Cosmologic philosophy: quantum conscious universe (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2018, 23:35 (2257 days ago) @ David Turell

This philosopher uses quantum theory to describe a thinking universe!

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/thinking-outside-the-quantum-box/?utm...

"The counterintuitive predictions of quantum theory have now been experimentally confirmed with unprecedented rigor. Yet, the question of how to interpret the meaning of these predictions remains controversial.

***

"This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, contradicts either local causation or the very notion that particles A and B are “real,” in the sense of existing independently of observation. As it turns out, certain statistical properties of the observations, which have been experimentally confirmed, indicate the latter: that the particles do not exist independently of observation. And since observation ultimately consists of what is apprehended on the mental screen of perception, the implication may be that “the Universe is entirely mental,” as put by Richard Conn Henry in his 2005 Nature essay.

***

"If we stick to plain quantum theory, what does it tell us about reality? Physicist Carlo Rovelli tried to answer this question rigorously and the result is now known as relational quantum mechanics (RQM).

"According to RQM, there are no absolute—that is, observer-independent—physical quantities. Instead, all physical quantities—the entire physical world—are relative to the observer, in a way analogous to motion. This is motivated by the fact that, according to quantum theory, different observers can account differently for the same sequence of events. Consequently, each observer is inferred to “inhabit” its own physical world, as defined by the context of its own observations.

"The price of this uncompromising honesty in acknowledging the implications of quantum mechanics is a number of philosophical qualms. First, the idea that the physical world one inhabits is a product of one’s private observations seems to imply solipsism, an anathema in philosophy. Second, RQM entails that “a complete description of the world is exhausted by the relevant [Shannon] information that systems have about each other.” However, according to Shannon, information isn’t a thing unto itself. Instead, it is constituted by the discernible configurations of a substrate.

"Yet, if there is no absolute physical substrate, what then constitutes information? Third—and perhaps most problematic of all—the RQM tenet that all physical quantities are relative raises an obvious question: relative to what? We only see meaning in a relative quantity such as motion because we assume there to be absolute physical bodies that move with respect to one another. But RQM denies all physical absolutes that could ground the meaning of relative quantities.

"Notice that the root of all these philosophical qualms is the assumption that only physical quantities exist. If physical quantities arise from personal observation and they are all there is, then solipsism is indeed implied. If physical quantities are grounded in information and they are all there is, then information indeed lacks a substrate. If physical quantities are relative and they are all there is, then there are indeed no absolutes to ground their meaning.

***

"Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, of cosmic inflation fame, provided an important clue when he observed that “our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions.... ....Hence, in the absence of an absolute, observer-independent substrate, the physical world of RQM can only be the contents of perception. There is nothing else for it to be.

***

"So the possibility that presents itself to us is that thoughts are the absolutes that ground the meaning of the relative physical quantities of RQM. In other words, all physical quantities on the screen of perception may arise as relationships between thoughts. Moreover, since both thoughts and perceptions are mental in essence, this line of reasoning points to mind as the primary substrate of nature, the discernible states of which constitute information. (My bold)

"The hypothesis here, which I have elaborated upon in detail elsewhere, is that thought—whose characteristic ambiguities may in fact be what quantum superposition states ultimately represent—underlies all nature and isn’t restricted to living organisms. The physical world of an observing organism may arise from an interaction—an interference pattern—between the organism’s thoughts and the thoughts underlying the inanimate universe that surrounds it. Although each organism—in accordance with RQM—may indeed inhabit its own private world of perceptions, all organisms may be surrounded by a common environment of thoughts, which avoids solipsism at least in spirit."

Comment: this says to me , as I believe, the universe exists in the mind of God, or God is the universal consciousness. Thus our brain receives consciousness to interface with it. I had to omit some of his intermediate reasoning. Worth studying the entire essay.