Perception and physical reality

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

This would mean that physical reality is a result of perception.

Does that include the conclusions regarding physical reality that are drawn from quantum physics?

@joefromchicago,

Well, this whole idea is based on conclusions regarding physical reality that are drawn from quantum physics. Quantum physics' description of the phenomenon we percieve as physical reality allows for an alternative explanation of reality in which the existence of physical matter dictates the precence of consciousness, or at least some kind of observer function.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:
This would mean that physical reality is a result of perception.

Does that include the conclusions regarding physical reality that are drawn from quantum physics?

It is stated incorrectly... perception is possible by physical being, our own and of objects in physical reality... Perception is not the cause of anything, though it certainly is an essential element of understanding...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, this whole idea is based on conclusions regarding physical reality that are drawn from quantum physics.

Indeed. I just wanted to make sure I understood you.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quantum physics' description of the phenomenon we percieve as physical reality allows for an alternative explanation of reality in which the existence of physical matter dictates the precence of consciousness, or at least some kind of observer function.

Well, quantum theory allows for an alternative explanation of reality, but it doesn't really allow a basis for that reality if the conclusion you draw is that conscious reality is what makes physical reality. After all, quantum theory starts with the premise that there is an objective physical reality. I don't see how you can accept the results of quantum theory while rejecting one of its fundamental premises. Using quantum physics to disprove the basis of quantum physics is rather like Baron Munchhausen pulling himself up by his own queue.

1 Reply

@cyracruz - In QM as you have correctly pointed out there exists a mathematical description of the physical universe. According to this there are two types of reality - 1. the observable, measurable physical data called the eigen value corresponding to its 'collapsed' mathematical wave called the eigen function 2. the wholly unobservable state of reality which consists as a superposition (the sum of) these individual eigen states. So, an isolated system exists in this superimposed reality which can never be penetrated or observed. The act of interaction with any isolated system must be by collapsing this superposed state into one of the eigen states and we measure the corresponding eigen value.

I do not think the collapses of the superimposed state needs a conscious observer to give it observable reality. The collapse can be caused by other physical systems (e.g. an electron passing) that comes into contact with the system. It is however, true though and this is the mysterious bizarre thing about QM, that if a human or conscious observer sets up an experiment and makes observations, that observation experiment is measured finally in the process that takes place in the observer's mind/s. i.e. He/they cannot be objectively removed from the experiment. i.e. they play their part in creating which which observable reality is manifested.

I used to believe that metaphysics was that 'region' that existed beyond the reach of the physical world and the definition of physical world was provided by measurability. All that has now changed. Immeasurability exists within the physical universe (i.e the superposed states) and these can never be penetrated. To me this means that we have to revise what we mean by metaphysics because it seems that metaphysics has now encroached into the physical universe and by doing so it has rendered wholes swathes of it to be unmeasurable.

So what is that 'region' that now lies beyond the 'eigen states' ? Is that a higher level of metaphysics? Is our mind and consciousness in the first level of metaphysics or the higher level? or is it purely in the observable?

It is the answer to this question which will determine whether man is merely a materialistic, reductionist entity or whether he and other conscious beings are also made of other stuff!

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

quantum theory starts with the premise that there is an objective physical reality

I don't want to go over old ground with you here, but that premise is contended by at least some writers. Wiki gives a good summary of alternative views including Wigner's concept of "entanglement" of "consciousness and objectivity".

So to avoid a clash of metaphysicians with physicists I reiterate
that the term "reality" has a particular place in everyday transactions but becomes opaque at micro-levels of what we call "observation".
This is the context in which I, for one, can make sense of current speculations about "the God particle" in physics or "quantum consciousness" in neurology.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Actually, I don't have any problem with that. I'm aware that, at the quantum level, things start acting weird, but I've never understood why that should affect our perceptions at the supra-quantum level. If the normal rules don't apply at the quantum level, then maybe that's because there are two sets of rules.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well then the problem shifts to the nature of "rules". If we accept these are perhaps socio-linguistic conventions relative to the mutual needs of particular groupings of communicators, then I agree. Only in that sort of fashion can we distance ourselves from the minefield of trying to "observe observation".

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Actually, I don't have any problem with that. I'm aware that, at the quantum level, things start acting weird, but I've never understood why that should affect our perceptions at the supra-quantum level. If the normal rules don't apply at the quantum level, then maybe that's because there are two sets of rules.

Is there something weird about lazers??? From my understanding of it, that is one practical use of quantum physics...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Is there something weird about lazers???

Maybe. What's a lazer?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Fido wrote:
Is there something weird about lazers???

Maybe. What's a lazer?

Lasers??? Sorry, I always thought spelling bees stung...

1 Reply

@Fido,

I have no problem perceiving lasers on a supra-quantum level. If there's something weird about lasers at the quantum level, I'm not sure why that's relevant.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I have no problem perceiving lasers on a supra-quantum level. If there's something weird about lasers at the quantum level, I'm not sure why that's relevant.

You said quantum physics was weird, I thought... Lasers lase in short bursts of energy fed to it at a constant rate...

1 Reply

@Fido,

That's nice.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
On this thread language is not merely on holiday, it is in retirement.

This was the statement I was referring to, in case it wasn't clear. But of course, there could be intent of meaning in it on your part that I fail to grasp, in which case I would appreciate a clarification.

It means that a lot what people say on this thread makes little sense.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

An electron having the characteristics of both a wave and a particle makes little sense.

Quantum theory is an attempt to make sense of it. As far as I can tell, they haven't yet. String theory offers explanations. It's still half-baked. Most basically what it means is that if you think there are smart guys in a lab somewhere who have reality figured out... there's not.

1 Reply

kennethamy wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

An electron having the characteristics of both a wave and a particle makes little sense.

Quantum theory is an attempt to make sense of it. As far as I can tell, they haven't yet. String theory offers explanations. It's still half-baked. Most basically what it means is that if you think there are smart guys in a lab somewhere who have reality figured out... there's not.

Has your post any connection with mine? Or is it a poetic response?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Yes. But since you made fun of me, I'm not inspired to explain how.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

The OP made perfect sense to me.

I would have expected it would do.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
quantum theory starts with the premise that there is an objective physical reality

I don't want to go over old ground with you here, but that premise is contended by at least some writers. Wiki gives a good summary of alternative views including Wigner's concept of "entanglement" of "consciousness and objectivity".

So to avoid a clash of metaphysicians with physicists I reiterate
that the term "reality" has a particular place in everyday transactions but becomes opaque at micro-levels of what we call "observation".
This is the context in which I, for one, can make sense of current speculations about "the God particle" in physics or "quantum consciousness" in neurology.

[@fresco - I don't know what you have written here. I do not follow it. I can tell you one thing though as a physicist it makes little or no sense. You seem to have thrown in jargon out of context and mixed physics with fantasy. ]

1 Reply

Perception and physical reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know