You are hereForums / Non-Duality / Self-talk as wave function collapse . . . an analogy of potentiality?

Self-talk as wave function collapse . . . an analogy of potentiality?


8 replies [Last post]
mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:

Very generally speaking "quantum collapse" is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that refers to the transition of a quantum system from a superposition of states (many possible states) to a component state (only one of those states). The process is also known as "collapse of the wave function or collapse of quantum states" and this collapse is "historically thought to be caused by a measurement, and thus dependent on the role of an observer."

Am I really going to be talking about quantum collapse and what it's about or when it occurs? Only figuratively and in non-quantum physics terms, that's why this post is analogous.

The non-physics transition I'm referring to herein is from "many possible interpretations or stories" (superposition of states) of "what is in the moment" to only one interpretation or story (component state) of "what is in the moment".

From this perspective of "superposition" (many possible interpretations), "self-talk" is the mechanism that allows recognition of when that single interpretation or story (component state) of "what is in the moment" occurs (manifests).

From an unlimited potential of sensory data (information and energy) flooding into (my) consciousness at any given moment . . . I end up paying active attention to a mere fraction of that sensory data; coming forth with a singular interpretation or story . . . "I'm really in the mood for some mint chip ice cream!"

Hmmm . . . what caught my attention here? Mint chip ice cream? No, it's the realization that at any point in time I apparently exist within a "superposition of states" (potentiality). Meaning, until the "collapse" into a "component state" (specific interpretation or story) occurs . . . all superposition of states and potentiality . . . exists as "all stories" disguised as "non-stories", until "self-talk" collapses them into a "particular story".

Meaning that inner silence (no self-talk) arguably can perpetuate a state of nothingness? And only when there is "self-talk" (quantum collapse) does "something" appear to come into being from "nothing"? (After all, what is "potentiality" if not something "coming into existence"?)

So the emerging realization is . . . don't pursue or hang out with nothingness (silence) for the sake of nothingness (silence), but for the sake of coming into existence?

So my daily perceptual (interpretive) reality comes into existence . . . story-by-story . . . and attending to self-talk is a means of de-limiting limiting interpretations? Hmmm.

Be that as it may, whether any quantum collapse (particular story) comes about because of conditioning (habit), biological imperative (hunger), cognitive function (wishful thinking), emotional reliance (anger), psychological dissonance (ambiguity) or some other basis . . . will just have to wait for (a quantum collapse?) another day while I ponder this.

0
Your rating: None

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Another idea

Tony: "...does "something" appear to come into being from "nothing"? (After all, what is "potentiality" if not something "coming into existence"?)"

Maybe one could say 'something' does not come from nothing. That something is a potential, possibility of something that is already present. So not something from nothing, but something from itself. Sort of like a current/whirlpool in water? Potentiality can be imagined as something from something or something from itself. Nothing seems to often be mixed with no form, but I feel that nothing is non-existent, it is non-existence. Non-existence is not responsible for anything that exists. A block of wood has many potential shapes within it, but they are yet to be carved.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
No problem with another idea . . .

Mukti,

No problem. For as you point out, and in a manner of speaking, "something is possibility already present". I present "something from nothing" as a short-hand figure-of-speech regarding appearances, not as a statement of truth.

With slight reframing, one can look at "nothing" as what we imagine it to be or not be, and as such "nothing" can as easily be imagined as "source" than as "non-existence"?

Be that as it may, what I see or understand of 'what is' is dependent to a significant degree on my self-talk, that's why I examine self-talk . . . to learn how I daily create my individual perceptual (interpretive) reality. Whether others are willing or interested in conducting such self-inquiry is up to them? Thus, they may or may not appreciate the opportunity of experimenting with re-storying their self-talk?

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Self - Inquiry

Self-inquiry is the mirror needed to negate the personal self-talker.

Who is self-talking?

This ''WHO'' cannot be conceived of - except through the fictions of language.

From belief to clarity.

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Just riffing off "self-inquiry is the mirror . . . "

For me, self-inquiry is essential in recognizing the personal self talker for what it is . . . and negating it if necessary.

So reframing I get, "Self-inquiry is consciousness recognizing the personal self-talker."

Which, as a subsequent quantum collapse (observation), may lead to: "What is self-talking?"

And depending on "what" is "observing" (impersonal consciousness itself or particular personal observer?), another quantum collapse occurs: "What" is self-talking is a mind created sense of "me."

And examination of this "mind created sense of me" might reveal an "experiential" component to this "sense" of me not limited to the "conceptual" fiction of "me"?

So maybe "WHO" can be perceived beyond the fictions of language . . . depending on "what" is observing? Hmmm.

Thanks for your comments.

(By the way, all references to quantum collapse . . . purely metaphorical and fictitious!)

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 33 weeks 18 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Are “many possible states superimposed”?

Or are they merely “potential states”, which I take to mean what it says, “could be, but not yet”.  Now they are not yet states, or we don’t know because we haven’t observed.

To say that observing makes only one of these states true, so that the other (potential) states must have collapsed, is a kind of funny thing to say?  I guess physicist are kind of funny.

When we observe we see one (or the others, but only one at a time).  Apparently there isn’t any way to predict which one will appear, so it is being said that they all exist (but as a potential only).  What kind of existence would that be?  Just a conceptual existence, no?

You can’t observe them, because there is this “collapse” thing.  So that all of these superimposed states are a theory or a concept.  I don’t suppose that physicists would argue with that.

Perhaps it’s similar to the concept of “absolute truth”.  When you approach it or try to say something about it, it collapses, and recedes from reach.  Then you are left creating a story of how this unapproachable “state” is still relevant to life.

So let’s say 8 billion people have 8 billion (slightly different) stories.  Let’s say that they all exist, in multi-worlds.  They talk about parallel universes don’t they?  But I only get to see this one?  Well, it takes a little trust doesn’t it.

Is self-talk a mechanism that allows recognition of when that “component state manifests”?  Or is self-talk just the creative impetus that makes it happen?  I would say that it is a bit ambitious to say we have unlimited potential for sensory data input.  I wonder if we actually monitored and recorded all thoughts related to sensations, would we catalogue more than a dozen or two recurrent themes?

One thing is that we believe that recycled thoughts reinforce or become more likely to give us what we want.  Then we are caught on the treadmill of  habits, biology, unfulfilled wishes, overbearing emotions which we don’t understand how to discharge, and psychological ambiguity, which is another word for a confusing faulty philosophy.

When will we ever have time for a new thought?

n/a
mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Continuing an exchange of views . . .?

Whether there are “many possible states superimposed" or "merely “potential states”, because they are not yet states, or I don’t know because I haven’t observed them as such is not a line of inquiry I'm currently focusing on because . . . however the collapse come about, the critical insight for me is realizing that the "observable event" (the particular self-talk) is not "true" but merely an "observable event". Meaning, understanding 'that' tends to free me mentally, emotionally and psychologically from believing the observable event (my point of view) is true and righteous.

RM: "When we observe we see one (or the others, but only one at a time). Apparently there isn’t any way to predict which one will appear, so it is being said that they all exist (but as a potential only). What kind of existence would that be? Just a conceptual existence, no?"

In a way there may be a way to predict what is seen (not necessarily what is actually observable) . . . if we know our own or someone else's predelictions, biases, prejudices, habits of seeing?

It's also possible that under the influence of such predeliction, bias, prejudice or habit of seeing, one might conclude that "potentiality" is stifled at best or at worst . . . non-existing? And as one of many possible outcomes to that observation, one's existence could morph into a mere collection of conceptual and behavioral routines?

RM:"So let’s say 8 billion people have 8 billion (slightly different) stories. Let’s say that they all exist, in multi-worlds. They talk about parallel universes don’t they? But I only get to see this one? Well, it takes a little trust doesn’t it."

Hmmm . . . what 'trust' are you referring to?

