The Role of Observation in the Creation of the Universe: A Quantum Perspective

[OB 50]

Did we create the universe?

Through what reverse time travel, causality breaking mechanism would we have done that, magic?

Sorry, but we're not that important. The universe was doing just fine for the 14 billion or so years before we came around, and it'll go on existing after the last human dies.

The problem with this line of thinking is what you define as the retroactive creator/observer. Where do you draw the line? Is it only human observers? Okay, then what makes a human observer any more special than an amoeba? What about a virus? Are viruses even "alive" in the traditional sense?

We don't have some special privileged position. We're just a part of it just like everything else. We are the universe, or at least a very small part of it. How can a thing retroactively cause itself?

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Though I am late in addressing the OP, it nonethless deserves my attention. I am an existentialist. We create our own lives and selves, refining our own unique view of the Universe. We essentially "create" our own Universes that we inhabit.

 

[p764rds]

There are probably 15 billion trillion other planets like ours in the universe. A 'brain'
does 'create its own universe' in a sense, but what about the trillions of other brains?

A brain has a processing area and a data area also inputs and outputs. A computer does too. They are both von neumann machines that are processing data. Even an insect does that (do they have little brains?)

 

[swat4life]

"the Universe exits independently of our minds but understand her Mathematical laws and you can control her to an incredible degree of accuracy. Fail to understand these laws, or ignore them, or forget them and she can be as malevolent as Moby Dick"

Have you read the book Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by the former head of UC Santa Cruz's Physics Dept & current emeritus professor of Physics (Bruce Rosemblum)?

http://quantumenigma.com/

His credentials include a PHD in Physics from Columbia and the book was reviewed in Physics Today.

It's one of the most honest, open-minded and scientifically grounded pieces of literature of the subject that I've read since my journey to investigate these matters.

Here's a little description to whet one's intellectual curiousity:


----
Book Description

The most successful theory in all of science—and the basis of one third of our economy—says the strangest things about the world and about us. Can you believe physical reality to be created by our observation of it? Physicists were forced to this conclusion, the quantum enigma, by what they observed in their laboratories.

Trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics and found, to their embarrassment, that their theory intimately connects consciousness with the physical world. Quantum Enigma explores what that implies and why some founders of the theory became the foremost objectors to it. Schrödinger showed that it “absurdly” allowed a cat to be in a “superposition” simultaneously dead and alive. Einstein derided the theory’s “spooky interactions.” With Bell’s theorem, we now know Schrödinger’s superpositions and Einstein’s spooky interactions indeed exist.

Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all of this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and bits about the theory’s developers. They present the quantum mystery honestly, with an emphasis on what is and what is not speculation.

Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. Because the authors open the closet and examine the skeleton, theirs is a controversial book. Quantum Enigma’s description of the experimental quantum facts and the quantum theory explaining them is, however, undisputed. It’s interpreting what it means that’s controversial.

Every interpretation of quantum physics encounters consciousness. Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself—and encounter quantum physics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing.

Readers are brought to a boundary where the particular expertise of physicists is no longer a sure guide. They will find, instead, the facts and hints provided by quantum mechanics and the ability to speculate for themselves.

--

I also love some the insightful quotes:

[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Albert Einstein

Werner Heisenberg"[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

Werner Heisenberg

But Heisenberg went on to insist that these philosophical issues raised by quantum mechanics applied to the big as well as the small.

Albert Einstein"Whether we electrons, light quanta, benzol molecules, or stones, we shall always come up against these two characteristics, the corpuscular and the undular." (Emphasis added.)

Werner Heisenberg

Albert Einstein"Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it."

Niels Bohr

Pascual Jordan"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."

Pascual Jordan

Eugene Wigner"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."

Eugene Wigner

Bernard d'Espagnat"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

Bernard d'Espagnat

Richard Feynman"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Richard Feynman

John Bell"Is it not good to know what follows from what, even if it is not necessary FAPP? [FAPP is Bell's disparaging abbreviation of "for all practical purposes."] Suppose for example that quantum mechanics were found to resist precise formulation. Suppose that when formulation beyond FAPP is attempted, we find an unmovable finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the mind of the observer, to the Hindu scriptures, to God, or even only Gravitation? Would that not be very, very interesting?"

John Bell

Martin Rees"In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."

Martin Rees



https://www.amazon.com/dp/019517559X/?tag=pfamazon01-20


As for my personal view of the universe?

