Physics: QM

is NOT a theory of physics. Ignoring a couple very far-fetched ideas, it's impossible to test , because consc doesn't exist objectively or scientifically, only subjectively. It can't be detected. QM strongly hints that particles are conscious, but from the physics point of view you can reasonably deny it. BTW, although it's not falsifiable (or provable) in physics, it should be in neuroscience, as discussed elsewhere.

CP is a QM interpretation

While not a theory, is a QM interpretation: an intuitive explanation of QM. It will, as decades go by, make other interpretations, like MWI, Consistent Histories GRW etc, obsolete. With the interpretation, suddenly it all makes sense!

Prerequisites

All you need for Elementary is a dimly remembered first course in QM: particle, wavefunction and collapse is enough. Even that's not really necessary, because these concepts are taught by itself. For instance, a particle is a very small conscious entity - that's understandable, isn't it? is the best way to teach QM to a beginner. So when you run into words you don't know keep reading and it will probably become clear from context.

Advanced Physics Knowledge

Semi-advanced physics knowledge is necessary for some advanced topics. In this section I'll touch on them a bit. But the main reason for going into it is to explain why it really has nothing to do with Elementary .

There are two areas where needs to educate physicists. One, their overall view of consciousness. Two, details specifically. In the first area, their (typical) views are ridiculously naive. But they do have legitimate objections about specifically which need to be addressed.

The T`Pai principle

The acronym means "Theoretical Physicists are Idiots". Pronounced "Tuh-Pie", as though it were Polynesian. Experimental physicists, BTW, are far more sensible. In fact everyone else is. If you're a TP ("theoretical Physicist") who disagrees, please prove me wrong by saying something reasonable.

A physics education inculcates a very limited view of life, the universe, and consciousness. It doesn't have to be this way. 150 years ago physicists were good thinkers. Today, something's gone extremely wrong with physics and (in general) science education. (Doug Marman calls it "3rd person blindness".) So if you're a physicist you will probably be uncomfortable with . If you want to get over your pathological bias, please read on.

Most TP's think - I mean, "feel" - consc is an accidental epiphenomenon of no significance. They also say time is of no importance, an "illusion". In the "Block Universe", past and future exist just as the present does. Although they suppose that computers can be conscious, they reject the idea that the universe may be a simulation. This whole mind-set is just too wrong to bother with, although I'll have to later (advanced topic).

QFT and Fields

However some TP objections are sensible. Axiom 1 says particles are conscious. That's definitely the best way to put it to a non-physicist. But in physics the concept "particle" can be questioned. In QFT particles are not fundamental, rather the field (associated with that type of particle) is. This can be handled simply (but not correctly) by assigning consc to the field. What does it mean when the field is spread out? The entire probability density integral, summing to 1, represents one consc entity. Even if its spatial location splits into two separate halves, it's still just one entity. It can't split into multiple, partial consciousnesses. How do I know this? Well, it's obvious. Call it another axiom.

Anyway, everything says about consc, using basic dirac-like QM notation, is thus transposable to QFT.

Another objection to "particle" is, what about protons? They consist of 3 quarks, so is it the quarks or the proton that's conscious? What about atoms, molecules, buckyballs, etc? Even large macro objects possess a wavefunction of some sort. At least, they have a De Broglie wave. So they must be conscious also. Here's one way to handle this. To the extent that something has a (pure) wavefunction, to that same extent it's conscious. Meanwhile its constituent molecules or atoms also possess some consc due to their wavefunctions. Finally at the bottom each individual particle is (of course) conscious. Presumably they have "less consc" than when free, since they're "locked in" to the "containing consciousness".

With this compromise approach we're forced into "consciousness fields", "partial consc", "shared consc", more, less, and internal sub-consciousnesses. Concepts I don't like. Really, particles are the only conscious entities. Consc is whole, entire, and underived. It's not partial, contained, or caused. So although this compromise is used (doing QFT or similar, advanced topic) it's just a coarse approximation to the real thing.

When a large entity like an animal or molecule seems to be conscious it's because there's a . The same is true (according to , that is) for protons, molecules, and (to a very limited extent) other macro objects. In a typical atom, probably all the particles would be mindons. But they share a large portion of their wavefunctions, so the atom itself seems conscious. It's like an animal's IGUS mechanism but simpler.

There are no fields, just particles

The right way, BTW, is to express these ideas with software algorithms. Particle's large-scale behavior, caused by following algos, results in the large-scale epiphenomena which are known to physics, such as the so-called "field". See the software section.

The more accurate "official " approach is as follows: there are no fields. By their cooperative conscious (algo-like) behavior, at extremely small scales, particles give the illusion of fields. Admittedly relativistic QFT may be right: "I" may be physically spread out in both time and space. But instead, supposes I (any ) is a distinct well-defined object which can sense / communnicate faster than light, producing the "field" illusion. This non-local capability is proven, or at least strongly indicated, by entanglement (Bell's theorem FTL). And so on.

Relativistic Time Dilation

What about relativity? almost ignores it completely. Consc happens in a single instant - as perceived by me. Consc experiences no time. It doesn't matter how fast I'm going, or how deep the gravity well: the instant, qua instant, never changes. In GR we simply figure that and QM always happen in a tangent plane, or a Cauchy surface, orthogonal to a Killing field. Someday I'd like to discuss this further.

Entanglement

Two interacting particles experience certain constraints. For instance, when they elastically bounce off each other their incoming and outgoing energies and momenta must be equal. But suppose they're not forced to choose outgoing vectors at the time of collision. Later on, when one (or both) is forced to choose they must negotiate so that their choices satisfy the constraint. That's entanglement. Note, it doesn't allow FTL communication at the human level.

Collapse of the Wavefunction

In current (2017) versions of MWI, there is no collapse. After a so-called collapse, multiple worlds continue, one for each possible branch of the wavefunction. Theoretically each "world" could be reversed, so the whole process is reversible. But Everett's original paper "Relative State Formulation" doesn't contain these wrong ideas. There, he emphasizes that collapse is a real phenomenon. He presents MWI is a useful calculational tool, particularly suitable for GR. That 1957 paper is excellent. Later, after Dewitt got into it, MWI was distorted, and collapse was denied. I'll be very happy to explain why this modern version is wrong, if anyone will listen. If you're a sensible TP, please contact me.

Anyway, in we consider the collapse real. Ontological MWI is a mistake. So are other interpretations which try to deny collapse.

Hilbert Space

All you need to know at the moment is that Hilbert Space is infinite-dimensional vector space. The wavefunction "lives" in it: it's defined in terms of its axes / dimensions. It's a key concept throughout analysis.

I may be wrong!

I'm not very confident of some Physics details. I need to go over them with a sympathetic sensible TP. Unfortunately at the moment that's ruled out by the principle. Fortunately those details don't affect Elementary .

QM-Consciousness Correspondence (QCC)

All aspects of QM (and everything else, BTW) correspond to some aspect of consc, since consc is the base of reality, the ground of being. Let's call the whole set of correspondences "QCC". Here are some key correspondences for Elementary .

First, particles are conscious. Second, a particle's wavefunction represents (the contents of) the mind. Third, collapse of the wavefunction represents a decision. Entanglement is communication, cooperation, relationship, maybe even friendship. Spin represents "truth detector" among other things. Fermions, bosons, ... There may be five, or a dozen, such correspondences one can state with some confidence. There must be a hundred sensible ones.

Testing QCC

Remember none of QCC can be proved in QM. So the game here is to make the simplest, most plausible guesses. Then, test them in various ways outside of physics. If they ever could isolate and experiment with the actual (very, very difficult), neuroscientists could possibly prove that particles are conscious, and other correspondences. For the next century or so, testing must mainly be done in areas like psychohistory, psychology, anthropology, cosmology, and so on. QCC forms a vital part of the analysis Model. If the model fits real-world scenarios well then accept QCC (and the rest of the candidate model). If not tinker with it.

QCC 1: Particles are Conscious

This idea occurs to most people when they run into QM, it's so obvious. The professor says "the particle knows the other slit is closed", and so forth. But few take it seriously. In 1978 I was booted out of grad school for suggesting a thesis on this topic. It was my first exposure to the principle, quite a shock. Continuing to develop the idea as a hobby, I found that while physicists hated it, everyone else liked it. Today if you google it, there are plenty of advocates, even Lubos Motl. The idea started to catch on in 2004 or so. I'd like to think my strong advocacy of it last century helped popularize it. But it would have happened anyway, it's so obvious.

From a purely physics point of view Axiom 1 is not very compelling. You have to realize there is no other good explanation of consc. (See "Consciousness Studies"). One main competing idea is that consc "emerges", somehow, from mechanical operations in the brain. That's conceivable. Still it would be a new, very important fact of science, far from ignorable. Consc would still be an inherent, unexplainable fact of reality. Advanced can model and analyze the hypothesis, and show why it's misguided. The other main competing idea is, consc resides in a non-material "soul". This is easily dismissed in analysis by associating the soul with the : we just say the soul is what makes the particle conscious. After that we can forget it since this interpretation has no further effect on analysis so can't be tested (unlike the emergence hypothesis).

Particle Inputs and Outputs

What does it mean to say a particle is conscious? It requires something like an IGUS with sensory and control mechanisms. Inputs (like vision) and outputs (like movement). A particle must know something about its environment, decide what to do, and do it. Note, it certainly could be conscious without these. But we'd never say it was, because there'd be no way to tell.

Inputs: EM and other forces

How does a sense its environment? Mainly, via the EM field, a.k.a. photons. No doubt the weak and strong forces are also involved. Not gravity. And, there's some FTL communication "sense" associated with entanglement. I don't know if it has any other ways of sensing. Deep in the brain the must be confronted with condensed data representing visuals, sound, touch, smell, body sense, balance, pain, hot, cold, itch, etc. usually supposes it's all encoded in EM fields, but remember that's not entirely right. How does tell the that, for instance, there's a smell of coffee? There has to be some sort of language which allows communication with the particle, which we can call the " language". If and when it's understood, it will enable very realistic Virtual Reality simulation, androids, etc. It will be a huge scientific breakthrough.

BTW the language also must handle messages to me (the ) from memory, speech centers, and (in general) .

Music

BTW, A good guess is that music is connected with the part of language which represents emotions.

Output: Motion including Spin

Maybe the talks back in the same language, but doesn't think so. My intuition says motion is the best guess for output. For instance if a wants to move an arm it must physically hit a sort of "button" on a "control panel" causing the arm to move. Admittedly, when you people finally figure out how it really works, this idea (2017) may seem childish.

QCC 2: Wavefunction is Mind

Or, the contents of the mind. For instance in the two-slit experiment the particle knows about the two slits, which are mathematically represented as two eigenvectors of the wave function.