The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186021 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience,Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: “we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.”

There are two ways of delivering that sentence

we discover that the Universe exists [or indeed anything else that we discover]... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.

or

we discover that... the Universe exists only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.”

Frayn is a clever wordsmith, not a scientist. The first delivery is obviously true. The second is obvious nonsense. Not a unique problem for an actor: the majority still say

"whether tis nobler in the mind // to suffer the slings and arrows..." because that is how the blank verse is written, but it doesn't actually make sense, whereas
"whether 'tis nobler// in the mind to suffer....or to take arms...." is a balanced sentence that does indeed make sense.

Amateur jazz singers have the same problem. It's very easy to stress the words to fit the bar lines, and accent them one two three four, but it doesn''t swing or tell a story. Sinatra stresses the words as though he is saying sentences - it swings like crazy (leave the strict 4/4 to the bass player and the dancers - that's what we get paid for) and makes literal sense.

Physics, jazz, it's all the same: if you don't understand it, you can't convey it to another person by just repeating the words.
 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd :

Why do you have to take everything so literally,and so seriously  ?

I have just brought that above displayed article up (The mental universe ) as some sort of food for the mind that reflects yet another way of how some physicists, artists and others see the nature of reality, via metaphors , through their own interpretation of quantum theory , not as a matter of fact .

But, fact is , our "reality " is mostly ...a mental  psychological cultural environmental biological construct .

Quantum theory has kissed goodbye most of that old and false Cartesian dichotomy between the subjective and the objective : there is no independent observer from the observed objective reality : the objective and subjective are inseparable : consciousness , the mind and their related processes shape our physical reality ...: our "reality " is mostly mental .

Our "reality " is just the product of the mutual interactions between consciousness , the mind ...and their environment , including the physical brain and body ...

The nature of reality might elude us for ever thus  , who knows .

I am pretty relatively sure it will in fact ,through science at least , since our "reality " is mostly mental thus .
« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 20:18:44 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Fair enough Don; I've been reasonably patient, but you clearly have no intention of making any reasoned argument or discussion, and your posts are becoming increasingly puerile - as in previous threads - so I'll leave you to it.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Fair enough Don; I've been reasonably patient, but you clearly have no intention of making any reasoned argument or discussion, and your posts are becoming increasingly puerile - as in previous threads - so I'll leave you to it.

Well, that's too bad then .

You're too fragile to take some serious or funny , ironic , sarcastic , metaphorical , matter of facts "blows" , i see . No harm intended though .

You can't just expect me to go along with your materialist magical voodoo , regarding the materialist theory of consciousness at least , or regarding the  intrinsic reductionist and deterministic nature of materialism ,can you ?

Using metaphors , irony , sarcasm, metaphors ...+ counter-arguments  ....in relation to your posts is no synonymous of puerile behavior ,so , unless you have no sense of humor , metaphors ....no backbones ...

Telling me that consciousness or information is an intrinsic property of matter , that electromagnetism and other neurophysiological processes ...produce consciousness , the mind and their related anomalies and processes , how can i not conclude from that that my tv sets , car , fridges, cell phones ...are conscious also ,and exactly the way i am also , not to mention power plants ....

Or that deterministic materialism that does intrinsically require reductionism anyway , does allow top-down causation , while that almighty and omnipotent so-called standard model clearly "forbids " such a heretic top-down causation ...or that free will can exist within a deterministic world ...and all that tragic -hilarious non-sense ...

To mention just that .

In other words :

You have to try to come up with some solid stuff ,if you want me to be completely serious with you , and hence take you seriously , instead of insulting my intelligence by bombarding me with all that materialist magical voodoo, regarding the materialist theory of consciousness at least ,  for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever , not to mention the obvious incompatibility between the intrinsic reductionist and deterministic nature of materialism and between the top-down causation ...

Nice weekend : Try to find out about   how those materialistically incompatible with each other deterministic physical top-down and bottom-up causations can make you do what you do , without you having any say or choice whatsoever on the matter ,while assuming that you have some sort of a "free will " within all that . Insane ...not to say ...puerile in fact , after all : a ridiculous insane and puerile materialistic 'scientific " view of the real world .

Take care .
« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 20:52:16 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: DonQuichotte


Funny Straw man arguments again,and red herrings as well , to mention just that  .
Why is that a straw man argument? You are free to conduct all of those those experiments, and apply naturalistic methodology. To say otherwise is a contradiction of your own definition of naturalism. I'm agreeing with you, which is probably what has you confused.

Quote
You still don't get what naturalism means , sis , (odd) despite your misplaced sarcasm , derision, or irony : the latter can't help you hide  your obvious ignorance about the former .
( Naturalism ,as it clearly implies , means , in short : within nature : there is nothing beyond, or other than nature as the nature of reality,so, all naturalistic forms of science ,and all naturalistic forms of the scientific methodology and epistemology , be it the materialist , dualist , idealist or even theistic ones must deliver naturalistic explanations of the universe : see my post regarding that ,from Encyclopedia Britannica   .)

I do understand the idea. What you still don't understand is relevancy. It doesn't matter whether God exists or doesn't exists if it's irrelevant either way to the particular question I am trying to answer. But once you claim, for example that a demon causes a particular disease, or angels make photosynthesis work, then it's incumbent on you to provide the natural evidence that it does.  Once you designate any material or non material thing as the specific mechanism for a natural phenomenon, proof of its existence is now relevant and fair game. It has nothing to do with "world views" or a priori beliefs, and it's utterly compatible with everything you and Encyclopedia Britannica say about naturalism.

Quote
The mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , or 'consensus ", rejects a -priori any non-materialist scientific world view , research, experiments , approaches , let alone evidence on the subject .

So what?

Quote
Worse : many scientists who dare to think outside of the materialist key hole box , by challenging 1 or more of its entrenched dogmas like that of Darwinism , have been persecuted , their careers and reputations ruined ,and much more : This is no conspiracy theory , but hard facts :
Not to mention how the work of biologist Sheldrake and the man behind it have been treated by mainstream materialist science , scientific journals , the media ....to mention just that poor lad .
No, his career was ruined because he couldn't deliver the natural evidence to substantiate his natural claims, and he wouldn't let go of his failed natural theory. But psuedoscience sometimes pays the bills anyway, if you can publish a book and get some speaking gigs.




Quote

Theistic science is no synonymous thus of involving God in science , let alone of trying either to prove or disprove the existence of God , needless to add .

Really? Because pretty much every definition of theism in every dictionary involves God. The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god", which might be a bit of a clue.

"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." - Oxford English Dictionary

"Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In popular parlance, the term theism often describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism." - wikipedia

 "Belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :  belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" - Merriam-Webster

Quote
But ,the again , there is nothing intrinsic in  science or in its methodology , let alone  in  its evolving epistemology, that prevents it from going beyond nature itself...

Yeah, I had a feeling you'd start to realize the "naturalism" thing wasn't going to play in your favour. Which is why I think ultimately your argument is religious or mystical in nature, and it's pointless to even try to discuss it terms of the scientific method.

« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 20:54:18 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

Almost no time left to reply to your latest post here above , sorry , but for the following very quickly then : I have already spent way too much time and energy here than usual, you have no idea  :

I have just tried to tell you about the nature of science and about that of its methodology and evolving epistemology , and that neither science nor its methodology and epistemology can be restricted by any world view such as materialism , or by any philosophy whatsoever , be it naturalistic or otherwise, that's all  .

I was not trying to involve any Zeus , God, ghosts  or aliens in science , needless to add .

That you choose to argue with me via strange Kafkaian absurd and subjective ways ,and via many straw man arguments , red herrings , ad-hominem false accusations about my alleged motives .....won't change nothing about the real content, meaning , purpose ... of my posts .

I suggest you try to re-read me more carefully then , while trying to avoid all those above mentioned meaningless false accusations and straw man , red herrings , ad-hominem attacks ....

That's all i have time left for thus .Thanks anyway .

Nice weekend .

« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 21:03:58 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
alancalverd :

Why do you have to take everything so literally,and so seriously  ?

Because I am a scientist who can smell bullshit a mile away, I loathe it, and I get paid to rid the world of it (when I'm not playing jazz).
« Last Edit: 08/11/2014 23:46:12 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd :

Why do you have to take everything so literally,and so seriously  ?

Because I am a scientist who can smell bullshit a mile away, I loathe it, and I get paid to rid the world of it (when I'm not playing jazz).

Sure about that , Alan ?
How come you still can't smell all that materialist bullshit at the heart of current science then ? ,all that materialist pseudo-science at the very heart of current science , all that materialist dogmatic belief system at the very hart of current science ...? , even when it is right in front of your very eyes, let alone from a distance .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg443931#msg443931 date=1415479562]
Quote from: DonQuichotte


Funny Straw man arguments again,and red herrings as well , to mention just that  .
Why is that a straw man argument? You are free to conduct all of those those experiments, and apply naturalistic methodology. To say otherwise is a contradiction of your own definition of naturalism. I'm agreeing with you, which is probably what has you confused.

Theistic naturalism ,together with all other forms of naturalism, be it the materialist   atheist , dualist or idealist ones, as the very definition of naturalism implies thus , have to come up with natural explanations regarding the universe , by assuming that there is nothingelse out there , nothing other , nothing beyond nature ,as the nature of reality .

All your above straw man arguments ,red herrings , ...are thus just that .

Quote
Quote
You still don't get what naturalism means , sis , (odd) despite your misplaced sarcasm , derision, or irony : the latter can't help you hide  your obvious ignorance about the former .
( Naturalism ,as it clearly implies , means , in short : within nature : there is nothing beyond, or other than nature as the nature of reality,so, all naturalistic forms of science ,and all naturalistic forms of the scientific methodology and epistemology , be it the materialist , dualist , idealist or even theistic ones must deliver naturalistic explanations of the universe : see my post regarding that ,from Encyclopedia Britannica   .)

I do understand the idea. What you still don't understand is relevancy. It doesn't matter whether God exists or doesn't exists if it's irrelevant either way to the particular question I am trying to answer. But once you claim, for example that a demon causes a particular disease, or angels make photosynthesis work, then it's incumbent on you to provide the natural evidence that it does.  Once you designate any material or non material thing as the specific mechanism for a natural phenomenon, proof of its existence is now relevant and fair game. It has nothing to do with "world views" or a priori beliefs, and it's utterly compatible with everything you and Encyclopedia Britannica say about naturalism.

See above : you still do not understand what naturalism is , obviously , despite your above mentioned straw man arguments , red herring, and misplaced irony , sarcasm, derision ...once again .

Quote
Quote
The mainstream materialist "scientific world view " , or 'consensus ", rejects a -priori any non-materialist scientific world view , research, experiments , approaches , let alone evidence on the subject .

So what?

What do you mean by so what ? Naturalistic science , its naturalistic methodology and its naturalistic epistemology cannot be equated with the materialist ones .

Materialism can be thus naturalistic , but the converse is not necessarily true : naturalism goes beyond materialism : naturalistic science , its naturalistic methodology and its naturalistic epistemology can be either materialist atheist , dualist , idealist , or even theistic , remember .

Science, its methodology and epistemology  are no exclusive synonymous of the materialist ones  thus : science cannot be restricted by any world view for that matter : science that's all about methodology , epistemology.....


Quote
Quote
Worse : many scientists who dare to think outside of the materialist key hole box , by challenging 1 or more of its entrenched dogmas like that of Darwinism , have been persecuted , their careers and reputations ruined ,and much more : This is no conspiracy theory , but hard facts :
Not to mention how the work of biologist Sheldrake and the man behind it have been treated by mainstream materialist science , scientific journals , the media ....to mention just that poor lad .
No, his career was ruined because he couldn't deliver the natural evidence to substantiate his natural claims, and he wouldn't let go of his failed natural theory. But psuedoscience sometimes pays the bills anyway, if you can publish a book and get some speaking gigs.

No, that's not true : see the video in question .


Quote
Quote

Theistic science is no synonymous thus of involving God in science , let alone of trying either to prove or disprove the existence of God , needless to add .

Really? Because pretty much every definition of theism in every dictionary involves God. The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god", which might be a bit of a clue.

"Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." - Oxford English Dictionary

"Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In popular parlance, the term theism often describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism." - wikipedia

 "Belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :  belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" - Merriam-Webster



I was talking just about naturalistic theism : see what that means .

Quote
Quote
But ,the again , there is nothing intrinsic in  science or in its methodology , let alone  in  its evolving epistemology, that prevents it from going beyond nature itself...

Yeah, I had a feeling you'd start to realize the "naturalism" thing wasn't going to play in your favour. Which is why I think ultimately your argument is religious or mystical in nature, and it's pointless to even try to discuss it terms of the scientific method.

Your feeling is irrelevant .

