The Cosmogony Problem and Quantum Computing

“beginning of beginning”

Carlo Rovelli’s “relational interpretation” of quantum mechanics does not resolve either the “hard problem of consciousness,” nor the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (which results from an incorrect interpretation of what quantum entanglement, superposition, wave-particle duality and uncertainty actually mean), because both of those problems are instantiations of the cosmogony problem, which he does not address. It is impossible to resolve the cosmogony problem if you embrace any version of doctrine of physicalism which includes the false metaphysical assumption of physical closure, as Rovelli does. Trying to do so leaves you trapped between the vicious jaws of fatal logical infinite regress and fatal logical reification.

Infinite regress includes asking a question, say, “what existed before that” but never arriving at the ground of any rational coherent answer. For instance, if you ask, what existed before the first object in the first universe, and cannot answer that question, that is the failure of fatal logical infinite regress. Reification is attributing properties, functions and relations to categories which cannot have those properties, functions and relations. For example, doctrine of physicalism denies immaterial category even exists, therefore physicists claim that physical particles, or relations between physical particles are everything, and consciousness is just something a physical brain is doing. Idealists deny physical category even exists, therefore claim everything is consciousness which is as false as claiming everything is physical.

To resolve the cosmogony question you must provide a rational coherent answer to the question, what caused beginning of beginning? The answer is not only possible, but also necessary, however, it certainly cannot be found in either science of physics or mathematics of physics. The answer is the ontological proof, which I extend with a simple set of natural a priori axioms. I assume you grok the significance of axiom truth value being identical with tautology truth value, for instance X = X; X ≡ X, exactly, only and always in every possible universe. Physical empirical observations are always a posteriori to natural a priori axioms, and those axioms are necessarily true.

Ontological proof extended with a simple set of natural a priori axioms:

· Nothing does not refer to anything that could possibly or actually exist.

· Minimum two categories are necessary: immaterial and physical.

· Physical is something, not nothing; physical exists.

· Physical exists with beginning.

· Everything that exists with beginning must be caused to begin.

· It is necessary that there was beginning of beginning.

· Something necessary must exist without beginning, otherwise nothing that exists with beginning could begin.

· Eternal is the only thing that exists without beginning.

· Eternal causes beginning of beginning.

· The whole physical universe must be caused to begin.

· It is necessary there is a path from eternal to physical.

To explain the path from eternal to physical requires some original content that cannot be found in either doctrine of physicalism or doctrine of idealism. It is necessary that path goes through consciousness. Consciousness drives the bus. Consciousness commands physical, for instance move the furniture around in your living room or make toast. Consciousness is the source of freewill. Eternal is the source of consciousness. Freewill requires ego consciousness, ego consciousness requires superconsciousness and superconsciousness requires eternal. It is necessary that immaterial intentional causality is real = exist + true, or there could be no path from eternal to physical. When physicists deny immaterial category (and consciousness), they are left with the irrational incoherent assumption that our whole physical universe created itself out of nothing, which is unambiguously simultaneously fatal logical infinite regress and reification.

The path between eternal and physical is two-way, but causality between them is only one-way. Consciousness is the bridge between eternal and physical. Here is a summary of the path from eternal to physical.

Eternal genesis-emanates superconsciousness. That is intentional immaterial omni-causality. Superconsciousness is the one hypostasis, the first-first, the beginning of beginning, the first object that exists with a beginning. Superconsciousness genesis-creates everything else that begins with a beginning, except itself. Superconsciousness genesis creates the meta-information first information matrix, and encodes that information matrix as now, the gestalt image of our whole physical universe (like the image contents of an entire hard drive), a blueprint for everything that could possibly or actually physically exist. Now is the perpetual reconfiguration of everything everywhere all at once, in other words, our whole physical universe. Superconsciousness also genesis-creates ego consciousness and enself which I define as collective ego consciousness, and enself decodes now, by looking at (= observing) now and bestowing meaning upon it. That is create-manifest intentional immaterial causality, which unambiguously interacts casually with physical objects. Grokking that is simple empirical observation.