RM: "Is self-talk a mechanism that allows recognition of when that “component state manifests”? Or is self-talk just the creative impetus that makes it happen? I would say that it is a bit ambitious to say we have unlimited potential for sensory data input. I wonder if we actually monitored and recorded all thoughts related to sensations, would we catalogue more than a dozen or two recurrent themes?"

Whether self-talk is the mechanism that allows recognition of a "quantum collapse" (observable event) or the impetus that makes it happen, or something else entirely, is dependent on the observer. As such, the key thing for me remains the understanding that whatever the observable event is it's not true but simply how it appears to me, and how it appears to me may not (most likely will not?) be the way it appears to you?

My reference to "unlimited potential for sensory data input" is grounded in the recognition that the brain filters out from my "everyday consciousness" about (pick a number?) 99% of the sensory data actually flooding the body/mind as a prophylactic against "me" (the individuated self) suffering paralytic information overload? So your commentary that a conditioned being might limit thinking-related-to-sensations to just a dozen or two recurrent themes sounds plausible to me.

RM:"One thing is that we believe that recycled thoughts reinforce or become more likely to give us what we want. Then we are caught on the treadmill of habits, biology, unfulfilled wishes, overbearing emotions which we don’t understand how to discharge, and psychological ambiguity, which is another word for a confusing faulty philosophy.

When will we ever have time for a new thought?"

It is possible to understand that despite the "appearances" . . . of a "treadmill of habits, biology, unfulfilled wishes, overbearing emotions which we don’t understand how to discharge, and psychological ambiguity, which is another word for a confusing faulty philosophy" . . . those "appearances" are not necessarily true, and I can in fact step off the treadmill (even if only momentarily). Then, getting over that perceptual hurdle, it's also possible to realize I can have a new thought whenever I step off the self-talk treadmill and experience a different quantum collapse?

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

angryidiot's picture
User offline. Last seen 28 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 01/21/2011
Posts:
The apparent friction in

The apparent friction in Tony's post is because he posits awareness (and so do I many times)up and over what he calls self talk.

That is why to express what he has touched he starts from breaking the understanding into pieces ....which naturally to us ...are like small gaps where we can get our jab in...with all the good intentions mind uu.
For instance one part says that one interpretation is available from an infinite possibilities. To richard it would appear suffocating ...

But what he means..pls correct...or what is at the back of his mind is our good old friend awareness..

Why should awareness be different from self talk. I have an altogether different view but that's not the point. The point is how can we identify artificial and unnecessary problems which have no answers except for identifying them for what they are....

To start how can we propel ourselves with basic tool sets and nothing more... to look at ourselves and reach a point where understanding ..belief and what we want ...can brilliantly meet.

Is there such a place...the complexity of our intellectual problems and our capacity to identify their artificiality is the proof that it indeed is possible. I mean while many of us breast feed till four ..we can't don't explain to others how our mummies breast is....its something very personal...beautiful ....like rightfully ours like something which only we can know...

What iam saying is not that there is some truth for us to reach (or that it is not there)but till such a matter is concluded whats more than that in a way is a possibility to look at ourselves and what is happenning ..openly unconditioned.. And that that opportunity is there for our taking and may be unless we take it all our realizations are trash.

mtony502's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 weeks 14 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 02/07/2010
Posts:
Remains an open question . . .

For brevity's sake . . . "yes", I posit awareness over self-talk. And what is figuratively always at the back of my mind "is our good old friend awareness..."

I. also tend to agree with some of your other commentary:
1. [A pertinent] "point is how can we identify artificial and unnecessary problems which have no answers except for identifying them for what they are...."
2. ". . . the complexity of our intellectual problems and our capacity to identify their artificiality is the proof that it indeed is possible" "to look at ourselves and reach a point where understanding ..belief and what we want ...can brilliantly meet."
3. [It's] ". . . not that there is some truth for us to reach (or that it is not there) but . . . [that there] is a possibility to look at ourselves and what is happening ..openly unconditioned.. And that that opportunity is there for our taking . . . "

. . . as to whether "our realizations are trash" . . . that remains an open question!

Tony

YouTube Channel: Ordinary Consciousness
By: MTony502
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mtony502

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 3 guests online.