Seth Lloyd - What are Observers?

Why is an observer a critical part of quantum physics? What does it mean to be an observer? Does the act of observation affect what exists and what happens in the external world? Why is observation in the quantum world still a mystery?

Seth Lloyd is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He refers to himself as a “quantum mechanic”.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[sausageskin]

An observer is the simulation programmer who is being paid minimum wage and overworked to the point where he decided to quit. He said: "If they move my desk again, I'll quit. They already moved it five times in the last year. Before, it was near the window, and I could see squirrels, they were married, but then they switched."

[Nocturne]

I absolutely love this rabbit hole - especially how it relates to consciousness and the collapse of the wave function.

[charlesprabakar]

Good question and it Is equally good to hear a view of decoupling reality from human observers within the decoherence explanation  

This brings us up the following question 

-- Who or what is an observer?

Well, in our TOE’s view, the whole classical universe is its own observer, where  all galaxies collapse gravitationally moment by moment (at a particle level using our CPT(α, Φ) function mechanism of TOE)

In other words, our  CPT(α, Φ) function of TOE collapses it by each particle from CFT into the next lattice of AdS


 This simultaneous toggle/shift is what gives us the feeling to human observers that these CFT/AdS dualities are orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion.


This explanation  resolves everything  (including measurement  problem)!and to understand our model see below 



In other words, our TOE is  a CPT(α, Φ) function operated cosmic  dance, where α ends up splitting the frequencies of QVF  as 137 dipoles ( aka elementary particles including electrons, quarks etc) using Riemann Zeta function( including its corresponding Fourier/Mobius transformations), in such a way that the electric field of each dipole gets rotated as nπ cycles (using Euler’s identity  eiπ  )   before getting rotated by their magnetic field (by 90 degrees) so that their combined least action (A) can be twisted to flow along the eigen-valued nodes of Ramanujan graph, using the 2/3:1/3 rule  of α (ratioed  by its flip sided golden ratio Φ)! 


Stated otherwise,   this idea of embedding CPT function within our TOE with 10+ META DUALITIES of the  paradox of our SOE/TOE engine is what differentiates our approach!

For example,

We imagine our Universe as the  Riemann Zeta function governed LMFDB universe (that is a motivic/metamorphic/Galois representation  based SU 2/SU3/SU4symmetrical engine.

In other words, Z(1) is the fundamental frequency of this Universe’s TOE engine  that   is QVF/ZPE sourced,   Daemon governed frequency of Riemann's zeta function Ζ(S) with a singularity of S=1+0i, that is made up of his harmonic oscillating zeros(S=1/2+it stacked on his 1/2 critical line, before being transformed as a 137 frequency-spin momentum matched dipole, using our FSC(α)-GR-PLA+5 AITGE origin formulas(see exhibit)

In other words, our TOE/SOE engine is the one that is transforming the Riemann's zeros into an artistic unit charge SU2 dipole(see visual), by contracting/expanding its electric flux as the center of mass (as r = αR), before rotating its magnetic flux by 90 in such a way that it can be extended into the left plane as a paired unit charge, using the "only possible analytical continuation of Zeta".

Sure enough, this engine function is nothing  but universe's wave function only, transforming itself from position/time space into frequency/momentum space, using the Fourier/Mobius  transform operator --

ψ(k) = ∫ ψ(t)  e^-iwt  dt    -

This  brings us to our next point about CPT function 

This "one & only allowed analytically continued/functional equation allowed symmetrical  dipole" is what limits/constrains the ∞ pole of Riemann sphere to a value of 137 cycles( per Laurent/Cauchy residue including the α=r/R, =fe/fp=we/wp logic of our CP function as explained in my post  and attached one page exhibit for details

lim t→ ∞ CP(1/2 + ti) = 1/α cycles of dipole 


Simply put —

Ours is the only TOE that is anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α, Φ) function mechanism!

In other words, for any TOE path to become a final TOE, it must be anchored on this FSC/golden ratio governed CPT(α, Φ) function mechanism end to end  (in one form or the other)! 

This doesn't mean that ours is the only path — and the classic example is how we have integrated Ads/CFT duality of string theory with  these 10 dualities of our CPT(α, Φ) function mechanism with the hypothesis that they toggle between  CFT-boundary of the lower CP1 plane to & AdS-Bulk upper CP2 plane!

This is where   we want to extend it to all the other best in class features from all other TOE paths using this integrated program — which brings me to the list of our “top 10 CPT(α, Φ) function caused, META DUALITY PROOFS”, including our recent additions of  Ramanujan graphs  & Jones/Khovanov homology knots, as summarized below  

1. Riemann zeros of dipole/quadrupoles(1/2+ti)
2. Hodge hyperbolic structures(H3 quotioned by K&A L-functions 
3. Hodge P-adic parabolic structures (P(N) quotioned by  K&A L-functions )
4. Thurston structures(T(N)  quotioned by K&A L-functions )
5. Polytopes(PT(N)  quotioned by  K&A L-functions 
6. Spectral vertices of Ramanujan graphs G2xK2 Q by Ramanujan L-function
7. K knots of Jones polynomial (&Feynman’s paths/Riemann surfaces)
8. HK knot states of Khovanov homology 
9. Prime square roots of Knots theory 
10. Irreducible representation of Poincare particles 


Similarly, if I may summarize the manifestations of these 10 CPT(α, Φ) caused dualities by mapping the lower CP1 plane to CFT-boundary & upper CP2 plane to AdS-Bulk

1. Imagine, as the CPT(α, Φ ) function starts limiting the “Riemannian ∞ quantum spherical universe” into a compact polynomial region of the lower plane (whose WF is modeled using a metamorphic/automorphic Riemann zeta function with a SU2-3-4  symmetry) -- it is automatically cut into infinite slices of irreducible diploid circular spheres at an exact moment when the Zeta function starts crossing the origin. of CP1

2. Also imagine, as these infinite slices get squeezed (1 & 4 at a time) into an exact radiused symplectic geometric asymmetric taurusized cylinder of the  CP2 plane (folded from the unit square of CP1 plane)", acting as the Hilbert’s countable infinity hotel.

3. Now, as they get squeezed into an “exact radiused symplectic geometric asymmetric taurusized cylinder”, the electric field starts getting rotated 90°(by the magnetic flux), thus transforming it into an “domino effected ellipsoid”.

4. Now as we analyze the cross section of each “domino affected ellipsoid", we can clearly see these 10 geometrical dualities.

5. Turns out, our CPT(α, Φ)  function is the one that rotates these 10 geometrical dualities  “galoistically and knotistically” before reassembling them in CP2 as a classical sphere. In other words, CPT(α, Φ) does it all in real time by the particle as soon as zeta function starts crossing the origin in CP1 plane, so that it can shift it into the next lattice of CP2. This simultaneous shift is what gives us the feeling that these dualities are orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion.

Simply put,


Similarly,  how about I expand its scope to the productivity challenge in the business dimension that has been developed by the very same TOE principles(& synthesized as 1 sentence below and in exhibit)

Welcome complementary POVs

[shawnewaltonify]

I see the Stawamus Chief in the background. Cool.

[dblockbass]

Determining who or what observes you would think would be a massive pursuit in science but science is not concerned with this or almost rather afraid to determine the answer because of the implication certain results may give. I dont think we have the materials or processing power to determine this yet but I suspect the answer is a matter of information physics.

[sylvestermumba]

An observer could very well be the environment. Since we are not certain about what things are conscious or even what consciousness is.

[filmaker]

In my opinion we’re all observers and subjects at the same time. If I modify or change the state of things when I am present at an environment I become an observer. If somehow another agent or environment change my state or my molecular structure I become the subject.

[CesarClouds]

2:43 The "observer" is the interaction with the environment.

[sonarbangla]

When there were no humans around what acted as the observer, so a particle could be measured here and there. In its simplest, the various paths (infinite) taken by an electron acts as an observer. Otherwise cosmic consciousness is the observer that collapse the quantum fields to produce particles that has unique position (not here or there).

[Ekam-Sat]

Gigantic Orangutan is freak of nature. All these headlines from CTT are ridiculous. Yet we still love it.

[dongshengdi]

Why do people cling with such ferocity to the belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
～ Richard Conn Henry is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy.

[jamesruscheinski]

in quantum superposition, time might not be local?

[kricketflyd]

I thought the observer was at rest in a time dimension observing the time dilation perspective of another's motion from that distance.

