0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And just in case DQ is still lurking in the shadows QuoteI must support classical physics and reject QMWrong! Quantum mechanics underpins classical physics, as any scientist knows! Nothing to do with dualism or choice. QM is to newtonian physics as thermodynamics is to steam engines.
I must support classical physics and reject QM
Just one more time, Don, before I give up trying to help you. 1. There is no conflict between quantum mechanics and classical physics. QM underpins Newtonian physics and explains a few things that are not obvious in a continuum model. 2. No scientist who understands and uses quantum mechanics thinks otherwise.3. If you read my last posting, you will see that quantum mechanics cannot be dependent on consciousness, however you define it.
Quote from: alancalverd on 06/01/2014 17:58:10Just one more time, Don, before I give up trying to help you. 1. There is no conflict between quantum mechanics and classical physics. QM underpins Newtonian physics and explains a few things that are not obvious in a continuum model. 2. No scientist who understands and uses quantum mechanics thinks otherwise.3. If you read my last posting, you will see that quantum mechanics cannot be dependent on consciousness, however you define it.1-I did not say there was .See above .2.Who said otherwise ?3-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....
You're a lousy reader and a lousy scientist ( which makes what you said about Stapp's scientific, philosophical and other skills worthless and irrelevent )... that Matthew J.Donald provided criticism of Stapp 's work is worthless also , in the sense that he is a materialist, and hence most of his views he takes for granted as science are just materialist beliefs
P.S.: Those specific Stapp's excerpts you were asking me to display here are ,once again, 2 lengthy and 2 technical to post here .
And since i am not qualified to try to give a summary of all that , i will not risk distorting them .
3-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....
It should be obvious to everyone participating in this thread that Don is beyond help. He won't listen to reason, he won't compromise, it is highly unlikely that he ever will. I'm giving up on him, more important things to do besides trying to coax him toward reality.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 18:46:17Quote from: alancalverd on 06/01/2014 17:58:10Just one more time, Don, before I give up trying to help you. 1. There is no conflict between quantum mechanics and classical physics. QM underpins Newtonian physics and explains a few things that are not obvious in a continuum model. 2. No scientist who understands and uses quantum mechanics thinks otherwise.3. If you read my last posting, you will see that quantum mechanics cannot be dependent on consciousness, however you define it.1-I did not say there was .See above .2.Who said otherwise ?3-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....It should be obvious to everyone participating in this thread that Don is beyond help. He won't listen to reason, he won't compromise, it is highly unlikely that he ever will. I'm giving up on him, more important things to do besides trying to coax him toward reality.
True; these days I'm posting for the exercise and entertainment - as I said before, whenever it gets boring you can just wait a while, and he'll always come back with some new inanity []
Quote from: Ethos_ on 06/01/2014 19:13:14It should be obvious to everyone participating in this thread that Don is beyond help. He won't listen to reason, he won't compromise, it is highly unlikely that he ever will. I'm giving up on him, more important things to do besides trying to coax him toward reality.True; these days I'm posting for the exercise and entertainment - as I said before, whenever it gets boring you can just wait a while, and he'll always come back with some new inanity []
Quote from: dlorde on 06/01/2014 19:35:10Quote from: Ethos_ on 06/01/2014 19:13:14It should be obvious to everyone participating in this thread that Don is beyond help. He won't listen to reason, he won't compromise, it is highly unlikely that he ever will. I'm giving up on him, more important things to do besides trying to coax him toward reality.True; these days I'm posting for the exercise and entertainment - as I said before, whenever it gets boring you can just wait a while, and he'll always come back with some new inanity []Yeah ,right , just keep on deluding yourself then .See above .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 18:46:173-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....Do you really think 'Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others' were talking about subjective reality? [)]
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 17:05:14You're a lousy reader and a lousy scientist ( which makes what you said about Stapp's scientific, philosophical and other skills worthless and irrelevent )... that Matthew J.Donald provided criticism of Stapp 's work is worthless also , in the sense that he is a materialist, and hence most of his views he takes for granted as science are just materialist beliefsRather than address the arguments, you explicitly use an extreme version of the 'Poisoning the Well' fallacy - we're materialists therefore our criticisms are 'worthless and irrelevant'; priceless
QuoteP.S.: Those specific Stapp's excerpts you were asking me to display here are ,once again, 2 lengthy and 2 technical to post here .That rings hollow, given you're in the habit of posting entire chapters of other people's work []QuoteAnd since i am not qualified to try to give a summary of all that , i will not risk distorting them . So post the relevant chapter and page references (as I requested last time).