0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time : Enjoy ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Don't know how I missed this:http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1996v2Critique of Quantum Enigma:Physics encounters consciousness by Micheal Nauenberg
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447911#msg447911 date=1420310212]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 18:01:41Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time : Enjoy ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQThat's a bog standard presentation of the 2 Slit experiment - the QM principles behind which are the motivation for all QM interpretations - including MW.
In what sense do you think the very reason for which the MW interpretation was formulated is a problem for it?
Quote from: cheryl j on 03/01/2015 17:55:13Don't know how I missed this:http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1996v2Critique of Quantum Enigma:Physics encounters consciousness by Micheal NauenbergWell spotted Cheryl - I've seen some criticism of the Quantum Enigma excerpts on their web site, but Nauenberg seems to have been very thorough (even spotting an out-of-context, cherry-picked contribution of his own). Looks like yet another example of a misleading textbook being promoted and used as the basis for college courses.
Quote from: dlorde on 02/01/2015 12:18:21Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...And here was I thinking that causality was a fundamental law of physics...There is also what can be called a non-mechanical causation .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...And here was I thinking that causality was a fundamental law of physics...
... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...
Maybe , the whole concept of causation is just a product of our minds , in order to make sense of "reality " .The latter might also be yet another product of the mind too .Who knows ?
Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .
MW interpretation of QM is based on the false materialistic belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process ,so it is a -priori false thus and does not deserve any further serious talk about it .It is untestable too , to mention just that .
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg447839#msg447839 date=1420188325]Back to my "single gold atom" experiment. A person with an acquisitive soul could become very rich by thought alone, but AFAIK it has not happened. So either there is no such thing as an acquisitive soul, or there is no means by which a soul can affect the physical universe.
I really don't see an "interpretation problem".
QM describes what happens. It isn't what you would expect if classical mechanics applied to very small objects, but if you scale QM up to large objects, it begins to look like classical mechanics. So QM is an accurate representation of events and CM is an easier approximation. What's the problem?
Admittedly we don't have a quantum formalism for gravitation, but the CM model only predicts what happens without proposing how it works
, so it's no big deal and certainly no reason for invoking the supernatural.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447919#msg447919 date=1420312971]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 18:47:37MW interpretation of QM is based on the false materialistic belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process ,so it is a -priori false thus and does not deserve any further serious talk about it .It is untestable too , to mention just that .Ah, no. MW has nothing to say about consciousness or materialism, it's the simplest interpretation of the quantum formalism, making no additional assumptions.
Reading up on other interpretations, I'm wondering whether the De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave interpretation will ever make a come-back; it looks rather promising.
...what is bold about his claim the inclusion of feeling as information that contributes to all of those recognitions, and associations above.
In a nut shell, he says consciousness is a changing three-dimensional perceptual array of information that functions as input data to a process, or processes, that determine behavior. Consciousness includes no actual mental processes itself, but we experience the results of these processes.The only experiences that might superficially seem like processes are transitions from one group of sensations to the next or from one thought to the next. Qualia incorporate qualitative and quantitative information into consciousness. Qualia permit information about various qualitative properties, such as color or texture, and quantitative properties, such as relative size and location, to be incorporated into the information of consciousness, and that is why they evolved.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447918#msg447918 date=1420312472]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 18:26:07Quote from: dlorde on 02/01/2015 12:18:21Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27... if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics...And here was I thinking that causality was a fundamental law of physics...There is also what can be called a non-mechanical causation .If you mean Hasker's emergent dualism, it's a non-explanation. Otherwise, I was pointing out that a claim of causal effects on matter without obeying physical laws, is a contradiction because causality is a physical law and the claimed effects are physical.
QuoteMaybe , the whole concept of causation is just a product of our minds , in order to make sense of "reality " .The latter might also be yet another product of the mind too .Who knows ?I side with Dr. Johnson on this, and idealistic solipsism is a null philosophy.
QuoteBell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .But not causality, so not relevant here.
...MW interpretation would make no sense ,if it was not based on the false materialistic belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process that has to get entangled with its "observed " measuring devices and quantum systems , by joining their superposition states in its turn ...blablablabla...
On the other hand , For your info : Von Neumann based all his interpretation of QM on the assumption , through rigorous maths , that there had to be a non-physical process that had to collapse the wave function (all measuring devices , quantum systems and the rest of the environment were /are all material or physical ) .He could not think of any other such non-physical process than the consciousness of the observer,logically .
If consciousness is indeed a separate non-physical process , it cannot ever be in a superposition state , but non-held in place brain states , thoughts ....through the mindful volitional effort of attention through the veto power might be in a mental 'superposition state " maybe ( when we focus our mindful volitional attention on a particular brain state ,for example , or thoughts ...also , we maintain them or hold them in place for as along as we wish or can )
For example, when you look at something or just at these lines , you instantly not only get aware and conscious of them , but you also understand them : no laws of physics alone , no brain activity alone can account for that human ability of yours to instantly not only to be aware and conscious of these lines but to also understand them .
Even the "ordinary " act of seeing cannot be explained just by the physiology of the biological eye and brain , no way : it's the mind that sees through the eye and brain , not the latter .
Think about it , let's talk about how you decide to hold in place certain mind states , thoughts , feelings , emotions ....while eliminating or suppressing the other competitive or rival ones in the process that do compete to grab your attention : you do that via your own mindful volitional effort of attention through your veto power .That choice cannot be determined by the laws of physics , not entirely at least ,as the forward writer to a certain Libet's book said )I posted that earlier on ) .
Taking into consideration the non-mechanical causal efficacy of the mind on matter and the fact that you interpret what you see or perceive mindfully , considering all that and more , i do not see how the mind cannot have any 'disturbing and interpretative " effects on the "observed " measurements or data , i don't know , but to assert there can be no effect is really far fetched an assertion or a denial .
...Thompson shows how the self is a changing process, not a static thing. When we are awake we identify with our body, but if we let our mind wander or daydream, we project a mentally imagined self into the remembered past or anticipated future. As we fall asleep, the impression of being a bounded self distinct from the world dissolves, but the self reappears in the dream state. If we have a lucid dream, we no longer identify only with the self within the dream. Our sense of self now includes our dreaming self, the "I" as dreamer. Finally, as we meditate--either in the waking state or in a lucid dream--we can observe whatever images or thoughts arise and how we tend to identify with them as "me." We can also experience sheer awareness itself, distinct from the changing contents that make up our image of the self.Contemplative traditions say that we can learn to let go of the self, so that when we die we can witness its dissolution with equanimity. Thompson weaves together neuroscience, philosophy, and personal narrative to depict these transformations, adding uncommon depth to life's profound questions. Contemplative experience comes to illuminate scientific findings, and scientific evidence enriches the vast knowledge acquired by contemplatives."End quote.[/i]
QuoteQuoteBell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .But not causality, so not relevant here.Not causality ? Sure about that ? How can one explain entanglement or non-locality that challenged the classical locality or separability that used to asset that no event A can be caused by B without any physical causation and one that should not exceed the speed of light ? Explain that "spooky action at a distance " to me and what causality is there to explain it ?
Entanglement that has been turning the very concept of causality on its head thus ...
How can you a -priori exclude that possibility or unknown black swan .?
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447932#msg447932 date=1420321716]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 19:55:07...MW interpretation would make no sense ,if it was not based on the false materialistic belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process that has to get entangled with its "observed " measuring devices and quantum systems , by joining their superposition states in its turn ...blablablabla...Not really. However you want to interpret it, there are superpositions & entanglements - in theory and empirically observed. Nevertheless, the outcome of a measurement is always singular. If you believe that only consciousness collapses the wavefunction, then you must concede that the universe developed according to the MW interpretation until consciousness evolved - so there's tacit acceptance of an MW-style universe in conscious collapse, pre consciousness.
More interestingly, you must also concede that an unconscious individual that interacts with an entangled quantum system will join its superposition. Once that unconscious, now superposed, individual interacts with his environment (e.g. breathing), decoherence will occur (equivalent to the appearance of wavefunction collapse), entanglement will be lost, and the two 'worlds' will become distinct and unique. Now, when that individual wakes up, MW says in each world he will see an appropriate (consistent) measurement outcome. Copenhagen Conscious Collapse says when he wakes up and looks to see the measurement outcome, the entangled wavefunction collapses to one particular outcome - which would be fine, and give a result consistent with that predicted by MW - except that by this time the entanglement has already decohered - conscious collapse simply can't account for this (because of the Von Neumann measurement chain error, below).
QuoteOn the other hand , For your info : Von Neumann based all his interpretation of QM on the assumption , through rigorous maths , that there had to be a non-physical process that had to collapse the wave function (all measuring devices , quantum systems and the rest of the environment were /are all material or physical ) .He could not think of any other such non-physical process than the consciousness of the observer,logically .As has already been pointed out earlier n the thread, the Von Neumann measurement chain is mathematically correct in its predictions, but makes the mistake of treating each step (link?) as a binary, ignoring the multiple degrees of freedom of real-world interactions - i.e. it's not really a chain of single particle-to-particle interactions as VN surmised, but a rapidly diverging tree of interactions, leading to the decoherence mentioned above. If this stochastic, discontinuous, and nonlinear environmental decoherence somehow is, or leads to, a real physical process of wavefunction collapse, it will probably invalidate the MW interpretation, but either way, it clearly makes conscious collapse untenable
QuoteIf consciousness is indeed a separate non-physical process , it cannot ever be in a superposition state , but non-held in place brain states , thoughts ....through the mindful volitional effort of attention through the veto power might be in a mental 'superposition state " maybe ( when we focus our mindful volitional attention on a particular brain state ,for example , or thoughts ...also , we maintain them or hold them in place for as along as we wish or can ) This level of special pleading to retain consciousness as a non-superposable non-physical process hints, to paraphrase the Bard, that something is rotten in the state of non-physical Copenhagen Conscious Collapse. The combination of the interaction problem together with the now clearly exposed QM contradictions of conscious collapse, should give cause for serious reconsideration.
(Prior note : Biological evolution can never intrinsically account for consciousness , let alone for its emergence ,function, origin or nature .consciousness could never have evolved from the biological evolution , no way , simply because consciousness is irreducible to biology and cannot have emerged from it , no way .Think about that .It makes no biological sense whatsoever to assert that : the subjective personal qualitative experiential can never rise from the quantitative non-experiential "impersonal objective " biology : they are totally different from each other in kind .Even some of your best philosophers , scientists ... cannot but agree with me on that , dlorde .Think about it .)
I don't know whether or not consciousness does collapse the wavefunction .I am just inclined to agree with what Alastair Rae ,for example ,said on the subject when talking about the consciousness -based interpretation of QM.
Assume for a sec thus that consciousness is a separate non-physical and non-local process , that would solve the interpretation problem in QM
A temporary unconscious person is no synonymous of a person without consciousness .The latter is still there ,it is just 'disconnected " somehow, from that person's physical brain and body +from the rest of his/her environment, but not totally disconnected , i presume , i don't know .For example ,a younger brother of mine used to do some sleep walking when we were kids .I had even to go after him during a certain night when he sleep walked out of the house to the street ...to bring him back lol He was asleep but nevertheless , he did things like a conscious person would like opening the doors , going out , talking , walking down the street,and even eating ,drinking ...while asleep ...fMRI scans are even able now to detect a minimum form of consciousness in vegetative patients , not to mention that even at the level of deep dreamless or paradoxical deep sleep , some neuroscientists claim to have detected some subtle forms of consciousness .Some Buddhist meditation experts monks ,for example ,even claim that they can train their minds to be aware or conscious of ,monitor and control their deep sleep state .When you wake up feeling like you slept well, they claim, that means that you have remembered your calm deep sleep , i don't know .In short : being asleep or temporary unconscious does not mean a total absence of consciousness .
Not to mention the fact that our unconsciousness is also a part of our separate souls that can have effects on our bodies brains and environment even when we are asleep or unconscious .
You can't explain the mystery of the interpretation of QM by trying to explain away the other major mystery :consciousness .See above .
... there is a lots of indirect empirical evidence that has been proving that ...
Quote from: cheryl j on 02/01/2015 05:36:55Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.That's a funny way of putting it indeed . lol
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 01/01/2015 17:26:27Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.
Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .
The undeniable existence of separate souls has been f...with science ,especially with quantum physics , big time, by turning science in general upside down :
The undeniable existence of souls? Citation, please.