Here is a nice explanation of WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE, a concept from Quantum Mechanics,
Is Consciousness the ultimate wave?
Is Self the collapse of consciousness wave function?
Is Thought the collapse of self wave function?
Is Reality the collapse of thought wave function?
Is Physical universe the collapse of reality wave function?
The ultimate observer or looker is, of course, Unknowable. 🙂
Like the last digit of the decimal rendition of pi.
Because neither exists as we know existence.
.
Added October 28, 2012:
WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE = MANIFESTING
What is there before manifesting may only be speculated upon. Speculation then manifests.
So all manifesting may simply be preceded by speculation or visualization.
See AXIOM ZERO
.
Addition (12/31/18)
The assumption in the following video is that electrons are like little balls. This assumption is incorrect. Electrons are waves that are simply quite substantial. As far as “observer” goes, they have an instrument there, whose electric field interferes with the experiment. Please see,
Einstein’s Light Quanta
.
Comments
Finally! Thank you Vinaire! . . . And now what can collapse and what may not collapse?
HIGH CRIMES
This morning, as I looked at this. it came to me that “anything at all at any time at all” may be collapsed out of the infinite potential of the field of wave function. What “governs” is not “what is possible” because everything is possible. What governs is what has been agreed upon which agreements together create the consensus reality. This may not be an exotic agreement but may be like the normal social agreements by which we live all the time. The difference in these agreements may only be their age and breadth of application. To violate these agreements seems to be a “very high crime” indeed.
They are social agreements and they evolve through time as all social agreements do. Such as “last year it was not ok to wear short skirts but this year it is acceptable.” The agreements are different for every frame of reference.
On Sunday mornings, in every church around Phoenix, one can find people exercising their acceptable collapse of the wave function. Are the routines and practices VERY different? No they are not very different but they are slightly different (talking in tongues and rolling on the floor in one and burning incense in another, shouting to the Lord in one and sitting quietly in another) But the differences ARE important and it is not acceptable to mix them. If one attends a fashion event and is not dressed “in vogue” then a violation will occur and some measure of ostracism will befall the offender.
Each frame of reference has a consensus reality which should be closely adhered to and violating this is important within that frame of reference. This remains consistent in the framework of physics. And why shouldn’t it? Integral to the development of quantum theory was the mathematics of Albert Einstein; however, faced believing the very correct mathematics of QM when it pointed to the “spooky” effects, Einstein chose to prefer to believe that QM was in error and that there were still unknown physical influences at work.
I will go with Einstein. To the degree there are inconsistencies in QM there is more to be discovered.
.
What do you see as inconsistent?
There is no single universal theory.
.
I understand your writing to mean the inconsistency in QM is that it is not complete. Is this a correct understanding of your comment?
What I meant was that there is no single theory that covers both the cosmic and the atomic realm. We have separate theories to cover them.
.
Have you noticed any inconsistency in QM? I do not know enough about it and what I do know is counter-intuitive to “normal” things that I have been taught. The various statistical experiments and such I only read from books and take at face value same as I do Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or Elizabeth’s writing.
I think I really have to straighten out my math before diving into QM.
.
What do I mean by a FRAME OF REFERENCE?
I have been looking at this for a while now and like the idea of greatly differing “orders of magnitude” determined by a possibly simple but massively different fractal calculation.
You see, there is “INFINITE SPACE WITHIN FINITE SPACE” Have I gone mad? — Maybe.
Well, look at the irrational numbers… Plotting irrational numbers on a number line simply means that no matter how close two points are, there are infinity of points between them.
.
This is what I mean by “serial universes.” Do you think that irrational numbers might hold a secret such as that it is only the (so far) arbitrary “orders of magnitude” for a frame of reference which can contain entire systems? Do you follow because I don’t think I am writing this very well.
When we look at say just microbiology, we see whole systems of existence which come and go. Are these creatures sentient? And what comprises sentient anyway? Their similarity to us? haha All I know is that fractal construct has opened my eyes.
Fractal calculations allow for the physical universe to be a closed and finite system while containing “infinite space” within. If you detest my use of the words “infinite space” in this context, then you might use “infinite frames of reference” if that is more comfortable.
Please… the less you assume about me, or bring the discussion of a particular self in the picture, the better this discussion would be. 🙂
I have no idea what fractal calculations show that the universe is finite.
.
“The observer or looker is, of course, Unknowable.”
i think there is the observer and the observed (not to mention the observation, which is necessarily implied for both to exist), which are all knowable, and there is another element that includes them all while being none, that one being unknowable, though present and reachable
Correct!
If one comes to know the observer, then it would no longer be the observer!
It would be the observed. 🙂
.
.
Agree. With R. Unknowable is inconsistent. Believing in unknowable blunts looking.
Observer, observed, observation
Make a tight circle
Round and round it goes
Circular logic.
You may meet the unknowable
When you step off this circle
Or, maybe not
Who knows?
Probably, there is no
Who, what, where and when
Anyway…
The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda
i love the way you say “correct”, as if your word were the last like the master teacher.
you’re funny Vinaire
Correctness is, of course, relative. 🙂
.
and isn’t it nice to relate… 😉
yes, that is where the fun is… specially when it is harmonious! 🙂
.
yes. and then we can even hear a sweet melody 🙂
Very well. I do not mind at all your faith in the unknowable. Its all good.
Again you are putting your attention on “self”. If you disagree with the idea of “unknowable” then simply say so, and give your unbiased reason. It should have nothing to do with what I think.
.
I apologize. I will try to do better.
if you are looking for the best term to call “it”, that would be “unknown” because it does not imply it cannot be known, it simply states it is not (yet?) known. however, when saying “unknowable” you are stating that because you weren’t (yet?) able to know it, it is impossible to know, either for you or anyone, and that you cannot (yet?) affirm with absolute certainty.
the unknown still opens possibilities. the unknowable seems to not.
Maybe I should call it the BIG CARROT that gets you to speculate and consider and to dig for past considerations.
Or, I should call it the ETERNAL TEASER that gets you to pull your metaphysical hair in addition to what I said earlier.
Or, I should call it a RABBIT HOLE WITH NO BOTTOM in Matrix style.
Please let me have some more suggestions.
.
For me the challenge is:
Can somebody transform the Unknowable into a Knowable?
That will be worth more than many millions of Nobel Prizes.
OK, come on, make my day.
.
Unknowable simply means, “It is impossible to know all of it. You may be able to know some of it.”
.
since you like to name things with precision, i shared my idea of what could be more precise than “unknowable” but i accept and understand if you don’t like it. it’s just my viewpoint and it’s as valuable and relative as that. take it as you will.
i don’t have any more suggestions for the moment.
Well, I don’t think UNKNOWN attracts as much attention as UNKNOWABLE.
Now keep in mind that it is just my consideration, and I shall be more than happy if someone can make me wrong.
🙂
unknowable is a concept like God. unknowable only shows one’s own momentarily incapacity to know it, it does not show necessarily it is indeed unknowable, hence my idea of preferably calling it unknown, as it seems much closer to be reached and thus known.
your question of if anyone can transform the unknowable into knowable does not make sense to me. it’s not a matter if anyone or who can, it’s a matter of watching it happen.
once again, this is just my viewpoint and not a pretense to create a new doctrine or establish a final conclusion about anything.
anything is knowable because what it’s not, it simply isn’t. why even think about it, it’s impossible to(o)
If you watch it happen, you may come up with a consideration of your own and think that you have discovered the bottom of the rabbit hole. That’s how it has been all along, it seems.
It is like guessing at the last digit of the irrational number “PI”.
.
how can that necessarily be? only if i add something to it 😉
are you contradicting your own system? you shouldn’t, really! 🙂
One cannot claim that something is unknowable, because the concept of ‘something’ is knowable.
Where ‘unknowable’ is concerned, one doesn’t even know what is unknowable.
i know you are hungry so here is some more food:
“unknowable” implies a self that can’t know it. it also sounds like a struggle, proper of a “self”. without a self, (and a struggle), is there any unknowable?
is there any need to know anything at all or living simply becomes knowing itself, with no impossibilities because of the absence of desires, needs and craves?
hope you are well fed now 🙂
(and please keep the prize)
In my view, SELF comes later with the collapse of consciousness.
“Unknowable” does not imply anything like what you are thinking. That’s the beauty of it. You will only come up with your own considerations when you contemplate on the unknowable.
And that consideration is not unknowable. 🙂
.
i never talked of unknowable more than answering your statements about it.
i don’t have that question in my mind 🙂
if you make statements about the unknowable that are certain for you, then that is not the unknowable. the tao we can talk about it not the tao 🙂
going now, for real. good night, for real 🙂
what later? what first? what sequence? you kidding me with your mathematics?
“beauty”? the same beauty you very recently said one could get stuck into?
so you were talking about you all the time; i knew it!
good night, this time definitely (for today) 🙂
Good night… sleep tight!
.
and for dessert:
here and now is all there is to know and we sit on it.
i know it’s not enough for you but maybe you should just accept it and live with it.
looking too far away can be an obsession stemming from a compulsion of avoiding all there is, this here and now.
i know it’s bittersweet but it ends the meal beautifully, whie aiding the digestion.
let me know if you need something else, like a nice cup of tea.
Oh, yes, here and now is all your considerations in the present time. You can know them, of course. But none of them is the unknowable.
I am not craving after the unknowable, my friend, because it is unknowable. It is the ultimate carrot.
.
of course these are all considerations, it’s the only way of communicating with words.
but how can you be so fixated on something that is unknowable, is something quite amazing.
Vinay any statement about the unknowable is an oxymoron.
The “knowable unknowable”… of course!
.
i am holding my cup of tea in my hands, here’s yours.
we already know the necessary theories and inventing more is always possible but will only divert us from the essential, with so much we already and still have in store.
let’s start on living. for real. unless you don’t want to. if that’s the case, you are free to choose otherwise. life can hurt but what can we do, that’s the life we have, that’s part of the meaning of being alive, with a bodymind system and its senses. beyond that there is pure speculation, that most tempting devil.
and believe me when i say that all i said to you, i was saying it to me too.
good night 🙂
glad my teasing makes you smile. that is my joy. not to tease but to put smiles on others 🙂
good night, really really good night!
(you make me smile too, thank you)
“R” are you asleep yet?
.
haha, you caught me still up 😀 i am not but will soon, soon, so soon you won’t even notice!
Unknowable is simply another way of saying that absolutes are unattainable.
The last digit in the decimal representation of PI is “unknowable.”
.
good morning 🙂
coffee?
if you reach the conclusion that it’s unknowable, you are attaining an absolute conclusion and according to that logic, it can’t be fully true.
if the decimal representation of Pi is in fact infinite, then its last digit simply doesn’t exist, why even bother looking for it.
last digit or not, it doesn’t make sense to isolate a component of a whole to study it, as everything in the phenomenical world is relative and part of something else.
“absolutes are unattainable” is an absolute. with the mind one always finds an absolute paradox.
if you let go of the mind you will find the absolute, and absolutely no need of wording it or relativizing it.
i am the zero in your multiplication.
don’t you just love me?
got to work now.
have a nice day 🙂
Good morning. 🙂
No coffee… green tea would be just fine.
Absolute conclusion can be reached only if one knows. I simply don’t know if anything is there to be known. So, I decided to call it unknowable.
If the last digit of PI simply does not exist then this unknowable simply does not exist either. One can’t know what is not there in the first place. This is what I have been saying since the beginning. See Essay # 1, 2 and 3.
I am not looking for this Unknowable. I leave that area of speculation alone.
You are absolutely right about the relativity of the phenomenal world. It is like a circle or a sphere in terms of abstraction. It is a universe of consideration. That is all we can know. Nothing more. What is beyond the Universe of Consideration is unknowable because we may only speculate about it and know those speculations.
Anything stated may be looked upon as absolute. That is the limitation of language. So, one may better stay silent about it because the concept here cannot be expressed through language.
I think you have the right idea, and for that I love you.
Have a wonderful day!
.
heh-heh So why would you give such advice?
The last digit in the decimal representation of PI is “unknowable.”
_________________
Try out my “Law of No-Paradox.” It is very useful and satisfying especially for the weary mind. You may break this law if you desire, but why would you?
I know where to find the last digit of Pi. The cognition is obvious but no less elegant because it is the last place you look. It is the last one that you write.
This is consistent with your religion as well. You may pierce the veil to any degree or not as you so desire. If you are having fun with the level you are on then you may linger a while and play or rest. If you want to pioneer a bit more, there is always potential for that as well.
Your cognition leaves you with a consideration in this case. Of course, you can know your consideration, but not what is beyond consideration.
.
Not really. Your evaluations of of my reality are inconsistent.
Your objection is noted.
.
The last digit of Pi is the last digit which is written. Pi can go on. Pi can stop. What tells Pi to calculate? And what stops calculating? For me it represents a lesson in creation.
Then unknowable can be anything you imagine; but the search can go on…
.
Yes, you are saying it but we aren’t quite connecting. I meant to convey that Pi can represent the infinite, but the infinite is, again by definition knowable. Pi shows that infinite is not beyond the bounds of finite but within the bounds.
I call out the name of Static and you use the word Unknowable. We both use these words to point to that area outside the circle of finite. You’ve said you want to attract attention by using the word unknowable and I enjoy the more precise definition of static. No matter because we both need a placeholder for that potential area for which no word is adequate.
Infinite is for me at once both beautiful and a trap. It is a quagmire of mental machinations and diverts attention from looking directly at what is. Regardless, infinite is both finite and knowable.
I think I will begin defining infinite as the “long version” of finite, the 15 minute version of the rock & roll which only gets a 2:59 radio version. It is the same song, just so much more of it.
Pi doesn’t represent the infinite. Pi has a finite value.
Infinite is not completely knowable.
Static is unknowable.
.
and vice versa.
I don’t know anything about what is unknowable… not even whether it is static or not.
There is simply no point of reference from which to judge. The closest I can come is to say, “It is beyond consideration.”
.
Furthermore, in honesty you could say that you don’t know if there is something beyond consideration.
Well, there seems to be some sort of a background, otherwise one wouldn’t be able to recognize considerations. This is a consideration itself.
I just don’t know the nature of that background. And this too is a consideration.
.
Yes, there is this consideration of unknowable. You have convincingly proved to me that nothing may be stated about it with accuracy or even relevance. You have clearly and cogently defined it. I understand you.
When you say that there may be some type of background, something with a nature which can recognize the physical world, I do not have any discord reviewing that thought. It seems plausible and I don’t have a better explanation. Your comment indicates there is something unexplained about our world view and that we are trying to come up with explanations.
Imagining and holding tightly to an idea that there is “something there” or “nothing there” about which “nothing may be known” is self-defeating and closed minded.
The paradoxical nature of these thoughts is an indicator to me that there is something inconsistent in them to be rooted out.
We believe that there is something unexplained about our world view and so we are trying to come up with explanations. And that creates the world view in the first place. Our world view is made up of circular logic.
.
Where in Europe are you “R”? Just curious.
.
thank you my friend.
(would you still love me if you thought i had the wrong idea…?
you don’t need to answer)
receive this big tight (virtual) hug from me (the only one that is possible now which i still hope you can feel)
My lips are sealed like your icon’s. 🙂
.
i can feel that 🙂
thank you again
Hello Vinaire,
I’ve collected these short videos for you. I look forward to sharing with you your thoughts about these subjects. They contain some of my beliefs and realities about life.
http://youtu.be/gUyqfUut8lA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ_W3EAfp6I
Look forward to hearing from you,
Lorraine
Hello Lorraine,
I shall look at these videos when I am back home from work. For, now, let me just say that I like your icon.
Vinaire