1. In quantum mechanics events are attached to probabilities. However in General Relativity time is "distortable." Thus probabilities change and may be increased.
In Penrose Objective Reduction theory, gravity is already identified as the driver of reductions (collapses) based on (mass and) distances. The above observation suggests another way for gravitation to influence reduction.
2. Separately, if instead of gravitation we speculate that a physical fundamental consciousness field is the driver, we have a situation where fundamental consciousness drives collapse. O.R. speculates that consciousness is consequential to reduction. Per the discussion here, it may be the reverse, or bidirectional- either serially in time or as a simultaneous transaction. This would represent a two-way link between "the worlds of extended and nonextended objects" and more specifically one way for neurons ultimately to link to fundamental consciousness and back.
We note that this generally reinvigorates the Conscious Causes Collapse view of QM. At the time of invention and succeeding years, when said consciousness was generally viewed as a miniature of that with which we are personally familiar, this interpretation fell out of favor as unlikely.
However modern lines of thought on consciousness include the view that minds are composed of feeling plus information processing, with the latter a macroscale construction and the former necessarily fundamental. At this scale, as fundamental quanta of feeling necessary to bring a "Theory of Everything," which excludes consciousness, to a Theory of All, which includes the undeniably extant phenomenon of consciousness, it becomes much more natural and plausible to consider that possibly Consciousness causes Collapse. In this case the consciousness is not, proximally, an observant mind, be it of any size, but a particle interaction. But these interactions may be caused by system-level machinations of a mind.
In a theoretical case of certain massive minds with high introspective capabilities it is even possible in principal for them to make some "external" things happen. Which says only that much and nothing more.
Please consider reading my paper on Hameroff/Penrose Orch OR Theory . It is open-access in the ejournal NeuroQuantology:
NeuroQuantology Jun 2015, 13, 2 218-231.
Further Review of ‘Orch OR’ Theory:
The Universe in Consciousness
Robert W. Boyer and Park Hensley
ABSTRACT
According to Hameroff and Penrose’s 2014 review of their ‘Orch OR’ theory, “The nature of consciousness, the
mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place… are unknown.” We propose that these issues
are unknowable in their ultra-reductive approach. Their review completely left out the holistic view of
consciousness as primary, even though it has been the most enduring view throughout history. Also, their review
overlooked recent theories of an ontologically real nonlocal information field, a major step toward the holistic
view. Reductive assumptions about physicalism, quantum wavefunction reduction, the mind/brain relationship,
panpsychism, and the structure of the universe are reconsidered in light of the holistic view.
Key Words:'Orch OR theory, reductive models, quantum mind, consciousness as primary, holistic Vedic account
DOI Number: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.2.834 NeuroQuantology 2015; 2: 218-231
This may not be entirely appropriate, Karl, but I think that brain-state materialism is unable to answer anything related to the hard problem of consciousness. Have a look at Donald Hoffman's mathematical model of consciousness based on the notion that consciousness is fundamental, and also Bernardo Kastrup's many writings on analytical idealism. References are in the short blog piece below:
https://www.philosophy-of-education.org/consciousness-scientific-materialism-and-the-new-idealism/
Good points, Terry, thanks. But idealist models don't actually do it either. Please consider reading my recent preprints on ResearchGate.com that represent a more profound integration of realism and idealism (Holistic Interpretation of Quantum Theory, or Vedic Model of Mind, or others), or an open access paper in the ejournal NeuroQuantology (Reconciling Realism and Idealism: A New Model of Spacetime) Dec, 2019, 17, 12, 27-38). I'd appreciate any feedback.
Best wishes,
RW Boyer (Bob)
Thanks for this, Robert. Have read some of the work - excellent, powerful and persuasive! When it comes to questions still unanswered and in dispute, I feel that we are left with few options beyond Occam’s Razor and, significantly, aesthetic preference. Using both these methods, I now opt for some form of idealistic monism along with Kastrup and Hoffman. Moreover, Hoffman’s theory does seem to offer a way of making progress in this domain.
Sterling work, Robert, best wishes with everything!
Hi Robert W. Boyer Note that one does not have to "go holistic" and throw out our known physics to view consciousness as fundamental; I show this in The Nature of Fundamental Consciousness. The problem with the conventional reductionist approaches is that they simultaneously want to reduce while not being willing to add much of anything that is consciousness.
Assuming we are interested in truth, a view must be chosen that is pointed to by whatever scant evidence we have. "Aesthetic preference" is helpful when that refers to a sense of harmony with overarching and underlying schemes things well established by observation. It is ruinous when it refers to being purely attractive, and it certainly doesn't free us to choose our reality.
Throughout most of human existence little was known about how the world actually works, and it was precisely when longstanding fancies were left that progress picked up speed.
Traditions are useful for first suspicions and directions to test, and to look for different but equivalent views of the universe.
We go through many magic trending ghosts that are said to provide the secret sauce, lately has been emergence, and holism.
You are right to cite a real consciousness field. There is nothing nonreductive about that, it is rather the completion.
We have gone through a sequence where we realized we are also animals, we are also made of water and earth, our sun is also a star, and the Earth and therefore humans are made of stars. Like a fish pondering water we may well find that the consciousness in which we are immersed is ultimate fabric.
Vedic views can provide a hunch for first step, maybe two. After that there is no scientific contribution and one must resort to reason, and plausible (not just lovely or popular or longstanding ) conjecture.
Yes, there is a crucial distinction between scientific materialism and metaphysical or ontological materialism. The latter cannot be logically inferred from the former. Physics tells us hardly anything about the nature of reality, only about spin, charge, force, etc. which is not a description of what there actually is. Conscious realism and analytical idealism are both compatible with contemporary physics, and both represent a more parsimonious and potentially feasible picture of the fundamental nature of the cosmos. And, of course, neo-idealism is on all fours with Vedic, Daoist and Buddhist perspectives which were developed without any need for theoretical physics!
What a fascinating world we live in! Best wishes to all discussants!
Thanks for the excellent comments. A couple further points. I think Vedic science provides much more than hints at a comprehensive understanding and experience of consciousness and natural laws. It seems consistent with modern science within the range of applicability of modern science, but extends it into a much more integrated, comprehensive approach needed to address mind, free will, and consciousness itself. There are some glimpses of this deeper understanding in recent interpretations of QT from leading theorists, inexorably progressing toward the completely holistic 3-in-1 Vedic account of levels of nature.
As for idealism, to the degree it proposes more to nature including ontologically 'real' human mind than materialism, 'scientific realism', or physicalism, it is quite constructive. To the degree it conflates mind and consciousness, it is incomplete. In my understanding and experience, Vedic science laid all these issues out clearly millennia ago, but much of the knowledge had been misinterpreted and lost with the long passage of time. Please consider reading the 2019 open-access paper in the ejournal NeuroQuantology relevant to your comments: Reconciling Realism and Idealism: A New Model of Spacetime. Very best wishes,
RW Boyer
“…Physics tells us hardly anything about the nature of reality, only about spin, charge, force, etc. which is not a description of what there actually is….”
- yeah, that is so, in one point only, though - that physics tells about spin, charge, force, etc. fundamentally having no understanding – what is that have spin, charge, force, etc.; however that is, in many cases, an adequate to the reality description of what there actually is – i.e. what is the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter”, which in physics – and in any other science, really is fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational phenomenon.
Correspondingly that
“…..Yes, there is a crucial distinction between scientific materialism and metaphysical or ontological materialism. The latter cannot be logically inferred from the former…..”
- really isn’t correct, there is no any principal distinctions between “scientific materialism” and “metaphysical or ontological materialism”, in mainstream philosophy the phenomenon “Matter”, despite of that ontology of Matter is classical subject for study in philosophy, even one of main mainstream doctrines is “Materialism”, is fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational as well,
- whereas it is evidently senseless to seek for some rational distinctions between some transcendences.
As well that
“…. Conscious realism and analytical idealism are both compatible with contemporary physics, and both represent a more parsimonious and potentially feasible picture of the fundamental nature of the cosmos….”
- really transcendent claim, since in the mainstream the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Consciousness”, and so “conscious”, is fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational.
The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where practically all fundamental phenomena/notions are scientifically defined as well, and in detail about
- what is “Matter”? – in the informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3 ;
- what is “Consciousness”? – in functional model of consciousness, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720/1.
Including really yeah, “Conscious realism and analytical idealism are both compatible with contemporary physics”, and there exist numerous publications about physics of consciousness, again – all transcendences are compatible,
- however really this claim is fundamentally wrong, any consciousness fundamentally differs from Matter and any material structure; Matter and any consciousness are fundamentally independent informational systems.
More see the papers that are linked above, though for first reading it would be useful to read a few SS posts on visible page in https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness#view=618e8fac7f7f424a0a1412c5
Whereas in that
“…..And, of course, neo-idealism is on all fours with Vedic, Daoist and Buddhist perspectives which were developed without any need for theoretical physics!….”
- i.e. in Vedic, Daoist and Buddhist perspectives, both, Matter and Consciousness, are fundamentally transcendent as well; and so, say, when Gautama Buddha said about “nirvana”, really he didn’t understand – what this “nirvana” is; as, say when a physicist says that some particle has a charge, he really doesn’t understand – what is “particle” and what is “charge”.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic