What is Consciousness?

[idav]

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

I think the "wave function" is an objective reality.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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.



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?

I would suggest that physical musical vibrations can affect (interact with) our bodies or brains in some way which might stimulate the production or secretion of certain mood changing homones. Those happy or sad thoughts are generated by some physical stimulation or changes in our brain. I don't see thoughts as being necessarily non-physical.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I don't know exactly how it works, I can only speculate, but I believe our thoughts to be cumulations of physical interactions with the world around us. Our brains then help us translate those interactions into associated words. As we put those words together, they generate ideas and even more physical sensations or interactions which we call feelings. Obviously we don't understand how it all works from a physical standpoint, but that doesn't mean it is non-physical.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think the "wave function" is an objective reality.

1) This makes quantum field theory and particle physics impossible.
2) An ontological interpretation of the wave function entails that every quantum system is spread out over the entire universe (which means there can only exist one quantum system, which is false).

 

[idav]

1) This makes quantum field theory and particle physics impossible.
2) An ontological interpretation of the wave function entails that every quantum system is spread out over the entire universe (which means there can only exist one quantum system, which is false).

1. Not really.
2. Why is that false? The thought experiments even involve people being light years away from each other to get the same effects. Being across the universe shouldn't matter when spacetime is bent there is no space and no time.

 

[idav]

1) This makes quantum field theory and particle physics impossible.
2) An ontological interpretation of the wave function entails that every quantum system is spread out over the entire universe (which means there can only exist one quantum system, which is false).

How does something not real produce real effects. The many worlds interpretation treats as real not some magic hocus pocus that disappears when we poke it. You say quantum computing exploits it, correct, exploiting atoms being in two states at once.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How does something not real produce real effects.

There are a number of answers to this, but as the mainstream view is that wave-functions/state-vectors neither produce effects nor are real, the delicate issues of causality and its relation to the "real" need not be addressed here. In mainstream physics, the foundations of physical reality are indeterministic, and a wave function represents a probability associated with measurement given a specific experimental preparation. It is a practical but abstract (mathematical) device used to mechanically generate the predictions of particular outcomes of experiments that use systems which are inherently undefined and indeterministic and thus cannot be governed by e.g., the Schrodinger equation.

The many worlds interpretation treats as real not some magic hocus pocus that disappears when we poke it.

The originator of the MWI (and the entire class of relative state interpretations) never used the words "many-words" nor did he hold the views that the two individuals most responsible for this perspective (they picked up his mostly abandoned and ignored work, dusted it off, and made it much more mainsteam). The idea behind it is, of course, conceptually simplistic: don't interpret the mathematics, treat it literally. This simplistic approach poses numerous problems at just about every level, but the MOST important aspect is that even in the most literal many-worlds or multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave-function isn't anymore real than in the Copenhagen interpretation. It just tells us how many "branching universes/worlds" result from fundamental interactions among systems.

You say quantum computing exploits it

I don't say that. I say the MWI is a cop-out that have become increasingly indefensible with our ability to implement what were previously thought-experiments and quantum control.
,

exploiting atoms being in two states at once.

MWI holds that this is impossible. The multiple states in the MWI are held to result from branching possible worlds/universes, each "branch" a world/universe in which a particular allowed state is actualized. For two classically mutually exclusive states of any system to occur in the same world/universe not only contradicts the entire foundation for the class of interpretations to which the MWI belongs, but renders the MWI obsolete and wholly pointless.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

1. Not really.

There are no wave functions in particle physics or quantum field theory. They were ruled out mathematically and then experimentally/procedurally. The "field" part of quantum field theory refers to a mathematical entity required to make quantum mechanics relativistic, which replaces the wave picture of Schrodinger (and the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg) in QFT.

2. Why is that false?

Because it requires that a single electron occupy the entire universe, leaving no space for the atom in which the electron is situated.

Being across the universe shouldn't matter when spacetime is bent there is no space and no time.

There is no space or time if relativity should be interpreted ontologically, which is a highly controversial view. Better still, it doesn't matter: wave-functions are incompatible with even special relativity (and the whole of quantum physics is incompatible with general relativity), and would still require the entirety of spacetime to be filled by single observables of a single quantum system.

 

[Yerda]

How does physics always sneak in to these conversations?

It's never even the good physics. It's always the bonkers stuff nobody understands.

 

[idav]

How does physics always sneak in to these conversations?

It's never even the good physics. It's always the bonkers stuff nobody understands.

It is never superluminal space travel speed, it is simply wrinkling space so you dont have to travel as far.

