QM says no observer, no existence

[Q_Goest]

Burnsys

The link you're referring to is an interesting one. I think the conclusions given in that link are largely based on a number of experiments, but probably none more than this one: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

The original paper and a discussion of it can be found on Physics Forums here: Physics Forums Discussion

One possible interpretation of the experiment is given by the website you reference - that a conscious observer is needed to 'collapse the wave function' (so to speak). On the other hand, I see from the discussion on Physics Forums that there are those who would simply suggest the interpretation is nothing more than a calculable result.

From reviewing both the paper and discussion it seems people still can't agree on the physical interpretation of QM. At two ends of the spectrum are the "shut up and calculate" group and the MWI believers, with other interpretations sprinkled throughout. Unfortunately, without a reason to distingquish between the various interpretations, no single interpretation has become accepted.

 

[gptejms]

Vanesch,you(or all MWI adherents) seem to reserve the word measurement till the point a conscious creature comes in.Upto the point it's a detector interacting with the particle,it's all linear superposition, but when the observer comes in, linear superposition(via unitary evolution) still continues but the world splits and the unobserved branch goes into some mysterious other world.How does the particle being observed or the system of particle + 'observer' come to know that the observer is conscious,so I must now split up?

Also coming to the cat paradox--say the cat observes itself to be alive--now the human observer comes in after some time---how do you explain from theory that he should necessarily find the cat to be alive and not dead(apart from common sense)?

 

[Tournesol]

There might be somehing about the physics of conscious observers that explains this, but there might be something about the physics of macroscopic measuring instruments.

 

[gptejms]

decide which one it is-----the physics of conscious observers or the physics of macroscopic measuring instruments?

 

[Canute]

I have a related question. Suppose for a moment we assume that the 'wave' does 'collapse' on being 'observed' and that this collapse is caused by consciousness. It seems that this is one of the simplest solutions. Yet even then there still seems to be a problem.

In order to observe something it must exist. Yet if a thing does not exist until we observe it then obviously we can never observe it at all, since we would have to observe it before it was observable in order to bring it into existence. This seems to me an important and often ignored aspect of the problem. How is this timing problem explained in QM? Or is it as yet just another unknown? Or, it just struck me, might this be something to do with non-locality? Or, another thought, is this something to do with Feynmans 'advanced' and 'retarded' waves allowing (what appears to be) instantaneous interaction?

 

[Tournesol]

In order to observe something it must exist.

before or at the time of observation

 

[gptejms]

I think 'collapse of the wavefunction' is not such a mysterious thing as it is made out to be.What do you do when you do a measurement----you just reduce the $$\Delta x$$ or the position uncertainty of the particle(so that you know the position of the particle (reasonably well)),whereas the momentum uncertainty becomes high.So what you do when you make a measurement is simply this-------you reduce the particle's position uncertainty whereas you increase its momentum uncertainty(given any initial wavefunction)--it's as if you have a gamma ray microscope in your hands and you 'observe' the particle---in doing so you inevitably disturb the particle,so whatever interference/diffraction pattern you would have expected in absence of the measurement is disturbed.The 'collapse' is a literal collapse in the position sense---the challenge is to show that this can come out of a unitary process.'If ' we can do that(may be we could take the measurement to be introduction of some sort of a potential which changes the wavefunction and localizes the particle in the position sense) then the need for mysterious things like consciousness,MWI etc. goes away---note the 'if ' in the statement.

 

[Canute]

before or at the time of observation

The entity must exist before the observation if it takes time for information to travel from the observed entity to our consciousness. The alternative, that the entity does not exist before we observe it, is that the observation and the collapse of the wave function must be an example of non-locality, instantaneous correlation across intervening spacetime. A third alternative is that the observation is causal backwards through time, which is why I mentioned retarded waves. Is there a fourth alternative?

 

[Tournesol]

The entity must exist before the observation if it takes time for information to travel from the observed entity to our consciousness.

The entity does nto need to exist before it the first microscopic interaction with the apparatus that eventually leads to our being aware of it.

 

[Pi_314B]

One could understand this whole thing if one were to accept that all things are conscious, down to and including fundamental entities. I.E A fundamenal entities knows what it is to the extent that it is. This goes to say that reality is conceptual only ... physical realty is conceptually based.