[stephenzhao]

3:14 ... Define precisely decoherence SL: yeah so a wave is coherent if it can be added up in a way where you can uh detect the phase between the waves so I could have a wave that goes like that jor I could have a wave that goes like that now um here this part of the wave is negative in the other part this part of the wave is positive so in quantum mechanics the probability of finding something here is proportional to the amplitude of the wave but to the amplitude square so rather doesn't care whether it's positive or negative right so if you're going to find it here or there then here or there doesn't care about whether this amplitude is negative or whether this amplitude is positive but in the dynamics of a wave right you know it makes a lot of difference if this amplitude is negative or this amplitude is positive for instance if this is negative and this is positive these move on top of each other they cancel each other out this is called destructive interference so in quantum mechanics all the time you get situations where this amplitude makes a difference somehow and in measurement after you make measurement or in decoherence it doesn't make a difference any longer (okay) 4:26 so you could say decoherence is a process where the uh whether the amplitude is positive positive or negative no longer makes a difference and interaction with the environment will have aht effect 4:34

[dongshengdi]

(Denial in the Physicist Community)
Physicists in Denial

The theory of relativity informs us that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe that is independent of us as conscious observers. This nature of our science is also reflected in the formulation of quantum mechanics, since the main formulation of quantum mechanics does not provide direct rules for the behaviour of particles. Instead, it provides rules that concern only the results of measurements by observers. This means that the observer is an intrinsic part of the main formulation of quantum mechanics, and what differentiates the observer from physical particles has to be mind and consciousness.

As John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner pointed out, this means that consciousness has an intrinsic role to play in quantum mechanics. Why then has there been so much resistance to recognizing this fundamental fact? And why have physicists, for more than a century, persistently tried to get rid of the observer, even if it meant—in defiance of Occam’s razor—having to insert, by hand, additional hypothetical ad hoc conditions to the basic formulation?

The underlying problem appears to be the need to fit this intrinsic role of consciousness, in quantum mechanics, into the prevailing view, in Western philosophy, of a mind-matter duality. An attempt to fit the role of consciousness into this framework of a mind-matter duality would unfortunately lead to solipsism, and that is the main problem. So the vast majority of physicists gravitate, instead, to the stance of materialism, and hence the need for them to free quantum mechanics from the conscious observer.

The formulation of quantum mechanics actually does not, in any way, suggest a mind-matter dichotomy, and it certainly does not suggest either materialism or solipsism. Quantum mechanics actually points to a middle way between these two extremes of materialism and solipsism, a realization that both Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli eventually reached. This means that the formulation of quantum mechanics actually points to the philosophical viewpoint of the Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy, also known as the Middle Way philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy would allow us to include the role of consciousness in quantum physics without ending up in the extremes of either solipsism or materialism

[Purified-Bananas]

Fundamentally, there are no observers. There's only the physical system (the wave function of the Universe) evolving accordingly to the Schrödinger equation. Observers are an emergent property, a way of talking about the branching of the wave function.

[illusions]

This is why I smoke weed to get into the weeds of deep thinking. What is an observer, is there Nothing, infinities bigger than infinities????, Zero, one electron, pi, e, faster than light but wait we are traveling at light speed by the electrons and neutrons that we are made of…. gravity….. good 👍 topic btw. Time for another joint.

[jacksonfl]

Robert, I just love your quest and channel. Personally, I think that ultimate reality simply is beyond our comprehension. Why should this be surprising? My little cat cannot comprehend how light goes on and off in our house and might never evolve to be able to d so. We are severely limited by our biological evolution. Perhaps one day our non-biological AI progeny will get it. But, even they won't be able to explain it to us…

[PaulHoward]

Every noun is a soul. Everything is alive, even though life isn't obvious in the very slowly living forms. This understanding makes physics obsolete.

[farhadfaisal]

If a cosmic ray passing through a mica sheet in the Himalayas leaves an irreversible trace on a mica sheet then the mica sheet acts in principle as an 'observer' (whether or not a living being is present to observe it).
The real issue is: how does an irreversible reduction of the norm preserving wavefunction of the whole system can occur while maintaining its unitary evolution?
The 'decoherence' argument merely provides a FAPP*-like explanation. For, it is based on a large scale 'phase mixing' of the wavefunction that, in principle, remains reversible. And so one may legitimately conclude that the 'decoherence' argument does not provide a rigorous in principle explanation of the required irreversible reduction.. //
*FAPP = 'for all practical purposes'; an abbreviation introduced by J. Bell)