Hacker News Reader

Comment by masswerk | Hacker News Reader

Well, here's my hypothesis: The universe develops in superposition until the first observer emerges, causing the superpositions to collapse. Meaning, the first possible observer will not only be guaranteed to exist, they will also make their mark on the universe. Conversely, they also adjust the local universe to their causality, making it harder for other observers to emerge. – In other words, there we did something again, by launching the Webb telescope… ;-)

(PS: Here, the universe behaves like a path search for first possible observers and, thus, causality. Posing the question, if there is no possible observer in a given universe, does it even exist or is the search exhausted in what isn't even an instant? Anyway, let's call it the "race to causality" hypothesis.)

View on HN

Here's my hypothesis: the quantum flux remains in a state of zero-point energy superposition until the power of quantum consciousness emerges through dark energy chaos and acts to select from the multiverse of madness the timeline curve to follow.

We're having a contest in who can string more meaningless physics-sounding words together, right?

To be less snarky: the word "observer" in physics has nothing to do with a self-aware brain. Photons are about as good at causing decoherence as you are.

Regarding being snarky: I guess, you've observed the ";-)" annotation… ;-)

(Conventional meaning: this is irony/a joke and the author doesn't actually believe in this.)

As this apparently requires some explanation: In this thought experiment of a hypothetical quantum-ontological universe, an (aware) observer would come with their very own sphere of causality, which not necessarily defines the entirety of the universe. While this may explain our apparent loneliness, it would also pose another, even more urgent question: What would happen as we expand our horizon, thus expanding our own sphere of causality into what may be already established realities that are not necessarily compatible with our own? Is everything going to collapse? Or, what forms of life will never be, just because we became aware of these parts of the universe? Is exploration even ethical? On the other hand, I enjoy the thought of a lone water bear floating into outer space and thus defining reality.

Like, I'm sorry, but this has no connection to anything in mainstream physics. There is no indication that causality is connected to observation. You appear to think that "observation" is a process involving awareness, which is just not what the word means, in the context of QM.

This is like a scifi story maybe, but none of what you've said has any rigorous meaning. "sphere of causality" would be a cool band name, though.

Cosmology isn't only physics, it has also (always) been a playground for thought experiments and philosophy. (Compare the rather well established field of science fiction.) But, even if it's just about physics, I'm pretty amazed how cosmology seems to mirror the current state of media, which is a cultural artefact. (E.g, we had theories like the holographic universe, the pixelated universe, etc, not to speak of the clock, quite in accordance with respective trends in media technology. In the end, this isn't really surprising, as it's always about us observing the universe, the ultimate medium.)

Do you mean observer as in a photon?

As in "an observer which/who requires causality and cannot exist in superposition". Whatever that is. Is causality a product of at least a minimal level of awareness? (We won't be able to tell, as exploring the concept of causality already presupposes awareness.)

I believe this hypothesis assumes some sort of metaphysical property to consciousness. Also, Permutation City did it first (consider this a book recommendation).

Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist. I'm just some random internet dude who likes learning things. My understanding is that a single photon wouldn't count as an observer. It doesn't even experience time (from the point of view of the photon, admission and absorption are simultaneous). Now if that photon is entangled with another photon, that can then be considered an observer. Someone please correct me if this is not accurate.

(Disclaimer: physics undergrad.) I honestly wish we could get away from the word "observer" - it's more or less a historical accident and it probably confuses more than it helps.

Talking about coherence and [decoherence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence) is IMO a lot more intuitive. Always keep in mind, if you're reading about quantum physics and there's anything in there about consciousness or subjective experience or whatever, then you're either reading something very fringe, or you've misunderstood what the paper is saying. Quantum physics is weird, but it's not that weird.

It was a pretty confusing series but I think ultimately the plot of terra ignota is basically this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com