I was just pushing the logic of naturalism to its limits that go beyond naturalism itself thus , since science is thus all about methodology and epistemology , not about any philosophy ,world view,  naturalistic or otherwise , from the last century or the next ...

« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 18:00:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"The Quantum Enigma " :

http://quantumenigma.com/book-description/

The Enigma in a Nutshell :

All of physics is based on quantum theory. It’s the most battle-tested theory in all of science. And one-third of our economy involves products designed with it. Quantum theory works for fundamental science and for practical applications.

However, this reliable and useful physics challenges any reasonable worldview. It actually denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation. It also tells of a strange connectedness.

Demonstrating quantum strangeness is practical only for small objects, though as technology improves, it’s being displayed for larger and larger things. Quantum theory is presumed to be valid for everything. Quantum cosmologists apply it for the whole of the early universe.

Here are quantum theory’s reality and connectedness problems in a nutshell:

Reality: By your free choice you could demonstrate either of two contradictory physical realities. You can, for example, demonstrate an object to be someplace. But you could have chosen to demonstrate the opposite: that it was not in that place. Observation created the object’s position. Quantum theory has all properties created by their observation.

Connectedness: Quantum theory tells that any things that have ever interacted are forever connected, “entangled.” For example, your friend’s freely made decision of what to do in Moscow (or on Mars) can instantaneously (though randomly) influence what happens to you in Manhattan. And this happens without any physical force involved. Einstein called such influences “spooky actions.” They’ve now been demonstrated to exist. But for human-scale things, the effect is impossible to detect, for all practical purposes. It is “averaged out” by all the other things that are happening. But nevertheless…

Two more comments:

The quantum weirdness is not hard to “understand”–even with zero physics background. But it’s almost impossible to believe . When someone tells you something you can’t believe, you might well think you don’t understand. But believing might be the real problem. It’s best to approach the subject with an open mind. That’s not easy.

The experimental facts basic to the quantum enigma are undisputed.
 But talking of the encounter of physics with “non-physical” stuff like consciousness is controversial. It’s been called our “skeleton in the closet.” You can look at the undisputed facts, and ponder for yourself what they mean.

Notable Quotes on Quantum Physics :

http://quantumenigma.com/nutshell/notable-quotes-on-quantum-physics/?phpMyAdmin=54029d98ba071eec0c69ff5c106b9539#einstein
« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 21:04:06 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


All of physics is based on quantum theory.

No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

I was talking just about naturalistic theism : see what that means .

Well, that's the problem. Theistic naturalism or naturalistic thesim doesn't actually exist, because it's contradiction of how naturalism is defined.  If naturalism is defined as having  "no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it"  you can't invent a special category of naturalism that does have a preference. That is exactly the same error you are claiming materialist naturalism makes.

But since you have now decided that naturalism isn't much help to you either and have abandoned it as well, I suppose it's neither here nor there.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 14:27:10 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


All of physics is based on quantum theory.

No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.

No, modern physics is quantum physics .

Police work is also based on observation lol , not to mention the sex industry ...

What do you think of that above mentioned book ?, Mr.physicist , and about the one below , both talk about the central role of consciousness in shaping the physical reality through QM :

"Biocentrism " By Robert Lanza :

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 18:05:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile

I was talking just about naturalistic theism : see what that means .

Well, that's the problem. Theistic naturalism or naturalistic thesim doesn't actually exist, because it's contradiction of how naturalism is defined.  If naturalism is defined as having  "no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it"  you can't invent a special category of naturalism that does have a preference. That is exactly the same error you are claiming materialist naturalism makes.

But since you have now decided that naturalism isn't much help to you either and have abandoned it as well, I suppose it's neither here nor there.

(Prior note :

Let's get it over with , once and for all then , hopefully ,and then return to the subject matter of this thread .

All world views, philosophies , beliefs , thoughtstreams ,cultures...do all have ontological roots , needless to add, including materialism ,theism, dualism , idealism ...mumbo-jumboism lol, shamanism ...

There is also what can be called ontological materialism = all is matter .

So, materialism can be naturalistic , but the converse is not necessarily true .

 Naturalism goes beyond materialism, once again ...which means all forms of naturalism, including the theistic one, must deliver natural explanations for natural phenomena  , nature as the alleged nature of reality , as naturalism implies .

So, naturalism does not give a cent lol , not to use a vulgar word lol, or care for the ontological roots of any form of naturalism , as long as they would stick to what naturalism is all about : nature is the one and only reality, that can be explained only by natural explanations thus :

 You may believe in aliens ,ghosts ,  Sint-Claus , fairies , genies, the boogy man ....and be a naturalist at the same time, as long as you can stick to what naturalism is all about ...as you have religious, agnostic .... and atheist scientists nowadays ...)



Never mind : I am not gonna repeat myself , sorry .

Well, just the following then,since you like to open some irrelevant Pandora's boxes, instead of focussing on the main issues at hand   :

 ( The christian theistic naturalism , to which you might be referring , is another story.I am not referring to that , There are also other definitions of theistic naturalism , and spiritual naturalism ...I am not referring to that either  ,not to mention that there is also what can be called non-religious theistic naturalism , or non-religious theism, + pantheism ......It's a real messy maze soup or wild forest from which i don't wanna neither drink, nor eat , let alone  explore either : not my cup of tea  ...) .

The theistic naturalism i am talking about is the one that can try to come up with natural explanations of the universe , while believing in its creator at the same time, and that without involving God in science , needless to add , and without even concerning itself either by proving or disproving the existence of God : that's how science used to be practiced by its early inventors (muslims ) : they came up with natural explanations of phenomena , while believing in God as the creator of all things and beings at the same time : the one does not exclude the other , to the contrary (The historical schism or conflict between religion and science was just an Eurocentric thing , not universal , not even remotely close thus , since the origin of modern science itself originated from some aspects of the Qur'anic epistemology ,but, that's another story about  which i had opened a whole thread , earlier on .I have thus no intention , desire or time for that neither ).

The inception of science was mainly ancient Greek ,but its real birth and practice on the reality ground was due to muslims ...

Anyway : just drop all the above . I am not gonna argue about all that , since that's not our topic .

The bottom line is :

Naturalistic science , its naturalistic methodology and epistemology cannot be restricted by any world view, philosophy or belief ...

Science is all about methodology and epistemology thus : all about free inquiry ,while materialism has been confining science to its dogmatic belief system prison , by holding it back , so , science must be set free from materialism, since the latter is false , thanks mainly to all those consciousness -related anomalies for which materialism can intrinsically never account  , and hence consciousness is no material process ,and therefore , time for a post -materialistic science  that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature ,as the subject matter of this thread .

In short :

Real   science and real   scientists are the ones that stick to the scientific methodology and epistemology , not to some  ontological preferences  , while trying to extend the scientific methodology and epistemology  whenever they would stumble upon anomalies  that would challenge them....

For example : Quantum theory has shown that consciousness plays a central role in shaping the physical reality: consciousness enters the realm of physics : there is no independent observer  , so, rational analytical empiricism must be extended as to integrate that subjective mental feature  in its epistemology ,empiricism, and methodology ,as PEAR and non-materialist scientists have been doing ...

P.S.: What do you think about the above mentioned books, especially "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness " .

I recommend reading it : it's written by brilliant physicists with impressive credentials .
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 19:17:24 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd :

Why do you have to take everything so literally,and so seriously  ?

Because I am a scientist who can smell bullshit a mile away, I loathe it, and I get paid to rid the world of it (when I'm not playing jazz).

Sure about that , Alan ?
How come you still can't smell all that materialist bullshit at the heart of current science then ? ,all that materialist pseudo-science at the very heart of current science , all that materialist dogmatic belief system at the very hart of current science ...? , even when it is right in front of your very eyes, let alone from a distance .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


All of physics is based on quantum theory.

No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.

No, modern physics is quantum physics .

Police work is also based on observation lol , not to mention the sex industry ...

What do you think of that above mentioned book ?, Mr.physicist , and about the one below , both talk about the central role of consciousness in shaping the physical reality through QM :

"Biocentrism " By Robert Lanza :

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/


P.S.: You said there is no problem concerning the interpretation of quantum theory : see this on the subject :

http://quantumenigma.com/controversy/

See this relevant part of the above :

First, Arguing that here is no problem:

Tom Banks: “I think there have been clear mathematical arguments given, which show that macroscopic objects (including Schrodinger’s poor cat) made of constituents with local interactions, obey the rules of classical probability theory.  There is nothing more mysterious in QM than that.”

Murray Gell-Mann: “The universe presumably couldn’t care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists.”

