Monday, September 5, 2011

Quantum Decoherence

Quantum Decoherence:

Those who want to shunt the notion of a City of God aside, in trade for a City of Self, tend to be embarrassed when it is pointed out how circularly convenient are their "many worlds" and "multiverse" notions for modeling how it could be that consciousness "just happens" to abide, ex nihilio, in our world. So, now we have a notion of "Quantum Decoherence." Behind all the math, proponents seem to use this notion to try to rationalize for the best of the "City of Self," by presuming countless possibilities of other universes do not actually manifest in space-time existence, but only in potential. In potential, all that abides that is not manifested is entirely "coherent." It is only when a manifestation bubbles or leaks out (of "meta space-time"?) into an expression in manifest space-time that there is experienced, in reference to it, a decoherence. However, this technique for applying-labels-to-whatever-may-result ("stuff just happens") does not explicate much concerning why or how any particular result was actually synchronized, caused, apprehended, guided, or chosen. Nor does the notion of Quantum Decoherence, in itself, avail any relevant help for deriving "ought" from "is." To derive "ought from is" necessitates a quality of consciousness, which abides superior to, or at least on par with, quantifiably correlative substance.  This would seem simple to any reasonably bright 6 year old child.  However, in these days, given intense competition to "progress" in science and math, one needs to be really smart and narrowly driven in order to believe so many things that avail so little coherence with innate intuition.

Regardless, the potentiality of our universe somehow "chooses" to manifest only one, from among all possible potentialities, to our commonly synchronized and unfolding experience of consciousness. In all our varieties for experiencing and measuring the unfolding manifestation of our universe, we are unable categorically or quantifiably to prove answers to the questions we wrestle with as being of most import. At most, we feel, intuit, divine, or rationalize such "answers." The questions include the following:

- After we label that which results from a fundamentally unknown process (such as "Quantum Decoherence"), how do we meaningfully explicate the quality of that process?

- May that process be consistent with the abiding of a universal field or quality of Consciousness?

- Is the holistic, synchronous, unfolding of each "choice" of universal expression reconciled in respect of feedback in the quality of appreciation of each particular, mortal perspective?

- Does any meta quality of consistency, purpose, or feedback guide each judgment or choice regarding which among the possible states of universal expression should be unfolded to the next successive appreciation of variously encompassed perspectives of consciousness?

- Ought we to be concerned about what qualities of appreciation may please God, or does God merely reconcile how God is to be pleased, regardless?

- Even is there may abide a contemporaneous quality of holistic consciousness, may it, itself, be entirely preset?

- What visions or delights may such a holistic consciousness be learning or practicing to avail and sustain?

- What is the quality of "my" connection or subservience to any holistic "I-ness"?

- Does decent civilization have any reasonable hope or chance to sustain and communicate itself, absent reverence towards any meta Source of decency?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Some innate and quantifiably immeasurable quality of consciousness seeks to communicate about self fulfillment. That necessitates connections with others to communicate to, and a guiding medium in respect of which to communicate. If so, by definition, such quality is not reducible to scientific quantification, but is more appropriately a subject for innate (meta emotional?) appreciation. The Source or means for deriving "oughts" to which one is qualititatively inclined to devote one's consciousness is necessarily based more in art than in science. Science cannot replace art, but can serve as handmaiden to it. Those who (rightly so) object to artists with little training in science wanting to teach science often fail to object to scientists with little appreciation for qualities beyond the quantifiable wanting to teach art. All seem to struggle with their own preferred blinders.

To my lights, decent civilization would hardly be nurtured were all of government, academia, and media to be turned over to know-it-all militants, devoid of introspection, who were machined, committed, and faux-enlightened to nothing but science. Practical living entails appropriate regard for both art and science. I can hardly know in any scientific sense whether Jesus or any other particular godhead has ever actually manifested. However, I can qualitatively intuit a well-intentioned, evolving, unfolding, empathetic hand of artistry behind the story weaving. Machine minded mathematicians may wish to defenestrate the innate quality of the artist, and may impose much suffering for everyone along the way, but my intuition is that their goal is incoherent to practical reality.