 

[sd01g]

To keep a proper perspective on the double slit experiment, fire a large caliber bullet through the double slits. Notice how both slits become one large hole. Also notice that no interference pattern is produced. Point made: Quarks rule.

 

[Canute]

The entity does nto need to exist before it the first microscopic interaction with the apparatus that eventually leads to our being aware of it.

Are you suggesting that the entity can interact with the apparatus before it exists?

 

[vanesch]

Sorry, didn't see that post for a long time !

Vanesch,you(or all MWI adherents) seem to reserve the word measurement till the point a conscious creature comes in.Upto the point it's a detector interacting with the particle,it's all linear superposition, but when the observer comes in, linear superposition(via unitary evolution) still continues but the world splits and the unobserved branch goes into some mysterious other world.How does the particle being observed or the system of particle + 'observer' come to know that the observer is conscious,so I must now split up?

Nothing special happens physically. I'd object to "and the unobserved branch goes into some mysterious other world", because, according to MWI, it is just as well "there" as the observed branch ; only, it seems to be a rule of conscious observation that you can only subjectively experience one branch (that your consciousness can only be associated to ONE coherent bodystate, and not to all the quantum states your body is in), and that this branch is chosen randomly according to the Born rule.
So from the moment that your body gets entangled with something else (which is the case when you "learn" about a measurement result: your body gets entangled with the carrier of the message), it seems to be the rule that your subjective experiences are only associated with ONE of the terms, and that this assignment is statistically following the Born rule.
It could simply be the "law of consciousness associated with physical structures (bodies)".

Also coming to the cat paradox--say the cat observes itself to be alive--now the human observer comes in after some time---how do you explain from theory that he should necessarily find the cat to be alive and not dead(apart from common sense)?

Solipsism ! The conscious cat can observe a totally different world than you ! Maybe the cat's consciousness is still associated with a live cat in another branch, and your consciousness is associated with one of your bodystates which is entangled with the dead cat's body. You're now simply living in two different branches.
Or even weirder: the opposite: the cat's consciousness was in the "dead cat" branch, so the cat is dead now according to its consciousness, but YOU see a live cat. It doesn't have its original consciousness, but (because of the hard problem of consciousness) there's no way you can find that out.
This is the Wigner's friend kind of situation.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[gptejms]

Nothing special happens physically. I'd object to "and the unobserved branch goes into some mysterious other world", because, according to MWI, it is just as well "there" as the observed branch ; only, it seems to be a rule of conscious observation that you can only subjectively experience one branch (that your consciousness can only be associated to ONE coherent bodystate, and not to all the quantum states your body is in), and that this branch is chosen randomly according to the Born rule.
So from the moment that your body gets entangled with something else (which is the case when you "learn" about a measurement result: your body gets entangled with the carrier of the message), it seems to be the rule that your subjective experiences are only associated with ONE of the terms, and that this assignment is statistically following the Born rule.

Do MWI-ists assume that the consciousness also splits up when a measurement is made--if it does not,the other you in the other world is a poor dead fellow(and he does not even matter).

It could simply be the "law of consciousness associated with physical structures (bodies)".

According to your model the world splits only when a measurement is made--before that the system under observation is in a superposition in this very world.By calling it a law of consciousness or whatever nothing really is answered.How do you explain the probability aspect when the world just splits into two everytime a measurement is made.

Solipsism ! The conscious cat can observe a totally different world than you ! Maybe the cat's consciousness is still associated with a live cat in another branch, and your consciousness is associated with one of your bodystates which is entangled with the dead cat's body. You're now simply living in two different branches.

See the problem here is this--cat's consciousness is associated with only the live branch i.e. it has not split into two,whereas yours has split into two(the other you in the other world is also alive).So there is a contradiction--one consciousness splits,the other does not.

Or even weirder: the opposite: the cat's consciousness was in the "dead cat" branch, so the cat is dead now according to its consciousness, but YOU see a live cat. It doesn't have its original consciousness, but (because of the hard problem of consciousness) there's no way you can find that out.
This is the Wigner's friend kind of situation.

This of course is weird--a new consciousness for the live cat.

The only way,perhaps, you can resolve the contradiction mentioned above is to say that the cat's consciousness also splits into two and in the dead cat's branch,the consciousness is still there,but it's just there as an out of body soul like existence!You'll agree that this is weirder.

 

[vanesch]

Do MWI-ists assume that the consciousness also splits up when a measurement is made--if it does not,the other you in the other world is a poor dead fellow(and he does not even matter).