N. G. van Kampen: “Quantum mechanics provides a complete and adequate description of the observed physical phenomena on the atomic scale. What else can one wish?…The scandal is that there are still many articles, discussions, and textbooks, which advertise various interpretations and philosophical profundities…Many physicists have not yet learned that they should adjust their ideas to the observed reality rather than the other way round.

Christopher Fuchs and Asher Peres: “Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation.’”…We need nothing more than the fully consistent theory we already have.”

On the other hand, arguing that there is a problem:

J. M. Jauch: “The interpretation [of quantum mechanics] has remained a source of conflict from its inception. . . . For many thoughtful physicists, it has remained a kind of ’skeleton in the closet.’”

Albert Einstein: “I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because. . . physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”

Frank Wilczek: “The relevant literature [on the meaning of quantum theory] is famously contentious and obscure.  I believe it will remain so until someone constructs, within the formalism of quantum mechanics, an ‘observer,’ that is, a model entity whose states correspond to a recognizable caricature of conscious awareness.”

John Bell: “It is likely that the new way of seeing things will astonish us.”

Andrei Linde: “Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?”


This argument on whether or not there is a problem brings up an analogy that accords with our own bias. A couple is in marriage counseling. The wife says, “There’s a problem in our marriage.” Her husband disagrees, saying, “There’s no problem in our marriage.” The marriage counselor knows who’s right.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
World-first evidence suggests that meditation alters cancer survivors’ cells :

Source : Science alert/ Cancer Journal :


http://www.sciencealert.com/world-first-evidence-suggests-that-meditation-alters-cancer-survivors-cells

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full


"God Particle" Findings Were Inconclusive, According To New Analysis :

November 9, 2014 .

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113275750/higgs-boson-findings-from-cern-inconclusive-110914/
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 20:37:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4695
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


All of physics is based on quantum theory.

No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.

No, modern physics is quantum physics .

Some of "modern" physics is quantum physics, but that's far from "all of physics". The common factor in all that we do in physics, whether quantum or continuum, solid state or relativistic, is observation of the material universe.
 
Quote
Albert Einstein: “I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because. . . physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”
Yes, even Einstein had problems getting his head round it, but you can't dispute the material facts of photoelectricity, black body radiation, line spectra, etc.

Quote
John Bell: “It is likely that the new way of seeing things will astonish us.”
takes the biscuit for a content-free statement of the obvious. Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation. There is no reason why the next big thing should be any less astonishing that the last.


*typhoid, oxygen, newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the Hall effect, evolution, thermodynamics.....
« Last Edit: 11/11/2014 00:22:24 by alancalverd »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation.

A very good point. In fact, you could probably make a passable definition of 'understanding' around that point  [8D]
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
... Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation.

A very good point. In fact, you could probably make a passable definition of 'understanding' around that point  [8D]
I agree as well dlorde that alan has described perfectly the aim of the honest scientist. If Don has his way, we will all be expected to use simple material observations to give credibility to a mysterious immaterial cause. I think alan has made an excellent material observation that should convince every honest scientist that the mysterious immaterial only has it's proper place in science fiction. But alas, not everyone here is interested in honest science.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2014 03:51:58 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


So, materialism can be naturalistic , but the converse is not necessarily true .
So would you also agree that "theism can be naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true" ? 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
... Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation.

A very good point. In fact, you could probably make a passable definition of 'understanding' around that point  [8D]
I agree as well dlorde that alan has described perfectly the aim of the honest scientist. If Don has his way, we will all be expected to use simple material observations to give credibility to a mysterious immaterial cause. I think alan has made an excellent material observation that should convince every honest scientist that the mysterious immaterial only has it's proper place in science fiction. But alas, not everyone here is interested in honest science.

There is no such a thing as   honest  science : the latter is neither about judgments of value like honesty nor about motives , let alone about morality or ethics , even though scientists have to take into consideration ,  respect  and apply certain ethics regarding their work, experiments , methods....

Regarding the claim that science has replaced  some mysterious  immaterial cause with a simple material or rather natural explanation, is thus partly true ,simply because the universe cannot be reduced to just material causes , processes or explanations  :

Materialism is false , mainly because it can intrinsically never account for  the nature origin and function of consciousness itself and its related anomalies and processes ,so, consciousness is a non -material, non-physical and non-local process that's irreducible to material processes , causes or explanations , let alone that consciousness can be explained by the latter : there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever  for the materialist theory or model of consciousness .

In short :

The intrinsic materialist claim (since materialism says that all is matter ) that the whole universe can be explained by material causes , processes or explanations only is false , thanks mainly to the major anomaly that broke the neck of materialism : consciousness .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
... Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation.

A very good point. In fact, you could probably make a passable definition of 'understanding' around that point  [8D]

That was not a very good point : see my reply to the " honest science " of Ethos :

That was just a partly true assertion , since the whole universe can neither be reduced to nor explained by material causes , processes or explanations only : the very nature of consciousness itself and its related anomalies and processes are evidence enough for that fact , not to mention the fact that the materialist theory or model of consciousness is absolutely and certainly not supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever .

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, Ethos, alancalverd , dlorde :

Naturalism can be either materialist atheist , dualist , idealist , or even theistic .

So, material explanations of the universe  are just a part of the pic , not the whole pic , not to mention the fact that  reductionist materialism that reduces everything to just material processes , causes, or explanations is ...false , mainly because it can intrinsically never account for consciousness and its related anomalies and processes ...see the difference between material causes , processes or explanations and between the reductionist materialism ? : the former is a part of explaining the universe , and the latter just reduces the universe to the former .
« Last Edit: 11/11/2014 17:22:24 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444085#msg444085 date=1415664248]


All of physics is based on quantum theory.

No. All physics is based on observation. Quantum mechanics is one (very successful) way of explaining what we see and predicting what we will see next.

No, modern physics is quantum physics .

Some of "modern" physics is quantum physics, but that's far from "all of physics". The common factor in all that we do in physics, whether quantum or continuum, solid state or relativistic, is observation of the material universe.

First :

96 % of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy the nature of which science is totally silent about .

Second :

Quantum "mechanics" is just 1 of the 3 great pillars upon which modern physics is based .  The others being Einstein's theories of special and general relativity .Einstein's theories deal with the nature of space and time ,and the force of gravity ,

Quantum "mechanics " deals with everythingelse .

But , nevertheless , the whole universe is quantum "mechanical " , in the Von-Neumannian sense that is , where consciousness plays a central role in physics, the latter that's just an excellent approximation of reality : not complete , if ever  . 

Not to mention the fact that physics gets rewritten now and then :

Why a Physics Revolution Might Be on Its Way :

http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html


 
Quote
Quote
Albert Einstein: “I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because. . . physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”
Yes, even Einstein had problems getting his head round it, but you can't dispute the material facts of photoelectricity, black body radiation, line spectra, etc.

Quantum physics has moved on beyond Einstein though . Half of his life was spent on trying to find a unifying physical theory , in vain : the latter can never be accounted for through just material physical processes : one can never do that without making reference to the mind : life and consciousness as no accidents or side effects of evolution must be taken into consideration also ,if one wanna try to come up with a unifying theory ...

Quote :

"Biocentrism (theory of everything) from Greek: βίος, bios, “life”; and κέντρον, kentron, “center” — also known as the biocentric universe — is a theory proposed in 2007 by American scientist Robert Lanza. In this view, life and biology are central to being, reality, and the cosmos. Biocentrism asserts that current theories of the physical world do not work, and can never be made to work, until they fully account for life and consciousness. – From WIKIPEDIA" End quote .

See the rest of the above displayed quote in the link below :

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/

Quote
Quote
John Bell: “It is likely that the new way of seeing things will astonish us.”
takes the biscuit for a content-free statement of the obvious. Every advance in science has been astonishing, because it replaced some mysterious immaterial cause* with a simple material explanation. There is no reason why the next big thing should be any less astonishing that the last.

That's not what Bell meant : As Richard Feynman said "Nobody understands quantum physics " : that's what Bell meant : an astonishing theory where weird events occur ...

"If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize." R,Feynman .

These brilliant non-Nobelists physicists with impeccable credentials did succeed in explaining it to the average man though :

http://quantumenigma.com/


See also my replies here below to Ethos, dlorde , Cheryl ,and to you as well ...  on the subject of your assertion that " ...science replaced some mysterious immaterial cause with a simple material explanation ."

By the way , ironically enough , the interpretation of quantum theory has a very simple explanation : consciousness interacting with elementary particles : Occam's razor .


Quote
*typhoid, oxygen, newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, the Hall effect, evolution, thermodynamics.....

Quantum theory is impossible to understand without reference to the ...mind, ironically enough .
« Last Edit: 11/11/2014 18:05:46 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums