I recently delved into the intriguing paper “Relations between Quantum Theory and Panpsychism” by Thomas Görnitz. It was a revelation, sparking countless thoughts and ideas that I can't wait to share in upcoming posts. Today, however, I'll focus on one mind-bending concept.
Görnitz emphasizes repeatedly that quantum theory isn't about solid, unchanging facts but about a dynamic realm of evolving possibilities. Classical physics gives us concrete facts, while quantum theory presents us with an ever-shifting sea of possibilities. But then, in a miraculous twist, these possibilities collapse into solid facts. Let's explore this further with some profound quotes from the paper:
“We humans are born into a reality which we did not create ourselves. However, in order to survive, it is necessary to understand the facts we encounter in it, as well as the processes and changes.”
This resonates deeply with me. But beyond understanding the external world, we must also strive to understand ourselves and our fellow human beings.
“Classical physics establishes deterministic laws about facts. The much more precise quantum theory asserts only a determined change of possibilities.”
Here lies a fascinating puzzle. Must the evolution of possibilities always be deterministic? If randomly generated facts can influence possibilities, then perhaps the evolution of possibilities isn't always deterministic.
“We consider possibilities that have not yet become facts. With us humans, possibilities are often emotionally underpinned: we expect, fear or hope for something to happen. All our intentions rely on possibilities. Thus, mere possibilities can already generate real effects.”
This brings us to the mysterious process of fact generation. When and how do possibilities crystallize into facts? I've co-authored papers on this very topic, titled "How and When Quantum Phenomena Become Real?" and "How Events Come Into Being." We need to understand the "binamics" – the irreversible process where possibilities become facts.
“We have to consider both facts as well as possibilities for an understanding of nature, a feature described by the 'dynamic layer structure' of natural science.”
Yet, the Ur theory, or the theory of “Abstract Quantum Information Units,” neglects facts altogether. Following Weizsäcker, Görnitz speaks only of quantum codons as standard qubits. But DNA relies on four codons (A, C, G, T) to create complexity. Shouldn't we consider additional codons beyond the standard Complex Qubit, such as Real, Quaternionic, and Octonionic structures, and even the standard binary field GF(2) (as well as more general p-adic number fields)?
“In a very exact description of natural processes only a determined evolution of possibilities can be assumed. Emerging facts are then random within the scope of these possibilities.”
“Possibilities are subject to other logical rules than facts. The meaning of "possibility" is that they can, indeed must, contradict each other if they would mistakenly be interpreted as facts at the same place and time.”
“Facts, of course, are not part of a quantum wholeness. A fact, however, can give rise to new quantum possibilities, which then can form or join a wholeness.”
This last insight is crucial. It suggests that the evolution of possibilities, influenced by the back-reaction of facts, isn't always deterministic.
“Already in quantum physics the transition from possibilities to a fact is not actually solved by the theory of decoherence. While a mathematically clear definition can be given, it is not practicable because the occurrence of a fact would theoretically require the passage of an infinitely long time. No physicist or anyone else can wait that long.”
This is the famous Measurement Problem of quantum theory, still awaiting a definitive solution. My own theory, EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory), was an initial step toward this solution but lacks a place for consciousness.
There’s a tantalizing possibility that conscious thinking may be based on non-associative logic. This is the exciting direction my current research is exploring.
Stay tuned as we unravel more of these quantum mysteries in future posts. The dance of possibilities and the birth of facts await.
P.S. 18-07-24 13:44 Here is one example of a possibility that became a fact:
https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1813887120081035311
It certainly required some non-associative decision making.
P.S. 18-07-24 16:42 Here is an excerpt from "Ur Theory and Space-Time Structure" by David Finkelstein:
"... It would therefore not be surprising if the second quantum evolution has a fundamental scale-time like an ur, that sets the scale of non-associativity in the way that the fundamental action h sets the scale of non-commutativity. (...) It is easy to see from elementary computer models that processes that act on or refer to themselves do not necessarily compose associatively. If the dynamical laws are elements of the very cosmos that they propel, the dynamical processes they represent might be non-associative. "
P.S. 18-07-24 17:52 From my questions and answers chat with the C's, 23-04-22:
Q: (Ark) What about quaternion algebra? Is it relevant to wave reading units?
A: Absolutely.
Q: (Ark) Yes? What about octonions? Are they better or worse? They are non-associative. Ooo!
A: Better.
I liked when you mentioned SU(4,4) a while back. A high energy octonion spacetime coming into play for consciousness via decoherence kind of makes sense.
ReplyDelete