What is Consciousness?

[idav]

No experiment has ever shown this, no thought experiment has ever proposed this, and no proposal for a possible test of this exists. Demonstrating that animals clearly capable of some form of knowledge given their capacity for conceptual processing is extremely difficult. Demonstrating that it is anything other than absolutely meaningless to describe any particle (none of which are particles) as "knowing" is impossible, while it is quite easy to show that e.g., photons lack the necessary conditions to be described as possessing any knowledge of anything.

Delayed choice experiment and ones like it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Delayed choice experiment and ones like it.

They don't demonstrate anything remotely similar to knowledge. They demonstrate the fundamentally nonlocal, "vague" properties of the fundamental constituents of reality. After all, we can use experiments like the delayed-choice experiment paradigm to demonstrate that we can determine the results of experiments depending upon the ways we wish to determine them (i.e., if we want a system to behave more like a classical particle, we can do this, and likewise for a classical wave; in both cases, WE determine what we observe and there is no indication whatsoever that what we observe "knows" anything at all, but much to indicate that this is impossible and nonsensical).

 

[idav]

They don't demonstrate anything remotely similar to knowledge. They demonstrate the fundamentally nonlocal, "vague" properties of the fundamental constituents of reality. After all, we can use experiments like the delayed-choice experiment paradigm to demonstrate that we can determine the results of experiments depending upon the ways we wish to determine them (i.e., if we want a system to behave more like a classical particle, we can do this, and likewise for a classical wave; in both cases, WE determine what we observe and there is no indication whatsoever that what we observe "knows" anything at all, but much to indicate that this is impossible and nonsensical).

I like how Wheeler puts it
The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment's configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago "to be is to be perceived""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I find it kind of funny when people talk about "consciousness" as though it were something so mysterious, compelling and inexplicable.

There's consciousness, for which we apparently need a nervous system. And then there's primitive self-awareness where it is recognized that that's one's self in the mirror, but instinct rather than ego is still the motivating force. And then there's full self-awareness, which only sentient creatures have. We can choose to empathize with others and know that others of our kind can do the same (from which morality is born), and we're aware of the universality of mortality.

Everything that exists in our universe is physical in some way, shape, or form because it is energy in one form or another. Non-physical to me equates to non-existing.

I listen to a piece of music and have a ecstatic emotional reaction. Yes, our emotions affect our physical bodies, and we can generate emotions with electrical impulses, but are those emotions themselves, our thoughts, our desires, purely physical? How does some music illicit certain responses when we've never heard anything like it before or even know the composer, who might not even be human? What is beauty but pure subjective Truth, which varies from human to human, and which we can modify/reverse as we will it?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I like how Wheeler puts it

Wheeler was Everett's advisor, the co-editor of perhaps THE volume of the measurement problem, and by no means an advocate of your interpretation of quantum physics or physics in general. His "delayed-choice" experiment was simply an assertion about the implications of "classical" trajectories in light of quantum physics. He said nothing about the knowledge of particles, and denied the existence of both waves and particles.

 

[idav]

Wheeler was Everett's advisor, the co-editor of perhaps THE volume of the measurement problem, and by no means an advocate of your interpretation of quantum physics or physics in general. His "delayed-choice" experiment was simply an assertion about the implications of "classical" trajectories in light of quantum physics. He said nothing about the knowledge of particles, and denied the existence of both waves and particles.

I have been Utilizing wheelers thoughts on the matters.

What do you mean. Wheeler isnt talking about what i quoted him talking about?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have been Utilizing wheelers thoughts on the matters.

In which case you have been assuming that neither waves nor particles exist and reality is fundamentally subjective.

Wheeler isnt talking about what i quoted him talking about?

What part of "intrinsically undefined" conforms to your perspective of physics?

 

[idav]

In which case you have been assuming that neither waves nor particles exist and reality is fundamentally subjective.


What part of "intrinsically undefined" conforms to your perspective of physics?

General relativity is the reason a photon can seemingly violate spacetime and be in two places at once.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Wheeler was Everett's advisor, the co-editor of perhaps THE volume of the measurement problem, and by no means an advocate of your interpretation of quantum physics or physics in general. His "delayed-choice" experiment was simply an assertion about the implications of "classical" trajectories in light of quantum physics. He said nothing about the knowledge of particles, and denied the existence of both waves and particles.

Wheeler was also Feynman's adviser, who laid the groundwork for the only quantum interpretation that answers all of quantum weirdness, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation. But quantum physicists prefer to generate an infinite number of Many Worlds every Planck time instant, with all its other problems, rather than to seriously consider quantum actions being completed both forward and backward in time. They apparently desire to continue to reserve elegance for the tailor.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

General relativity is the reason a photon can seemingly violate spacetime and be in two places at once.

But it doesn't. Such conclusions are arrived at using one of the many wrong interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation was mathematically useful for a long time before it was discovered to be wrong.

 

[idav]

Wheeler was also Feynman's adviser, who laid the groundwork for the only quantum interpretation that answers all of quantum weirdness, Cramer's Transactional Interpretation. But quantum physicists prefer to generate an infinite number of Many Worlds every Planck time instant, with all its other problems, rather than to seriously consider quantum actions being completed both forward and backward in time. They apparently desire to continue to reserve elegance for the tailor.

Wow yeah, no doubt.

 

[idav]

But it doesn't. Such conclusions are arrived at using one of the many wrong interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation was mathematically useful for a long time before it was discovered to be wrong.

Once the math works for zero time it will be the unified theory.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

General relativity is the reason a photon can seemingly violate spacetime and be in two places at once.

General relativity is fundamentally and completely in contradiction with the entirety of quantum physics, meaning it can't predict the simplest results from chemistry, let alone quantum mechanics.

 

[idav]

General relativity is fundamentally and completely in contradiction with the entirety of quantum physics, meaning it can't predict the simplest results from chemistry, let alone quantum mechanics.

I know,.thats not what I meant. It isnt that time dilatiion stops but goes to another level.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wheeler was also Feynman's adviser

Path integrals, anybody?

who laid the groundwork for the only quantum interpretation that answers all of quantum weirdness,

So fundamentally wrong that we need only quote Feynman here: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics".

Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.

So your position is that we should interpret Wheeler's perspective in terms of Feynman's perspective which we should understand in terms of Cramer's? I have a better solution. Use Wheeler to understand Wheeler and Feynman to understand Feynman.

But quantum physicists prefer to generate an infinite number of Many Worlds

...a theory which Wheeler was instrumental in forming and propounding.

every Planck time instant, with all its other problems, rather than to seriously consider quantum actions being completed both forward and backward in time.

This is nonsensical.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know,.thats not what I meant. It isnt that time dilatiion stops but goes to another level.

Time dilation is a component of special relativity. General relativity is most fundamentally a theory of gravitation, or rather how gravitation doesn't exist (but its apparent effects are due to spacetime curvature). This is the fundamental component and defining characteristic of general relativity, and is wholly, utterly, and completely at odds with all quantum physics and the standard model of particle physics.

Once the math works for zero time it will be the unified theory.

Elementary calculus works for "zero time"

 

[idav]

Time dilation is a component of special relativity. General relativity is most fundamentally a theory of gravitation, or rather how gravitation doesn't exist (but its apparent effects are due to spacetime curvature). This is the fundamental component and defining characteristic of general relativity, and is wholly, utterly, and completely at odds with all quantum physics and the standard model of particle physics.

Elementary calculus works for "zero time"

Yeah i know special relativity, i apologize. Any way i mean to say spacetime dilation would be the reason for all the weirdness. The math isnt the issue. What is a photon able to do with spacetime being at the speed of light?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah i know special relativity, i apologize. Any way i mean to say spacetime dilation would be the reason for all the weirdness.

Special relativity is arguably at odds with the entirety of quantum physics, but if we massage the math a bit and play loose with terms, the violations of nonlocality can be made compatible. This is not true for the single most successful theory of physics apart from quantum mechanics: general relativity.

The math isnt the issue.

Unless one is interested in physics.

What is a photon able to do with spacetime being at the speed of light?

1) Spacetime is fundamentally an issue for relativistic physics. The most successful, best supported theory of relativistic physics is contradictory to all quantum physics.
2) There are dozens of theories that contradict both the superluminal constraint and spacetime ontology (and, of course, no relativistic theory is inherently ontological anyway).
3) The very nature of essentially ALL motion is explained by general relativity in ways that no quantum theory has been able to, and the ENTIRETY of all microscopic dynamics/mechanics CAN'T be explained by general relativity but requires quantum physics.

 

[idav]

Special relativity is arguably at odds with the entirety of quantum physics, but if we massage the math a bit and play loose with terms, the violations of nonlocality can be made compatible. This is not true for the single most successful theory of physics apart from quantum mechanics: general relativity.


Unless one is interested in physics.

1) Spacetime is fundamentally an issue for relativistic physics. The most successful, best supported theory of relativistic physics is contradictory to all quantum physics.
2) There are dozens of theories that contradict both the superluminal constraint and spacetime ontology (and, of course, no relativistic theory is inherently ontological anyway).
3) The very nature of essentially ALL motion is explained by general relativity in ways that no quantum theory has been able to, and the ENTIRETY of all microscopic dynamics/mechanics CAN'T be explained by general relativity but requires quantum physics.

Your talking math i quoted where wheeler likened it to the philopher who said being is to be perceived.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your talking math i quoted where wheeler likened it to the philopher who said being is to be perceived.

You quoted Wheeler quoting a specific philosopher whose views you don't seem to be familiar with, but in a quote which clearly contradicts your views. Again, "What part of "intrinsically undefined" conforms to your perspective of physics?"
Instead of trying to interpret Feynman's reference to a specific philosopher, try READING the actual quote and what the QUOTE ITSELF implies when you interpret portions of it such as

Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured.