Correct Approach to All-encompassing Quantum Theory
Subject: question to peter
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:27:40 EST
Peter: I missed the beginning of this dialogue w Muller. What is "MIR"? And where specifically does Henry Stapp address (and demolish) the Zeh anti-Copenhagen program?
MIR is Mind-Independent Reality, which Muller rejects, except as an as-if type of postulate that is useful but does not really exist, i.e., it is not a *reality* at all, or perhaps it has cash value as a consensus reality which we all imagine, i.e. hallucinate, to be a MIR. I believe MIR as MIR is a very important concept, combined with the concept of Totality, which represents the whole classical world experienced implicitly as such by the classical observer or abstract "ego". The transcendental ego, the *ego sum* of Descartes and Husserl, experiences the whole world explicitly, as an other, but the abstract "ego" contains the whole world, i.e., it surrounds and "nihilates" the world, thus defining subjectivity and consciousness, according to Sartre. The former would be the quantum world, while the latter is the classical world.
See Henry's website, which I presume you know how to get to. See "The Basis Problem in Many-Worlds Theories". This is about MWI, but Henry avers that it applies to Bohm theory, as well, and any such all-Schrodinger type of theory which claims not to need an existential observer.
These attempts seem extremely misguided to me and misanthropical. It is like they are trying to strengthen the walls and bars of our prison rather than finding a way out.
My thoughts on the matter are that we can define these types of state vectors:
PSI = state vector of the universe, the total state vector, both objective and subjective;
PHI = state vector of substance, which can be in one or another representation and as such is governed by the Schrodinger Equation;
CHI = state vector of Mind-Independent Reality; and
RHO = state vector of Totality, which represents the state of the ostensibly classical Observer.
The difference between PHI and CHI is that PHI describes indirectly the noumenon, while CHI describes directly the phenomenal representation of the noumenon. All state vectors here, as mental descriptions, are in the mental world. PSI looks across to the oroboric abyss between the physical observed and the meta-physical observer, PHI looks down into the emotional world and by representational extension into the physical world. CHI and RHO look upward into the phenomenal world (5th world) and the meta-physical world (7th world), respectively.
Hence, we cannot do justice to the problem by simply pretending that PHI is PSI, as Zeh and other MWI'ers do. Rather, we must comprehend what the state vector of the universe really means and what the state vector representing the ostensibly classical existence of the observer really means, as well as what the state vector representing the phenomenal representation of the noumenon really means. Because of the way Bohr, et al., confused phenomenon with noumenon, this problem and definition of the problem has been obscured. Einstein tried to clarify it in his discussion with Heisenberg. By talking about the "ganzer langer Weg" (whole long way) between the observed and the observer he meant to draw the distinction between the noumenon and the phenomenon, between Einstein and Heisenberg. But, so far, no one except me has understood what Einstein was trying to say. It is very important that physicists develop more sophistication along these lines. Resistance is futile - why don't you all just accept my metaphysical system and be done with it. You will have to accept it sooner or later, anyway. :-)(-: