification of our lack of neurological knowledge.

Edited January 23, 2013 by SamBridge