Pick your flavor !

According to your model the world splits only when a measurement is made--before that the system under observation is in a superposition in this very world.

It still is in a superposition. The so-called "splitting of worlds" was only some verbial addition to put more dramatic spin to the story, but what it just comes down to, is a term in the "wavefunction of the universe". What term ? One in which your body state appears as a product. There's much more drama in the words than in the formulas. Let * stand for my consciousness, and @ stand for yours.
At a certain point, we have observed each other and we're in the following state:

|mybody*> |yourbody@> (a |1> |U>+ b|2>|V>)

I took an entangled system to give the issue more spin (!).

Suppose I will observe the 1/2 system, and you will observe the U/V system.

After I interact with the 1/2 system, this gives:

|yourbody@> (a |mybody1>|1>|U> + b|mybody2>|2>|V>)

but now the body to which my consciousness is associated, due to the interaction of the measurement, doesn't appear in a product state anymore, so my consciousness has to be assigned to one of both terms (the law of consciousness, if you want to).

|yourbody@> (a |mybody1*>|1>|U> + b|mybody2>|2>|V>)

This means that my consciousness observed the result "1" (and this happened with a probability |a|^2), and it is associated with a body state of my body that has "1" in its physical brain as a souvenir of the measurement.

Now, you will interact with the U/V system:
a |mybody1*>|1>|yourbodyU>|U> + b |mybody2>|2>|yourbodyV>|V>

Again, your conscious body state doesn't appear in a product, which is forbidden. Your consciousness will be assigned one of your bodystates at random, say V, to make it spicy:

a|mybody1*>|1>|yourbodyU>|U> + b |mybody2>|2>|yourbodyV@>|V>

This happens to your consciousness with probability |b|^2

This means that I will experience a body which remembers "1", and which will observe YOUR body which remembers "U". We are both in agreement (even if the body state I'm interacting with is not associated with your consciousness anymore, but I'll never observe that).

It means that you will experience a body which remembers "V" as a measurement result and it also means that you will interact with a body state of mine which remembers "2" (even if it is not the body state that *I* am aware of - you'll never notice the difference).

So both of us consciousnesses, in our own little subjective experiences, are convinced that there was some real observation (I think it was 1 and U, you consciously think it was 2 and V), and everything I can try to find out about it, by asking YOUR BODY, will give me the impression that I'm right ; to you, exactly the same thing will happen. But we each now live in our separate terms (branches - worlds).

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[gptejms]

Pick your flavor !

Let * stand for my consciousness, and @ stand for yours.
At a certain point, we have observed each other and we're in the following state:

|mybody*> |yourbody@> (a |1> |U>+ b|2>|V>)

I took an entangled system to give the issue more spin (!).

Suppose I will observe the 1/2 system, and you will observe the U/V system.

After I interact with the 1/2 system, this gives:

|yourbody@> (a |mybody1>|1>|U> + b|mybody2>|2>|V>)

but now the body to which my consciousness is associated, due to the interaction of the measurement, doesn't appear in a product state anymore, so my consciousness has to be assigned to one of both terms (the law of consciousness, if you want to).

|yourbody@> (a |mybody1*>|1>|U> + b|mybody2>|2>|V>)

This means that my consciousness observed the result "1" (and this happened with a probability |a|^2), and it is associated with a body state of my body that has "1" in its physical brain as a souvenir of the measurement.

Now, you will interact with the U/V system:
a |mybody1*>|1>|yourbodyU>|U> + b |mybody2>|2>|yourbodyV>|V>

Again, your conscious body state doesn't appear in a product, which is forbidden. Your consciousness will be assigned one of your bodystates at random, say V, to make it spicy:

a|mybody1*>|1>|yourbodyU>|U> + b |mybody2>|2>|yourbodyV@>|V>

This happens to your consciousness with probability |b|^2

So both of us consciousnesses, in our own little subjective experiences, are convinced that there was some real observation (I think it was 1 and U, you consciously think it was 2 and V), and everything I can try to find out about it, by asking YOUR BODY, will give me the impression that I'm right ; to you, exactly the same thing will happen. But we each now live in our separate terms (branches - worlds).

Patrick.

So the consciousness has not split---yours is one branch(1 and U) and mine is in the other branch(2 and V).Or is it in both?After all the fellow that tells you that he observes U(the other me) is a meaningful live fellow!The you in my branch is also alive for me to tell me that 2 was observed.Don't you agree that this all very weird and can not be taken seriously.
You didn't answer the probability part.

 

[vanesch]

So the consciousness has not split---yours is one branch(1 and U) and mine is in the other branch(2 and V).Or is it in both?

As I said, pick your flavor. Of course it cannot be in both: we don't observe consciously to be in a superposition (that's the whole riddle to be solved!). Now, you can say that when a conscious body gets entangled with something else (by interaction), the actual consciousness will be assigned to ONE of the term in the superposition, according to the Born rule (take that as a postulate, it answers your probability question). You are now free to assign a NEW consciousness to the other states or not. These are different flavors of the interpretation. It doesn't really matter, because you can never know if a living being has a consciousness or not. If you want it to have one, just assign a "new" consciousness to the other branches then (which, itself, will not know it is a "new" one because the bodystate it is associated with will remember everything from the "old" body, except of course a different measurement result).
[/quote]

After all the fellow that tells you that he observes U(the other me) is a meaningful live fellow!The you in my branch is also alive for me to tell me that 2 was observed.Don't you agree that this all very weird and can not be taken seriously.
You didn't answer the probability part.

I agree that this is very weird, however I don't see why it cannot be taken seriously. (who said again: "we all agree that your theory is crazy. We are discussing if it is crazy enough!") After all, if quantum theory is correct (and there is a unitary evolution - a hamiltonian) for every interaction in the world, there's almost no way to avoid this. There is no logical error in this, and it explains all our conscious subjective experiences.
I did answer the probability part (and that's where my view is NOT the one of the average MWI supporter): it is a postulate: "when the body associated with a consciousness, gets entangled with something else, the consciousness will now be associated with ONE of the body states in the entanglement, with a probability that is given by the Born rule". Take it as the MWI version of the projection postulate.
EDIT: the hard-core MWI fan will hope that we do not have to *postulate* this but that it comes out "naturally" of the formalism ; I think that this cannot be done, and that's where I'm a heretic wrt MWI.

You might add: "and a new consciousness will be created and associated with each of the viable bodystates in the other terms", at your will.
You might also consider that there is only one consciousness, namely yours (mine!), and that all other bodies are just not associated with a consciousness. There's no way to find out as is philosophically well known. Probably the version with the "new" consciousnesses is the most "symmetrical", but it is just a matter of taste.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[nameta9]

"Irreducible complexity". Maybe the problem is in the concept that observer plus system being observed cannot really be further decomposed without eliminating everything. An odd theory put forward to justify "creationism", but in this case may very well apply. The system as a whole is "irreducible", so you have irreducible complexity where you can't take any part away without modifying the system into something else.

 

[vanesch]

"Irreducible complexity". Maybe the problem is in the concept that observer plus system being observed cannot really be further decomposed without eliminating everything.

This is not just an "odd theory", it is fundamental in quantum theory (and well known). The hilbert state space of a composed system is the kronecker product of the individual hilbert state spaces: H = H_A (x) H_B.
Now, in order to be able to talk about the state of each system individually (A or B), the global state must be a product state of a state in H_A and a state in H_B. However, it is well known that the very large majority of states in H CANNOT BE WRITTEN IN SUCH A PRODUCT FORM (in that case, one says that systems A and B are entangled). In such a case, there's no way of assigning an individual state to system A and system B. There are *statistical* descriptions (using reduced density matrices) that can limit one's attention to A or to B, but they are not correct when both systems are considered (they do not correctly give the correlations between measurements).

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[nameta9]

This also confirms that the "marxist-sociological" theories that science is a social "construction" really applies. If you were the only observer in the universe, then the laws of physics would change (and probably wouldn't even exist) as it is all dependent on your subjective view and experience. The other "observers" confirm science, but all civilization as a whole could be looked upon as only one observer, hence the laws of physics don't exist. And "irreducible complexity" may even apply to all objects; hence even an atom if taken away an electron becomes something else (anyways it remains an odd theory).

Did the creationist oddballs know that stuff of hilbert ?

 

[vanesch]

This also confirms that the "marxist-sociological" theories that science is a social "construction" really applies. If you were the only observer in the universe, then the laws of physics would change (and probably wouldn't even exist) as it is all dependent on your subjective view and experience.

