Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:55:57 +0300 (EET DST)
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, ca314159 wrote:
> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, ca314159 wrote:
> > > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > > > In QM entanglement is one of the most QM:eish phenomena and plays key
> > > > role in quantum compute sciencer. Schrodinger cat provides the standard
> > > > example of entanglement. The state of cat and bottle of poison is
> > > > superposition of cat dead-bottle open and cat alive-bottle closed states.
> > >
> > >
> > > The states of entangled particles (events) can both be measured, but
> > > not so for the dead and alive (states) of a S-cat.
> > My viewpoint is that the state of cat can be in principle measured and if
> > measurement answers to the question 'Dead or alive?' measurement means
> > quantum jump leading to state 'dead' or 'alive'. Moment of
> > consciousness is in TGD framework nothing but quantum measurement. Note
> > also that Schrodinger cat paradox disappears. In entangled states there is
> > no consciousness: when quantum jumps giving information about the state
> > of cat happens, it leads to dead or alive state: moment of consciousness
> > makes world classical.
> This relates to Jung's "The Transcendental Function".
> By your definition of consciousness, the wavefunction
> collapse is a movement from the purely subjective
> wavefunction[s] of possibilities into the objective (conscious)
> world where only one of those possibilities (states) remains.
> The other possibilities were "objectively not real",
> but because of the lack of determinism they had to be in
> the origin wavefunction before collapse; just as I would
> have a wavefunction of two components for a coin in motion
> for the two possible states of the one event "landing" and
> that wavefunction collapses into only one state when the
> coin "lands" heads or tails.
> While the coin is "in motion" the two possibilities must be
> For Jung's transcendental function, the unconscious mind
> holds such wavefunctions associatively (in a frequency-space)
> which sometimes "collapse" into a peak in frequency-space
> at which time they become noticeable to the "conscious" if the
> peak is sufficiently strong in intensity.
> > > The frequency components of a radio wave can be separated, but not
> > > so for wavefunctions which are abstract probabilistic waves.
> > The separation of wave functions is possible when they are unentangled
> > with states of measuring instrument which in turn are entangled with
> > states of brain.
> Here the word "entangled" seems to be an overused term, what Marshall
> McLuhan would call a "Reversal" or over-amplification of an idea.
> It is not a "quantum" concept that exists only in quantum theory.
> Wavefunctions are an abstract model of what is happening when
> we don't know what is happening (not yet measured) It includes
> all the possibilities but selects only one of them on measurement.
> To use the term "entanglement" shrouds what is happening as in a
> high-level computer language when we really want to be talking
> in machine code.
Here I disagree. I believe that wavefunctions, and in TGD configuration
space spinor fields, are real: they are the objective realities, not only
representations of realities: representation of reality is the reality
itself and quantum jumps occur between these realities and give conscious
information about the realities. Mathematics becomes conscious because
quantum jumps between these representations/ideas/... are possible: no
Cartesian separation into reality and its representation anymore(;-).
[The possibility to interpret many fermion Fock states as Boolean algebra
elements (yes=fermion number one, no on fermion number 0) supports
the interpretation of manyfermion states as statements about something,
that is ideas.]
Is it really possible to reduce everything to 'bit level'?
The nonclassicality of quantum entanglement makes it
impossible to simulate classically the time development by quantum jumps.
Quantum mechanics is more than probabilistic model because wave functions
can interfere. Classical double slit experiment is good example of this.
When both slits are open the interference pattern contains interference
pattern not allowed by classical probability theory.
> Similarly is can be said that "conscious" is just a high-level
> term for the determinism (in this case). But this is tricky
> because the conscious mind is itself is divided into two parts,
> one part that thinks spectrally like the unconscious mind,
> and one part that thinks temporally (objectively) with causual order
> like a physical wavefunction (radio wave).
Spectral thinking (intuition?) might correspond to the 'diffuse'
contribution to conscious experience determined by the entire initial
and final quantum histories as opposed to the time localized contribution
made possible by classical nondeterminism of Kahler action (nondeterminism
of quantum jump is localized to finite time interval). The intuitive
contribution cannot be present in any computer model of consciousness
where contents of conciousness are determined by the recent state of
> That is why I brought up Phi, 61.8% because the sum of the
> parts in nature tends to proportion itself as:
> A=B+C, A/B = B/C = phi
> and this seems very important in terms of what we are studying.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:50 JST