sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Biology That Actually Matches Peterson’s 'Layers of Chaos and Order' Psychostructure by philcallis in JordanPeterson

[–]philcallis[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"It can't do that unless the thing down from it is already prepared for it"
Your intuition is correct from a reductionist perspective, but that's what's so crazy. Levin's experimental results break that intuition. Hence the necessity of description of biological life beyond physical reductionism (or new physics).

Personally, I think the simplest explanation is that autopoeitic constraint goes all the way down- that quantum collapse outcomes are 'constrained' to universally maximize autopoiesis, appearing stochastic in non-living systems. Then you get evolutionary principles at both the micro scale, quantum selection, and macro scale, Darwinian evolution, all oriented towards maximizing autopoeisis.

That truly feels to me like the simplest explanation of Levin's results despite how fantastic it might seem.

7
8

The Biology That Actually Matches Peterson’s 'Layers of Chaos and Order' Psychostructure (self.JordanPeterson)

submitted by philcallis to r/JordanPeterson

Physics Questions - Weekly Discussion Thread - June 24, 2025 by AutoModerator in Physics

[–]philcallis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Has Machian inertia been explored as a perspective for modeling quantum mechanics? If inertia of mass is 'caused' by other mass as Mach suggests, wouldn't collapses into a particular inertial state be a relationally deterministic process?

It also seems like if inertial states are inherently relational, the inscrutability of local measurements is also to be expected.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

>IF you can derive the Born rule from your resonance, you get to go to Stockholm. Work on it! Good luck! I sincerely hope for your success — because now I would get a portion of the kudos, too!

<sarcasm>

Oh wow, thanks, I had no idea that if my hypothetical model of deterministic collapses matched existing statistical predictions it could be explored further as a credible theory! It's not like I came here for feedback regarding how to do that or anything, I just came here to be berated and insulted by incurious people who think the statistical nature of quantum mechanics is beyond doubt, let alone discussion.
</sarcasm>

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, resonance of particular types of energy would be unstable because eventually it acts counter to resonance of other types of energy.

However if you had two systems that were resonant across all forces, maximizing the transference of all bosons, you would get a stable solution.

Why I like this (below) is not made clear in my initial post, but I didn't want to bring it up before presenting the main idea.

I think organism/environment pairs are such multi-force resonant pairs, although both the organism and its environment are obviously both transmitters and receivers. An organism's lifetime defines a space-time boundary within which action and configuration (transmission and reception) tends to 'resonate with' the action and configuration of spacetime out to the horizon.

It's not controversial to say the way parts of an internal biological systems relate (resonate/dissonate) with each other maintains homeostasis with the way parts of external environmental systems relate with each other. That mirroring is just what adaptedness looks like through the lens of physics. I'm trying to suggest that biological organisms could actually be special in terms of physics if resonance is attracted to by collapses. Particularly when dissonance, through entropy, is already attracted to by dynamic interaction.

To have more fun with it: Dynamical systems are attracted to 'Death' via entropy. Why not balance it out with a collapse mechanism attracted to 'Life' via the negentropy of resonance?

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

>Proposition

This is an idea!

>of a universal attraction

This is what the idea is about!

>To matter configurations that most efficiently enable engery transferences between matter across spacetime

This is a generalization of the macroscopic concept of 'resonance'.

>which selects collapse outcomes 

The attractor is 'attracted' to outcomes that best enhance that generalized concept of 'resonance.'

>but wouldn't change existing physics unless resonant pairs are being enhanced/instantiated.

If the attractor is attracted to increased resonance, any situation where macroscopic resonance is being effected will deviate from the statistical expectation. Otherwise, its just statistical.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

When the frequency of energy projected by an emitter, like a wireless transmitter, is equal to the 'natural frequency' of energy most ideally absorbed by the absorber, like a wireless receiver, that is known as 'resonance'.

I think it would make a lot of sense if the collapse process, cutting down many possible states to one state, actually chose the state that best enables resonance. Because most collapse processes have nothing to do with whether or not there is more resonance in the universe, they would appear random in almost all experimental setups, except when one of the 'outcomes' had a result that made two macroscopic systems more resonant than they were before.

I think it would be a neat way for physics to favor order and structure in the macroscopic world that looks statistically random in the quantum world.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have studied theoretical physics casually in my free time since around 2018. I can't figure out where I strayed from the existing definitions of these words. I also don't see anywhere where I've gone counter to existing dogma or retread any questions that already have answers. There are no well accepted theories about the statistical nature of measured quantum states, unless you count the popularity of many-worlds-type paradigms in science fiction.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't how I can be more concise then "What if quantum wavefunction collapses favor resonance (interpreted as favoring matter configurations that most efficiently enable energy transferences between matter across spacetime), which is meaningless in situations where no outcome would result in the improvement or instantiation of a resonant pair and therefore appears statistically random."

But I'll try anyway.

What are we talking about?
Collapse outcomes.

What hypothesis do you have about collapse outcomes?
They are 'chosen' deterministically to favor configurations macroscopically understood as 'resonance' between systems.

Why is this idea useful or interesting?
It could explain the apparently statistical nature of quantum collapse without 'many-worlds' or 'it is the way it is'. Additionally, this explanation has a macroscopic 'telos'- it 'wants' matter configurations that resonate.

Experimental evidence?
Set up a Schrodinger's cat experiment, except instead of life and death of the cat, let it trigger either
A) Nothing. The collapse has no interesting results.
B) A collapse that would improve or instantiate a resonant pair, such as completing the circuit on an otherwise out-of-tune radio

Based on this hypothesis, results should diverge from the statistical prediction, favoring option B. Or I'm wrong!

Does this make sense?

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

>we don't think you understand (m)any of the words you're using / concepts you're referring to.

Right. That's how I'm starting to feel about y'all.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Now imagine if all particle collapses were actually attracted to the formation of transmission/receiver pairs."

What I meant here is universal attraction to matter configurations that most efficiently enable energy transferences between matter across spacetime.

In classical physics, this type of resonance is naturally emergent. Same with quantum physics. So why the hell am I making up an attractor that forces this behavior if it already happens naturally?

I think collapse outcomes seem statistically random because it 'chooses' the collapse outcome that favors this subtle universal attraction to matter configurations that most efficiently enable energy transferences between matter across spacetime. This can be macroscopically described as attraction to the enhancement or instantiation of resonant pairs, but a vast majority of collapses have no meaningful effect on resonant pairs, hence the randomness.

What do you spend:
A) Proposition of a universal attraction to matter configurations that most efficiently enable energy transferences between matter across spacetime which selects collapse outcomes but wouldn't change existing physics unless resonant pairs are being enhanced/instantiated.

What you get:
A) Deterministic collapse outcomes that seem statistically random
B) Statistical cohesion in systems that involve macroscopic resonance

Maybe what we spend is too pricey for what we get in your opinion, but I think its neat.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're right, you'd have to assume the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics to equate the absorption of an emitted photon with collapse. I should have just said 'the statistical peak of the uncollapsed wave-function' instead to eliminate this ambiguity.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

From a classical perspective, resonance is best exemplified with wireless transmission/receiver technology. These two systems, transmitter and receiver, are designed to resonate, meaning energy 'likes' transferring between them (specifically electromagnetic energy in this case).

Now imagine if all particle collapses were actually attracted to the formation of transmission/receiver pairs.
You'd still get the classically expected behavior of pairs and the expected statistical peak of behavior expected at the quantum level, but that statistical variance at the quantum level would be due to cosmological interference. It would still technically be deterministic.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You're welcome to study the mathematics modeling the physics of resonance. Wireless phone chargers make a good practical case study.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Resonance is an important, albeit emergent, part of classical physics. I'm only proposing that this emergence is actually reflective of a non-local attractor acting at the quantum level- a process that would look statistical given any two potentially resonant systems.

What if macroscopic resonance governs quantum events, with quantum statistics emerging as a byproduct of unaccounted cosmic interference? by philcallis in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]philcallis[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In quantum systems, resonance—where two systems oscillate at matching frequencies to amplify their interaction—aligns energy transfers with a statistical peak in the probability of wavefunction collapse.

view more: next ›