0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The mind in Stapp's model does not have its own wavefunction or density matrix, but nevertheless can act upon the brain using projection operators. Such usage is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics because one can attach any number of ghostly minds to any point in space that act upon physical quantum systems with any projection operators. Therefore Stapp's model does not build upon "the prevailing principles of physics", but negates them.Stapp's claim that quantum Zeno effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory according to which acting with projection operators upon the density matrix of a quantum system can never decrease the Von Neumann entropy of the system, but can only increase it.
JFYI - another destructive criticism of Stapp's hypothesis, this time by Danko Georgiev: Mind Efforts, Quantum Zeno Effect and Environmental DecoherenceQuote from: GeorgievThe mind in Stapp's model does not have its own wavefunction or density matrix, but nevertheless can act upon the brain using projection operators. Such usage is not compatible with standard quantum mechanics because one can attach any number of ghostly minds to any point in space that act upon physical quantum systems with any projection operators. Therefore Stapp's model does not build upon "the prevailing principles of physics", but negates them.Stapp's claim that quantum Zeno effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory according to which acting with projection operators upon the density matrix of a quantum system can never decrease the Von Neumann entropy of the system, but can only increase it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 20:02:09No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .The observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....You are confusing two entirely different things. Not even Stapp would suggest that misinformation, as in believing something to be true that isn't - or wishful thinking, simply wanting it to be true, actually changes physical reality even for that individual. If it's -34 degrees in Canada, there is no superpositioned brain state connected to the macro level reality of my car starting that morning. Nature's "answer" to that question is no.Likewise even inside the brain or mind, if quantum mechanics allows an in road for free will or indeterminacy, or simply speeds up or fine tunes mental processing (which I think may be more likely) there is still reams of evidence for macro level, classically described, mechanisms and environmental influences that explain abilities and behavior and even choices. You cannot wish these influences away. If you are writhing in pain from appendicitis, I can pretty much predict your "choices" in the very near future with astounding accuracy.
No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .The observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....
Regarding the subjective nature of QT , the following excerpt ,once again , you must have either missed or ignored : <Stapp stuff>
... Eventually, all but strongly biased observers (who can be identified a priori by an examination of their choice of prior probability) will be convinced of the values of the quantum probabilities. In this way, initially subjective probability assignments become more and more objective.
... For example, given a wave function ψ(x, t) for a particle in one dimension, the rules of quantum mechanics (which are apparently laws of nature) tell us that we must assign a probability |ψ(x, t)|2dx to the statement “at time t, the particle is between x and x + dx”. Different people do not appear to have a choice about this assignment. In this sense, quantum probability appears to be objective
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/01/2014 20:45:48Don't disappear again , you do know that i cannot make you re-appear on demand out of the blue , my magical lamp is ...broken ..........you know ...I some how managed to burn through my monthly data allotment in a single week (or my daughter did.) I'm posting from a Chapters bookstore in Sudbury today, a city that exists thanks to a meteor hitting the Earth here 1.8 billion years ago.
Don't disappear again , you do know that i cannot make you re-appear on demand out of the blue , my magical lamp is ...broken ..........you know ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/01/2014 17:24:43Regarding the subjective nature of QT , the following excerpt ,once again , you must have either missed or ignored : <Stapp stuff>Stapp equivocates subjectivity for the purpose of his discredited hypothesis. Subjectivity is not part of the quantum formalism; like classical mechanics, it deals with probability distributions. In both cases, the introduction of an observer necessitates a subjective viewpoint. For QM, this change of viewpoint involves the perception of a single outcome rather than the decohered mixed state of the system which is the QM result. How an observer perceives a single outcome of this decohered state is not part of the quantum formalism, and is open to interpretation (in fact, that's why it's open to interpretation, and why the choice of interpretation is of no material consequence). If you read the link I provided, you might understand the difference - although, on second thoughts, you might not...
V.S. Ramachandron (soulless materialist) in “The Tell-Tale Brain”I find it odd how some people are so ardently drawn to either-or dichotomies. “Are apes self aware or are they automata?” “Is life meaningful or meaningless?” “Are humans ‘just’ animals or are we exalted?” As a scientist, I am perfectly comfortable with settling on categorical conclusions when it makes sense. But with many of these supposedly urgent metaphysical dilemmas, I must admit I don’t see the conflict. For instance, why can’t we be a branch of the animal kingdom and a wholly unique and gloriously novel phenomenon in the universe? I also find it odd how people so often slip words like “merely” and “nothing but” into statements about our origins. Humans are apes. So too are we mammals. We are vertebrates. We are pulpy, throbbing colonies of tens of trillions of cells. We are all of these things, but we are not “merely” these things. And we are, in addition to all these things, something unique, something unprecedented, something transcendent. We are something new under the sun, with uncharted and perhaps limitless potential. We are the first and only species whose fate has rested in its own hands, not just in the hands of chemistry and instinct. On the great Darwinian stage we call Earth, I would argue there has not been an upheaval as big as us since the origin of life itself. When I think about what we are and what we may yet achieve, I can’t see any place for snide “merelies.”
You can try to deny what Stapp has been saying all night and day long , but that won't make the fact go away that QT is psycho-physical = consciousness cannot but interevene in the physical reality ,(since consciousness is a fundamental active part of reality) , at the micro quantum and also at the macroscopic levels = inevitable, since reality is both physical and mental .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/01/2014 18:48:04You should in fact try to refute Stapp's dualist world view that's been supported by the dualist nature of QT and thus by scienceAlready done (with Cheryl J's & Dawson's help). You must have missed it (or, more probably, misunderstood it).
You should in fact try to refute Stapp's dualist world view that's been supported by the dualist nature of QT and thus by science
I note your lack of comment on my description of a causally determined free will.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/01/2014 18:23:49You can try to deny what Stapp has been saying all night and day long , but that won't make the fact go away that QT is psycho-physical = consciousness cannot but interevene in the physical reality ,(since consciousness is a fundamental active part of reality) , at the micro quantum and also at the macroscopic levels = inevitable, since reality is both physical and mental .It is possible to treat objective quantum probabilities under a Bayesian regime, where you can assign subjective priors - see Subjective and Objective Probabilities in Quantum Mechanics, but this only serves to aid in refining initial ignorance about the probability state of a quantum system from initially subjective estimates to eventually objective certainties:Quote... Eventually, all but strongly biased observers (who can be identified a priori by an examination of their choice of prior probability) will be convinced of the values of the quantum probabilities. In this way, initially subjective probability assignments become more and more objective.Note that, from the outset, the authors affirm:Quote... For example, given a wave function ψ(x, t) for a particle in one dimension, the rules of quantum mechanics (which are apparently laws of nature) tell us that we must assign a probability |ψ(x, t)|2dx to the statement “at time t, the particle is between x and x + dx”. Different people do not appear to have a choice about this assignment. In this sense, quantum probability appears to be objective
Meh - if you're not prepared to argue your position, discuss rational objections, or even listen to the arguments of those who have a different view, why are you here? is it not obvious to you that naively repeated assertion and reams of uncommented publications from fringe authors are not going to convince anyone capable of rational thought?[Btw, those were rhetorical questions]
... you have been equating materialism with science...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/01/2014 19:24:29... you have been equating materialism with science...This is a fallacy entirely of your own invention. Science is a process, materialism is a philosophy.
V.S. Ramachandron (soulless materialist) in “The Tell-Tale Brain”