Applying the notion of quantum mechanics observables and operators to how the mind or consiousness may work.
5/13/2020 7:35 a.m.
Sitting outside, a slight chill, gray skies with a few breaks. Kind of how this long three-day weekend was. I had worked on several projects, yet a couple did not go well, and I ended up spending a lot of time and effort on them, with nothing to show for. And that made me angry. So it was not a “good” weekend… in my mind. This then also sets my base-tuning for this talk now, a bit blue, a bit lacking energy…
At any rate, yesterday evening I had an insight about the whole “choosing” topic or mechanism we had been talking about. I’ll copy it here later.*
*[ Here is what I wrote down last night:
- Thesis 1: Mind = an observable + system-state
- the observable would be an “attention or noticing” operator (“observable” and “operator” have the meaning as they are used in quantum mechanics)
- and the state would be memory, neurons, configurations of some weighted state vector in some basis, etc.
- Thesis 2: This then changes in a loop,
- the observable is tuned
- and the state evolve
- Thesis 3: The Club is in All-D, but that is 3D+, so all variant feed into it, meaning It forms a super-observable and super-state that is the sum of all “lower” levels.]
[ I look up the word “answer,” no help here]
So let me tune in, while holding the question in my mind.
We are here.
And there, again, is part of your answer: “While holding the question in your mind.” [In the last dialogue we talked about how the question becomes part of regarding the total situation.]
Because last night, you had thought of it as if there is a single observable, for example “bring to one’s attention,” while observing the state.
But here, you see, the observable comes in various shades. Like you said, yesterday you were angry – and that is another topic altogether that we need to talk about [I smile at that] – and that “flavored” the way you saw the world.
So the “observable” (operator, matrix) that works on the state is fluid as well, set by various conditions. It is conditioned by all else, how could it not be.
Right. I see that now. While I was writing this down, I also got this insight:
Note that the sense of “observable” has shifted. It used to be “the observer” and “the observed.” Now “the observable” is sort of a hybrid, because it is a process of how the observer questions the observed.*
*[ I probably could have stated this better. But there is really is a lot in this insight, maybe to explored later. Because it goes at the heart of the dualism between “the observer” and “the observed.” In QM, we always had stated that “the observer IS the observed,” and coming at it from this angle here goes into describing why. Food for thought. ]
And that, if you remember is very much at the heart of the original QM, the setup of the experiment presupposes an answer.
But let’s not get sidetracked, or do you want to?
No, no. Let’s go back to the topic. I mean, I had this already in thesis #2 of the original statement [above]: The observer is tuned…
Right. So think of it [the observable operator] as a black box that has several inputs, including the current state as well.
That corresponds as well to your brain structure, where you have various brain regions, like the thalamus, the amygdala, the cortex, and so on. Where the outer cortex more or less holds the memory, and certain regions process this and evolve it.
Within this, the “next observable” is tuned, which is basically “to bring to attention, but selectively.”
So metaphorically, a base mood is set (angry, happy), and a certain focus is set to some object, and that then forms the question:
“If I regard the state of the system with all these “settings,” then I pose a question to it along these parameters, like “angry, some thought [that I mediate on], a tuning,” and what will be the answer?”
that answer is then the state of alternatives that you perceive – in the current state you are in.
OK. But then, basically, you have the current state, my mental state (and the universal state) feeding into this observable operator – is that not the input? So is it not simply always the same as this:
|State-1> × [Operator] = |State-2> [and repeat] ?*
*[The implication here is that it IS after all always the same operator, and the tuning is simply part of the input into all this, as part of the state itself ]
Yes. Not sure how to say this. It changes, and it does not. But basically, yes, the observable and the state are all interlinked. There is some basic machinery in place, some basic processing logic…
Actually, from my angle it seems pretty darn complex! [smiling]
Fine. Some processing logic that can evolve within a certain range.
Hmm. Just say you don’t know it, either.
If it makes you happy. But you make us (that is, you and we) fight over semantics. You basically see the picture.
A basic machine is in place, which for a human is the brain in part, and that keeps processing the state, i.e. it is the observable, and as thus the state keeps evolving, but also the “machine,” the observable evolves slightly, too.
So, do you have something like this as well? What if an All-D being does not have a physical brain?
[The third thesis in the original question on top.]
Again, go away from [the notion that] the brain being the ruler of all things. The brain is only a local processing unit, but the stretch [?handwriting?] extends far beyond. We talked about All-D waves.
Now, your insight [in the thesis above] included already that All-D contains all 3Ds (plural!, that is, all time and all variants) so “all brains” are part of the higher structure.
Nonetheless, the physical structure is not as important. What is more important is more the idea of wave inference, which builds up very complex structures.
So “consciousness,” for that is what we are talking about, is itself such a very complex structure of modulated waves. Again, the physical brain with its neurons, the “entity,” is only the tip of the iceberg, but the wave structure is where “it” all happens.
Hmm, then why even have a brain?
Because it isolates “you” from all else. It prevents you from merging again. That really is the base function.
It makes you see reality as filtered by the senses, and sets you apart from it.
For us here, we can do this as well, but we can also merge, we are merged and we know it. You on the other hand, in the physical MUST see reality with the limited equipment that you have. So it is a sort-of preset “membrane” you are living with.
In a way, it opens the system to its original state, which is All-That-is, without any organization [into structures, or alternatively with ALL possible structures].
But the main point is, this sort of process, that an observable is formed and is linked to the state, “is in a way the state,” it extends to All-D.
I am a little disappointed. We basically said a lot and not much of substance.
Not sure what great insight you expected. We move incrementally, you see?*
*[I agree, these dialogues are a sort of dialectical movement, in the sense of Hegel's dialectic: a thesis, an antithesis, an synthesis into something higher ].
So let me recap:
- The way I/we see reality is through “some observable operator,” which is always looking-at and evolving “the state of the system” (memory, the universal state, etc).
- But the state also feeds back into the operator and thus tunes how I see “the state” at given moment.
- So for the most part, the operator is a “bring to attention /awareness” operator; a “noticing” and “bringing to attention” or "awareness" operator (“awareness” means to "raise up," attention means to bring to the right tension),* and because it is tuned by the state (which includes some base tuning, like “angry,” and some focus element) it will question the state in a given way.
- At the same time, this basic operator can evolve very slightly, fine-tune itself, while retaining its overall purpose [I struggled with that word “purpose,” maybe “function” would be better]
Don’t get hung up [on finding the right word].
The other important part is
[5.] that the state and the operator are much more coupled and not distinct. The operator is just a certain nexus* within the network itself, that has a certain functionality (bring to attention, question, whatever). So don’t quite see it as separate.
*[added later: the term "nexus" is interesting here, because we use it before in the notion of "nexus events," which goes into pre-birth life-plans that organize around certain time-attractors.]
OK. I have to let this “sync” in. Let’s top.
Have a great day choosing.
The brain is a local wave generator and receiver.
I found an older articles, which talks about how we are born with a certain strand configuration, and over the course of a life try to bring this into better harmony. This could be an explanation for what it means when the operator is tuned slightly.
the other thing that stood out in that same older talk was this sentence:
"that all sub-strings, all sub-strands, all have to be tuned right, in the right ratios, and then be struck right together, playing right together."
The term “in the right ratio” goes into the notion of weightings that we talked about lately.
Namaste — I and the Divine in me bow to You and the Divine in You.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr