Dear Bruno, You have brought up a vitally important question. Thank you so very much. Best wishes

Alex RE Bruno: How could the quantum correlations existence be definite if nothing is objective? ME: It does not really matter what the nature of the reality is, either strongly objective (denied by quantum theory), or D'Espagnat's 'Veiled Reality', the title of his book in which he discusses a not-strongly-objective reality. Quantum correlations will have the same level of existence as the wave function and everything built out of mixtures of wave-functions, wave-packets, and / or quantum fields. Quantum correlations exist as 'definitely' (or indefinitely) as everything else. (See the discussion(s) under Steve Bindeman's response(s) earlier today.) ALSO: The problem with 'Interpreting Quantum Theory' is that if your basic assumption about the nature of reality is not consistent with the implications of quantum theory, then quantum theory will inevitably be impossible to interpret, because its implications will deny your underlying assumptions. (I REGARD THIS AS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE) Quantum theory popularizer, Heinz Pagels (late husband of Elaine Pagels), posed the question: "What is quantum theory trying to tell us about existence / our universe?" I fell that D'Espagnat's theorem says it all - or at least a great deal of it. My Proposed Resolution of the problem is to make sure that the macroscopic reality you choose as the context for your interpretation of quantum theory is not inconsistent with the theory. Then quantum theory turns out to be relatively (sic!) easy to interpret. But such realities are not popular as an underlying metaphysics in western thought, though they do occur in South Asian schools of thought, and in Whitehead's Process Philosophy. That is why I promote a 'Vedic' interpretation of quantum theory which starts with the idea of information and information generation as being primary, and matter and energy as being secondary. The *processes* of information generation (wave packet reduction), information transmission (free states of wave functions), and information storage (bound states) then become fundamental, along with the non-quantum states at critical instabilities, where phenomenal experience becomes possible via <========*O* . The primary source of information in the universe is then the symmetry breaking process at the origin of the inflationary process in quantum cosmology, a singularity in which I can locate information states of the kind that I am proposing in this webinar as the foundation for phenomenology / experience, since their <========*O* structure can support both the sense of self', in *O*, and integrated information supporting gestalt cognition in <========. Interestingly and as I have already emphasized, this makes both the 'self' a process, <*O*, and objects of perception, weakly objective entities supported / manifested by sequences of information production processes. I confess that I am a slightly unwilling Whiteheadian! (There is much to learn!) On 2 May 2016 at 09:55, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On 02 May 2016, at 08:30, Alex Hankey wrote: > > RE Bruno Marchal: It is easier to explain the illusion of matter to > something conscious than to explain the illusion of consciousness to > something material. > > ME: At the Consciousness Conference I found it extraordinary that at least > one plenary presentation was centered round treating the wave function as a > real entity in the (strongly) objective sense. > > I was under the impression that Bernard D'Espagnat's work for which he > received the Templeton Prize had definitively shown that nothing is > 'objectively real' in the strongly objective sense. The definite existence > of quantum correlations destroys all that. > > > Is that not self-defeating? How could the quantum correlations existence > be definite if nothing is objective? > With Digital Mechanism we need to accept that the existence of the > universal machine and the computations is as real/true as the facts of > elementary arithmetic, on which everyone agree(*). Then we can explain why > machines develop a belief in a physical reality, and why that beliefs can > last and can be sharable among many individuals, like with the quanta, and > why some part of those beliefs are not sharable, yet undoubtable, like the > qualia. > > (*) I like to define Arithmetical Realism by the action of not withdrawing > your kids from school when they learn the table of addition and > multiplication. It is mainly the belief that 2+2=5 is not correct. > > > Once this is accepted, the enquirer is faced with the question of what to > accept as fundamental. I have always considered 'information' in the sense > of the process or flow that connects the observed to the observer as a > satisfactory alternative. The process of information flow creates the > observer-observed relationship and (the illusion of??) their separation. > > > I can be OK with this. In arithmetic, it is more like a consciousness > flow, and actually a differentiating consciousness flow, from which the > laws of physics evolve. > > > > > Sequences of information production made possible by lack of equilibrium, > both mechanical and thermodynamic, create pictures of particle tracks at > the microscopic level, and pictures of objects at the macroscopic level. > > > This already seem to presuppose a physical reality. As I am interested in > understanding what that could be and where it comes from, I prefer to not > assume it. I gave an argument why such an assumption is not quite > compatible with the digital mechanist assumption (not in physics, but in > cognitive science). > > > > > Everything is made consistent by the existence of quantum correlations in > mathematical ways use by Everett in the book on the Many Worlds > interpretation by Bryce De Witt (note that I use the mathematics, but do > not concur with the interpretation). > > > Everett did not talk about a new interpretation. He just gave a new > Quantum Mechanics formulation, which is basically the old one (Copenhagen) > but without the assumption of a wave collapse. I tend to agree with David > Deutsch on this: the "many-world" is just literal quantum mechanics, where > we apply the wave or matrix equation to the observed and the observer as > well. > > > > > In my approach, the universe continuously makes choices, and selects among > its own futures. I had a lengthy conversation with Henry Stapp two days ago > at the conference after his talk, and checked that he still approves of > this approach. > > > > The only problem with Everett theory, is that he used digital mechanism, > and what I did show, is that this should force him to extend the embedding > of the physicist in the wave to the embedding of the mathematician in > arithmetic (a dormant notion, alas). The ultimate equation of physics might > be only arithmetic (or anything Turing equivalent). All the rest becomes > internal phenomenologies, at least assuming digital mechanism. > This makes also digital mechanism testable, by comparing the physical > phenomenology with the actual observation. Up to now, it fits: the quantum > weirdness of the universal wave (the multiverse) seem to match well the > digital mechanist arithmetical weirdness of arithmetic (intuitively and > formally). > The only trouble is that such a top down approach leads to complex > unsolved problem in mathematics, which is normal, given the depth and > complexity of the subject. I am not a defender of digital mechanism, I use > it only because the philosophical and theological questions becomes > mathematical problem. I search the key only under the lamp of mathematics. > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > P.S. Thanks to all for making this such a rich and interesting > discussion. > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > ____________________________________________________________ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 ____________________________________________________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>

_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis