Geir Isene's Theories!

Peter Soderqvist

Patron with Honors
Soderqvist1: Geir Isene has written two interesting essays which I have read, and want to make some comment upon. These quotes here are only part of it, which I have selected to comment about.

Do you really have a choice? By Geir Isene
In the physical theory, there is no real difference between a human, an animal and a well crafted robot. Artificial intelligence is well within reach.
http://www.isene.com/artweb.cgi?article=010-FreeWill.txt

Soderqvist1: Sir Roger Penrose the world renowned mathematician contest that by saying in effect that; genuine consciousness is at root non-computational, and computers are only The “Emperor’s New Mind! I have read parts of his both books, “The Emperor’s New Mind”, and “Shadows of The Mind” and Daniel Dennett’s rebuttal; Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” and other authors of his ilk, but Penrose is still convincing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind

This is a common view among natural scientists and is gaining ground in the general population. In the book "A brief history of time", the brilliant astrophysicist Steven Hawking explains it very well: If you know the state of the universe at any given time and all the laws that govern it, you can calculate all consecutive events. You can determine every single motion in the universe at any time in the future. It follows that there is no place for free will.

Soderqvist1: I have read in Paul. W. Davies Book “The Matter Myth” that the Universe is its own fastest simulator, there is no particles left to show the universe’s next position, because all particles are already used in the equation to compute the quantum particles next state, and in a sense the universe doesn’t know where it is going, and quantum mechanics even says that; when the position is completely determined, its momentum is completely undetermined!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

A subjective collapse theory by Geir Isene
Particles are waves and waves are particles. Simultaneously. Apparently they are both until they are measured. Then they settle to become a particle or a wave. The famous double-split experiment shows what is known as a "wave function collapse"; the wave function describing the probability of the particle's location collapses to one of its two possible states.
http://www.isene.com/artweb.cgi?article=013-SCT.txt

Soderqvist1: I like your way of reasoning, because this hypothesis is mine too, but I have seen something there which seems to me is MU’s?

“Particles are waves and waves are particles. Simultaneously. Apparently they are both until they are measured.”

Soderqvist1: As far to my knowledge; this is correct, since they are called ‘wavicles’ by the eminent Scientist Carl Sagan, in example an electron is a wavicle!

“Then they settle to become a particle or a wave.”

Soderqvist1: a wavicle always become a particle, nobody has seen the wave!
Its two possible states is example spin up, or down, or polarization horizontal or vertical, its outcome is totally random, but they can spread out like a wave or particles!

“The famous double-split experiment shows what is known as a "wave function collapse"; the wave function describing the probability of the particle's location collapses to one of its two possible states.”

Soderqvist1: The wave-function describes the wavicle’s probability distribution from the “electron gun”, through the double-slit , to the screen behind, which is the target. It is a wave of possibility rather than an actuality which takes all possible ways which is close to infinite many, to the target. Where the amplitude is as highest there is the highest probability where the wavicle will end up at. All this is described by Erwin Schrodinger’s wave-equation, or Werner Heisenberg’s wave-matrix!
Amit Goswami has been a Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Oregon for 30 years, he is now retired. He has written a book “The Self-Aware Universe” and he has added the concept of self-referential to quantum Mechanics. Self-Referential is analogous to Hubbard’s “Awareness of Awareness Unit” in example; ‘I can compute something, but the difference between me and a computer is that I know it!’ This is a quote from the Interview with Goswami which describe consciousness as the Collapser of quantum wave-function with a vengeance!

WIE: to be honest, when I first saw the subtitle of your book I assumed you were speaking metaphorically. But after reading the book, and speaking with you about it now, I am definitely getting the sense that you mean it much more literally than I had thought. One thing in your book that really stopped me in my tracks was your statement that, according to your interpretation, the entire physical universe only existed in a realm of countless evolving possibilities until at one point, the possibility of a conscious, sentient being arose and that, at that point, instantaneously, the entire known universe came into being, including the fifteen billion years of history leading up to that point. Do you really mean that?

Goswami: I mean that literally. This is what quantum physics demands. In fact, in quantum physics this is called "delayed choice." And I have added to this concept the concept of "self-reference." Actually the concept of delayed choice is very old. It is due to a very famous physicist named John Wheeler, but Wheeler did not see the entire thing correctly, in my opinion. He left out self-reference. The question always arises, "The universe is supposed to have existed for fifteen billion years, so if it takes consciousness to convert possibility into actuality, then how could the universe be around for so long?" Because there was no consciousness, no sentient being, biological being, carbon based being, in that primordial fireball which is supposed to have created the universe, the big bang.

But this other way of looking at things says that the universe remained in possibility until there was self-referential quantum measurement—so that is the new concept. An observer's looking is essential in order to manifest possibility into actuality, and so only when the observer looks, only then does the entire thing become manifest—including time. So all of past time, in that respect, becomes manifest right at that moment when the first sentient being looks. It turns out that this idea, in a very clever, very subtle way, has been around in cosmology and astronomy under the guise of a principle called the "anthropic principle." That is, the idea has been growing among astronomers—cosmologists anyway—that the universe has a purpose. It is so fine-tuned, there are so many coincidences, that it seems very likely that the universe is doing something purposive, as if the universe is growing in such a way that a sentient being will arise at some point.

The Self-Aware Universe, How Consciousness Creates the material world!
http://www.twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm
 
Last edited:
Top