[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Time to broaden your minds folks. You are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience. Just because we experience what is called a ''singular individual existence'' is but a mere illusion.

Such illusions are common within physics. I will give you two examples which have drastically-altered our perception of physical sciences. One being the Linear Time of Experience (now shown to be an illusion) and the Holographic Principle, which is a theory suggesting we live in a illusion.

Firstly, Linear Time. It has been shown by three different physicists i know of that Linear Time does not exist; in other words, time is not a direction in which consciousness and our experience of the world tunes to. The psychological arrow represents a type of river in time, where there is a discontinuous flow from the past and into the future, relative to the observer.

Howsoever these three scientists have shown that time is not linear really, and that this is an illusion of sorts. Real time ''out there'' in the world really exists for starts and stops.

The Holographic Principle states that we live on the wall of dimensions, and that we are a projection of this wall. Without getting deep into the theory, it suggests much like how shadows are formed on the wall of a cave, which is an analog of Plato's allegory of the cave. Reality simply at large, may not exactly seem what is objectively appears.

That which is subjective, and feels personal to me might go for a change too; it might seem ridiculous that there can be only one mind, but for a while physicists where saying that there was only one electron in the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe so why not consciousness or the plural ''I''? Is such a theory really any different?

Broaden your minds, think outside the box. I wouldn't be suggesting this if it had no credibility within physics itself. What we experience as the selfish I may not be the entire block in which consciousness exists in.

[glovesforfoxes]

it isn't that "we are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience". it's that you have nearly zero evidence that supports your conclusion, and the evidence you DO have does not even properly support your hypothesis. the one-electron universe hypothesis, as you have said yourself, is a past tense hypothesis and is unrealistic based on information from other well supported theories. you have drawn some disanalogies like this to support the hypothesis' worth of being considered.

Imagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light  from the perpendicular road.  Being busy Americans, they both choose green.  Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium.  Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose?

            After many decades, three physicists at different places and times (Ludwig Bass in Australia, myself at Oregon, and Casey Blood at Rutgers, New Jersey), independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality.  They both choose but from this nonordinary state of one consciousness (which I call the quantum self) where there is no local individuality or selfishness so contradiction can be avoided.  This allows the common sense result that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.'' [/b]

http://www.amitgoswami.org/consciousness-quantum-physics/

But then again, it would be better if you just read Ludvic Bass' account in his paper Hermethena.

A lot of QM is based on imaginary scenarios like the one above. QM can predict a lot of things but it does not mean that they will become true or a fact only that its a possibility.

Quote: "To expand this further, Bass shows how if there is a singular master consciousness, then it may have direct applications for psychic conditional theories, which usually remain outside the conventional wisdom of science"

It may be logical reasoning but a lot of his stuff is full if, may and could and not will.

So far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.

i just want to bold the thing that i think is the biggest flaw in all of this. you have non responded properly to it, just repeated that it's logical and makes sense. it's okay to accept this as a possibility, but don't talk as though it's been proven, it's barely even past the hypothesis stage and you're putting words like "proven" in the title? you need to put this in the context of science. it is a fringe hypothesis. it might be true. pink unicorns that fly around the earth might be true, but it's unlikely - so don't present your hypothesis as though it is likely.

besides all this, how is this hypothesis useful, even if it is right? you didn't answer that. it might be interesting and all that, but it has no use, and no further questions can really be asked after finding out the answer which also have no use.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

it isn't that "we are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience". it's that you have nearly zero evidence that supports your conclusion, and the evidence you DO have does not even properly support your hypothesis. the one-electron universe hypothesis, as you have said yourself, is a past tense hypothesis and is unrealistic based on information from other well supported theories. you have drawn some disanalogies like this to support the hypothesis' worth of being considered.

Imagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light  from the perpendicular road.  Being busy Americans, they both choose green.  Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium.  Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose?

            After many decades, three physicists at different places and times (Ludwig Bass in Australia, myself at Oregon, and Casey Blood at Rutgers, New Jersey), independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality.  They both choose but from this nonordinary state of one consciousness (which I call the quantum self) where there is no local individuality or selfishness so contradiction can be avoided.  This allows the common sense result that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.'' [/b]

http://www.amitgoswami.org/consciousness-quantum-physics/

But then again, it would be better if you just read Ludvic Bass' account in his paper Hermethena.

A lot of QM is based on imaginary scenarios like the one above. QM can predict a lot of things but it does not mean that they will become true or a fact only that its a possibility.

Quote: "To expand this further, Bass shows how if there is a singular master consciousness, then it may have direct applications for psychic conditional theories, which usually remain outside the conventional wisdom of science"

It may be logical reasoning but a lot of his stuff is full if, may and could and not will.

So far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.

i just want to bold the thing that i think is the biggest flaw in all of this. you have non responded properly to it, just repeated that it's logical and makes sense. it's okay to accept this as a possibility, but don't talk as though it's been proven, it's barely even past the hypothesis stage and you're putting words like "proven" in the title? you need to put this in the context of science. it is a fringe hypothesis. it might be true. pink unicorns that fly around the earth might be true, but it's unlikely - so don't present your hypothesis as though it is likely.

besides all this, how is this hypothesis useful, even if it is right? you didn't answer that. it might be interesting and all that, but it has no use, and no further questions can really be asked after finding out the answer which also have no use.

I don't have proof, and most of physics yield no proof either, only predictions.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I do have evidence however. I take it that even though three physicists have independantly reached the same conclusion - with an added physical paper - but obviously this means nothing.

[glovesforfoxes]

but non-problem they solved is both a non-problem and only related to your idea, not evidence for it. if quantum mechanics does predict that there is only one consciousness, then something in quantum mechanics is wrong.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

What do you mean non-problem?

[demografx]

Fool.

Please quit the ad hominems.

You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed.

Including the putdowns.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I was frustrated then.

[demografx]

I was frustrated then.

Not an excuse. And this is not the first instance. One more breach of this nature will get you banned.

An apology to Bored chemist is in order.

[Bored chemist]

While an apology might be apropriate for the sake of good form, I'm not too bothered.
I only take insults to heart when they come from someone whose opinion I value.
My personal take on the matter is that someone who consistently tries to win a logically unwinnable argument by
appeal to authority i.e "I take it that even though three physicists have independantly reached the same conclusion "

or by seeking to ignore the issues  i.e. "You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed."

seems to have mistaken this site for a theology forum.
To be honest, their insults bother me about as much as a three year old saying "You are horrid and you smell of wee!".
It's not polite; it shows frustration and a lack of maturity. It ought to be frowned upon, but it's certainly not worth losing sleep over. Laughing seems to me to be a more apropriate response.

Anyway, to get back to Mr Sciences perfectly valid question
"What do you mean non-problem?"

Imagine that it's about 1650 and, together with your philosopher friends, you have got bored of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin* so you decide to ask the same question about dodos.
As you are trying to deduce the answer ab initio a servant comes in and says "They just killed the last dodo".

The question "How many angels can dance on the head of a dodo (or dodos on a pin)?" becomes a non-problem.
The circumstances where the question might have a meaning no longer exist.

Similarly, if you are talking about quantum traffic lights, influenced by the minds of the drivers and someone points out that the real world doesn't have traffic lights like that, you ought to see that the original problem (about the unreal lights) is a non-problem.

The old riddle about how much wood could a wood-chuck chuck.... is another example.
It can't so the answer isn't defined.

* incidentally, the answer is "all of them, but not all at the same time".

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

In that case, i'll need to explain how statical mechanics works from a wave function point of view - funnily, this was just discussed in a different thread.

Suppose the proper definition of the arguement; Wigners Friend.

Wigner leaves the labaratory leaving a friend to observe whether schrodingers cat is dead or alive... however, when Wigner returns, his wave function states that the cat must still be in a state of superpositioning, unless the superpositioning has been determined at some previous point, or unless the determination was set when Wigner learned of the information from his friend.

Now, this is actually a real paradox in physics, because essentially, the wave function is very much part and parcel of the whole game to why we come to know anything.

p.s. I don't usually accept the cat model due to decoherence i.e. the particles which make the cat are far too entangled not to be in one state or the other. Sometimes its best to use some form of matter which easily manifests its wave form.

[Bored chemist]

You are not winning any prizes for clear communication but if I understand the "problem" correctly it's simple. The friend's observation collapsed the cat's wave function. After that, there's no paradox.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

But wigners friend surely is just as much as the quantum mechanical veiwpoint?

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/Sapp/phil_sci_lecture24.html

''The "measurement" you make at a given time is to ask Wigner's friend if the cat is dead or alive. If we consider your friend as part of the experimental setup, quantum mechanics predicts that before you ask Wigner's friend whether the cat is dead or alive, he is in a superposition of definitely believing the cat is dead and definitely believing that the cat is alive.''

''Wigner argued that this was an absurd consequence of Bohr's view. People simply do not exist in superposed belief-states. Wigner's solution was that, contrary to what Bohr claimed, there is a natural division between what constitutes a measurement and what does not--the presence of a conscious observer.''

[glovesforfoxes]

so remind me - what has this got to do with only a single consciousness existing..?

[Bored chemist]

Who cares? Maybe he was planning to get to that bit. I can save him some trouble.
The thing about his comment is that it's not true anyway.
The asserted problem is that "''The "measurement" you make at a given time is to ask Wigner's friend if the cat is dead or alive."
That's not the case; the measurement is made by Wigner's friend.
At that point the waveform colapses and the cat is no longer in a superposition of states. It's one or the other, but not both.
 If the friend gets hit by a bus before he tells anyone it doesn't matter. The cat remains alive or dead as he found it.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Maybe he was not.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

so remind me - what has this got to do with only a single consciousness existing..?

It has to do with how psi psi* interact. It has to do with how consciousness effects the observed and how it works vice versa.

[yor_on]

I think this discussion have far reaching implications. And I'm proud to join it.
As we all have to admit there is that distinct possibility of all being one.
After all, what is a TOE without that?

And thinking of it BC I'm the one in that case
And as that must mean that I know all mathematics there is?
Where's my NobelPrize?

Awh, I'll just have to give it to me.
Sorry Mr S.

I can't agree with you and I have proof.
"Wait the doorbell is ringing..."

No, I do see that you are serious but?
How about this guy then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes