The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186958 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?

Exactly.
And if Lanza can't address even the most simple, logical problems with his theory, I don't see the point in wading through his personal version of quantum mechanics or his tangents about evolution. It is, as several critics have called it, a "shaggy dog" story.

See my reply to alancalverd on the subject here above .

I don't know what Lanza said about that , and neither do you , since i haven't finished that book of his yet ...

Lanza does rely though on the most simple and valid interpretation of quantum theory of them all : that where consciousness of the observer plays a central role .

The majority of physicists today do not share that view , since most , if not all , of them are materialists (materialism assumes that consciousness is just a material process ,so .) , so, that simple explanation of quantum theory is totally incompatible with materialism .

No wonder that materialist scientists would not accept that simple explanation or interpretation of quantum theory ...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
the so-called physical reality exists only in wave-like forms of possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ... until it "freezes " or it gets actualized by the very act of observation .


Is there any other type of interaction or situation that can freeze or select among these probabilities other than consciousness of a (presumed) human observer?

Von Neumann , for example,to mention just that genius ,  already responded to that through rigorous maths , albeit reluctantly, in the sense that the measurement problem or paradox in QM can be solved only by assuming that there is a non-physical process that might be collapsing the wave function, a non-physical process outside of the laws of physics , that is  .He couldn't think of any other process thus than  the consciousness of the observer , since the physical brain , body and the measurement devices ...are all material processes ....and ones that have to obey the laws of physics also ....

No material process can collapse the wave function thus ,be it the physical brain, photons , material measurement devices ...,  since matter does exist only in wave-like forms of possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ...and thus "becomes " material only when observed : wave-like probabilities , possibilities , eventualities ... cannot collapse the  wave functions of other wave-like possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ..thus , needless to add .
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 20:30:28 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

See my reply to your post  and my relevant links , especially the one from Scientific American, regarding John Wheeler's interpretation of quantum theory , in the previous page .

dlorde :

See what Jim Al-Khalili said about the interpretation dilemma of quantum theory , in the previous page .

He's at least honest enough as to admit that his position is that of the 'shut up while you calculate " view , which makes him free to explore the relative merits of all interpretations of quantum theory , as he claims ...

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
.. the most simple interpretation of quantum theory of them all has been the one that involves the role of the observer in it : Occam's razor : that 's the most valid one .
Ah, no. Including the observer is adding an entity, and Ockham advises against the unnecessary multiplication of entities (incidentally, a multiverse interpretation is not a multiplication of entities for this purpose). More specifically, the razor advises selecting the hypothesis with fewest assumptions, and the conscious collapse hypothesis is riddled with assumptions not present in other interpretations, which raise more questions than they answer, and which is precisely why it is no longer in favour except among a small minority.

Quote
dlorde : See what  professor  Jim Al -Khalili said about the elusive interpretation dilemma of quantum theory
... <snip copypasta>
Yeah, he says his personal view is that the jury is still out on QM interpretations. Which is fine, he's entitled to have a personal view.

I note that elsewhere he says, "..hardly anyone still takes seriously the notion of consciousness being a requirement for collapse of the wavefunction". Even Roger Penrose, in 'The Emperor's New Mind', says "Is the presence of a conscious being necessary for a 'measurement' actually to take place? I think that only a small minority of quantum physicists would affirm such a view". Why should this be the case? a conspiracy or a consensus that it's probably nonsense?

Incidentally, as I have pointed out before, the conscious collapse interpretation is very much a minor subset of the Copenhagen interpretation (which says an unspecified 'observer' makes a 'measurement' that collapses the wavefunction). Conscious collapse is the 'von Neumann–Wigner interpretation', now generally abandoned because it's been shown that a 'measurement' is any interaction with the system, and that an 'observer' is the interacting entity - usually a particle. A moment's thought should tell you that to make a measurement, particles must interact, whether for the benefit of a conscious entity, a robotic probe, or for no-one's benefit.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444589#msg444589 date=1416099682]

Can you define what electricity is , what aether is , what dark matter and dark energy are ...., what energy is , ...what magnetism is , ...what physical fields are ,what gravity really is , what space- time or space -and- time really are .....


Yes. And when we look for evidence of their existence, some turn out not to exist. In some cases such as "electricity" it turns out to be a weakly defined cause of an observed phenomenon and in others such as "aether" it turns out to be wholly unnecessary as the phenomena are fully explicable without it.

What in Zeus ' name are you talking about ,Alan ? I ask you one thing and you tell me about another . odd.

So, you already know the nature of all those processes .Way to go, physicist , while quantum theory that's supposed to be all about the nature of reality has not been solved yet ...conclusively, that is , yet .

Quote
The problem with defining consciousness as the primordial cause of everything is that it doesn't align with the common usage of the word as an emergent property of some living things. You would do well to choose another word, and thus resolve some of the conflicts in your own mind.

Who said consciousness is an emergent property of living things ? Not me : that's just materialist inexplicable magic , ironically enough , that's been rejected by even our mechanical friend David Cooper ..

How can consciousness emerge from matter then ? Yeah , right .

Consciousness can emerge from fundamental physical fields such electromagnetism lol : check out whether or not your tv set , car , fridge , microwave , pc, ...are  conscious.

Consciousness might have preceded the universe itself , i told you once , didn't i ?
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 20:56:10 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Gotta go, sorry .I will try to respond to your above displayed post another time thus .

Before i do, the following :

You missed the essence of what Jim was saying,as well as the reason why i posted his own words on the subject  : he's entitled to his own opinions indeed, or to his own exploration of the merits of all interpretations of QM  , but that's not the point .

The point is :

Since the interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet , if ever , Jim or any other physicist for that matter , cannot a -priori reject any kind of interpretation of QM , including the one that involves the observer's role in it , simply because none of all those interpretations of QM has been proven conclusively ...

Jim and other physicists may have their own interpretations of QM, and may also say that this or that interpretation is not valid, and vice versa  ...but, they can prove neither claims of theirs conclusively, either way  .

It all comes down to the mind -body hard problem in fact : all interpretations of quantum theory , be it the dualistic , idealistic monistic , the materialistic monistic or other ones ... do all depend of their own a-priori held conceptions regarding the mind -body problem :

Materialists assume consciousness to be just a material process , so, how can it collapse the wave function ?

Non-materialists assume consciousness to be a non-physical process , so, how can it not collapse the wave function ...?,simply put .

And the very fact that the majority of scientists today who happen to be materialists , ironically enough , the very fact that they claim that the observer effect interpretation of quantum theory is not valid , is no evidence of their claim on the subject .

On the other hand , the simple explanation of QM where the role of consciousness is central just means that the physical reality is " an illusion , albeit a persistent one " as Einstein said , even though the latter was against that interpretation of QM , but , he was nevertheless convinced of the illusory nature of the physical reality as his above mentioned quote implies , despite his relativity theories ....(space -time and gravity might be just mathematical concepts , not entities ) ...

In short :

The study of consciousness and that of the universe are inseparably and inescapably linked or intertwined ,as Verlinde said , or in other words to that same effect then .

« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 21:25:31 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?

I have already responded to that , earlier on : there must be only one ultimate source of all consciousnesses ,so, as Von Neumann , or Wigner or some other prominent physicist said  .

Call it cosmic consciousness, Zeus , God , or whatever ....

I am not sure that's the answer to your question though .


Thank you for this scintilla of intellectual honesty. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards being a scientist, or at least the first step away from being thought a fool. 
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Since the interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet , if ever , Jim or any other physicist for that matter , cannot a -priori reject any kind of interpretation of QM , including the one that involves the observer's role in it , simply because none of all those interpretations of QM has been proven conclusively ...

Jim and other physicists may have their own interpretations of QM, and may also say that this or that interpretation is not valid, and vice versa  ...but, they can prove neither claims of theirs conclusively, either way  .
You've had the explanations of why some interpretations are preferred to others by some physicists. I have my own preference (as previously explained) and respect any expression of preference based on rational scientific argument. I don't respect mystical mumbo-jumbo and pseudoscience. YMMV.

Quote
Materialists assume consciousness to be just a material process , so, how can it collapse the wave function ?
It doesn't have to. We know wavefunction collapse occurs in the absence of consciousness (as previously explained).

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444697#msg444697 date=1416218410]
Since the interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet , if ever , Jim or any other physicist for that matter , cannot a -priori reject any kind of interpretation of QM , including the one that involves the observer's role in it , simply because none of all those interpretations of QM has been proven conclusively ...

Jim and other physicists may have their own interpretations of QM, and may also say that this or that interpretation is not valid, and vice versa  ...but, they can prove neither claims of theirs conclusively, either way  .
You've had the explanations of why some interpretations are preferred to others by some physicists. I have my own preference (as previously explained) and respect any expression of preference based on rational scientific argument. I don't respect mystical mumbo-jumbo and pseudoscience. YMMV.

You mean that almost all interpretations of QM are just a matter of taste or aesthetics , a matter of prefered philosophies or world views ,as Jim said .

Wow : No single interpretation of quantum theory is based on scientific rational arguments ,come on, dlorde : you haven't read well what Jim was saying .

Tell me what rational scientific arguments are supporting that insane multiverse or parallel universes theories , to mention just those ? None .

Not to mention the rest,while the simplest interpretation of quantum theory of them all is the one that makes sense ,since the observer who cannot but  make part of the universe he/she observes , cannot be separated from the observed universe  : Occam's razor  .

Furthermore , the greatest scientific minds ever , today and yesterday , have been supporting that simple explanation of QM ,the one you call pseudo-science or mumbo-jumbo .

Ironically enough , the most simple definition of materialism is the latter: pseudo-science or mumbo-jumbo.

Who can have any respect whatsoever for that materialist magical voodoo that pretends to be 'scientific " even ...

Better still , i don't think the interpretation dilemma of QM can ever be solved conclusively , that is ,simply because we will never know what happens ,at the quantum level  at least , when we are not looking,so to speak  ...

To try to know just that ,one has to invent some sort of human caricature of consciousness to do the job : cannot be done .


Quote
Quote
Materialists assume consciousness to be just a material process , so, how can it collapse the wave function ?
It doesn't have to. We know wavefunction collapse occurs in the absence of consciousness (as previously explained).

If that was the case , then the observer effect interpretation of QM had to be refuted a long time ago,and from its very inception  : why do you think many prominent physicists even today do still stick to that interpretation ? , if the wavefunction collapse does indeed occur in the absence of consciousness . Don't make things up .

Yeah , right : like the "fact " that consciousness is just an emergent property of matter , a "fact " for which there is absolutely and certainly no empirical evidence whatsoever to support  it : just materialist thin air or materialist inexplicable magical voodoo .

Someone should try to replicate Schmidt's experiments some day ...successfully , that is .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?

I have already responded to that , earlier on : there must be only one ultimate source of all consciousnesses ,so, as Von Neumann , or Wigner or some other prominent physicist said  .

Call it cosmic consciousness, Zeus , God , or whatever ....

I am not sure that's the answer to your question though .


Thank you for this scintilla of intellectual honesty. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards being a scientist, or at least the first step away from being thought a fool.

Tell that to materialist scientists mainly , Alan , like yourself, ironically enough, who have been taking their materialistic pseudo-scientific  inexplicable magical voodoo for granted as science or as the scientific world view ,without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least,and counting ... .

Neither you nor the rest of the other materialist scientists would admit that dogmatic ignorance of theirs,despite all that overwhelming evidence against materialism  .

" A fool thinks himself to be wise , but a wise man knows himself to be a fool "   Shakespeare .
« Last Edit: 17/11/2014 17:50:55 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile



Thank you for this scintilla of intellectual honesty. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards being a scientist, or at least the first step away from being thought a fool.

Tell that to materialist scientists mainly , Alan , like yourself, ironically enough, who have been taking their materialistic pseudo-scientific  inexplicable magical voodoo for granted as science or as the scientific world view ,without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least,and counting ... .


The only pseudo-scientific inexplicable magical voodoo science being offered here is coming from your posts Sir Don. You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that line.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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



Thank you for this scintilla of intellectual honesty. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards being a scientist, or at least the first step away from being thought a fool.

Tell that to materialist scientists mainly , Alan , like yourself, ironically enough, who have been taking their materialistic pseudo-scientific  inexplicable magical voodoo for granted as science or as the scientific world view ,without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least,and counting ... .


The only pseudo-scientific inexplicable magical voodoo science being offered here is coming from your posts Sir Don. You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that line.

Well , maybe lol : you're just projecting , sir Ethos.

Materialism and science are 2 totally different "things " or processes : can you tell the difference ? Guess not .

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/the-ridiculousness-of-materialism/
« Last Edit: 17/11/2014 19:44:54 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

The interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet , if ever , so, all its interpretations are relatively "equally " valid ,since none of them has been proven conclusively .

But , the most simple interpretation of quantum theory of them all has been the one that involves the role of the observer in it : Occam's razor : that 's the most valid one .

dlorde : See what  professor  Jim Al -Khalili said about the elusive interpretation dilemma of quantum theory in his  " Quantum , A Guide For  The Perplexed ", A Short Excerpt From Chapter 6 : " The Great Debate " :

Jim says he subscribes to the " Shut up and calculate " view , which makes him free to explore all interpretations of QM . I did even post a short video of his ,once , on the subject , through the double slit experiment , where he said that the one who would be able to interpret just that should deserve the Nobel prize , while i see you all , guys ,here dismissing or a-priori rejecting the most simple and most valid explanation of them all of quantum theory, while you should in fact a -priori reject none  of those interpretations of quantum theory , including the former , that's the most simple and valid one of them all : the one where consciousness of the observer plays a central role ..

Let's see what our friend Jim says on the subject :

Quote :

"Formalism versus interpretation :

"An appreciation of many of the quantum concepts, such as the wavefunction and its strange properties, as well as the postulates that tell us how to extract information from it about then subatomic world, are essential for the success and understanding of the theory.

And yet we have seen in the first half of this book how difficult it is to translate what is essentially advanced mathematics into words that make sense, to both physicists and non-physicists. Another way of putting it is that while the formalism of quantum mechanics is not in doubt, nobody has yet found a satisfactory explanation, or interpretation, of the theory that is agreeable to everyone.
For the two-slit experiment, we are able to predict very precisely the form of the interference pattern seen on the screen (even though we cannot predict where any particular atom will land).

 Much more impressive is that quantum mechanics predicts very precisely the properties of atoms and molecules and their constituent particles, as well as the nature of the forces that hold them together to give the richness and variety of structures we see around us. This predictive power is a sign of a successful scientific theory.
 What is so amazing is that we can do all this without knowing why we arrive at the results we do. It seems we can manage perfectly well without having a picture in our heads of just how the atom gets through the two slits.
The majority of practising physicists have learned to use the theory without understanding why it works.

 In fact, some of the most prominent scientists of our age have admitted openly that no one really understands quantum mechanics! Should this not be a cause for concern? We will investigate in this chapter the differing attitudes and views that physicists have held, and still hold, regarding the issue of interpretation.

I am sure I will displease many physicists with what I will say in this chapter, since I plan to adopt an agnostic attitude towards the various views held. After all, my aim in this book is to explain what quantum mechanics is and why it is so strange. But it would be extremely dishonest and arrogant of me to pretend that all is rosy in the quantum garden.

 Many physicists, some of them close colleagues and research collaborators of mine, feel strongly that there is no problem. They would argue that drawing attention to the conflicts between different interpretations of what is, after all, a perfectly well understood, logically consistent, and successful mathematical theory is unnecessary and pointless.

But I would be equally dishonest, and probably make this book a less interesting read, if I did not climb off the fence on certain occasions to make my personal views clear.
Let me begin with a strong but nevertheless accurate statement: No one interpretation of the quantum formalism has been proven to be any better than the rest, other than on aesthetic grounds or personal taste.
This has therefore suggested to many that it is a futile exercise to argue the relative merits and shortcomings of the various interpretations. Worse still, many believe that there is no true interpretation and that they are all equally valid ways of thinking about what is going on.

This view is embodied in the widely quoted ‘shut up and calculate’ interpretation, which suggests that since it has proven (so far at least) impossible to find the right interpretation, it is a waste of time talking about it. Let the philosophers worry about such issues while physicists get on with using the quantum mechanical formalism to learn about nature.

For over half a century most serious physicists frowned upon issues of interpretation. They argued that quantum mechanics is unique among scientific theories in that, while it has tremendous predictive power, all that it can comment upon, by definition, are the results of measurements. That should be all we need concern ourselves with, and not worry about requiring a unique interpretation in order to make progress. Such a pragmatic, or ‘instrumentalist’, view is rooted in the philosophy of ‘logical positivism’ that happened to be popular in Europe at the time that quantum mechanics was born.
 Of course I do not want to stray from physics into philosophy, but I’ll give the basic gist of this view: if two people have differing opinions but no way of settling their differences through empirical facts then their conflicting statements are meaningless and they should go and have a beer instead.

And my position on the matter? I subscribe to what I call the ‘shut up while you calculate’ view which leaves me free to contemplate the relative merits of the different interpretations of quantum mechanics when I am not thinking about Greek symbols, writing computer code, or scribbling algebra on my blackboard. Unfortunately, I have yet to settle on one interpretation after almost twenty years of worrying.
 I would say that quantum mechanics allows us to communicate with nature fluently by following well-understood rules of mathematical grammar, but we still lack a unique translation of what is being said!

In saying that, I must admit that like most other physicists I am burdened with the legacy of Bohr and what is regarded as the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.
 It is the interpretation favoured in quantum textbooks and taught to physics undergraduates as though it were the only conceivable explanation of what is going on, although this attitude has been changing in recent years.
In its favour is the fact that it is the simplest interpretation. In providing recipes for carrying out calculations in quantum mechanics, it is the ultimate tool of the pragmatist and is known simply as the Copenhagen interpretation.
 Unfortunately, it has nothing to say about some of the deepest quantum mysteries and instead simply side-steps many of the issues. However, the name covers a whole spectrum of views, albeit with a common core.

To give you an example of how ingrained the Copenhagen view is in the teaching of the subject, many of the statements I made earlier in the book are ones that would not feature in some of the alternative, equally valid, interpretations. For instance: I went to great lengths to explain how the wavefunction is not a real physical entity but merely a set of numbers that allow us to make predictions about measurements. This is only according to the Copenhagen view and is not a feature shared by others you will meet, in which the wavefunction represents something physically real.
 Even more surprisingly, I need not have insisted in the two-slit trick that the atom must ‘somehow’ go through both slits at once.

It turns out that such a statement is not forced upon us by either the quantum formalism or experimental observation. In the de Broglie-Bohmian interpretation we will see how it is perfectly reasonable to assume the atom only went through one or other of the slits, and yet we can still end up with the interference pattern........." End quote .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=PmbPhy link=topic=52526.msg444605#msg444605 date=1416124084]
Quote from: DonQuichotte
Really ?

"...Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006).
Well, what can I say. Nobodies perfect. I particularly disagree with Wheeler on that point. Thanks for mentioning it. However I don't believe that he meant it in the sense that you interpreted it. Here is what I believe that he meant.

You're welcome .
What do you mean nobody is perfect ? : just because Wheeler says something you don't agree with ?

For your information : the interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet, if ever  : so, all interpretations of QM  are "equally " valid , to some extent at least ,but, i think that the most simple explanation of them all of quantum theory is the one involving the observer in it : : Occam's razor : that's the most valid one .

You don't believe Wheeler meant that ? :see this on the subject :

Quote : " ...He grappled with the interpretation of quantum mechanics and was an early proponent of the anthropic principle- in John L Casti's magnificent book Paradigms Lost, Casti quotes Wheeler analogizing observer-created reality with the game in which a group of people asks someone else to guess an object they have in mind by asking questions, except that in the modified version of this game, they let the object be created during the process of questioning. With his mentor Bohr's enduring principle of complementarity as a guide, Wheeler produced esoteric ideas that nonetheless questioned the bedrock of reality...." End quote .

Source : http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2008/04/magic-without-magic-john-archibald.html

Not enough ? : see the following from Scientific American :

Quote : " ....In the 1950s Wheeler grew increasingly intrigued by the philosophical implications of quantum physics. According to quantum theory, a particle such as an electron occupies numerous positions in space until we observe it, when it abruptly "collapses" into a single position. Wheeler was one of the first prominent physicists seriously to propose that reality might not be a wholly physical phenomenon. In some sense, Wheeler suggested, reality grows out of the act of observation, and thus consciousness itself; it is "participatory."..."   End quote .

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pioneering-physicist-john-wheeler-dies/


Quote from: Peter M. Brown
I think that a universe that exists all by itself without a concept to grasp it is a very odd thing. Then when a concept was established a reality then existed to grasp it. Is this in the ball park. It's almost enough to make be believe that God exists.
 
Gymnastics .

See above .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
If consciousness creates reality, not just our private subjective experience of it, but literally creates physical reality, how is it possible to ever be wrong about anything? How would you explain something as simple as an optical illusion? The idea sounds infantile to me.


I don't subscribe to either Wheeler's or to its  similar new age interpretation  of QM , in the sense that "we create our reality " (A false  new age adage by the way ) , or that we "create our physical reality " ....

We do not create our reality or the physical reality ....The very word "create " implies producing something from nothing : that's not the proper of man , i guess .

I do subscribe to the view of the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." and to that same one of many other physicists on the subject : the so-called physical reality exists only in wave-like forms of possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ... until it "freezes " or it gets actualized by the very act of observation .

Idealist monistic quantum physicist Amit Goswami, for example , goes even further , thanks to that philosophy of his at least , by saying that  the so-called objective reality out there is not out there , does not exist as such ...at all :

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

I don't agree with the idealistic monistic interpretation of quantum theory .

I think that  the ultimate or objective reality out there is really out there  (as well as within , but, that's another story ) in fact , but, we can never approach it through science at least , simply because whenever we would look at it, so to speak,  or observe it , we instantly turn it into the illusory physical reality , i guess, i don't know .Who does ?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444589#msg444589 date=1416099682]

Can you define what electricity is , what aether is , what dark matter and dark energy are ...., what energy is , ...what magnetism is , ...what physical fields are ,what gravity really is , what space- time or space -and- time really are .....


Yes. And when we look for evidence of their existence, some turn out not to exist. In some cases such as "electricity" it turns out to be a weakly defined cause of an observed phenomenon and in others such as "aether" it turns out to be wholly unnecessary as the phenomena are fully explicable without it.

What in Zeus ' name are you talking about ,Alan ? I ask you one thing and you tell me about another . odd.

Alas, you are blinded by your own arrogance. You asked about the definition of electricity and aether, and I discussed them.

If you stop shouting for a bit and start listening, others may think you less foolish than you appear. 

Quote
Consciousness might have preceded the universe itself , i told you once , didn't i ?


You did indeed, but you failed to define consciousness or explain why you think this, aprt, that is, from your over-literal interpretation of "observe". Genesis is wrong in many respects, and indeed has changed over the centuries to accommodate prevailing philosophies: it has no more validity than any other creation myth.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Thank you for this scintilla of intellectual honesty. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards being a scientist, or at least the first step away from being thought a fool.

Tell that to materialist scientists mainly , Alan , like yourself, ironically enough, who have been taking their materialistic pseudo-scientific  inexplicable magical voodoo for granted as science or as the scientific world view ,without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least,and counting ... .

Neither you nor the rest of the other materialist scientists would admit that dogmatic ignorance of theirs,despite all that overwhelming evidence against materialism  . 

and now you've gone and spoilt it with a silly rant. Maybe I'll communicate again when you have grown up.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
The interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet , if ever , so, all its interpretations are relatively "equally " valid ,since none of them has been proven conclusively .

But , the most simple interpretation of quantum theory of them all has been the one that involves the role of the observer in it : Occam's razor : that 's the most valid one .
If you can bring yourself to read it, this article may help you understand why the 'Many Worlds' interpretation becoming increasingly popular, and why it has the fewest assumptions (Ockham's Razor). I don't expect you to agree with it, but perhaps it will correct some of your misapprehensions about it: Why 'Many Worlds' Is Probably Correct'.

Incidentally, in his new book 'Life on the Edge', in a chapter about quantum consciousness theories, Jim Al-Khalili says (p.270), "There is actually no evidence that quantum mechanics is needed at all to account for consciousness".
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
If you stop shouting for a bit and start listening, others may think you less foolish than you appear.
Neither seems very likely.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Incidentally, in his new book 'Life on the Edge', in a chapter about quantum consciousness theories, Jim Al-Khalili says (p.270), "There is actually no evidence that quantum mechanics is needed at all to account for consciousness".

That's worrying. AFAIK any useful definition of consciousness involves a nervous system or some other means of receiving stimuli, so demands the presence of a material object, whose existence and functions are entirely  moderated by quantum mechanics.   
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

That's worrying. AFAIK any useful definition of consciousness involves a nervous system or some other means of receiving stimuli, so demands the presence of a material object, whose existence and functions are entirely  moderated by quantum mechanics.
Exactly alan,........and what would existence be like without material things like: electrons, protons, neutrons, ect. Existence is all about the environment and it's relationship to us MATERIAL BEINGS. If we eliminate material objects from the equation, nothing is left. No universe, no earth to live on, no people to inhabit the missing earth, nada, zero, zilch.

And this is exactly how much value Don's perception of reality is worth;..... nada, zero, zilch......................end of story!
« Last Edit: 18/11/2014 22:17:44 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
That's worrying. AFAIK any useful definition of consciousness involves a nervous system or some other means of receiving stimuli, so demands the presence of a material object, whose existence and functions are entirely  moderated by quantum mechanics.
;D

I suspect he means macro-scale quantum mechanical effects such as those proposed by the quantum-consciousness enthusiasts.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2014 20:48:50 by dlorde »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
IMHO it is not a good idea to try to guess what Don means. That way madness lies.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
IMHO it is not a good idea to try to guess what Don means. That way madness lies.
[?] If that was a comment on my last post, I was guessing (explaining) what Jim Al-Khalili meant in the quote I'd posted that you said was 'worrying'.

But you're right anyway!  ;)



Something To Crow About
I sometimes think I'd rather crow
And be a rooster than to roost
And be a crow. But I dunno.

A rooster he can roost also,
Which don't seem fair when crows can't crow.
Which may help some. Still I dunno.

Crows should be glad of one thing though;
Nobody thinks of eating crow,
While roosters they are good enough
For anyone unless they're tough.

There're lots of tough old roosters though,
And anyway a crow can't crow,
So mebby roosters stand more show.
It looks that way. But I dunno.

Anon.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Thank you for this scintilla of intellectual honesty. Admitting ignorance is the first step towards being a scientist, or at least the first step away from being thought a fool.

Tell that to materialist scientists mainly , Alan , like yourself, ironically enough, who have been taking their materialistic pseudo-scientific  inexplicable magical voodoo for granted as science or as the scientific world view ,without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least,and counting ... .

Neither you nor the rest of the other materialist scientists would admit that dogmatic ignorance of theirs,despite all that overwhelming evidence against materialism  . 

and now you've gone and spoilt it with a silly rant. Maybe I'll communicate again when you have grown up.

That was no rant , just a fact : Instead of pretending to be able to lecture people about their foolish or unscientific rant , you'd better  try  to detect all that materialistic pseudo-scientific inexplicable magical voodoo at the very heart of materialist science , Alan .

Good luck with that .
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 19:56:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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