Does consciousness and the feeling of being alive implicitly suggest to us that a quantum superposition state exists, even without scientific exploration?
For example, a person is provoked. She screams.
Within that act of screaming, does it not contain, for instance, two action states at the same time: screaming and silence, mixed together into a single action state, which becomes a weaker scream (meaning the intensity of the scream is not strong)?
That is, instead of being able to scream at 80 units, because it is mixed with the state of silence, her screaming action only reaches 60.
At this moment, we see a screaming state.
But when we examine the degree of that screaming state, it carries both the nature of screaming and the nature of silence.
However, if we examine only the characteristic of the state, then there is only one state, which is screaming.
This makes me feel similar to quantum superposition, where a particle exists independently, for example, carrying both a forward-moving state and a backward-moving state.
But when it collides with another particle, the particle that originally carries a single state — forward — when we examine the degree of the “forward” state, we can see that within that forward state, there is a part of the backward state.
This is related to the action of the girl.
The girl screams — why can the girl only carry the screaming state?
If independent, the girl could carry particles in two states: screaming and silence at the same time.
But the screaming and silence particles of the girl collide with other particles, such as hair particles, skin particles, nose particles, mouth particles, fingers, and so on.
From this, the quantum superposition state of particles that are both screaming and silent collapses.
This leads to a single action state of the girl: screaming.
Although there is no trace of two separate superposition states of screaming and silence, they are expressed through the fact that her scream is only 60 instead of 80.
Within the posture of screaming, there is a mixture of the posture of silence, and we can feel that.
And our consciousness perceives this directly.
It perceives that in that case, the girl wanted to scream at 80, but also wanted to remain silent, so she only screamed at 60.
That is, consciousness perceives that the girl wanted to scream and wanted to be silent at the same time.
Here, consciousness perceives clearly, but the action state collapses due to collisions with many other particles, so it only carries a single screaming state.
This screaming state (as seen by the eyes) is a combination of the screaming state and the silence state.
And we can see that, clearly, when we analyze it, our consciousness only analyzes two states: screaming and silence, rather than fingernails being long or short, eyes being big or small, and so on.
Do we not see something similar when we examine a quantum particle?
That is, we only examine the particle itself, even though there are many other states that we do not examine.
The mind examines independently one particle — screaming and silence — at the same time.
Meanwhile, the body is subjected to the mixture of countless particles, which causes the body to form only a single screaming state.
This seems to imply that our mind has quantum-like characteristics, as if telling us that quantum superposition exists in the world — what we usually call contradiction and paradox.
Consciousness perceives the superposition state of both screaming and silence, even when the body only performs the action of screaming.
This is something we cannot directly feel in quantum particles when they collapse.
We can only know indirectly that a particle may exist in superposition, whereas consciousness can directly perceive superposition.
When learning about quantum superposition, we easily encounter a paradox: many states existing at the same time sounds contradictory and illogical.
And precisely through consciousness, consciousness tells us that there is no paradox.
All states exist on their own foundations, or what can be called their own separate paths.
As in the example of the girl:
She wants to scream because she feels uncomfortable from being teased, but she also wants to stay silent because she is afraid that if she screams, the teasing group will not stop and will become even more aggressive.
Thus, screaming and silence may appear to originate from the same teasing (one path), but in reality, screaming has its own path, and silence has its own path.
Both have their own separate paths that contain them.
When this is recognized, the paradox disappears, and there is no contradiction anymore.
Then perhaps a quantum particle in a superposition state is similar to the thinking in the girl’s mind.
But how can we feel this in a quantum particle when we are not the particle?
When we observe a particle, it has already collapsed.
The collapse causes us to see only one state.
And by only seeing that single existing state, how many people can empathize with and understand the logic of two states coexisting?
If we could observe the moment when two states coexist, we could empathize with and understand the logic.
But unfortunately, it collapses immediately.
So perhaps only the consciousness of the quantum particle itself can feel that existing in two states is completely logical — just like the girl’s mind feeling screaming and silence.
A small sign that can help us empathize and find it reasonable is the state of the particle after collapse.
For example, the particle moves forward, but when we look at the degree of forward movement, we see that within it there is both forward and backward.
Then we connect this empathetically back to ourselves, and from that we understand that forward has its own path, backward has its own path.
Even though we are not the particle and therefore do not understand what the particle’s own paths of forward and backward are, we understand ourselves, so we know that forward and backward have separate paths and everything is reasonable in its own way — no contradiction anymore.
The particle’s own path is determined by the nature of this world, such as something that previously acted upon the particle, forcing it to move forward and backward in its own way.
This is just like the girl being teased — she reacts and has the intention to both scream and remain silent in her own way, as I explained.
Note here that her “intention” means the consciousness analyzing based on her feelings after she has acted by screaming.
But how many people are accustomed to looking at one state of a thing and examining the degree of that state to see what states exist behind it, in order to dissolve paradox and contradiction?
We can only examine what lies behind our actions through our consciousness, based on our feelings.
Yet even from this, how many people can connect it to dissolve the paradox of quantum superposition?
Now, within the girl’s screaming state,
the degree of that state shows that she both wanted to scream and wanted to remain silent.
Do we not see that this resembles quantum probability?
A particle carries both the probability of moving forward and the probability of moving backward.
Eventually, when it collides with other particles, the particle collapses and carries the forward state.
But within that forward state, both forward and backward are mixed together.
If there were no backward component, the particle would have moved forward even more strongly.
Likewise, if there were no probability of silence, the girl’s scream would have reached 80 units.
From this, we can derive that the probability of a particle’s state represents the degree of contribution of that state to the single state after collapse, rather than merely representing the probability that the state occurs.
And this is when the particle is independent:
the particle exists in superposition states, and these states carry probabilities that represent their degree of contribution to the final single state when collapse occurs.
For example, a particle carries 60% forward and 40% backward.
The forward component is stronger and greater than the backward component.
This suggests that when the particle collapses, it should carry the single dominant state of forward.
But then why are there cases where the particle collapses into the backward state instead?
That is because when two particles collide, something happens due to interference from other particles, which causes the probability of the original particle to change at that very moment and collapse immediately.
These two processes — probability change and collapse — occur so close together in time that humans may not yet be able to measure them.
Thus, we almost treat it as if no probability change occurred at all.
But in my view, the probability change did occur.
Just like the girl screaming at 60% and silence at 40%.
Then, shortly before the scream, within an extremely short moment, a loud sound suddenly appears from somewhere, immediately increasing the probability of silence from 40% to 80%.
This happens within an extremely short time interval — one that we currently cannot measure.
I do not believe that which state occurs is due to randomness.
When you toss a coin, you think it is random, 50/50.
But later, we realize that it is not truly random.
Before we knew that even the act of tossing a coin is not random,
why should we believe that the occurrence of a state is random?
We have not measured the final probability state right before collapse.
We need to know:
if the girl screamed without any mixture of wanting silence, she would scream at 100 units.
When the feeling of wanting silence is superposed,
the collapse results in a scream of only 80 units.
Now, if the occurrence of a state were truly random,
then when she wants to scream at 60% and remain silent at 40%,
what causes her to remain silent if there is no event that increases the probability of silence to above 50%?
Do you say she remains silent randomly?
Screaming at 60% and silence at 40% are independent.
But they are influenced by other factors, which change the probabilities and trigger collapse.
The final probability right before collapse is unmeasured.
How could the girl remain silent when her desire to scream is at 60%?
From the outside, it may look like probabilities of 60 and 40.
But from the subject’s own perspective, how could the 40% state become the dominant state?
Forward at 60% and backward at 40% —
the forward state when backward is at 40% is different from the forward state when backward is at 20%.
The probability of the non-occurring state does not disappear independently of the dominant state.
It is part of the dominant state itself.
But through a binary lens, we can only choose one state.
Yet that chosen state contains a mixture of other possible states.
This is clearly manifested in the girl’s case:
although her action is screaming, her consciousness clearly feels that she both wanted to scream and wanted to remain silent.
Those two desires are clear,
and naturally both must act upon the dominant screaming state.
Even if she almost completely wanted to scream, close to 100%, with no conscious desire for silence —
even then, there is still a probability of silence.
There is still a silence state contributing to the dominant screaming state.
It is simply so small that her consciousness cannot perceive it.
This tiny probability of silence is like a probability seed that exists within everything.
No matter what the dominant state of a thing is,
it can never consist of only that single state entirely.
It must be mixed and interwoven with other states that carry extremely low probabilities.
These extremely small probability states are what I call probability seeds —
tiny existences.
When such probability seeds collide with other factors,
their probability can change from near zero to, for example, 35%.
But these probability seeds will never be zero.
The girl may not perceive the probability seed of silence,
so she believes she wants to scream 100%.
When screaming is at 99% and silence at 1%,
there are still cases where that 1% silence actually occurs, right?
But I believe that at that moment, silence had already risen above 50%.
This is what I call an instantaneous mystery that changes probability — something we have not yet identified.
From this, we can see that 50/50 probability in a specific trial is unreasonable.
Thus, equal probability such as 50/50 only exists when the particle is in superposition.
Once the particle collapses due to information leakage to the external world,
the probabilities of its states change and become biased toward the state with the highest probability.
⸻
Therefore, consciousness has the ability to perceive and analyze superposition.
Although states are superposed, within the mind each state feels clear and reasonable along its own path,
even though in reality, outside of consciousness, there is only a single dominant state.
And precisely because of this ability to perceive superposition,
we can feel that we ourselves have many contradictory aspects within us,
yet we feel the rationality of those contradictions.
We feel that we are both good and bad,
both loving and hating,
both strong and weak.
Often we do not see ourselves as bad people,
but we carry a seed of badness — it is simply too small to perceive.
We are strong,
but we also carry a seed of weakness.
These are probability seeds that exist within us.
Consciousness perceives the rationality of superposition within ourselves
in order to help our rational mind understand superposition in quantum mechanics.
If we cannot even perceive superposition within ourselves,
then how could we ever understand the nature of quantum superposition?
It would remain an eternal paradox.
Therefore, within ourselves, we possess something that resolves that paradox.
Based on the reasoning above, I do not believe in randomness when a particle collapses.
I believe there are still hidden laws within it that we have not yet discovered.
⸻
Even with the same action of the girl screaming,
some people feel that she intentionally screamed,
while others feel that she was trying to restrain herself and wanted to remain silent (even though she still screamed).
This is similar to the principle of yin and yang:
within yin there is yang,
within yang there is yin.
Yin and yang are superposed and always coexist.
The probability seed of yin may become small, but it never disappears.
The probability seed of yang may become small, but it never vanishes.
Yin and yang coexist.
⸻
The essence of randomness is that we cannot verify whether it is truly random.
To verify is to examine causality.
Randomness lies beyond causality.
It does not touch causality, yet it governs and influences causality.
If randomness were to touch causality,
then randomness would itself become causality.
Human reason and human life operate based on causality.
How can causality be used to prove something that transcends causality?
Rather than believing in randomness,
it makes more sense to believe that there exists a form of causality that we have not yet been able to control or identify.
This is like a limitation of logic itself,
leading to an even greater unresolved contradiction:
logic attempting to prove that the higher-order logic governing it is correct.