So my main question is what happens when you wrinkle time.

 

[Yerda]

It is never superluminal space travel speed, it is simply wrinkling space so you dont have to travel as far.

So my main question is what happens when you wrinkle time.

I'm not sure that your question is meaningful, though it might be.

What does it mean to wrinkle space?

 

[idav]

I'm not sure that your question is meaningful, though it might be.

What does it mean to wrinkle space?

It means to warp space.

As the name suggests, a warp drive enables faster-than-light travel by warping space-time around it.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...h-prepares-to-create-a-warp-bubble-in-the-lab

 

[outhouse]

How does physics always sneak in to these conversations?

Because people would rather guess then face reality, if you asked me.

It's never even the good physics. It's always the bonkers stuff nobody understands.

Agreed.

They are forced to make stuff up and run to gaps of scientific knowledge to try and make their opinion relevant.

 

[outhouse]

Being across the universe shouldn't matter when spacetime is bent there is no space and no time.

We know gravity bends space and time. But outside gravity bending space and time, there is no such thing as traveling or jumping distances outside sci fi

 

[idav]

We know gravity bends space and time. But outside gravity bending space and time, there is no such thing as traveling or jumping distances outside sci fi

Or outside of exploding the planet. I heard we need a cern the size of the solar system to really know stuff lol.

 

[idav]

There are no wave functions in particle physics or quantum field theory. They were ruled out mathematically and then experimentally/procedurally. The "field" part of quantum field theory refers to a mathematical entity required to make quantum mechanics relativistic, which replaces the wave picture of Schrodinger (and the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg) in QFT.

Because it requires that a single electron occupy the entire universe, leaving no space for the atom in which the electron is situated.


There is no space or time if relativity should be interpreted ontologically, which is a highly controversial view. Better still, it doesn't matter: wave-functions are incompatible with even special relativity (and the whole of quantum physics is incompatible with general relativity), and would still require the entirety of spacetime to be filled by single observables of a single quantum system.

It's not saying much to say this is incomparable with that. Reality a and reality b will be comparable as a reality nothing more or less. It has to exist to cause the effects we see. We see the effects of a "wave" of photons and there is no getting around that.

 

[idav]

Legion, what are the photons doing in laymens terms. Do we think it is bleeping al over the board, traveling in theses spaces. What is the nature of the wave function and what is it making a photon do, bleep in and out of existence. Most I figure is its using whatever tricks spacetime allows it. As we approach the speed of light special relativity remains true and doesn't become incompatible just because you actually hit the speed of light and your poor maths break

 

[idav]

Because people would rather guess then face reality, if you asked me.



Agreed.

They are forced to make stuff up and run to gaps of scientific knowledge to try and make their opinion relevant.

You continue to argue from ignorance, a common fallacy of yours.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's not saying much to say this is incomparable with that.

Incompatible, not incomparable (i.e., the two cannot both be true/accurate). The incompatibility between general relativity and quantum physics is perhaps THE biggest problem in physics and is ONLY a problem because to say they are incompatible is about as a significant problem in any science possible. It is to say that the two most successful theories in any science contradict one another in a fundamental and irreparable way.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, what are the photons doing in laymens terms.

In layperson's terms, photons don't exist. Photons, after all, are discrete units (i.e., particles) of "light", and neither quantum mechanics, QFT, or particle physics allow for actually discrete units of photons, electrons, quarks, etc. Also, there is a very famous question about the state of quantum systems prior to measurement, e.g., A. Danan, D. Farfurnik, S. Bar-Ad, and L. Vaidman (2013). Asking photons where they have been. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402.
The standard (even outside of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM) response to this question is that it is meaningless.

Do we think it is bleeping al over the board, traveling in theses spaces.

We think it doesn't have defined properties or existence until we force it to by interacting with "light".

What is the nature of the wave function

It's a mathematical entity that is used to predict the outcomes of experiments in QM that is not, in general, either useful or even possible to use in quantum physics more generally.

what is it making a photon do

A photon is the result of measurement and the wave function (or some other mathematical device/function/field/entity).

bleep in and out of existence

Who says it exists (and in what sense)?

Most I figure is its using whatever tricks spacetime allows it.

If we make quantum mechanics compatible with spacetime (as we have), then wavefunctions cease to work and are obsolete.

As we approach the speed of light special relativity remains true and doesn't become incompatible just because you actually hit the speed of light and your poor maths break

Special relativity is designed, from the ground up, to deal with the speed of light. Quantum physics is not. It is quantum physics that breaks down at speeds near or equal to that of light, not special relativity.