Published in physic.philica.com
The proposal is that the conjugate of Schrodinger’s Psi be interpreted as unconscious belief specifying what objects shall make up the logic of the world.
Schrodinger’s Psi, conceptually (a + ib), represents a superposition of logically possible objects, one of which is implemented in a measurement. A measurement occurs when Psi conjugate, (a - ib), representing unconscious belief, operates on Psi to produce a probable reality represented by (a^2 + b^2). In this scheme, reality is not absolute but consists of objects determined by logic. Objects become real by being unconsciously believed to exist.
Unconscious belief is to be seen as an operation of logic rather than as an emergent property of reality. It may be distanced from people by using the passive voice, as in ‘A is believed’, rather than ‘X believes A’.
The scheme may be seen as an extension of logic, which previously was a manipulator of given objects but now also specifies what objects shall exist to be manipulated. Reality is no longer determined ‘by itself’ but selected by logic.
Psi-conjugate allows summation from local beliefs to a global belief, and we can say that the world is not different from what it is globally believed to be. The belief specifying the global world can be decomposed into local beliefs, whose differences are the source of the randomness that surfaces in a quantum measurement.
Examples: If the output of a quantum measurement is photographed by a camera, the wave function does not collapse until the scientists view the photos. The reason for the delay is that there is no contribution to the logic of the world until the scientists believe something. The camera makes a record but nothing is believed at that time. Similarly, Renninger quantum measurements collapse the wave function because, although nothing happens, they affect the logic of the world.
A scientific explanation of free will is to be found on the site eigenket.com.
I noticed that scientists habitually use belief as a logical element. For instance, they judge reality according to plausibility criteria. They also choose axioms on the basis of what they believe to be a reasonable set. Belief must be either purged from science or given formal accommodation.
Information about this Observation
Peer-review ratings (from 3 reviews, where a score of 100 represents the ‘average’ level):
Originality = 38.20, importance = 53.56, overall quality = 66.25
This Observation was published on 8th September, 2006 at 04:14:26 and has been viewed 6044 times.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The full citation for this Observation is:|
Fouhy, M. (2006). An interpretation of the conjugate of the wave function. PHILICA.COM Observation number 22.
1 Peer review [reviewer #3277] added 14th September, 2006 at 21:57:57
This article is in the spirit of Prof. Josephson’s conjectures on the
qiantum nature of human / nonhuman consciousness. As you may
know he is a nobel prizewinner in physics from the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. There is also a recent book by the Dalai Lama on the nature of consciousness of sentient beings. It attempts to reconcile quantum theory, and cosmology with ancient Buddhist texts on the origins of the modern universe. These are proceedings of discussions at Dharmasala with eminent theoretical
physicists and neurobiologists.
Getting back to your synoptic, I think it needs more work to show the connections with the nature of brain waves, such as alpha waves.It can also do with some discussion of quantum experiments related to these topics.
Dr. Brian M. E. de Silva / Phone :(408) 567-9296
Address : Santa Clara, California
Originality: 4, Importance: 5, Overall quality: 5
2 Peer review [reviewer #10906] added 4th October, 2006 at 02:16:12
This seems to belong more in Philosophy than in Physics. As I read it, the content is that “unconscious belief” is what collapses the wave function. (Note that for (x + iy)*(a - bi) to be real, (x + iy) must be a multiple of (a + bi). So the unconscious belief (a - bi) is essentially picking a particular state for the wave function to collapse to.)
There’s really nothing here to disprove, as nothing is rigorously defined.
For all we know, everything is in a superposition. When I can’t remember what I ate for lunch, I could be in a superposition of
Originality: 2, Importance: 1, Overall quality: 4
3 Peer review [reviewer #66096] added 12th October, 2006 at 01:28:23
I have had a difficult time trying to understand, not only the justification for this proposal, but also what this proposal is trying to say. The author uses several terms whose defiinitions are unclear to me. What does the author mean by “belief?” Is the author suggesting that I can change the wavefunction and/or affect reality at will? Can I believe a million dollars into my bank account? Or - alternatively - is an UNconscious belief one that I cannot control at will? Is this the reason that the author speaks of UNconscious belief, rather than conscious belief? What is gained by using the passive voice? If (a - ib) is supposed to represent unconscious belief, then is (a + ib) supposed to represent something else?
Other terms whose meanings are unclear to me: logic; free will; real; local. Local beliefs versus global beliefs: does the author mean to indicate one person believing things about multiple places, or multiple people who do their believing from different locations?
The only justification afaict seems to come under observational circumstances: “scientists … use belief as a logical element” and “scientists … judge reality according to plausibility criteria.” How do the thought processes of an arbitrarily chosen group of people form the basis for a scientific theory? If scientists decided to use belief or judge reality in some different fashion, would that suggest a different theory? And what is special about the wavefunction that is not special about, say, the electromagnetic field?
Does the author suggest that his theory is testable? Can I measure the “delay” mentioned by the author? How? Does he seek testability in his model, or wish to avoid it? (My suggestion is to seek it.)
The author deserves recognition for the courage to attempt to tackle some of the most notoriously difficult “questions” around. But the idea that there is some sort of mystical connection between various aspects of mind and the so-called “weirdness” of quantum mechanics is not new. I would warn him that there is a real danger in going around and around this sort of topic for an entire life and get nowhere. The fundamental difficulty, in my opinion, is that the definitions of the various terms (free will, consciousness, probability, reality) are vague; sometimes, it would almost appear, intentionally so! I truly believe this to be a serious intellectual danger. I suggest that the author make a conscious attempt to resist the (unconscious?) temptation to remain in a comfortable zone surrounded by complex-sounding but fundamentally vague statements that cannot be pinned down and therefore cannot be refuted. Instead, he should learn to ask probing analytical questions such as the ones that I suggested so that he can clarify his thought processes.
Originality: 1, Importance: 1, Overall quality: 1