I think Wheeler, much like the authors who adorned the great temples at Karnak, knew the power of pictures and symbolism to stimulate left and right brained integrated thinking for the neophytes, so too perhaps did he:

I'm also struck by Bohr and his coat of arms:
http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/birthdayindex/oct/oct7bohr/Bohr1.jpg

I think the wise among men learn as much from reading between the lines (if not more so) than through the obvious. My personal belief is that a lot of these scientists left clues to how they *really* felt about many of the mysteries of life but in the conservative, hard-lined environments they were in, couldn't really come out and say all of what they were probably thinking.

Actually, at the beginning of the book written above, the author speaks to an anonymous colleague, a physics professor who says about his book:

"Though what you're saying is correct, presenting this material to nonscientists is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to play with loaded guns"

 

[swat4life]

Oh,
Forgot a small point. When I mentioned "reading between the lines", I meant this.

Consider the definition of ying/yang:

In Chinese philosophy, the concept of yin yang ([yin - simplified Chinese: 阴; traditional Chinese: 陰; pinyin: yīn] [yang - simplified Chinese: 阳; traditional Chinese: 陽; pinyin: yáng] eum-yang in Korean; often referred to in the west as yin and yang) is used to describe how seemingly disjunct or opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, giving rise to each other in turn. (my emphasis)

Now, if anyone has read about Bohr's life, they'll know that he had the great honor of choosing his own coat of arms when he was knighted by the Danish King.

Now in terms of reading through the lines, I asked myself,
"why would one of the fathers of physics, one of the greatest physicists probably to ever live over the past 100 years, pick something as obviously esoteric as the ying yang symbol for his own coat of arms - something he knew would last for ever and ever?"

I ignore stupid comments like "he didn't know what it meant" or "it's not important" because no one with any sense would believe a man like this would do something like that without any thought to it...

 

[p764rds]

"Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. " That view is no longer accepted - the wavefunction in the Copenhagen Interpretation explains the problems that gave rise to it.
But there is so much literature already written, that it will not go away.

 

[Belzy]

Perhaps "we" (All life/DNA) are the product of our universe. Considering that everything in our universe is absolutely perfect for life to exist at this moment. If it were smaller the crunch would happen to fast for life to evolve, if it were any bigger to much gamma radiation. If it were younger not enough time to turn lighter elements into heavier (Cook time in Stars) for us to be here. The point is everything seems to point to the fact the our universe is just right for life. Like we are the end product of crystal growing. The universe produced us just so we would be here to observe it. So it would exist.

 

[p764rds]

Perhaps "we" (All life/DNA) are the product of our universe. Considering that everything in our universe is absolutely perfect for life to exist at this moment. If it were smaller the crunch would happen to fast for life to evolve, if it were any bigger to much gamma radiation. If it were younger not enough time to turn lighter elements into heavier (Cook time in Stars) for us to be here. The point is everything seems to point to the fact the our universe is just right for life. Like we are the end product of crystal growing. The universe produced us just so we would be here to observe it. So it would exist.

Take this a step further: Information (ie data, 1s and 0s) implements mathematics easily.
Information (and mathematics) is probably behind everything in this universe.
In that mathematics intelligence can exist. Some types of intelligence might want to replicate and stay around. We are intelligent, we are product of the universe. Information cannot suddenly produce a formed universe, it must step along - its tools are limited. Hence evolution. It could only start off with the basic clumps and build from there. it could not
simply produce a mature universe - not strong enough tools for that. Information cannot
suddenly form into perfect life holding entity. Needs to step along - that's what information does (in a computer too)
I assume an earlier life form wanted to survive the demise of information. The only way back, since itself was made of the decaying information? Well, seed it to evolve again, needed good designers. We could make a very bad universe now, but in 1000 years?, I bet we could make a better one than this one. Would need a gigantic quantum type of PC!Then just leave it to evolve.

Well, its a more logical explanation than atoms, energy and big bangs etc.

 

[swat4life]

"Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. " That view is no longer accepted - the wavefunction in the Copenhagen Interpretation explains the problems that gave rise to it.
But there is so much literature already written, that it will not go away.

This statement is not accurate. In other words, it is not supported by the scientific facts that are beyond dispute. You have evidence of this contention in the statement that you made - the Copenhagen Interpretation.

The scientific facts, i.e. the skeleton are absolutely, unequivocally undisputed.
The interpretations, however ARE NOT.

Unfortunately, what's happened is that many people have come to equate the generally accepted interpretations with the scientifically observed facts (often because the former are more intuitive or more in line with a generally accepted worldview - i.e. they "make sense").Theory/interpretation neutral demonstrations of the BRUTE FACTS consistently produce the same results - no matter how "spooky" they appear.

I don't think the average student of physics can be blamed for their understanding of this issue however because as it was pointed out, most physics departments either a) avoid the issue or b) lead students to believe the issue has been "solved".Perhaps this is why Murray Gell-Mann made the remark in his Nobel Prize Lecture that Niels Bohr had "brainwashed generations of physicists into believing the problem has been solved".
Or why a colleague of Rosemblum stated,
"Though what you're saying is correct, presenting this material to nonscientists is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to play with loaded guns".

If you care to, you can listen here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1969/gell-mann-bio.html to old Nobel lectures...Lastly, an import issue needs to be understood by all. The "enigma", or "skeleton" or "implications" of the observed phenomena is a PHILOSOPHICAL ONE and the existence of this enigma, many would argue is not a question of physics but, "metaphysics". The danger however lies unfortunately in the latter - if danger is a word.

It's not much different than observing a ship that started at one point and returned to that same point having traveled in a circle as evidence that the world is round, but developing an "assessment" of that fact more in line with a flat Earth interpretation - especially since the latter makes sense with the sun appears to they to rise in the east and set in the west...

In any case my premise about the indesputability of the scientifically observed facts - independent of subjective interpretation - is supported by the naturally observed phenomena as real as the laws of quantum physics themselves. If you're interested in reading some peer-reviewed literature or want links to the publications I've read to develop this view, PM and I'll happily forward them along...

 

[squidsoft]

Have you read the book Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by the former head of UC Santa Cruz's Physics Dept & current emeritus professor of Physics (Bruce Rosemblum)?

Thanks for that information. It's interesting and I'll try to find a copy. :)

 

[Moonbear]

Though I am late in addressing the OP, it nonethless deserves my attention. I am an existentialist. We create our own lives and selves, refining our own unique view of the Universe. We essentially "create" our own Universes that we inhabit.

Then it seems this thread needs a working definition of universe if there is more than one way to interpret the word that makes the OP less nonsensical.

 

[p764rds]

Then it seems this thread needs a working definition of universe if there is more than one way to interpret the word that makes the OP less nonsensical.

I'll take a shot at defining the universe:

Lets assume that the universe is a von neumann-like machine that works on information processing. (its not just me that says this, Nick Bostrom, Oxford University is another for example).

Now, Von Neumann machines can nest one inside another perfectly. For example,
a Linux OS can nest inside a Windows system - perfectly. Certain people have two personanilities nested in the same brain.

So, the 'reality' of the universe is a reality that is produced by information processing.

Equally valid realities are brains (human, animal) and computers that are nested within the
the big universe. They all produce mini-universes. In fact many philosphers say that their
mini-unverse (their own mind) is the only universe, and that everything else is imagined in their universe. I believe that is a silly egocentric view that is undisprovable at the outset.

So, the universe is an extensive information processing system based on quantum logical flow that uses field theories, Lorentz Covariance, relativity and 3 dimensional space to realize itself situated in nothingness (the void) and stepping along using a present moment in an evolutionary way starting from small condensed 3D space and ending in the demise of all its data. Then it either reboots or is re-designed by the intelligence contained within it

 

[gabrielh]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God? The reasoning behind my madness is from my basic understanding of quantum physics.

I am aware that by merely observing something we can cause its existence and/or influence it to act in the way it does, be it from sticking a cold thermometer into a warm bowl of water and therefore lower the temperature of the water, to the classic wave/particle experiment with photons and slits.

Is it so mad to assume that by observing the big bang, we actually caused it to happen and therefore we created ourselves?

I apologise if this is old news or already addressed elsewhere, but I could not find anything on the subject.

Ideas like this attract people because it is mysterious and very interesting. However, this has the negative effect of overwhelming one with it's oddness such that one forgets to think. The idea that we created the universe, at least to me, seems ridiculous. I also don't subscribe to this interpretation of quantum mechanics, myself.

 

[3dfan]

I can't answer this question being a small piece of sand comparing to Universe but I think that everything happens for reason and Thanks to no matter who or what for creation this perfect world

 

[p764rds]

I can't answer this question being a small piece of sand comparing to Universe but I think that everything happens for reason and Thanks to no matter who or what for creation this perfect world

Intelligence is probably a natural property of the universe derived from logic and mathematics which can exist outside space time. So thank yourself as part of that intelligence.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I can't answer this question being a small piece of sand comparing to Universe but I think that everything happens for reason and Thanks to no matter who or what for creation this perfect world

The size and scale of the Universe never stopped Einstein from pursuing knowledge about the Universe.

 

[Belzy]

Ideas like this attract people because it is mysterious and very interesting. However, this has the negative effect of overwhelming one with it's oddness such that one forgets to think. The idea that we created the universe, at least to me, seems ridiculous. I also don't subscribe to this interpretation of quantum mechanics, myself.

We may not create the universe, but one must consider that the observer may well in fact have an effect on it as a whole. Just by being there to observe. Like a mother responding to a crying child. We are the children of this universe we inhabit. It would make sense that being a product of it that we are connected to it in more ways than we are yet able to understand. Science will explain all of this in "time" maybe not in our lifetime but someday. The more we question the more we will learn and the more we learn the more questions we will have.

 

[WaveJumper]

and Thanks to no matter who or what for creation this perfect world

Hmm, I wasn't aware that death and suffering were defeated.

 

[kreature]

yes, it is kind of mad...besides nobody has obsrved the big bang..only it after effects...

You are observing it now and have been your entire life. The explosion is still happening.

 

[kreature]

I don't know who said it first but I continue to say it and will forever. We are how the universe knows itself. It's so simple and yet, it ends up being assumed to be complicated.

 

[faustronaut]

the cool sci-fi answer is that perhaps by making various choices we are unconsciously navigating parallel universes. I'm not responsible for your existence, nor are you of mine. but we may choose which versions of each other we experience.

 

[quantumdude]

I have been wondering, are we responsible for the creation of the universe, indeed are we all God?

We? No. I am. This is my universe, you're just livin' in it, Bub.

 

[Maui]

We? No. I am. This is my universe, you're just livin' in it, Bub.

Then we should appoint security guards to guarantee your safety and longevity, as we all hinge on your well-being.

 

[p764rds]

Its not so deep or abstract as all this, its much much simpler - here we go-...an intelligence can exist within quantum states that manifests itself through data and instructions which are held in quantum states (or a similar state holding entity).
1) Now, any intelligence is capable of thought in the same way that we think (its just a property of numbers).
2) An intelligence might find it fun or worthwhile to nest a Universe within its own field of existence. We could even make a (bad) universe in a PC!
3) An intelligence would soon work out that a 3D Universe would work well - its an engineering problem only.
4) Voila - here we are - we are probably similar thinkers to what created this lot we 'live' in.
5) Parallel universes are not necessary IMO, nor is travel to future or past. i.e. we have the 'present time'. It is mathematically possible to make other universes and there may well be lots and lots of them - but I cannot see the reason for designing them in or evidence of them. To run the cosmos backwards would need a vast amount of data recording all positions of all 'particles' at all times - would the designers have bothered to add that into an already difficult mix? (no..., why?)

 

[baywax]

Then we should appoint security guards to guarantee your safety and longevity, as we all hinge on your well-being.

The interconnectivity of all things says you're right to say this and wish Tom well. The random effect that each and every event in the universe has on the next event is covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory" " in english.

Its not that we create the universe when we observe it. Its that we are the universe. We are part of it and we are, in effect, motivated by the entirety of the universe. Our observations may cause a motivation to either perceive the universe differently or actually change part of it. Its not determinism to say that each motion in the universe causes a motion elsewhere and we are one of the "elsewheres".

 

[p764rds]

This looks good on my android phone. Cool blue and fast loading - thanks physics forums
web designers.

 

[Deveno]

did we create the universe? i don't think so. perhaps someone or something did...it appears to have the coherence of an artifact, unfortunately, i haven't enough experience of "un-created" things to say (or have i?)

i like to think that what we do create, is our own frame of reference. more than one frame of reference is possible, and possibly there is a "preferred frame of reference", which, if it exists, would be unique (up to isomorphism, of course).

personally, I'm not smart enough to have created everything. i don't think anyone alive is, either. although it is possible this "reality" is simulated, for all practical purposes, it is irrelevant. true or not, it does not guide the choices i make.

the possibility existence is just distributed information has a certain sort of self-contained logic to it. of course, carried to its logical conclusion, what we perceive to be our "tangible" existence, is then just a "model" for a decidedly "intangible" data-structure. one wonders where the energy for the "stepping" of the data-structure through different phases comes from. geometrically: are we on a line, a line-segment, a ray, or a loop? current theories leans towards "ray" or "line segment " but "big bounce" theories are making the "loop" fashionable once again.

of course, i have no way of knowing if my individual consciousness is just some fractional (fractal?) part of an "over-self" in which case i might actually be you (although i can't see as how this helps much). so, as enjoyable as such meta-physical speculation may be, the inability of my mind to maintain several points of view simultaneously makes me favor the ordinary view, that i am just another grain of sand in the hour-glass, and soon i will be done.

 

[p764rds]

personally, I'm not smart enough to have created everything. i don't think anyone alive is, either. although it is possible this "reality" is simulated, for all practical purposes, it is irrelevant. true or not, it does not guide the choices i make.

Enjoyed reading your post...

The 'creator' would only need to design the 10 (or so) fundamental particles, then let them go and they will do the rest themselves. Same with life - the genetic improvement with time is not a one-off design process (no unit intelligence could do that) rather it is a complex structure that has essentially designed itself in small easy steps over time. (genetic programming)

A computer game would appear at first sight to be a mess of 0s and 1s (binary) but if I know the program that is running this mess of binary then it is quite easy to grasp.

Lastly, I do not believe that the cosmos is so mysterious that we can never understand it. I believe the opposite that we can know everything about it and will soon be able to deconstruct our reality into what it really is - data. A numbers process, the magic contained within the simple properties of numbers. In this respect intelligence itself is 'only' a property of numbers and cannot exist outside numbers.
In this way we get a truer handle on ourselves. This is much better for us. I feel sure that if an intelligence created this shabang then it would not object to us knowing about it. Why should it object? It would be pleased IMO. An intelligent creator would probably be similar in thinking to ourselves because it is based on mathematical logic. The only difference would be motivations of that logic. And motivations could be any type, but logic is always logic.

:)

 

[baywax]

I do not believe that the cosmos is so mysterious that we can never understand it. I believe the opposite that we can know everything about it and will soon be able to deconstruct our reality into what it really is - data. A numbers process, the magic contained within the simple properties of numbers. In this respect intelligence itself is 'only' a property of numbers and cannot exist outside numbers.

:)

Data (eg. numbers) is a language we use to describe our experience. It is how we decipher our experience. We could be using chinese characters or even an alphabet or two to do the same thing.

Your belief appears to be the reverse of what is actually taking place. It sounds to me like you imagine a deity letting loose some numbers that magically create our experience... when, in actuality, our experience and our limited comprehensibility have led us to compartmentalize our experience into numbers and other languages.

 

[p764rds]

. It sounds to me like you imagine a deity letting loose some numbers that magically create our experience... when, in actuality, our experience and our limited comprehensibility have led us to compartmentalize our experience into numbers and other languages.

Thanks for your interesting post...
I have written over 100 posts and an independent paper on this. If you google P764RDs you will find them all.

I believe all objects in the cosmos are 'made' from data and instructions (also data) in a similar way to how a computer makes a 3D game or even a digital film. We can watch a film or game and see 3D objects on the screen but their origin is definitely in numbers - binary in the memory of the computer. Everything that happens in a computer game is 'merely' due to the amazing properties of numbers and logic. Those properties contain nearly infinite capabilities for making games.

So, in this view, objects in our cosmos are being made in a similar way as in a computer game - but through the Heisenberg Uncertaintity area rather than screen pixels.
Light is pure data containing the energy value and the location value of objects (witness our eyes and camera results for some evidence there and light 'travels' at the maximum speed of data flow too). I put travels in commas because light does not leave a track of its path between observation and creation - its in the wave equation only, not in space. One has to 'ask' light where it is then it gives you values. If you do not ask you get no information at all because its still in superposition and thus has no fixed energy or location.
If you do not ask it for its data then its not in *space* at all - its in an algorithm that simply calculates where it is allowed to be according to its algorithm. i.e its not flying through the air rather its calculating its possible 3D locations algorithmically.

Deity created it? Not a deity as such, but would a collection of numbers create a 3D cosmos (game) as we are in? Is it something that would happen of itself? I believe not, it needs a creator which would simply be an evolved intelligence. Well, is that a person or a deity? ha - you tell me.
The cosmos requires a 3D matrix co-ordinate system to define its spatial aspects as in a 3D game AND a small template collection of particles (say quarks) to be multiplied up to make objects. The properties of those particles is all that is needed to be set correctly, along with some universe constants, and the whole shebang will run itself without the need for deities as you put it.
I simply suggest that 'intelligence' is a property within numbers and is capable of design. So an initial evolved intelligence that did or does not exist in 3D space could actually design the 3D space. Its only an engineering problem and its not even massively difficult to do is it?

You reading this post and I could get together and decide that this cosmos is too boring. So we could sit down and design another cosmos using quarks that we have tweaked a little. We could put it in a computer and let it evolve by itself. I am sure you get the picture of what I am saying. Can intelligence exist outside numbers? I don't think so. But also, it can never escape from numbers can it? How?

But there may be some process that is not intelligent that self-evolves a cosmos using some natural laws? I have not really thought about it - it needs some PhD students to present us with possible scenarios.

 

[baywax]

But there may be some process that is not intelligent that self-evolves a cosmos using some natural laws?

Yes there is. Its called nature.