0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
More crap.
Quote from: alancalverd on 05/01/2014 15:46:06 All that happened was scientists around the world said "that makes sense, thank you, and it's worth a Nobel Prize".Which is why science is good, philosophy bad. Absolutely alan, and that's the reason why this thread is without significant value. Nothing but speculation and philosophy, making no honest attempt to follow the scientific method.
All that happened was scientists around the world said "that makes sense, thank you, and it's worth a Nobel Prize".Which is why science is good, philosophy bad.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/01/2014 19:02:37dlorde , Ethos :As some scientist or thinker said : " matter is not made of matter ",so to speak : see the revolutionary non-classical and anti-classical conception of matter and that of the physical reality which have been provided by ...QM :We might be thus not made of any physical or other substance : the universe , including ourselves , might be just a "matter" of probability distribution in the 'forms " of actions , potentialities , possibilities, events ....as some scientists modern physicists such as Stapp, Walker and others think the universe is .Who knows ? So, try to be up to date by realising the revolutionary character of QM in that and in other regards ,instead of sticking to your own absurd outdated false and superseded 19th century materialism that was built on the approximately valid and fundamentally incorrect classical physics ....Good luck .Lol! keep attacking that straw man - but don't forget that what seems new and exciting to you now is not necessarily new to everyone else []
dlorde , Ethos :As some scientist or thinker said : " matter is not made of matter ",so to speak : see the revolutionary non-classical and anti-classical conception of matter and that of the physical reality which have been provided by ...QM :We might be thus not made of any physical or other substance : the universe , including ourselves , might be just a "matter" of probability distribution in the 'forms " of actions , potentialities , possibilities, events ....as some scientists modern physicists such as Stapp, Walker and others think the universe is .Who knows ? So, try to be up to date by realising the revolutionary character of QM in that and in other regards ,instead of sticking to your own absurd outdated false and superseded 19th century materialism that was built on the approximately valid and fundamentally incorrect classical physics ....Good luck .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/01/2014 21:36:23Come on, be serious : have you read all those excerpts already , i just posted ? Impossible ,unless you do possess some sort of a sophisticated scanner of some sort haha implanted in your brain or rather mind .A sophisticated scanner - like eyes? they can be quite effective for reading, and fast enough if you don't read aloud [] QuoteStapp talked about the history genesis and developement of mind-dependent quantum theory ,through Von Neumann and beyond , and much more ...from the original Copenhagen interpretation , before after and beyond through Dennett's classical conservation of energy "argument " ....and much more ....All that is addressed by Stapp's excerpts i just posted , and more .Not much wrong with Stapp's physics history, although he understandably focuses on the QM interpretation that suits his purpose. Where does he address any of Dawson's criticisms?QuoteP.S.: Biology, neurobiology microbiology has been becoming more and more mechanical and materialist , unlike QM that have been moving in the opposite and totally different direction, no wonder thus that you , dlorde ,as a biologist , have been becoming more and more materialist mechanical, as if QM do not exist .Way to go, scientist .You couldn't have got that more wrong ('not even wrong' as they say). QM is at the heart of the biochemistry that underlies biology, with a great deal of recent work and many new discoveries, like the unexpected use of quantum effects in the optimization of electron transfer in photosynthesis, and quantum coherence in the magnetoreception of robins; some people are calling it 'Quantum Biology' (though it's not a popular monicker). QuoteSo, you need to grasp and incorporate QT into your materialist classical mechanical world view ,just to find out that they are ...incompatible , the former has been superseding and refuting the latter : congratulations and condolences .Lol! - BTDTGTTS years ago. QM is nearly 100 years old - You just posted its history - it's been the standard formulation for atomic physics since the late 1920s; it's been widely accepted and taught as mainstream physics for many years - it may be new and exciting to you, but you haven't just rediscovered it [)]I'm beginning to think the Dunning-Kruger Effect is involved here []
Come on, be serious : have you read all those excerpts already , i just posted ? Impossible ,unless you do possess some sort of a sophisticated scanner of some sort haha implanted in your brain or rather mind .
Stapp talked about the history genesis and developement of mind-dependent quantum theory ,through Von Neumann and beyond , and much more ...from the original Copenhagen interpretation , before after and beyond through Dennett's classical conservation of energy "argument " ....and much more ....All that is addressed by Stapp's excerpts i just posted , and more .
P.S.: Biology, neurobiology microbiology has been becoming more and more mechanical and materialist , unlike QM that have been moving in the opposite and totally different direction, no wonder thus that you , dlorde ,as a biologist , have been becoming more and more materialist mechanical, as if QM do not exist .Way to go, scientist .
So, you need to grasp and incorporate QT into your materialist classical mechanical world view ,just to find out that they are ...incompatible , the former has been superseding and refuting the latter : congratulations and condolences .
However plausible, or otherwise, Stapp's QM speculations, none of it would be necessary if he wasn't trying to support an incoherent model or definition of free will; and however he reaches the quantum superposition of states he wants free will to resolve, he's left with the unsustainable homunculus of free will, and a quantum version of Dennett's Cartesian Theatre.With Don's facile version, if you start with an unsupportable a-priori assumption such as 'consciousness must be immaterial', you are quite likely to end up trying to deny contrary evidence (as we saw), and chasing less transparently obvious versions like Stapp's; but they are both built with the same flaw in their foundations, and both can be discarded as redundant simply by accepting a simpler interpretation of free will as the sense of agency accompanying a decision or action.Don seems to have a religious underlay for his immaterial dogma, but I wonder what Stapp's excuse reason is?
No end to the crap........But that's why I keep coming back, why spend all my time listening to logical science when I can make fun of philosophy and those who stake their reputation on it's IMMATERIAL so-called evidence?
Quote from: dlorde on 04/01/2014 22:35:58Where does he address any of Dawson's criticisms?Wrong : Stapp did address all that in his major books : " Mind ,matter ,and quantum mechanics " and "Mindful universe and quantum mechanics " : those specific parts of those books are 2 lengthy to post + 2 technical mostly ,for people here to read .
Where does he address any of Dawson's criticisms?
He also addressed Dennett's "Cartesian theater " and other lunatics materialists ' 'arguments " as well .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2014 17:44:42Quote from: dlorde on 04/01/2014 22:35:58Where does he address any of Dawson's criticisms?Wrong : Stapp did address all that in his major books : " Mind ,matter ,and quantum mechanics " and "Mindful universe and quantum mechanics " : those specific parts of those books are 2 lengthy to post + 2 technical mostly ,for people here to read .Perhaps you can summarise or simplify them for us, or just give us the page references; otherwise we have only your word for it, and given the grasp of QM you have demonstrated here, I think you're blowing smoke.QuoteHe also addressed Dennett's "Cartesian theater " and other lunatics materialists ' 'arguments " as well .How?
(Prior note : QT is mind -dependent , Von Neumann and others have proved the fact , mathematically and empirically , that the measurement problem in QM can only be solved by concluding that the intervention of a non-physical process outside of the laws of physics might be the explanation of that = the mind of the observer .
So, my world view or belief is consistent with what modern 20th century science and QM have been saying on the subject ,relatively speaking .
There is nothing more coherent than Stapp's work .His free will model is the best so far and it is consistent with our intuitive experiences on the subject as well , unlike the counter-intuitive absurd materialist mechanical classical determinism bullshit .
No, Stapp was not doing what you said here above : how can you speculate so widely about the man's work without having a complete view about it , by just repeating what others said in that regard .....Did you read his books or follow his work , obviously not .Did you read those excerpts of his books i have been posting , obviously not .
Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all.
...Stapp's scientific mind-dependent QT that was built on those of the founders of QT , is evidence enough for the fact that we all do view the world through our respective world views that shape our consciousness , and hence our behaviours , thoughts , actions, ethics ...
Do you know how he responded to Dennett and others , and what models he proposed in order to solve some dilemmas and apparent flaws of dualism ? Obviously not .
The universe thus ,including ourselves, might be "made " of no physical or other substance , just of processes , possibilities, events , actions, potentialities ...Who knows ?
Stapp has been innovative ,intelligent , visionary , honest and couragoeus enough to challenge and go beyond the current false materialist mainstream classical mechanical determinist "scientific world view " , thanks to QM : So, just have the decency to shut up then .
As a superseded outdated materialist , you're irrelevant and totally uninteresting , obviously .You cannot but view reality just through the false outdated and superseded mechanical classical determinist materialist key hole version of reality ,despite the fact that QM have been dualist and hence have been refuting classical materialism, together with its mechanical classical determinism ...Your materialist world view shapes your consciousness ,and hence your thoughts , behaviour ,ethics , actions ...as the mind -dependent QT proves that fact to be correct : we all do view the world through our respective world views or beliefs indeed .
Quote from: dlorde on 05/01/2014 18:38:27Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2014 17:44:42Wrong : Stapp did address all that in his major books : " Mind ,matter ,and quantum mechanics " and "Mindful universe and quantum mechanics " : those specific parts of those books are 2 lengthy to post + 2 technical mostly ,for people here to read .Perhaps you can summarise or simplify them for us, or just give us the page references; otherwise we have only your word for it, and given the grasp of QM you have demonstrated here, I think you're blowing smoke.Well, do some effort and go look for just that : i am not gonna do the work for you anymore ,since you cannot value priceless pearls that are not meant for your narrow-minded outdated and unscientific classical mechanical determinist absurd ...mind,as you have been showing all long .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2014 17:44:42Wrong : Stapp did address all that in his major books : " Mind ,matter ,and quantum mechanics " and "Mindful universe and quantum mechanics " : those specific parts of those books are 2 lengthy to post + 2 technical mostly ,for people here to read .Perhaps you can summarise or simplify them for us, or just give us the page references; otherwise we have only your word for it, and given the grasp of QM you have demonstrated here, I think you're blowing smoke.
Wrong : Stapp did address all that in his major books : " Mind ,matter ,and quantum mechanics " and "Mindful universe and quantum mechanics " : those specific parts of those books are 2 lengthy to post + 2 technical mostly ,for people here to read .
...Good luck,dear ...swine , i am really fed up with you .What a waste ,pathetic ...
Good luck,dear ...swine , i am really fed up with you .What a waste ,pathetic ...
I must support classical physics and reject QM
Quote from: Ethos_ on 05/01/2014 18:11:58No end to the crap........But that's why I keep coming back, why spend all my time listening to logical science when I can make fun of philosophy and those who stake their reputation on it's IMMATERIAL so-called evidence?(Why do you keep on imitating others , i wonder : even monkeys are not really imitators )