I don't understand this. Why would the laws of physics change or not even exist if I were the only observer ? What stops objective laws of physics from determining my subjective experiences ?

Did the creationist oddballs know that stuff of hilbert ?

As it isn't written in the Bible, I think they don't

 

[nameta9]

Vague concept not worded right. Imagine really if you were the only person in the entire universe. So you have books, instruments and laws of physics. But you completely depend on your "subjective-psychological" state. I think that under these conditions after some time, you would start losing all references as only "other" people / communications somehow provide a reference. I think a single pesron observer would end up "changing" the laws of physics because he wouldn't be able to reason straight for very long.

 

[vanesch]

I think a single pesron observer would end up "changing" the laws of physics because he wouldn't be able to reason straight for very long.

Now let us assume for a moment that there are other bodies, which act as persons act, but which are not conscious. Only, the behaviour of these bodies is exactly as if they were conscious, and you ARE indeed the only person in the world with a consciousness. What does that change from the actual situation you think you are in ?

 

[Canute]

Quite. Every theory must be consistent with solipsism being true, since if it is not then proving that theory true will involve proving solipsism false, and this cannot be done. This renders any theory that assumes solipsism to be false unprovable in principle. This seems a regularly overlooked issue in physics. For example, even if materialism is true we can never know this, since its truth cannot be known by experience, and to know it to be true by reason would involve falsifying solipsism. Btw, it can be argued that solipsism is not falsifiable because it's not exactly false, even if it's not exactly true either. Many people hold this view.

Earlier (Vanesch) you wrote - "Of course it cannot be in both: we don't observe consciously to be in a superposition (that's the whole riddle to be solved!)." I wonder though. Is this not just an assumption? It's my suspicion that we can observe ourselves to be in a superposed state, and that this is the answer to many riddles.

 

[vanesch]

It's my suspicion that we can observe ourselves to be in a superposed state, and that this is the answer to many riddles.

Well, maybe exceptionally (which would then account for a lot of "supernatural" phenomena :-).
But I fail to see how we observe ourselves to be in superposed states in the "standard" situation: it would mean that we observe outcomes of experiments in superposition: the answer on the voltmeter was observed to be 2, 5, 18 and 21 Volt at the same time. Sorry, but this happens to me only when I'm seriously drunk (ah, that's maybe the key: ethanol (and other substances) momentarily suspend the Born rule :-)

 

[nameta9]

Now let us assume for a moment that there are other bodies, which act as persons act

But that is exactly the point. As long as there are other people/communications or similar (even if fake) we retain some reference. Imagine waking up and no one is in the world anymore. You walk in a town and then everything is void of people. Now this situation (twilight zone?) would completely modify your "subjective" view of all. How long would you last ? what meaning would the "laws of physics" have in this context ? How long could you reason properly ? Now an entire civilization can be viewed as this lone "observer". It really seems to confirm the "marxist-sociological" idea that "science is a social construction".

 

[Canute]

Well, maybe exceptionally (which would then account for a lot of "supernatural" phenomena :-).
But I fail to see how we observe ourselves to be in superposed states in the "standard" situation:

In the standard situation maybe not. Maybe not even after a few beers. But do the descriptions of conscious states below not have something suggestive of superposition about them? After all, to suggest that the universe is a quantum fluctuation in a superposed state, or something like that, seems pretty uncontentious these days. When people say that reality is 'nondual' they mean something very like that it exists as a superposition of complementary appearances or aspects. Thus Jung's "no qualities, because it has all qualities."

"Nothing is the same as fullness. In the endless state fullness is the same as emptiness. The Nothing is both empty and full. One may just as well state some other thing about the Nothing, namely that it is white or that it is black or that it exists or that it exists not. That which is endless and eternal has no qualities, because it has all qualities." (Carl Jung, VII Sermones ad Moruos)

"When we encounter the Void, we feel that it is primordial emptiness of cosmic proportions and relevance. We become pure consciousness aware of this absolute nothingness; however, at the same time, we have a strange paradoxical sense of its essential fullness. This cosmic vacuum is also a plenum, since nothing seems to be missing in it. While it does not contain in a concrete manifest form, it seems to comprise all of existence in a potential form. In this paradoxical way, we can transcend the usual dichotomy between emptiness and form, or existence and non-existence. However, the possibility of such a resolution cannot be adequately conveyed in words; it has to be experienced to be understood." (Stanislav Grof, The Cosmic Game
State University of New York)

 

[vanesch]

Now this situation (twilight zone?) would completely modify your "subjective" view of all. How long would you last ? what meaning would the "laws of physics" have in this context ? How long could you reason properly ?

I don't know. You claim that an individual without contact with its peers necessarily goes bezerk. I'm not even sure of that, but let us for the sake of argument say that it is. The probable origin of this is that we are, as individuals, a social species and that somehow psychologically we do not function well if we are alone. So be it. But clearly solitary beings have no problem with that, such as leopards, who meet their "peers" only once a few years, for a copulation or so, and then go on on their own again.

Now an entire civilization can be viewed as this lone "observer". It really seems to confirm the "marxist-sociological" idea that "science is a social construction".

What goes wrong with this reasoning is that you transpose the (assumed) property of individual humans, namely that they cannot reason properly if on their own, to an entirely different animal, namely a civilisation (of which you still have to demonstrate that it even *has* a subjective experience!). There's no reason to think so, because our entire civilisation's subjective experience (if it exists!) will be "used" to live in solitude. It never met another one !

But there's something far more basic that goes wrong with this "science is a social construction". Boiling water burns your finger, whether you're alone or whether you're in a group. Rocks fall down. This is not part of a "social construction". Calculational procedures give certain results (which you can cross check by different methods yourself), and experimental procedures give also certain results, which you can also crosscheck yourself. I don't see how the agreement or disagreement between both is socially decided on matters where science is clear. I'm not talking about front level research. I'm talking about all the well-established stuff.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[nameta9]

There is something deeply "arbitrary" in science. Science depends on an "observer", but in our case this observer is a human mind/body. Now if you modify this observer maybe by changing its neural circuits or the way it processes sense information or adding other sense organs you end up having a completely different observation of the universe. Now this observer+universe is a completely different system, hence science is arbitrary in that it depends on the structure of the observer. In many posts in these forums and in www.scienceforums.net I have often mentioned the fact that we may be able to modify our own neural circuits or the way our mind organizes the information or adding new sense organs since what we really have in the end is just electrical signals going into an arbitrarily evolved/designed brain. We could add trillions of new sense organs by just modifying the neural organization of our minds hence we would have an infinite number of different universes. We would use our present science to kick start the process.

 

[vanesch]

There is something deeply "arbitrary" in science. Science depends on an "observer", but in our case this observer is a human mind/body.

What I think you mean is that PERCEPTION is deeply arbitrary. But science is more than just perception: it is the construction of a mathematical representation of a hypothetical ontology that is a 1-1 mapping to its perception. Now, of course because this perception is arbitrary (up to a point), this representation can change. But I'm somehow convinced that the underlying mathematical object that is represented (in different ways) is unique - and IS in fact, the objective, ontological world.

Let me take a childish illustration of what I'm trying to say. Imagine that space is given by 3-dim Euclidean space, and that there are different creatures, with different eyes, which "see" the world as rather hyperbolical, or elliptical or rasterized or whatever. They will come up with different theories of their vision (if we limit their perception to their optical vision) with different laws according to what is "distance" and so on, but if they are analysed deep enough, one will finally notice that all those complicated objects are just inequivalent representations of 3-dim Euclidean space.

THIS underlying structure is objective, and all our possible perceptions (no matter how crazily we are wired up) are limited to representations of said underlying structure.

Now if you modify this observer maybe by changing its neural circuits or the way it processes sense information or adding other sense organs you end up having a completely different observation of the universe. Now this observer+universe is a completely different system, hence science is arbitrary in that it depends on the structure of the observer.

I just tried to argue that although "superficially" the world looks totally different, the underlying object should be the same, and with enough thought, observation and analysis, one could hope that different observer/universe systems lead to finally the same deeper understanding: these are the laws of nature, and it is the most fundamental working hypothesis of physics that these laws exist (that this mathematical object exists).

We could add trillions of new sense organs by just modifying the neural organization of our minds hence we would have an infinite number of different universes. We would use our present science to kick start the process.

yes, but they would all be limited to being representations of the mathematical object that is at the heart of the workings of the universe (this mathematical object are the "ultimate laws of nature")
The very fact that we would "use our present science to kick start the process" is the very antithesis of the statement that "science is but a social process" !

 

[Canute]

Perhaps the question is not: Is there or is there not an underlying reality? This is an all or nothing choice equivalent to the unresolved background dependent/independent paradox, which may be an undecidable metaphysical question for all we yet know. Perhaps the question could be : If one takes away all observer-actualised differences between universes, or if one take away all observers, one by one, then when at last the last one is taken away what is left?

What is really real and so would remain even if unobserved or unconceptualised? Would quantum events ever happen? Would matter still exist? Would space and time still exist? Would 'Being' still exist? How could we ever know?

 

[vanesch]

What is really real and so would remain even if unobserved or unconceptualised? Would quantum events ever happen? Would matter still exist? Would space and time still exist? Would 'Being' still exist? How could we ever know?

If nothing is there to know, the last question doesn't make sense of course. But I'd say "yes" to all the others, realising that this is an unfalsifiable working hypothesis.

I think the simplest indication that at least this is a sensible working hypothesis is: the world looks as if it had a history. By that, I mean: with all we know, from different disciplines, it really does make sense to say that the earth, for instance, is something like 5 billion years old. Too many things fit together with this picture for it just to be decided by "social convenience". You can of course not exclude the big conspiracy, that the Earth is in fact 7 minutes old, but that everything was put together TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE that you are already there for several years, and that dinosaur bones were put in the ground etc... but that is a much less fruitful hypothesis.
Things just fit together when we say that the Earth was there even before there were humans, or dinosaurs, or trilobites. And know what ? It seems to have followed about the same laws of nature than those that we socially convened upon. We cannot go back to know for sure, of course, but this hypothesis fits within what we observe as "remnants of the past", which is the best we can do.
Now from an MWI quantum view, does that mean that "the wavefunction got observed before we were here" ? You don't need that. The universe can be objectively in a quantum state where there are terms where the Earth didn't even devellop and others where the Earth did devellop, but life never formed, and others where the dinosaurs didn't get exterminated. We simply don't happen to observe that branch (and to a certain point, we couldn't, because our bodies aren't present in those branches). This view implements automatically the antropological principle in some way.

 

[nameta9]

yes, but they would all be limited to being representations of the mathematical object that is at the heart of the workings of the universe (this mathematical object are the "ultimate laws of nature")
The very fact that we would "use our present science to kick start the process" is the very antithesis of the statement that "science is but a social process" !

True, but we are always assuming that our mental-sensory informational organization is the fundamentally true and basic one. We would modify another mind's neural circuits using our science but we would really not know how the other mind views and sees the universe unless we see "through" that new mind. And it may be that the new mind reveals completely different fundamental relationships, or even logical processes or emotions/sentiments etc. This new mind is at an equal level with ours. We are just as fundamental as any of the trillions of other possible minds. So the new mind can look at ours and say look at how unfundamental the human mind is "and they thought they knew the laws of physics". Of course there is an initial master-slave configuration in that we modify the other mind, but through the other mind we may appear just as arbitrary. It may be that there are no mathematical invariants in the end or that mathematics may just be one of many ways to organize information.

I wrote some other similar threads:


http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6944

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=71298

 

[oldtobor]

What an interesting relationship with the whole concept of intelligent design and evolution. So then, what if another mind who has a more fundamental or knowledgeable view of the universe designed our mind and we are the "slave" of the master-slave configuration ? Also evolution itself somehow creates more complex organisms from simpler ones, the "hierarchy" is actually inverted from almost nothing creating a human mind. So we don't need a "master" with a better mind to "design" another as evolution shows that nothing at all evolved (designed?) us not a superior being as god.

It is like saying an inferior being can design a superior being, a modified mind can know more than its designer just as a blind process like evolution created superior minds after a long chain of events starting from carbon atoms. Simple carbon atoms in a sense "designed" by themselves and the process of evolution a mind. An inferior thing designed a superior one that knows "more" and "deeper" than the originator.

 

[vanesch]

And it may be that the new mind reveals completely different fundamental relationships, or even logical processes or emotions/sentiments etc. This new mind is at an equal level with ours. We are just as fundamental as any of the trillions of other possible minds.

Well, before playing Dr. Frankenstein yourself, you could already look at what variants of our minds "observe". Go to your nearest closed psychiatric hospital, to study "other minds with other perceptions of the world" I don't know if they produce a lot of sophisticated science on which they have social consensus (of the style "I'm Napoleon" - "No, *I* am Napoleon" ;-)