To fully describe the path from eternal to physical requires a theory of consciousness, a theory of now, and an explanation of quantum mechanics that resolves all the weirdness without violation of Einstein’s realism and locality, but also honors Bell’s inequality theorem. My original consciousness interpretation of quantum mechanics (CQM) does that.

For example (just a teaser), I define ultimately simultaneous objects to be objects that occupy the total set of Euclidean empty points. There are quite a few such objects, for instance near-existence domain (not acknowledged by physicists), which is where all possible existence is hosted, including all superpositions, all laws of physics, and all mathematical probabilities (everything in near-existence is a priori, not actually physical yet), actual existence domain (ordinary empirically observable reality).

Imagine Schr?dinger’s cat superposition [alive/0/dead], with zero acting as placeholder where alive turns into dead, but with neither alive nor dead in it (like zero on a number line separating negative quantity from positive quantity with neither negative nor positive quantity in it). Superposition is a pair of elements that are logically contradictory (they deny each other), nevertheless they exist in coherence in a holon unity of wholeness, a single superposition unit.

All superpositions necessarily are hosted inside near-existence domain, and all superpositions are conserved. They can only be described with mathematical abstraction probability of possible to exist. Something must happen to those superpositions to resolve the logical contradiction, which naturally belongs in near-existence domain, but which is forbidden in actual existence domain. Any generic [interaction/relation/observation] get the decoherence job done. Decoherence is resolution of the superposition logical contradiction to one only of the two logically contradictory elements, say alive or dead, but never both alive and dead for the same cat.

An identity condition of the state condition ultimately simultaneous is that all such objects literally exist inside each other closer than touching, like two streams of photon electromagnetic visible light radiation merged. So, the action going from coherence to decoherence occurs in exactly the location that it does occur, simultaneously in near-existence domain and actual existence domain.

There are two ways decoherence can occur. It is a simple error of judgement to assume that interactions and relations are the same as observations, but that is the consensus assumption in quantum mechanics’ five most currently popular variations. In fact, only immaterial consciousness is an observer, only immaterial consciousness makes observations, and it is certain that observations do force decoherence of superposition to occur. The other way decoherence can occur is any interaction or relation between any two physical objects as governed by laws of physics; that also forces decoherence, but it is necessary to understand that physical particles are not observers, they cannot make observations. Claiming they can do that is the fatal logical reification error. Physical particles remain strictly ontologically limited to being interactors or relators, but not observers.

Virtually all of the weirdness of quantum mechanics is resolved with the simple acknowledgement of near-existence domain.

Neither physicalism nor idealism will help us get clear. It is time for the snake to shed its skin. Both are climbing ladders against the wrong wall (Joseph Campbell). Neither helps us solve the cosmogony problem, but my rational coherent consciousness interpretation of quantum mechanics (CQM) does resolve the cosmogony problem without succumbing to logical contradiction. You don’t want to win an argument, rather you want to resolve it, like decoherence of superposition.

So, the cosmogony problem is that you must answer the question what caused beginning of beginning.

Expect a huge breakthrough in quantum computing if someone manages to figure out the technology to duplicate how superpositions are naturally hosted in coherence in near-existence domain but resolved by decoherence in actual existence domain with coherence and decoherence in exactly the same location, because near-existence domain and actual existence domain are ultimately simultaneous, literally inside each other close than touching. I suggest that trying to isolate the superposition of electrons in quantum computers will remain poorly executed without some serious epiphanic technological breakthrough. Physical isolation of entangled electrons in superpositions is doomed to fail because of what a superposition is and where it necessarily is hosted and conserved. What is necessary is to permit superpositions to exist everywhere all at once in near-existence domain then arrive at your computer solutions in actual existence domain with zero physical distance between the superposition coherence and the solution decoherence. If someone figures that out, they will surely become a billionaire.