Jump to content
Science Forums

Postulates on the behavior in quantum mechanics.


Recommended Posts

I have been going over alot of quantum related physicsin my spare time and have found myself arriving at some unique postulates developed from the experimental and predictive data.


For example, at the deepest of deep levels in physics the behavior of things are so strange in that they are unrelated to macroscopic comman sense that they represent a great question.


The world we see and know is the mental formation of patterns created by the quantum world. Patterns are not physical things, they are mental constructs. Yet the source of all patterns is such a world, that it is also not a thing, not a thing in that, it is absolutely unrelated to mental constructs of patterns.


Patterns. When you look at earth, its a mental pattern. Because really earth is;

-grains of sand and dropplets, or

-its cells and molecules, or

-atoms and atomic particles, or

-quantum wave-functions, or

-multi-dimensional non string, strings.


Each is true, but they are stages of mental constructs.


Eventually we reach a level, the smallest of known levels, and when we apply mental construct to this world we find no constructable thing at all.


At this level, it is like a fish in the ocean, looking for a drink of water, or a man attempting to weigh a cup of water when his labratory is right full of water.


At this stage mental construct is looking inside its mental construct, self on self.


When we eliminate mental constructs from this quantum world, we are left with no-thing, so, no mental constructs. What we are left with is the possibility for a-thing, so, a possible mental construct.


There is no position, because only a mental construct can determin one. There is no one particle, because its a wave of potential.


There is no individual thing, because each able minded observer can observe this source in their own and UNIQUE way. By this I mean, one observer can see the universe distorted, and another can see it fine. Each mental construct is independent of eachother.


The world is so strange, that its a wonder how it contains any sort of consistent order.


Not only this, but without a mental construct developed by a conscious and visually abled mind, there is no determinable thing.


If you are well researched in this area, what are your hypothetical hypothesis on whats going on here.


There is no unified theory it appears, because, all theories are relative to the a specific catagory, stage or level of reality that we can observe. These stages are mental constructs, or patterns if you will, that mind appears capable to put together from a compound set of individual events.


I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my own hypothesis, and an experiment related to it to help support its plausability.


A quick overview of the experiment.


Historic experiments. I have no source as of the moment, but there have been claims of experiments where individuals put on special glasses that invert the vision of the subjects. This would make it seem as though people walk around upside for example and that below you was the sky. (yes its a scary thought, bad for you vertigo people out there). Anyway, after a period of around 3 weeks of wearing these glasses, the brain found a way to rewire itself in order to shift the vision so the consciousness could determine things in a more efficient way, and things became right side up. One this had occured, the subjects removed the glasses and vision was again, but this time now naturally upsidedown without the use of glasses. Luckily after another period of time the persons brains adapted and rewired itself in order to see normally again.


The experiment I have to test my hypothesis is similar to this.



You take a various number of subjects that are required to wear a set of glasses that are tinted with a specific color. Say 3 have green, 3 have blue, 3 have red. Allow these subjects to wear the glasses for a long period of time and see if, and how long it takes for the brain to rewire itself in order to see the colors of the world as they normally do. Such as the sky shifting from red in the glasses and eventuall back to blue.


If the shift occurs and a person eventually begins to see the world as the "remember" they always did, and all colors eventually become the norm. Then they wear the glasses again for the same period of time it took for the shift to occur so all was back to normal. Then at the end of this second and equivelent period with the colored glasses on. They then remove the glasses and report what they see.


If what they see is color distorted (not the normal blue sky) with only their natural eyes. one would record that the brain has somehow adapted physically over this period of time in order to bring the visual perception of the world back to the "WAY" it always was.


Now, the eyes should and may then shift for the 2nd time (with glasses removed) in order to change the color perception of the world around them.


The experiment would be aimed to test for the following reasoning.


If the brain desires to adapt in such a way to create the same world all the time, would this suggest that at some level a mental design is taking place that purposely knows how the world should look and will cause the brain material to rewire itself in such a way to make it adapt to this "normal" world "design".


Or is it that long term memory always wins of the short term shifts and causes the brain to match to its configurations of the sky being blue (specific energy/frequency.



The point would be to test my hypothesis that the mental construct of the universe we see is a design for the visually able conscious (in this case) person. This would be a design we had NO part in creating. Not only this but a design that has intention and purpose behind it and will always shift to align to this purpose and design. Example, always trying to make the sky look blue, regardless of the frequency of light we have go in our eyes when we look at it.


This would be aimed to support that the universe has ZERO material things, Zero consistency, zero dimensions, and each observer containing their own individual universe.

Where as, consciousness is all there is, and life only morphs in the way it needs to in order to adapt to the "intention in the design" of the mental construct for each consciousness, that is self-aware (having an experience it can refer to itself about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be edging on stuff like that of Husserl's phenomenology. Eidietic reduction and intentionality are clearly some of the main components driving "Postulates on the behavior in quantum mechanics."


Arkain 101, its interesting to discuss what constitutes the world and its properties, its being and its essence etc, but shouldnt this thread be located in the philosophy section?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well maybe you are right.

I expected to recieve mainly quantum mechanical related information. In this way we can cross off any possibilites for developing hypothesis.




duality (particle-wave)


what other unique things goes on down there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your quote: "For example, at the deepest of deep levels in physics the behavior of things are so strange"


Yes indeed. However, the world is a strange place anyway. We must remember there will always be things that do not work in the way we would usually evisage. Even in sociological models there are many things that contravene ones supposed idea of an order or structure.


One of the biggest mistakes of physics perhaps, certainly of quantum physics, is that there seems to be some expectation that there is an orderly mechanism somewhere. The photographs that many of us have seen of particle tracks show that particles indeed dont seem to have much of an order themselves. This 'chaos' as some of us would call it, is what drives the percieved orderliness in the world.


Perhaps that again is our mistake - we percive an orderliness, but maybe there isnt any. Mandelbrot sets show an amazingly structured kind of orderliness, but possibly that orderliness is really just chaotic.


We use maths to construct how things can devolve an order, a structural means of obtaining emergent properties and structures - again maths possibly misleads us when we look for an orderliness, because there may be extra factors in mathematical postulates that we do not yet know about. 2 plus 2 usually makes four but not always. You can have two chickens hatch but one dies and there's three left (two parents and one sibling.)


The brain upside down schema is because the brain enters a state of chaos and it turns the image the other way round to return to a better semblance of orderliness. But it is not perfect orderliness. The return to the other state when one takes the glasses off is a sign of chaos.


We should probably be looking for a level of betterness and how it can be understood in terms of its limited structures and the complicated unravellings that occur (I must stress that I dont mean anything like Dr Pangloss/Leibniz's 'best possible worlds' I'm afraid!)


Your quote: "the mental construct of the universe we see is a design for the visually able conscious"


I am not so sure about that. Would you say the universe was a design for those NOT visually able? I think the universe is just as it is, it hasnt evolved to make sure that things can see it and it hasnt evolved certain colurs and properties so that these things (humans for example) can see blue as blue and reds as reds, etc. It is quite possible that the universe (and our human species) are both still evolving so both offer each other things that are new experinces/sensations, so the levels of interaction alter constantly.


The unviverse has zero sum things everywhere, yes. Consciousness indeeds adapts to these parameters to make a sense of orderliness, a range of understanding, in being brought into existence. Even if it only extends to being alive and knowing the moment when one is about to be eaten by a bigger fish. And the bigger fish thinks it knows how to catch small fish, but in the end it makes mistakes and is eaten, not by bigger fish, but by smaller fish who have evolved through a desire to transcend to a higher level of survivalness. Its a sort of chaotic cycle that switches the balance constantly between different levels of possiblities. In some ways its something like Lovelock's 'Daisyworlds' hypothesis. Adaptation (or morphing) takes things to newer levels but also changes the set-up at the same time. (a bit like trying to observe a particle and it alters its behaviour as a result.)


I've tried to put forward my thoughts from a quantum perspective, but since it is a mammoth task, I must apologise for having pulled in bits of other things. I want to say that since no-one knows what a particle thinks, what a particle does and why and whether it has any plans or is influenced by some kind of information that demands a certain order, (save for their emergent properties of being a quark, gluon, or up, down strange, charm etc) I think that the level of discussing you are aiming at is at the moment a thing that is quite possibly rather way beyond our present levels of understanding. it is perhaps like trying to ask oneself 'what is pure thought' and whether a pure thought being (eg Dave Bowman/Star Child) is possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...