TED Conversations

Murshid Markan


This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How randomness of a photon particle in a two slit experiment could explain the phenomena of Consciousness and Decision-Making

If we stress on the Thomas young's double-slit experiment in which we ought to see that the photon beam when passed through the double slit we observe the wave nature of the photon particle as we get a scattered bands pattern on the wall unlike the single-slit where we observe the particle nature of the photon as it projects a single band pattern, in this experiment we can see that the behavior of the photon as a particle or a wave is random and so is its position after passing the double slit wall. Now i would like to relate this to the consciousness, when we face a situation in our life, how we perceive or react is as random as the photon. So i would like to ask people out in TED related to the consciousness studies is that, if we work on the principles of "Orch-Or" theory that says that the quantum superposition exists till the difference in the space-time curvatures is significant. so when we think with our conscious mind firstly how we can relate different quantum state as different reactions by a human mind and how can we get a clarity in decision making when the decisions are in space-time curvatures very close to each other. Secondly, the "Copenhagen experiment" explanation of the superposition failing under observation would hinder our research of certainty of the photon's position, How can we resolve the randomness of the particle and correspondingly in my case the absolute truth (perfect decision for a situation) for the conscious human mind. An experiment by Roger Penrose FELIX states that an electron is present at two different location and by using mirrors we can get a single position of this experiment. But, How we humans can tackle the randomness of our conscious mind. What we need to practice to reduce this randomness in our mind. How we can have a definite answer for a problem in our mind. How we humans can be certain in our thoughts.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: I have a different conjecture on consciousness and its relation to physics which involves completely reinterpreting the last century or so of physics. There's no way that I can talk about this without sounding like a crackpot, and in the sense that I have no formal qualifications or skill in physics, I am a crackpot, but I suspect that I may actually turn out to be a 'crackpot that was right' in the long run.

    In my defense I can only say that I have come to physics through the backdoor, from consciousness and a lifetime of studying it first hand, from scratch, even avoiding most philosophy. /disclaimer

    Here it is:

    Photons may not exist.

    What exists is the sensitivity to changes in matter. Sensitivity across a vacuum, sensitivity on top of sensitivity, on top of insensitivity...all manner of layers and symmetries of sensemaking and significance.

    I know, I can feel your eyes rolling from here. "What about the photoelectric effect? What about lasers and Feynman and photomultipliers..supercolliders...the whole Standard Model?? You are an idiot! We know photons exist. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of physics!'

    I agree, and I may be an idiot too, but not because of this idea. I have spoken to a number of people about this, and while physics professors tend to become very angry, none of them has said anything to make me doubt my proposal (not surprising for a crackpot - but I mean I have not heard any argument yet that I have not already considered). I'm not married to the idea. My concept of a cosmos that is fundamentally grounded in sense experience rather than matter across space or information processing does not depend on photons being real or not, but they become redundant and explainable if we consider the possibility of primordial detection-response (I call it Quorum Mechanics) capacities associated with matter. To be precise, it is a capacity which is ontologically perpendicular to matter-in-space. It is sense-through-time.
    • Jun 9 2012: Craig !
      WOW !
      You don't sound like a crackpot !: )
      I think, a 'backdoor' is quite an entrance to quantum physics.
      Stripped of all complexities it can be reduced to mystic insight :
      " The knower is the known"
      There is nothing really exists but relationships.
      The universe is an answer, we need to find a right question.
      What you call 'sense' is usually called 'spirit', would you agree that it sounds pretty familiar then:
      SPIRIT is the missing insight that ties cosmos, psyche, mind, body, time-space-matter-energy-information-theology together.

      " Energy may in fact be nothing but 'things that happen to matter' - stories that matter tells." ( !!!!!! )

      And matter is ???
      The Svetasvatara Upanisad says:
      satamsah sadrsatmakah
      jivah suksma-svarupo 'yam
      sankhyatito hi cit-kanah
      ‘If we divide the tip of a hair into a hundred parts and then take one of these parts and divide it again into a hundred parts, that very fine division is the size of but one of the numberless living entities. They are all cit-kana, particles of spirit, not matter.'

      So... Energy may be nothing but things that happen to spirit ...

      Does it make any sense ? :)
      Thank you !
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2012: Hi Natasha,

        Thanks, and yes, the word Spirit is another way of describing it, but I think that word is too loaded to be accepted as scientific truth. Although spirit captures the connotations of subjectivity, feeling, enthusiasm, trans-material, immortal, and primordial, it is off-center to my purposes in that it can denote absolute disconnection with material, and a reification of temporal experience into a kind of pseudo-physical force that literally travels through space causing things to happen from an omniscient perspective. I think it's more subtle and complicated.

        While sense isn't a great substitute, I think it has some advantages: (See http://multisenserealism.com/9-sense-motive/). It connotes first person subjectivity on different levels, sensation-perception-understanding-intuition, but remains neutral as far as giving privilege to either concretely ordinary experience or profound, supernatural concepts. Sense is embodied by natural qualities as well as intellectual abstraction. It links information with real world participation.

        "cit-kana" nice. I would like to formalize these concepts in a way that might be more easily integrated into Western frameworks. Cit-jana I would call maximally flattened, ie fragmented qualia (or quanta) at what I would call the Planck-Turing limit. I have a proposal to describe subjectivity on a scale from maximal qualia (the Totality, Monad, or greatest possible inertial frame, the eternal moment, Sri Krsna, Ein Sof, Tao, Zero Point Field, etc) to minimal that I am calling the Chalmeroff Scale (http://multisenserealism.com/2012/04/14/proposed-unit-of-subjectivity-the-chalmeroff/).

        I use the terms sense and motive as the essential principles, which correlate to

        spirit and will (anthropomorphic level)
        electric and magnetic fields (but inside out)
        matter/density/inertia/formation and energy/acceleration/transformation
        significance/symmetry/augmentation and entropy/mystery/cancellation as 'informational' consequences
        • Jun 9 2012: Craig,
          correct me if I am wrong, I guess your theory is consistent with the general body of scientific knowledge, as you understand it, but because it attempts to reach a deeper level of knowing than that mapped out by the scientific 'theorem method' of step-by-step reasoning, its conclusions may not be fully explicable in terms of the current scientific mindset and most likely will be rejected by it.
          Why should you care how 'scientific' it looks like ?
          You need tons of words to explain what is 'sense' in the context of your context, while one word is enough. Spirit is a symbol, it does not imply that it is not real. It is maybe one real force carrier for weak and strong... and gravity. Sounds weired, but at the moment, I don't have any other picture .
          You are right , it is heavily loaded with 'supernatural' connotation and this connotation should be removed, there is nothing supernatural, nothing is external anywhere.But 'spirit' conveys reverence and it is perfectly natural feeling, when we are dealing with a mystery .
          Symbol, be it 'spirit' or 'god' resonates, this means that one may access the ideas they reflect without mediation.
          I could be wrong :)
          'Unit of subjectivity' sounds a bit incomplete :) In the realm where there is no objectivity, there is no subjectivity either, one exists only by the virtue of the other.
          When subjectivity enters the picture, you need to balance it and introduce the 'unit of objectivity'.... So, it must be simply a unit. A quantum is the minimum unit of any physical or not physical entity involved in an interaction, it is subjective and objective (or neither) by itself. But it doesn't give this sensation of 'spirit' as cit-kanah does. I think, human brain is designed to retain narratives, symbols not words.
          Frankly, I don't know, but i believe , that 'it's our mind, which is moving"
          " is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving. "

          Thanks for responding !
        • Jun 11 2012: Chris !

          Actually, it was you who opened me to the idea ... Tease out the cryptic messages of ancient sacred texts and you'll see science there.

          Thank you !!!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.