The Galaxy Insight: 'The Universe is in Some Deep Sense Tied to Homo Sapiens'

[Venusian Broon]

I don't think "the moon only exists when we're looking at it" ideas hold much water. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is indeed a problem, but because we're so far from solving it, and there are so many possibilities, I would not place bets on anything. That said, here's what's known so far:

Quantum mechanics does not define an "observer" in any formal way. However, we are observers, so the results of quantum mechanical experiments that we record are filtered through that undeniable fact.

What is defined in QM is a wavefunction. Wavefunctions have the very convenient property that if you add two of them together, you get a third one that's totally valid. This is the principle of superposition. Wavefunctions evolve according to the Schrodinger equation, and that evolution is completely deterministic: the same input will always produce the same output.

Now, from time to time, scientists come along who want to measure certain observable quantities of a particular wavefuncion. Whatever measurement we choose to make can be described mathematically as a superposition of a variety of wavefunctions giving some total wavefunction. And as it turns out, whenever we perform a measurement, our measuring device will record an observable quantity corresponding to only one component of that superposition.

And... that's it. Everything else is our interpretation. There are many possibilities for what all that entails, but to me it seems like what happens when we measure quantum systems is our problem, not reality's.

Your answer reminded me of "Queen Sabine's" discussion of the measurement problem that she recently posted:

Wheeler and Linde in the second article do come across as very old-fashioned. Especially with gettting measurement and consciousness mixed up still.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Having an argument that depends on something only ever happening once is an argument that depends on an assumption.

@Ursa major: there can be no coincidence involved in an event that only happens once. Assuming that homo sapiens (conscious life) was not the goal of abiogenesis + evolution -- has to be the only reasonable way of dealing with it, considering the staggering coincidences upon coincidences that would otherwise be involved.

Accepting this, is it reasonable to assume that staggering set of coincidences did not only occur just once -- on Earth -- but is bound to re-occur almost routinely all over the universe?

Can we have it both ways?

 

[Brian G Turner]

So it is not the job of science to insist such things do not/ cannot exist?

With the Anthropic Principle we're very much in the realm of philosophy, and you'll find that lots of brilliant scientists have different different personal opinions of this according their own personal experience. There is no scientific insight to be found on the subject - not at the moment.

 

[Venusian Broon]

With the Anthropic Principle we're very much in the realm of philosophy...There is no scientific insight to be found on the subject

Okay I'm using her again because she explains it better than I can put down in a huge reply in words, but physicist Sabine Hossenfelder would disagree with that statement you've given. Her brief discussion of it is very good and clear, IMO. And she gives examples.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Thanks VB -- both videos saved to watch a little later.

To anyone: a quick skim (at least) of these two concise articles posted by @Extollager really seems to open up the subject of the thread:

The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself

Stem-cell guru Robert Lanza presents a radical new view of the universe and everything in it.

www.discovermagazine.com

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well.

www.discovermagazine.com

 

[Ursa major]

Ursa, are you saying you want to banish this point because you think there might be some other way (though you don't need to propose that other way or ways)?

Science is and has been full of ideas about what can or cannot be, or be done, because we have only one example of it. As we have discovered, for example, with how planets may be arranged around a star, our solar system has so far not proved to be a particularly good model.

Just as we once knew of only arrangement of a star system (the solar system), we are only aware of one species that is conscious in the way we are, and that is our own species. This single example does not provide adequate proof that another conscious organsism need either: 1) be anything like us; 2) behave in the way we do; 3) have come into being in the way we have (and through the same set of processes and circumstances that we have, whatever they might have been).

Because of this, saying that our existence involves a perhaps unique set of conditions and circumstances and history is (and should be) of no use whatsoever when deciding whether or not there can be other conscious organisms (either now or in the past or future).

 

[Ursa major]

@Ursa major: there can be no coincidence involved in an event that only happens once. Assuming that homo sapiens (conscious life) was not the goal of abiogenesis + evolution -- has to be the only reasonable way of dealing with it, considering the staggering coincidences upon coincidences that would otherwise be involved.

Accepting this, is it reasonable to assume that staggering set of coincidences did not only occur just once -- on Earth -- but is bound to re-occur almost routinely all over the universe?

Can we have it both ways?

Just because something need not be restricted to occuring only once does not mean that it will occur an infinite number of times... and just bcause something may not occur an infinite number of times does not mean that it can occur only once.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Just because something need not be restricted to occuring only once does not mean that it will occur an infinite number of times... and just bcause something may not occur an infinite number of times does not mean that it can occur only once.

Yes. But as Al Capone observed: 'Once, it's happenstance -- twice, it's coincidence -- third time, it's enemy action (deliberate)'

Is the universe sentient? Is the universe able to observe itself?

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

Parts of it are.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Okay I'm using her again because she explains it better than I can put down in a huge reply in words, but physicist Sabine Hossenfelder would disagree with that statement you've given. Her brief discussion of it is very good and clear, IMO. And she gives examples.

Good common sense, except I hope she doesn't take multiverses seriously. Since there is zero evidence for their existence belief in them is a pure act of faith...almost religious.

Edit: and she doesn't.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Parts of it are.

Lol

Good common sense, except I hope she doesn't take multiverses seriously. Since there is zero evidence for their existence belief in them is a pure act of faith...almost religious.

Strong anthropic principle.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Is the universe sentient? Is the universe able to observe itself?

Have you watched Babylon 5?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Have you watched Babylon 5?

Not yet, Brian

 

[Ori Vandewalle]

Good common sense, except I hope she doesn't take multiverses seriously. Since there is zero evidence for their existence belief in them is a pure act of faith...almost religious.

She definitely doesn't. That said, there is some evidence which, given certain theoretical priors, lends credence to the idea of a multiverse. I wouldn't say there is strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis, but there's evidence for all sorts of things which turn out not to be true. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Extollager]

Because of this, saying that our existence involves a perhaps unique set of conditions and circumstances and history is (and should be) of no use whatsoever when deciding whether or not there can be other conscious organisms (either now or in the past or future).

I think it may be harder actually to make a case, on naturalistic presuppositions, for the evolution of conscious organisms that (however) are very unlike us than you're allowing, but I lack recent reading to argue the point. I think a lot of those (to us) bizarre sf aliens actually would have to go if we critiqued 'em rigorously as regards the basis for nervous systems and so on.

I'm glad RJMCorbet (#45 above) found the articles I recommended to be useful. Perhaps they would be worth more than a skim!

 

[Justin Swanton]

She definitely doesn't.

She's cute.

 

[Extollager]

I forgot to mention having read Rosenblum and Kuttner's Quantum Engima: Physics Encounters Consciousness (Oxford 2006 -- well, I read most of it!), Gribbin's Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique (Wiley, 2011), etc., which support the tendency of the original posting.

 

[Parson]

Isn't it interesting that at the fringes physics, philosophy, and religion begin to overlap? So there are some things we can say with "scientific" certainty. And there are things that are possible and other things that are not possible. Some possible things are beneficial and some possible things are not beneficial. Physics, philosophy and religion each has something to say about what is what.

This is why this thread, which I'm thoroughly enjoying has to be commented on very carefully.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

t-C, your comment wasn't directed to me, and I don't need to address it, except I'd like to say that your remark sounds to me like one being made to shut down a discussion. Is that your intention?

Of course not!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Not yet, Brian

I think you might enjoy it.