The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: observing 'observation' theory  (Read 1682 times)

Offline addrumam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
observing 'observation' theory
« on: 14/04/2010 18:06:47 »
this post is not an extremely confident point of view, moreover i wish people to discuss their ideas on it.



the question of course relates to the copenhagen theory of reality as points of infinite possibility, made 'real' by an 'observing consciousness'.

refering to 'quantum positions of state'.

it presents inconsistencies, by way of us being made up of the quantum processes that we are then (or at least our consciousnesses are) at a hierarchy of consciousness to.
this all gets quite repetitious within much speculative and experiment driven science, that humans are somehow of more of a divine package within it all. i say this as a quick tangent i will go back to, relating to the case of Schrodinger's Cat. the theory was to back up copenhagen's theory by suggesting that when a cat is in a sealed box it is in every conceivable state of quantum postion, and when it is then observed it becomes the reality of that observed perception. i will go on to show why i think this is as true as is it false.

who observes the observers.

now there was Berkley's approach through religous convictions that heralded similar persuasion.
Berkley's idealism - "to be is to be perceived, or to perceive"
the same way as copenhagen's theory, however he didn't want to be led into the social-shock nature of copenhagen's specualtions and so suggested everything indeed to be there when we weren't looking by way of the 'one god ' theistic apporach, constantly observing everything.

now, i've been reading a bit on Lipton's anthropomorphic view of cell sciences, in Epigenetics. He goes on in a layman's apporach about the complicated nature of cells, and how they show every sign of conscious behavoir in the way they react to their environment.

so, having the dubunked Copenhagen paradigm come back with Berkely and this, i thought it could seem reasonable to tie them all up in one foul swoop.

this also produces specualtive theory on the holographic model, and on what is usually deemed a 'new age' philosophy (i admit im not fond of the new age apporach just as im not fond of the aetheist apporach to religion, but that is all a longer and entirely different point of discussion)


basically, let's assume then that an electron's fate is indeed based entirely on it being consciously perceived. let's also take berkely's view that everything is always perceived because of the 'one consciousness'

well, i have been thinking of consciousness as the 'Mandelbrot set'. do not get me wrong, however, i do not think that the formula could be the exact shape of consciousness, i simply think it provides us with a realistic and logical model that an infintie fractal containing it's image and variants of it at an infinite repeating level is a good way to think of conasciousness. the 'formula' for the set is the 'oneness', the state of the set as a whole, yet when computed, it creates this reaccurying and infinite fractal.
so i take that then as an analogy for cosciousness and suggest not a theistic apporach like berkely, but that in reality this 'one formula' oneness of consciousness is then fractionalised into every infintie and conceivable point. this joins in with the almost sensationalist view of lipton's book 'biology of belief' but i do not wish it to be so sensational. anyway, conscious behavoir exist in the piping between amino acids that make up protein molecules. conciousness at the next level exists in each cell, then in each 'thing' that a group of cells becomes (everything from people to rocks). the reason he gives for the difference between animate (and therefore perceivably conscious) objects and innanimate ones relates to how much extra 'work' or movement can be created from the coupling of positive and negative electromagnetic charges that make up the protein molecules.

so pulling out further, each human cell has a consciousness, each human has a consciousness, each society has a consciouness, each culture, and finally the world (then solar system, then galaxy, then nebula, then the 'contained universe').

i of course do not wish at this point to go into discussions about consciousness then being a self translated phenomenon that can more discreetly be considered as vibratinal frequencies, for i feel this area needs pulling apart first and foremost.
i only bring this up because i have not personally come across the idea that copenhagens theory was right, but that there are so many trillions of trillions of elements in the universe consciously perceiving it's other elements, explaining therfore that everything does always exist in fixed points and not in a superstate of infinite quantum postitions of possibility. the thing that seperates rocks and plants and all that from humans is then that humans have developed 'self-awareness- instead of simply observing the 'rest' of the universe as what everything else seemingly does.

i would like to see what people have to say about this and give me more insight perhaps. i appreciate the seeming contradiction in the way i have spoken of copenhagen's theory as true and false together - it does suggest it's true, but that there is not the foundation set in the universe for any 'non-observed' positions.

any thoughts ?
« Last Edit: 25/05/2010 15:28:55 by addrumam »


 

Offline addrumam

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
observing 'observation' theory
« Reply #1 on: 31/05/2010 20:42:38 »
okay, i would like to provide a little more detail on the Mandelbrot analogy, of an infinitely recurrying image (namely consciousness), but also in the form of planetary setups.

this refers directly to the relationship between electrons surrounding a nucleus of an atom, likened to the planets around the stars.

quote from George Gamow (one, two three...infinity: facts and speculations of science):

"The analogy with the planetary systems can be further strengthened by these facts: the atomic nucleus contains 99.97 % of the total atomic mass as compared with 99.87 % of the solar system concerntrated in the sun, and the distances between the planetary electrons exceed their diameters by about the same factor (several thousand times) which we find when comparing interplanetary distances with the diameters of the planets.

The more important analogy lies, however, in the fact that the electric attraction-forces between the atimoc nucleus and the electrons obey the same mathematical law of inverse square as the gravity forces acting between the sun and the planets. This makes the electrons describe the circular and elliptic trajetoires around the nucleus, similar to those along which the planets and comets move in the solar system."


i will add more when i settle my procrastinations, however would like to hear peoples current objective thoughts.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

observing 'observation' theory
« Reply #1 on: 31/05/2010 20:42:38 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums