REALITY IS not AN EMERGENT PHENOMENON

Science and Technology
1

Saying “Observation” is the same thing as saying “spacetime got involved”
Decoherence doesn’t require a human knowing about it. Spacetime represents our reality and converts virtual quantum information to physical/real objects.
Observation/Measurement is dead. Spacetime determines if a quantum wave should be physical for our reality. Spacetime governs our reality, by handing out physical states. Time dilation demonstrates spacetime scaling reality.

The flight/path of a particle/wave is known before starting. If a spacetime object (detector) causes the particle to decohere but continue moving to a final panel, the particle/wave is given a physical state from the start. If the particle/wave is to pass two detectors before the final panel, the particle/wave starts as a wave …the physical state is taken from it.

Are unobserved matter waves, virtual mass in a 4D format - without time (don’t age/decay)? When it is given time it becomes physical in 3D and the 4D is used for time? The temporal dimension is where the fabric of spacetime originates, anything there is 4D by default. It isn’t spatial but mass can live there as quantum waves …virtual.
A physical state turns a wave physical before it starts moving. It won’t be a wave during its flight.
4D virtual mass is unobservable. A physical state from spacetime is transforming the 4D to 3D + time.

Dark matter is unobservable, but also doesn’t have the ability to be given a physical state.
Does observation/spacetime swap quantum waves by giving it a physical state and a timeline? The wave function can propagate, but the wave doesn’t age until given a physical state.
Does this explain why we can never see quantum waves …they are 4D?

There is no reason for giving "observed" vs "unobserved" particles any special properties. At most a measurement can make the wave function for the position more narrow which seems more particle-like. At the end of the day it's always described by a wave function. Wave- particle duality is a relic from a time where we were initially trying to understand QM. Dark matter is observable through gravity. Otherwise we wouldn't have observed it. I know that's a tautology, but it seems it needs to be pointed out.
Sure there is, unobserved particles can tunnel, entangle, and be in superposition. Dark Matter is not directly observable, you aren't going to see a particle of it.
"Unobserved" / "observed" is not a well-defined property of a wave function. You cannot tell whether something was observed or not observed. Observation simply changes the state of a system to an eigenstate of some observable, which is just another state.
Decoherence is the difference between observed and unobserved
There's no way to make a measurement so a particle is literally at one point, hence they are always in superposition over positions. It's just a matter of how spread out. And even if we did accept there was such a difference, the particle would be in this "observed" state for literally a point in time and go back to being unobserved. It wouldn't make sense.
Observed particles are not in superposition (they are not in a state that is considered quantum weirdness), they have uncertainty because the quantum field still has influence on it.

The observed state lasts from point a to b. It’s given a timeline. If it hits an object too large to be influenced by the quantum field it remains observed as it is part of that object now.

2
Joseph said: The flight/path of a particle/wave is known before starting.
AFAIK, that is not correct. The flight path of a particle/wave is a probability function. The double slit experiment clearly demonstrates that we do not know the precise flight path of each particle. Wave interference scatters individual particles into distinctly separate patterns.

Double-slit experiment

In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. The experiment was first performed with light by Thomas Young in 1801. In 1927, Davisson and Germer demonstrated that electrons show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and molecules.

1920px-Double-slit.svg.png1920×919 63.4 KB

3

I’m saying, the state is known, not where it’s going to land.

4

@write4u

And now you see what I was talking about in the other thread. There’s always someone who takes it to literally mean that the simple act of a person observing something changes the reality of that thing.

5

That’s what “emergent” implies.

6

From Wikipedia: In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.

Going by that emergence, in this usage, is not independent of observation. Common words are often used very differently in a scientific context than their common usage.

Not that I want to argue with you about it. I was just going off that for a definition. If “emergent reality” means something different than the scientific use of the word “emergent” plus the common-sense use of the word “reality” then I misunderstood, which is entirely possible. Sometimes certain terms will have usages and meanings very different from those of the words they are composed of.

7
Joseph said: That’s what “emergent” implies.
No, emergent "implies" that something can appear that may be observable. But something can emerge even when there is no observer. Nature itself can be the observer.

And that is what the term “observation” means in SR.

Observer

Physicists use the term "observer" as shorthand for a specific reference frame from which a set of objects or events is being measured.

Speaking of an observer in special relativity is not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there is a sentient being within the inertial reference frame to witness them.


Note that “universal mathematics” are able to replace human mathematical calculations and activities every time.

IMO, the reason is that mathematics are a natural quasi-intelligent universal ability to permit or restrict physical interactions, dependent on their relative inherent values and proximity.

Universal mathematics allow for an orderly process of cause and effect of universal constants to yield consistent repeatable results in a chronological unfolding (emergent) reality from enfolded (inherent) potentials.

8

@Joseph

Something struck me when you agreed that the Higgs field might have something to do with Dark Matter.

If we extend this hypothesis to all dynamic quantum fields, we may actually have sufficient kinetic virtual mass being generated by the dynamic movement of energetic quanta.

A photon at rest is practically massless. It acquires its mass due to the kinetic force derived from it’s speed at “c”, which becomes observable as a particle on impact (collapse of the wave function).

If we visualize that all energetic quanta propagate @ “c”, then the combined kinetically generated mass might well account for that enormous amount of Dark (virtual) Matter which we can only measure by its indirect mass-like effects on spacetime (gravity?).

This might also account to the emergence of particles from the quantum fields. They collide and a massive particle emerges from the soup.

At Cern we actually performed such action when we slammed two particles together at near “c” and the Higgs boson materialized for an incredibly small instant only to decay back into the Higgs field.

How does that sound to you?

9

The need for the Higgs Boson

According to our current understanding, all particles were massless just after the Big Bang.

As the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value, an invisible field called the ‘Higgs field’ was formed; this field prevails throughout the cosmos. Particles such as the W and Z acquire mass through their interaction with this field – the more intensely they interact, the heavier they become.

The existence of such a field preserves the underlying symmetry of the electroweak theory, whilst explaining the broken symmetry we observe in Nature today. Other force-carrying particles – the photon and the gluon – do not feel any interaction with the Higgs field and remain massless. The Higgs boson is the quantum particle associated with the Higgs field just as the photon is the quantum particle associated with electromagnetic field. Since the field cannot be observed directly, the LHC experiments search for the particle, discovering which would prove the existence of the field…more


https://cms.cern/physics/higgs-boson

Why should this mysterious invisible Dark Matter not reside in the quantum fields of the unuverse? It would explain the gravitational warping of spacetime due to the presence of dense concentrations in the fields along with increased virtual mass, which would exert gravitational pressures on the entire fabric of spacetime, no?

10

Emergence Theory = consciousness based

11

Joseph said: Emergence Theory = consciousness based

No!

Consiousness theory = Emergence based.

Cosciousness is an emergent phenomenon, it begins with a quasi intelligent mathematical functions of universal potentials. Consciousness is an emergent quality of evolving self-referential mathematical functional complexity.

Tegmark,

 

12

@ Joseph

Thanks for that interesting video. It confirms a lot of what I visualized intuitively and from what I have gathered from the videos I have offered in the various threads in describing some of the general spacetime potentials.

I do have several problems with this specific presentation such as the concept of a pre-existing non-deterministic future reality. IMO, that creates a paradox. If something already exist, regardless of a timeframe it must be deterministic, it already exists!

However, in a mathematical universe all time frames are deterministic in essence. They are mathematical and mathematics are deterministic. The probabilistic aspect is contained in the dynamic nature of spacetime (novas, black holes, etc) which brings a measure of chaos theory to the mathematical equation and raises the question at what point does probability become deterministic. Hence the video’s assertion of a non-deterministic universe, which I find problematic in view of the assertion of a crystalline matrix, which is purely deterministic in essence.

As to the Planck scale fractality of spacetime, that seems to confirm Renate Loll’s Causal dynamical triangulation (CDT) which does explains how spacetime itself “unfolds”. IOW. an emergent spacetime fabric.

Causal dynamical triangulation

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

As to consciousness, I am sure that the term here is used in the abstract and suggests a quasi-intelligent mathematical processing of “information”, where human intelligence is an emergent quality on an evolutionary scale from purely mathematical processing of informational values and functions to the evolutionary emergence of increasingly qualitative dedicated cellular translation processing abilities. (see mcrotubules)


Anyway, it is a really interesting presentation, with some speculations thrown in for good measure, but that is the remaining puzzle, no?

 

13

Has anyone ever proposed that the past/present self-referential nature of the universe lies in the Fibonacci Sequence.

Fibonacci Sequence

In mathematics, the Fibonacci numbers, commonly denoted (Fn) form a sequence, called the Fibonacci sequence, such that each number is the sum of the two preceding ones, starting from 0 and 1

The beginning of the sequence is thus: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, …ad infinitum, each new value is the sum of a past and present value.

14

What a fantastical playground our mindscapes are. :wink:

15

Mine if fully of clowns. It’s creepy as hell. I don’t like clowns. But at least they’re not mimes.

16
CC-v.3 said: What a fantastical playground our mindscapes are.
I agree, our imaginations have almost no limit in inventing abstract perspectives of the universe and nature.

But the Fibonacci sequence is not a product of human imagination, it is a universal constant, just like E = Mc^2. Fibonacci discovered the natural algorithm and formalized it with human symbolic numbers.

It is one of the mathematical exponential functions in nature and very closely related to fractality, a fundamental aspect of spacetime. The Fibonacci sequence can be found everywhere in the universe from daisies to spiral galaxies. This does not mean that the actual expression must be perfect in nature which is a dynamic ever changing matrix. But it can be compared to the idealized Platonic solids as one of the fundamental mathematical universal potentials.

 

17

I’ve got no issue with the “Fibonacci Sequence” and have no difficulty placing it within the Physical Reality category, since it goes get represented seemingly every where.

It’s this sort of stuff: "the concept of a pre-existing non-deterministic future reality " etc - I feel way less sanguine about. :slight_smile:

18

As do I… :slight_smile:

19

I revisited this, trying to get more clarity.

In a purely deterministic mathematical model, theoretically everything is pre-determined even into the future.

But if the BB is true then the universe began in a state of chaos, i.e. purely random matter that has not yet formed itself into patterns as is described in Chaos Theory.

I wonder, is the universe completely ordered yet or are there still chaotic parts to the universe that influence the order parts and introduce a “probabilistic” aspect to any emergent future states.

Do super-novae introduce a chaotic element?
Do black holes introduce a chaotic element?

If any of this is present, that would introduce a mathematical “uncertainty”, which eventually may be resolved deterministically, but also introduce a temporary non-deterministic chaotic circumstances that affect the immediate present, a the ordering begins anew locally and spreads out to affect the staus quo.

Does that make sense?

20

I’d suggest that’s a philosophical claim more than “theoretical”.

Although, guess that begs the question, what’s the difference between “theoretical” and “philosophical”?

A good Rorschach Test of a sort. Depending on the mood, it could be read all sorts of ways.

One can make sense out of it, if one wants.
But more than “making sense” in itself, what does it relate to?
Does it help make sense of anything else?

Certainly has nothing to do with how we see ourselves and how we deal with other people, or even how we view the world, and for that matter, how well we’ve resolved the reality of our coming fate, death and “eternal oblivion”.

What does that concept have to offer our personal emotional meaning of things?

If you can define that, my next question would be, how does that differ from religion and the human yearning for ultimate truth, and the perfect answer that will resolve everything for us.

That’s what I see in much of what you’re so deeply into, such as the microtubules. On the one hand I have no problem with most of the papers and scientific evidence you relay, I buy it, I’ve digested it and it’s become part of my image of my body in action. Yes, microtubules turn out to be way more than simply the girders and rivets of our cytoskeleton, they do computation and direct action.

But when you jump from that to, ‘this is thee Thing above and beyond all the rest’ (of the biological widgets and systems) that make complex life tick, you go further, you make microtubules sound like the answer to understanding what makes us people tick .

I’m glad you keep pushing it, helps me better clarify the situation for me, hopefully getting a little better at explaining myself.

What makes us different is that I’m more obsessed with understanding the ‘me’ - whereas my impression is that you’re obsessed with finding the ultimate answer to the universe.

In that regard, that is, seeking answers to those eternal human questions, perhaps my expectations were a bit lower, so that these days, after a full life of diligent self-study, I feel pretty resolved about those big picture questions. I’ve figured out the stage, for example the deep inside appreciation that my mind, my consciousness, is fundamentally the inside reflection of my body in action. It was like a myopic person putting on corrective glasses for the first time, an entirely new world opens up. Cool part is with time, it keeps getting better.

Because it dovetails with my evolutionary history awareness. I don’t need heaven, or fear hell, or oblivion, because I know that I belong to this planet Earth. I don’t see others with that sort of solid foundation under themselves. It’s a shame, so I’ll keep looking.