The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187719 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

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

See my replies to some of your posts   above  the displayed relatively short excerpts regarding  some of the psychological "explanations " (away ) of NDE, in the previous page  .

Cheryl :

Both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding the origin function nature and emergence of consciousness have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,no wonder , so how can you assume then that biological evolution can  account for consciousness , let alone explain it ???
Consciousness can never arise from biology : that's the main issue in consciousness studies by the way, if you haven't noticed that yet .

Looking for consciousness  in the brain is no less an inexplicably magical futile attempt than assuming that biological evolution can give rise to consciousness.

domkarr :

You were mentioned in 1 of my replies to dlorde here above .

Nice start of the week, guys .Thanks.Cheers.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 19:29:09 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .
Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore.....

What's going on ?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
They're coming to get you, Don!

Have you mentioned blowing up any dodgy dictators, insulted any prophets, questioned the honesty of a Labour politician, or said anything (like "G W Bush") that might constitute a threat to dignity of the Presidency of the United States?

Speaking as something of an expert in matters of electronics, have you tried switching it off and on again?
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .
Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore.....

What's going on ?
It's called paranoia Don.......................
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .
Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore.....

What's going on ?
It's called paranoia Don.......................
It sounds more like a virus to me.
 

Offline cheryl j

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


Cheryl :

Both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding the origin function nature and emergence of consciousness have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,no wonder , so how can you assume then that biological evolution can  account for consciousness , let alone explain it ???
Consciousness can never arise from biology : that's the main issue in consciousness studies by the way, if you haven't noticed that yet .

Looking for consciousness  in the brain is no less an inexplicably magical futile attempt than assuming that biological evolution can give rise to consciousness.


So how then do you know that the physicist making the observation in the QM experiment is conscious? Is it actually provable? Consciousness cannot arise from biology, according to you,  so his biological status as a human being is irrelevant.

You’re comfortable assuming the physicist is conscious because he demonstrates behavior consistent with consciousness, and he claims he is (although a computer could make the same claim) and he has the human neural correlates consistent with consciousness.

Surely all those “rigorous maths” of Von Neumann you mentioned earlier that showed that consciousness is responsible for the collapse of the wavefunction would not hinge on a flimsy and unprovable  assumption??? That doesn't sound rigorous to me.   How is behavior and neural correlates irrelevant to the determination of consciousness if your entire QM consciousness theory ultimately rests on that very same assumption?! That is quite a pickle.

Believe me, I’ve often wondered if you were a turing test designed by Cooper to drive us crazy, but he denies it.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 22:40:23 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446938#msg446938 date=1419111719]
Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .

Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of  materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus )  ,for example , are  incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.
No; not even wrong
.

Can you elaborate on that ? , please , thanks .
Already done earlier in the thread.

Quote
The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false...
QFT is not a description of reality, it's a model. It's a good model because it works. Without it, you wouldn't have the processor or storage in your computer, or LEDs, etc. When it stops making astonishingly accurate predictions about the real world, it'll be time to refine it or replace it.
« Last Edit: 21/12/2014 22:56:09 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
dlorde :

You can read above about some of the proposed psychological explanations of NDE , for example .
Tomorrow ,i will display the rest of them , and then, later on , the same goes for the physiological explanations of NDE .
You needn't bother with them - I'm well aware some people believe they're real events. The plural of anecdotes is not data, and reality doesn't depend on the number of people making a claim.
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .
Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore.....

What's going on ?
It's called paranoia Don.......................
It sounds more like a virus to me.
Of course, a virus induced paranoia.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .
Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore.....

What's going on ?
Sounds like paranoia - although maybe it's some immaterial, non-physical influence affecting your computer ;)
 

Offline domkarr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm so glad i didn't have to trawl through miles of data. I don't have much internet access where I am at the moment so I am really appreciative of help and definitely I think cheryl was a hundred percent in assessing your response dlord and of course she (well I assume cheryl is a she sorry if that's not the case) gave a brilliant response as well.

I particularly liked the rubber hand experiment, made me think that virtual reality isn't too far away. have you guys seen this before?

newbielink:http://www.ted.com/talks/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_minds?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=button__2014-11-22 [nonactive]

It's been out for a while so I'm guessing that it's nothing new. I am intrigued, absolutely intrigued, by the discussion.
As i mentioned previously I have been researching the subject but it's hard to know what the bunk is and what the forefront is.
Just out of curiosity I have some more curiosity, not that will need too much explanation or teaching the newbie.

Where do you all sit on the theories of the universe being virtual and that of the universe being intrinsically linked at a sub-atomic level?

I personally find it hard to believe that we are some kind of experimental universe, but I don't doubt that considering the way the universe works that there has to be some form of link between all matter in the universe. (maybe i should have started a new thread)

If i where to believe in telekinesis at all I would say that it had something to do with the later, but then i suppose I'm getting way off subject here and am probably talking more about left over or background radiation and physics than mind sciences. still I think it is linked in a way although i can't say I have a grand wealth of knowledge in that field either. I have a habit of exploring all knowledge and sometimes find myself confusing theories and unable to directly quote people due to the volume.
I have to admit that I'm more sort of a ground level scientist dealing in technology and physical rather than the meta-physical. but I also believe that the way forward for our species is a blending of science as we seem to be exhausting potential in a lot fields (not to say that there is not a whole lot left).

but yeah, thanks again for the intelligent and relative responses guys.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I particularly liked the rubber hand experiment, made me think that virtual reality isn't too far away. have you guys seen this before?

http://www.ted.com/talks/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_minds?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=button__2014-11-22
Thanks for that; I hadn't seen that particular one, but Sacks has plenty of fascinating studies; I've read a couple of his books.

Quote
Where do you all sit on the theories of the universe being virtual and that of the universe being intrinsically linked at a sub-atomic level?

The universe being virtual is way down towards the bottom of the list of things to think about; an interesting idea, but without some plausible reason to take it seriously, or some testable propositions, that's where it's likely to stay. In terms of the big picture, it only introduces another speculative layer between us and any 'true origin'.

As for the universe being 'intrinsically linked' at the sub-atomic level, you'll have to explain exactly what that means and why it's been proposed, because I have no idea.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8132
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .
Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore.....

What's going on ?

Muhahaha

But seriously, I've visited this site for years and have never had an infection from it.
[ If computer-sabotage was available to silence you, why wait over a year to apply it ? ].

If you do have a computer-infection, ( rather than plain-old malfunction ) , the websites you downloaded pirated copies of eBooks from are a far more likely candidate than this one.

If fictional computer-sabotage gives you a way "out" of this thread whilst keeping your head held high , that's fine by me.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 01:46:23 by RD »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos_
Of course, a virus induced paranoia.
Why do you think he's paranoid rather than his computer having a computer virus?

 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless.

Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's.
 
"Abstract:
The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions that are described in this article."
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html


Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965):
Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not (Feynman et al., 1965). 

Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969): 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 (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156). 

Anthony J. Leggett (Nobel Prize 2003): It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all! (Leggett, 1991). 

John A. Wheeler: Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).

John S. Bell: From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory.

So I think that it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that `information' is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... by introspection.

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Nico van Kampem:
Whoever endows with more meaning than is needed for computing observable phenomena is responsible for the consequences. (van Kampen, 1988).
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 02:14:05 by cheryl j »
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Ethos_
Of course, a virus induced paranoia.
Why do you think he's paranoid rather than his computer having a computer virus?
Because he acts like someone here at TNS has purposely sabotaged his computer. Read his reply #951.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 02:20:32 by Ethos_ »
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
I do suspect that somebody might have  been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site :

What's going on ?
Here's why, he seems to be blaming one of us.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
If you do have a computer-infection, ( rather than plain-old malfunction ) , the websites you downloaded pirated copies of eBooks from are a far more likely candidate than this one.

I warned him about this, and the ethics and legality of copyright theft many moons ago; naturally, he knew better. It's probably karmic justice.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless.

Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's.
Thanks for that - it usefully clarifies the simplification behind Von Neumann's 'dilemma'.
 

Offline domkarr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
well you've obviously heard about the virtual universe theory so i won't go into that.

The other thing is a newer theory that all mass in the universe or matter, would be more precise, is in some way linked i mean the whole theory goes pretty deep but the relevant part of the theory to the current discussion is that, because we are a small part of that matter, we are also linked into the universe.

I say deep because the theory includes such ideas as multiple or never ending alternate dimensions, black holes, the background radiation left over by the big bang and even goes so far as to suggest that our minds might contain a doorway to other planets or dimensions (i know doorways in the mind is not mainstream science).

it's hard to explain what i'm sure other people much better at the science than myself have been proposing.
but basically the idea is that because there is this background radiation or energy, then it isn't so hard to believe that energy might be able to travel or bridge clear through to these other dimensions or planets (i say both because i think the people involved have already split into two opposing sides) sort of like electricity traveling through water. so anyway the relevant part is that sometimes on rare occasions people are somehow capable of absorbing this energy and even in certain minds correlating this energy as visions or dreams or some such thing  and that maybe it is even possible that we are being fed that energy from an as of yet unknown source in the universe.

i wish i was as good as you guys at referencing but my brain is crap with names for some reason.

As I understand it, all of this is still fairly new stuff maybe arising in the last ten years or so and I think some of the more sci-fi theorizing and even the more believable content is not yet proven but could go either way. I was just wondering if any of this was ringing any bells or not (maybe in the way of obe's?).

I only bring it up because i thought maybe it might bean interesting idea to consider. In no way is any of this my doing I just can't recall the exact sources but I think maybe a search for dark energy might yield a few of these theories as that is the supposed energy connecting all matter in the universe. I mean the idea thrills me because it might hold the key to communication with other planets in the universe or possible means of travel.
Maybe even something as far fetched as telekinesis?

I'm not a great wealth of knowledge on the subject but I was consider that maybe blending this form of science with the kind that is the current discussion might possibly produce some interesting concepts.

oh and hey don mate, I was wondering, have you been thumping the keyboard on you're laptop much during this conversation?
maybe I think you might have depressed on the inner workings of you're computer with a bit to much force one too many times and knocked a bit of solder loose on the motherboard.
happened to my laptop recently, although i'm just heavy handed, but does the crash accompany a crash dump error or a blue or black screen?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447012#msg447012 date=1419200516]


Cheryl :

Both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding the origin function nature and emergence of consciousness have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,no wonder , so how can you assume then that biological evolution can  account for consciousness , let alone explain it ???
Consciousness can never arise from biology : that's the main issue in consciousness studies by the way, if you haven't noticed that yet .

Looking for consciousness  in the brain is no less an inexplicably magical futile attempt than assuming that biological evolution can give rise to consciousness.


So how then do you know that the physicist making the observation in the QM experiment is conscious? Is it actually provable? Consciousness cannot arise from biology, according to you,  so his biological status as a human being is irrelevant.

You’re comfortable assuming the physicist is conscious because he demonstrates behavior consistent with consciousness, and he claims he is (although a computer could make the same claim) and he has the human neural correlates consistent with consciousness.

You did not quite get what i was saying :

I just said that consciousness  cannot be an emergent property of brain activity ,no matter how evolved the brain might be , let alone that it can be reducible to brain activity or be equated with it , cannot be a biological process , is irreducible to brain activity ,and hence cannot be the product of biology or biological evolution either .

In his book about consciousness, the one you wish to read next ,Stanislas talked so bombastically about the scientific study of consciousness and about his "global neuronal workshop " theory or global information sharing theory regarding the working of the brain and how it "gives rise" to consciousness .

By trying to map all neuronal networks or pathways or brain regions that are involved in conscious processes , he and his team hope to solve the mystery of consciousness by trying to prove the latter to be just the way the brain organizes , monitors , and controls its stream of input and inner workings spontaneously through a network of information sharing ...

Stanislas thinks that  conscious awareness  can be reduced to what he calls conscious access that should not be conflated with awakeness or vigilance and attention ....

Stanislas just reduces conscious awareness to brain activity thus through the so-called executive higher level processes of the brain in their interactions with the lower level ones  .....

Stanislas said many interesting things in that book of his though, talked about many experiments and findings , but he built all his work on the major false premise or belief = emergent property theory that's just another version of identity theory thus , unfortunately enough .

I have read just some parts of that book quickly , so , just to get the general idea behind it .The latter is not so impressive or novel as Stanislas has presented it so bombastically .


Quote
Surely all those “rigorous maths” of Von Neumann you mentioned earlier that showed that consciousness is responsible for the collapse of the wavefunction would not hinge on a flimsy and unprovable  assumption??? That doesn't sound rigorous to me.   How is behavior and neural correlates irrelevant to the determination of consciousness if your entire QM consciousness theory ultimately rests on that very same assumption?! That is quite a pickle.
[/quote]

Von Neumann proved ,through rigorous maths , that there must be a non-physical process that might be collapsing the wave function : he couldn't think of any other such process than the consciousness of the observer ,logically, at the end of the measurement chain ,since all other processes involved in measurements or "observations "  are material or physical , including the physical brain of the observer , the measuring devices , photons of light ...all the latter that cannot but remain in entangled superposition states thus .

Quote

Believe me, I’ve often wondered if you were a turing test designed by Cooper to drive us crazy, but he denies it.

Cooper or any other computer freaks or artificial intelligence maniacs lol can never copy human consciousness ,not even remotely close ,  ever , since the latter is irreducible to brain activity and cannot emerge from it either .
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 18:07:39 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... basically the idea is that because there is this background radiation or energy, then it isn't so hard to believe that energy might be able to travel or bridge clear through to these other dimensions or planets (i say both because i think the people involved have already split into two opposing sides) sort of like electricity traveling through water. so anyway the relevant part is that sometimes on rare occasions people are somehow capable of absorbing this energy and even in certain minds correlating this energy as visions or dreams or some such thing  and that maybe it is even possible that we are being fed that energy from an as of yet unknown source in the universe.
I'm afraid it sounds like pseudo-scientific mystical bollocks to me. There are certainly other planets elsewhere in this universe, and there may be other universes - but in all the physics-based theories I've heard, they can't interact. Energy isn't some kind of 'stuff', it's a kind of equivalence relation; and if you accept that quantum field theory is a reasonable approximation of how reality behaves (and the evidence so far is that it's way better than that), there are no mysterious fields or forces that significantly interact with matter at our scale.

Without references or links, or more specific details, I can't really say more.
 
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless.

Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's.
 
"Abstract:
The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions that are described in this article."
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html


Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965):
Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not (Feynman et al., 1965). 

Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969): 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 (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156). 

Anthony J. Leggett (Nobel Prize 2003): It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all! (Leggett, 1991). 

John A. Wheeler: Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).

John S. Bell: From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory.

So I think that it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that `information' is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... by introspection.

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Nico van Kampem:
Whoever endows with more meaning than is needed for computing observable phenomena is responsible for the consequences. (van Kampen, 1988).

Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .

I have many sources that agree with the above stuff of yours , as i have many more other sources that disagree .

There is a lots of disagreement about the interpretation of QM , which comes down to no agreement or real consensus , but the simplest and most plausible interpretation of QM was delivered by Von Neumann mainly and is still supported by an army of physicists today ,  prominent and less prominent ones ,so .

Feynman was the one who said by the way that " I can safely say that nobody understands QM ..." : the interpretation of QM remains controversial and unresolved thus , although the simplest and more plausible interpretation of QM is the one that was mentioned above .

All interpretations of QM thus are relatively "equally valid " , while the one that involves the observer effect in the above mentioned sense is more simple and plausible than the rest,even though it has not been proved conclusively  ( how can it be proved conclusively , since physicists  can't know what happens when they are not conducting measurements or conscious aware observations: when they are not looking ...or when they conduct the 1  measurement and not another one .) .

Those physicists who say that the latter is based on a misconception are the ones against it , like all materialists are , simply because it is totally incompatible with materialism .

The materialistic MW interpretation of QM  is too untestable , too absurd bizarre paradoxical to be taken seriously , and it is based all about the major materialistic false premises or belief : consciousness is a material process (well, of course consciousness cannot collapse the wave function, if it is just a material process like the rest of them are lol : how convenient for materialists .) .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical locality , classical determinism, and classical realism as well,as QM predicted they would  .

The classical realism , for example, that states that the properties of objects are independent of whether or not they are observed : the so-called external  objective reality "out there " is independent from the observer :  that was challenged by Bell's theorem and its related experiments exactly as QM predicted thus = the observer and the observed are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other = there is no such thing as the independent observer and independent observed : the observer and the observed are inseparable = the subjective and the objective are inseparable = science must try to modify or rather  extend and expand its rational empirical methodology and epistemology as to include the subjective element in it , not to mention that science must also modify its vocabulary on the subject accordingly , since science has to be communicated through human language as well .

Even Einstein himself was bothered mostly by the latter fact , by the fact that QM challenged classical realism .He could not bring himself to accept that ,that's why he thought that the highly successful QM had to be incomplete .He tried to prove the latter via what became to be known as the EPR (collectively Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ) argument with Bohr .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments proved thus Einstein to be wrong and Bohr to be right : see below :

Even dlorde and alancalverd could say nothing intelligent about the following , let alone try to refute it ,despite my repetitive posting of the following ,on many occasions :  Here you go again thus :

What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't  you understand from the following ? :

Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain, as Von Neumann said ,so .

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

"According to Bell:
In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.
Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics."

.......


"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. They
did more than confi rm the weird predictions of quantum theory. The
experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual
world as a “reasonable” one. Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?"

............

Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in
the last half of the twentieth century.” It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory. We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable in any normally complex situation.Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement, now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication. Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness."

..........

.."When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Assumptions of reality and separability yielded a wrong prediction in our actual world.

Bell’s straw man was knocked down, as Bell expected it would be. Our world therefore does not have both reality and separability. It’s in this sense, an “unreasonable” world.
We immediately admit not understanding what the world lacking “reality” might mean. Even what “reality” itself might mean. In fact, whether or not reality is indeed required as a premise in Bell’s theorem is in dispute.
However, we need not deal with that right now.

 For our derivation of a Bell inequality, we assume a straightforward real world. Later, when we discuss the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality in our actual world, we’ll define a “reality” implicitly accepted by most physicists. It will leave us with a strangely connected world."
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 18:50:30 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .
Good grief, that's rich coming from someone who's sole technique is based on posting other people's work. Pots & kettles come to mind.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .
Good grief, that's rich coming from someone who's sole technique is based on posting other people's work. Pots & kettles come to mind.

Well, you ,guys, are all materialists (I am the only non-materialist guy here ) ,so i have to try to provide you with non-materialist stuff that refutes materialism .
That's why i was relying on the works of some scientists , philosophers ...by posting some relevant excerpts of theirs from some of their books on the subject to support my claims : that's what this whole thread is all about by the way : about a certain manifesto for a post-materialistic science that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature , since materialism is false , mainly because it can never intrinsically account for consciousness, let alone explain it ,and hence all materialist theories of consciousness are false + the materialistic MW interpretation of QM is also false ,since it is based on the materialistic false belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process + The materialistic so-called standard model of QFT has to be fundamentally false and approximately correct , like classical physics were/are  by the way , simply because the latter both can absolutely not account for neither consciousness nor for its causal effects on matter ..................
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 19:05:25 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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