Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 194153 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Physicist Proposes New Theory of Gravity—Gravity Does Not Exist :


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/20006-physicist-proposes-new-theory-of-gravity-gravity-does-not-exist/
Once again, an old paper that has been experimentally falsified (also, gravity as an entropic force is not Verlinde's idea, it's actually been around for a while). But an interesting idea.

Einstein's general relativity theory that explains the "force " of gravity via  the curvature of space-time might likely be false , otherwise , the universe would be shrinking ,thanks to all that curvature of spacetime.

Not to mention his special relativity theory regarding the nature of space and time that's also incompatible with that simple explanation of quantum theory: consciousness interacting instantaneously with sub-atomic particles , with all particles and objects in fact , large and small .

See above :

Lanza was so kind and cool enough as to dedicate a whole chapter (7) from his "Biocentrism " to you , dlorde , on the subject .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

(Prior note : 96 % of the universe is made of unknown dark matter and dark energy , as physicists don't really even know much about the remaining 4 % , despite all their sophisticated theories ,maths, ...including quantum theory and relativity : the latter that are incompatible with each other in fact .

So, physicists are not even close to approaching the nature of reality , if ever , not even remotely close thus : see also that link of mine to "Why a physics revolution might be on its way " here above .

In short : what you mentioned here above , through the words of Caroll or others for that matter , about the alleged fact that physics has been delivering an excellent approximation for  understanding the universe and our place in it , is  simply a hilarious joke.

Reminds me , in another similar context then, of that British physicist in the 1900 who said that there was nothing left to be discovered in physics .All that was needed was more and more precise measurements .

Caroll says basically almost the same thing : there are no significant or relevant forces , fields or laws of physics left to be discovered : yeah, right : he does not know much about that 4% of the universe ,and he dares say non-sense like that through the standard model that's highly likely to be dethroned by the next revolution in physics . 

Not only that , on top of the above : since materialism is false and can thus intrinsically never account for either life or consciousness just through material processes only , let alone  for the origin of life that way , or for the evolution of conscious life ....life and consciousness that are no accidents or side effects or by-products of evolution , for example, to mention just that , then any understanding of the nature of reality , the origin of conscious life , the evolution of conscious life , the beginning of the universe ....any unified theory thus can intrinsically  never be accounted for  by material processes or physics only : Life and consciousness must be integrated in any future so-called unified theory as the key and major players in it . )



What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory anyway ? Nothing : he just commented on it .

Lanza is a prominent biologist and astronomer with impeccable credentials , not some sort of a new age lunatic or something like that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza

Chopra is not my cup of tea either , needless to add .


I expect you to comment on  Lanza's theory yourself ,on "Quantum Enigma " ....,  via  your own words , not just make an appeal to authority , like to that of materialist Caroll .

The latter cannot but a-priori reject any non-materialist interpretation of quantum theory , any non-materialist theory or model of consciousness and life , let alone that he can even consider  any non-materialist theory of nature,simply because he's so entrenched  in his materialist dogmas which he has been mistaking for science , like the man who mistook his wife for a hat , or like someone who looks at or observes the world through that materialist key hole , while assuming that that materialist key hole version of reality is the real reality  .

Caroll has even admitted (He has no choice but to admit that , otherwise he would be a vulgar liar , a bad scientist ,on top of being a materialist deluded one ) that the interpretation dilemma of quantum theory has not been solved yet , so, how can he say that Lanza's interpretation of quantum theory is false then ? , while Lanza and others have been offering a simple explanation of quantum theory : consciousness interacting with sub-atomic particles ...: Occam's razor .

To be honest , i have no respect whatsoever for materialist scientists in fact , since they have been ignoring and denying the overwhelming evidence against materialism ,or they would just try to go around that evidence  by inventing unfalsifiable bullshit theories like the hidden variable  theory ,decoherence theory , multiverse and parallel  universes theories , string theories and the rest .... and the fact that the major anomaly of them all :consciousness , not to mention the latter's related anomalies and processes , can never be intrinsically accounted for by materialism is evidence enough for the fact that materialism is false , including all its extensions like the materialist theory or model of consciousness .

Even Einstein's special and general relativity theories , regarding the nature of space and time and regarding the "force " of gravity are in fact incompatible with that simple explanation of quantum theory that has been delivered by many prominent physicists like by Von Neumann school, like by all founders of quantum theory and by many other physicists yesterday and today like Amit Goswami , like the authors of "Quantum Enigma : physics encounters consciousness " and many others, that's why Einstein could not bring himself to accept quantum theory ,while so unsuccessfully trying to come up with a unified physical theory during the last half of his life  .

Ironically enough , the original interpretation of quantum theory to which Einstein was exposed at that time could not but be incompatible with his own relativity theories .

Why should one listen to a materialist scientist on the subject then, since he /she would just be a-priori assuming that consciousness is just a material process like the rest of them all in the universe ? .

That Caroll would say such astonishing things about Lanza's theory , for example , is pretty predictable , since he's a materialist first , and a scientist only second .

Caroll should in fact know better than throwing stones at his opponents since he 's been living within a false and fragile materialist key hole sand "made of glass " sand castle , where all extensions of materialism are false .Not only that , they represent such an insane puerile and ridiculous distortion of the nature of reality .

So, as you can understand as a result of the above :  i do not see any worth or value in anything materialists like Caroll can say about non-materialist theories , models , experiments , ....since they would just have to reject them, otherwise they would be ceasing to be materialists , no mater how much evidence or lack of it those non-materialist theories , models ...would or would not deliver .


Furthermore , since materialism is false , then the nature of reality cannot be exclusively material or physical, and hence consciousness that's irreducible to the former , and life that cannot be accounted for by just material processes , have to be integrated in any so-called unified theory of the universe, not to mention the fact that any exclusively physical so-called unified theory  is doomed to fail ,taking into consideration all the above .

Inter-disciplinary synthesis of all sciences must in fact be the answer , where life and consciousness must be integrated in that synthesis ,life and consciousness as key and major players in any future so-called unified theory that hence cannot be just physical : most of current physics will have to be abandoned ,including that materialist so-called standard model +relativity theories ...and physics alone can no longer be assumed to be able to deliver a so-called unified theory , since materialism is false , and hence the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical ....

Lanza , Goswami , Fred Kuttner , Bruce Rosenblum and others were /are the ones whose conceptions of the nature of reality might be paving the way for a totally new science on the subject, not that insane puerile and ridiculous key hole distortion  or materialist version of the nature of reality .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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


Did you read Biocentrism ? No .



Why bother? If Don's summary is correct, it's drivel. And who are we to doubt Don?

Really ? You don't know what you're missing .

Check it out for yourself then , physicist : you might learn something from it , who knows ?

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/

If you want to , i can display here some relevant excerpts from Lanza's book in question .

Don't be a narrow-minded materialist : science is all about methodology and epistemology , about free inquiry , not about some ontological biased preferences like that of the false materialist conception of nature , or false materialistic naturalism ...


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."

Did you read Biocentrism ? No .

What do you know about it other than what you heard from Caroll on the subject ? Nothing

What do you know about quantum theory ? Not much , i guess  .

What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory ? Nothing .

Who said Chopra was / is a new age lunatic ? Not me .

Can you think outside of the materialist key hole box ? I don't think so .

So, what are you talking about then ?

What makes you feel or think that you might be so qualified as to pretend to be able to deliver what you said above ? Nothing .


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile


Did you read Biocentrism ? No .



Why bother? If Don's summary is correct, it's drivel. And who are we to doubt Don?

Really ? You don't know what you're missing .
I'm sure alan is not missing very much, seeing that he is much more logical than you Don. But as for me, I know what I'm missing. I'm missing; Spending my time involved with this pointless thread. And I'm quite content missing the next volume of vomit that Don chooses to infect these pages with!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I'm sure alan is not missing very much, seeing that he is much more logical than you Don. But as for me, I know what I'm missing. I'm missing; Spending my time involved with this pointless thread. And I'm quite content missing the next volume of vomit that Don chooses to infect these pages with!
Yup, Don's gone into pure copypasta mode. If he really feels we're not qualified to opine on the drivel he posts, and he's not prepared to make his own arguments or attempt rational refutations of ours, one wonders why he's here at all.

From past experience, the next stage he'll progress to will be school-yard insults. He's funny - and a bit sad.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."

Did you read Biocentrism ? No .

What do you know about it other than what you heard from Caroll on the subject ? Nothing

What do you know about quantum theory ? Not much , i guess  .

What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory ? Nothing .

Who said Chopra was / is a new age lunatic ? Not me .

Can you think outside of the materialist key hole box ? I don't think so .

So, what are you talking about then ?

What makes you feel or think that you might be so qualified as to pretend to be able to deliver what you said above ? Nothing .

I'm not claiming any credentials or special abilities. I think it makes for a more effective and clearer exchange of ideas to look at the specific points, rather than fling broad generalizations back and forth, but if you feel I'm under-qualified, I have polar bears to paint.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
I'm sure alan is not missing very much, seeing that he is much more logical than you Don. But as for me, I know what I'm missing. I'm missing; Spending my time involved with this pointless thread. And I'm quite content missing the next volume of vomit that Don chooses to infect these pages with!
Yup, Don's gone into pure copypasta mode. If he really feels we're not qualified to opine on the drivel he posts, and he's not prepared to make his own arguments or attempt rational refutations of ours, one wonders why he's here at all.

From past experience, the next stage he'll progress to will be school-yard insults. He's funny - and a bit sad.

What do you think i was doing then ? See my long post above .

What i posted was  no drivel either .

Regarding the qualified part of your post : i just responded to what Cheryl said , specifically,within that specific context  ,that's all .

As for the rest of your post : irrelevant speculations .
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 19:12:55 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If it wasn't drivel, why did you say it was, by insisting that the consequence of biocentrism is that life preceded the universe in which it clearly didn't exist for several billion years?

That's the problem with science - if you make a statement, it has to be consistent with observation.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
As, I said earlier, Don, if there is a particular point in Biocentrism you'd like to discuss or examine more closely, I'm more than willing. But don't just hand me a homework assignment, as in  "read all this, and write a 5 page essay that I will promptly ignore if you don't agree with me."

Did you read Biocentrism ? No .

What do you know about it other than what you heard from Caroll on the subject ? Nothing

What do you know about quantum theory ? Not much , i guess  .

What has Chopra to do with Lanza's theory ? Nothing .

Who said Chopra was / is a new age lunatic ? Not me .

Can you think outside of the materialist key hole box ? I don't think so .

So, what are you talking about then ?

What makes you feel or think that you might be so qualified as to pretend to be able to deliver what you said above ? Nothing .

I'm not claiming any credentials or special abilities. I think it makes for a more effective and clearer exchange of ideas to look at the specific points, rather than fling broad generalizations back and forth, but if you feel I'm under-qualified, I have polar bears to paint.

I have just responded to your specific words , earlier on ,within that  specific context only,  that's all .

( "Quantum Enigma ..."  can be relatively understood  , even with zero prior knowledge of physics,as its authors claim ,  the same goes for Biocentrism ... .)

That was neither an offense , nor was it a kindda belittling of your own person or qualifications ..., needless to add , to the contrary , Cheryl .

You can't "take a closer look " at something about which you have almost no idea  .
Reading what a narrow-minded materialist like Caroll said about Biocentrism is not my idea of addressing Lanza's theory .

If i wanted to hear about what Caroll would have said about that theory , i would have   gone directly to its source , not that i would bother to do so , since materialist scientists like that are very predictable through  their boring materialist outdated false songs .

That's why i posted Lanza's  7 points theory ,so, you can address that via your own words , without relying on any 'authority " on the subject ,for that matter .

Painting polar bears sounds like fun . You can do both : when you're not painting , i would love to hear about your own thoughts concerning Lanza's theory and "Quantum Enigma ..." regarding which i have already posted relevant summaries  from their own sites on the subject  ,since none of you, guys , seems to have made the slightest effort to check out what those sites have to say on the subject through my provided links .

I am not interested much in dlorde's replies , since he's a die-hard materialist who can't think but materialistically .

No offense , dlorde . I can learn nothing new from him, i guess , since he would be only repeating those materialist outdated false songs .

I hope i am wrong about that .

alancalverd doesn't go beyond judgments of value , and can't go beyond his textbooks .

Not to mention Ethos ' hit and run funny and strange empty posts .

On the other hand , you seem to be more open-minded than the rest here , so .

Don't offer that relative freedom of thought of yours on the altar of those narrow-minded materialist scientists who are so dogmatic and ossified as to deliberately ignore and deny as such all that overwhelming evidence against materialism .
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 19:26:14 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
If it wasn't drivel, why did you say it was, by insisting that the consequence of biocentrism is that life preceded the universe in which it clearly didn't exist for several billion years?

That's the problem with science - if you make a statement, it has to be consistent with observation.

Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe  , not life , needless to add .

That's why the universe is so fine -tuned , for example , to allow conscious life on this tiny planet at least .

There is nothing more important in this universe than consciousness and life that cannot be accidents or by-products or side effects of evolution .

Life and consciousness that can never intrinsically be accounted for by materialism just via material processes only , and hence any unified theory must integrate life and consciousness as the major and key players in it , since the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical , which means that physics alone can no longer be assumed to be able to come up with a unified theory .

The latter cannot  thus be just physical , ever.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 19:22:29 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."

Eugene Wigner

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

Let's try to tackle lanza's theory , step by step, by trying to address some of his raised issues and arguments ,some at a time , like the following :

Regarding Einstein's relativity theories that are obviously incompatible with the simple explanation of quantum theory that asserts that the latter is impossible to understand without making reference to the mind :

Quote : "...

In order to account for why space and time are relative to the
observer, Einstein assigned tortuous mathematical properties to
the changing warpages of space-time, an invisible, intangible entity
that cannot be seen or touched. Although this was indeed successful
in showing how objects move, especially in extreme conditions of strong gravity or fast motion, it resulted in many people assuming that space-time is an actual entity, like cheddar cheese, rather than a mathematical figment that serves the specific purpose of letting us calculate motion. Space-time, of course, was hardly the first time that mathematical tools have been confused with tangible reality: the square root of minus one and the symbol for infinity are just two of the many mathematically indispensable entities that exist only conceptually—neither has an analog in the physical universe.

This dichotomy between conceptual and physical reality continued
with a vengeance with the advent of quantum mechanics.
Despite the central role of the observer in this theory—extending it
from space and time to the very properties of matter itself—some scientists
still dismiss the observer as an inconvenience, a non-entity.

In the quantum world, even Einstein’s updated version of Newton’s
clock—the solar system as predictable if complex timekeeper—
fails to work. The very concept that independent events can happen
in separate non-linked locations—a cherished notion often called
locality—fails to hold at the atomic level and below, and there’s
increasing evidence it extends fully into the macroscopic as well. In
Einstein’s theory, events in space-time can be measured in relation
to each other, but quantum mechanics calls greater attention to the
nature of measurement itself, one that threatens the very bedrock of
objectivity.

When studying subatomic particles, the observer appears to
alter and determine what is perceived. The presence and methodology
of the experimenter is hopelessly entangled with whatever he is
attempting to observe and what results he gets. An electron turns
out to be both a particle and a wave, but how and, more importantly,
where such a particle will be located remains dependent upon the
very act of observation.

This was new indeed. Pre-quantum physicists, reasonably
assuming an external, objective universe, expected to be able to
determine the trajectory and position of individual particles with
certainty—the way we do with planets. They assumed the behavior
of particles would be completely predictable if everything was
known at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy with
which they could measure the physical properties of an object of any
size, given adequate technology...."

End quote .

« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 18:50:42 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


Consciousness preceded the universe  , not life , needless to add .


Your definition of consciousness being....?

Quote
They assumed the behavior
of particles would be completely predictable if everything was
known at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy with
which they could measure the physical properties of an object of any
size, given adequate technology...."

No, Zeno's Paradox has been around for a very long time. Heisenberg puts numbers to it.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 18:29:40 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."

Eugene Wigner




Regarding thus the non-materialist simple explanation or simple interpretation of quantum theory, the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." said , and i quote :

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

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


The above mentioned authors also said :

Quote :



"...About an experimental demonstration of the quantum enigma.
No theory can ever resolve the enigma without encountering the conscious observer..." End quote .

 Richard Feynman said on the subject :

Quote :
"The two-slit experiment] contains the only mystery.
We cannot make the mystery go away by ‘explaining’
how it works…In telling you how it works we will have
told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics.” End Quote .



  Quote :   “The interpretation [of quantum mechanics] has remained a source of conflict from its inception… For many thoughtful physicists, it has remained a kind of "skeleton in the closet."” End quote .

    – J. M. Jauch



Andrei Linde: “Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?”
« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 18:49:21 by DonQuichotte »


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444409#msg444409 date=1415989684]


Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe  , not life , needless to add .


Your definition of consciousness being....?

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 .....

Are the latter real entities or real things , or just concepts ?  ...to mention just that ?

I am not talking about their usual explanations . I am talking about you telling me what their real nature is .Try to do just that then .

96% of the universe is made of unknown dark matter and unknown dark energy .

All modern physics doesn't even know enough about the remaining 4 % , not even remotely close thus , despite its  bombastic talk about "the nature of reality " ,ironically enough,  like that of Caroll through the so-called standard model that allegedly can account for even all our daily human-scale world ...where our most important ,and that of the universe , most key and major feature of them all ,consciousness,not to mention life ,  is totally discarded as insiginificant or irrelevant processes, the latter in physics at least , while physics is assumed to be the basis upon which all sciences are built : psychology is just applied biology, biology just applied chemistry and chemistry is just applied physics  .

Tell me about the nature of the above , then , and only then , you can pretend to be able to approach what consciousness or life might be all about , if ever thus .

Modern science has been enabling scientists to explore the universe , without even being able to explore the most important and key major universe of them all , the one within each one of us , ironically enough : consciousness .

But , quantum theory has been showing that the study of the universe and that of consciousness are intrinsically and inseparably intertwined : the one is impossible to do without the other : quantum theory that can never be understood without making reference to the mind or to consciousness, ironically enough .

How can then quantum theory be compatible with relativity theories , with the usual explanations of gravity.... with the so-called standard model , let alone with the old and false Cartesian notion of separate mind and separate so-called external objective reality, or old and false Cartesian dichotomy  : a separate  mind  and the so-called separate external objective reality , or just with the materialistic monistic false and old notions of the so-called independent observer , independent observed so-called external objective reality ,  and insignificant irrelevant mind and consciousness ...(which are  the products of the physical brain through evolution via the natural selection : that of  the observed so-called external objective reality , that is ) upon which all materialist science has been built ...?

Yet , without a mind or consciousness, there could be no science , ironically enough .

How can consciousness and  the mind + their related processes and anomalies ,needless to add,  the observer thus (note that the physical brain is supposed to have been the product of evolution through natural selection , the brain that has also to obey the laws of physics thus . To assume that consciousness and  the mind ....are the products of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain is also assuming that the observed so-called external objective reality has produced consciousness and  the mind , the observer thus , through the physical brain ... ) , how can consciousness and the mind thus , the observer thus, be just the products of the observed so-called external objective reality ????

How can the 'tool " through which one observes or tries to apprehend the so-called objective external reality, the observed thus ,  be the product of the latter ????

The observer produced by the observed to observe the observed ....lol

The observer produced by the observed to observe itself lol , not only that , on top of that , to observe itself independently of itself : to observe itself independently of the observer that 's just the product of the observed lol


Insane materialistic paradoxical bullshit ...

How can consciousness and  the mind , the observer thus , be just the products of the observed physical laws ,forces and fields ????? = a real paradox .

Not only that , on top of all that , once again : there is the materialist notion of the independent observer and independent observed so-called external objective reality : the former as just the product of the latter , and yet , they are assumed to be independent of  each other ....

Is there any insane puerile absurd ridiculous paradoxical non-sense like that , ever ???????

Materialistic naturalistic monism is thus almost the exact opposite of what the simple explanation of quantum theory is all about, to say the least thus  : reudctionist materialism is thus incompatible with quantum theory , to say the least thus .

No wonder that materialists would never accept that simple explanation of quantum theory that has been delivered by Von Neumann school, by almost all founders of quantum theory , by many other prominent and less -prominent physicists , yesterday and today , like Lanza , like the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." , like Amit Goswami and many many others ...

Quote
Quote
They assumed the behavior
of particles would be completely predictable if everything was
known at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy with
which they could measure the physical properties of an object of any
size, given adequate technology...."

No, Zeno's Paradox has been around for a very long time. Heisenberg puts numbers to it.

Can you elaborate on that, please  ?

Can you try to comment on the more relevant issues raised by the above displayed quotes or excerpts , please , instead of focussing on less relevant ones ? Thanks .

« Last Edit: 14/11/2014 20:49:30 by DonQuichotte »


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Can you try to comment on the more relevant issues raised by the above displayed quotes or excerpts , please , instead of focussing on less relevant ones ? Thanks .



Indeed I will, as soon as I spot anything remotely relevant or interesting. Ranting without supporting evidence isn't worth a response.

But when you have a lucid moment, you might consider this:

Photographic film doesn't record single photons. You need two photons to interact with a silver halide crystal within a fairly short time (before the first interaction relaxes) in order to produce persistent blackening.

So in Taylor's famous single-photon double-slit experiment, the second photon has to "observe" the first one in order to collapse its wavefunction and record an interference pattern. No conscious observer can be involved because a conscious observer can only see the result, after the second photon has arrived, not the process by which the first photon decides where to go. Or are photons self-conscious? Or are silver halide crystals conscious?

helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
But when you have a lucid moment, you might consider this:

Photographic film doesn't record single photons. You need two photons to interact with a silver halide crystal within a fairly short time (before the first interaction relaxes) in order to produce persistent blackening.

So in Taylor's famous single-photon double-slit experiment, the second photon has to "observe" the first one in order to collapse its wavefunction and record an interference pattern.
This doesn't make a lot of sense for the modern version of this experiment. For example; what were the results of this experiment when the source of light is so dim that only one photon is emitted per second?

In any case you're referring to the very old (200 years) version of this experiment (circa ~ 1803). Now the experiment can be done us  using a CCD instead of a photographic film/plate. CCDs can record single photons at a time.

Quote from: alancalverd
No conscious observer can be involved because a conscious observer can only see the result, after the second photon has arrived, not the process by which the first photon decides where to go. Or are photons self-conscious? Or are silver halide crystals conscious?
Quantum mechanics does not require the use of conscious observers at all. That's a common misconception in quantum mechanics.

As John Wheeler once said (http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html
Quote
Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsoever 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).

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Taylor's single photon double slit experiment was conducted around 1900, not 200 years ago, and involved one photon at a time, not one per second.

The point I'm trying to make is that quantum selfinterference has been demonstrated in the absence of any conscious observer. I think Don's problem, whioch seems to be shared by a number of deluded mystics, is taking a rather literal - indeed literary - interpretation of Heisenberg and Schrodinger's  use of "observe": what they are getting at is that we don't know anything about a particle until it has interacted with something else, and in doing so, no longer possesses the properties it had before the interaction - Wheeler's "irreversible act of amplification". This statement of the obvious applies to all objects but clearly the minimum "observable" (bouncing one photon off the object) has less effect on a moving car than it does on an electron, so it's only important for very small things, and you can use doppler radar for measuring the speed of  car with adequate precision, without endangering its occupants.   

IIRC the double-slit experiment has now been done with buckyballs.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I think Don's problem, whioch seems to be shared by a number of deluded mystics, is taking a rather literal - indeed literary - interpretation of Heisenberg and Schrodinger's  use of "observe": what they are getting at is that we don't know anything about a particle until it has interacted with something else, and in doing so, no longer possesses the properties it had before the interaction - Wheeler's "irreversible act of amplification".
I think Don's problem is more fundamental than that; this particular misinterpretation (and others) has been explained to him many times in this and other threads. But he clings to anything to anything he feels supports his desired worldview, misinterpreted or not; any refutation, correction, explanation, or falsification is, to him, simply wrong. The more inescapable the contradiction, the more incoherent his response. To all intents and purposes it's a matter of faith - his error is in hoping to use science to support it, because it contradicts his view at every turn; so he must rely on misinterpretation, pseudoscience, and mysticism rather than coherent argument.

Just my opinion, of course.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
Quote from: alancalverd
Taylor's single photon double slit experiment was conducted around 1900, not 200 years ago, and involved one photon at a time, not one per second.
Sorry. I confused this with Young's experiment.

Quote from: alancalverd
The point I'm trying to make is that quantum selfinterference has been demonstrated in the absence of any conscious observer.
Absolutely! I'm right there with you then.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Did you at least read what i posted here above on the subject ? I don't think so .

So, what's the relevance of this thread then, if you would only listen to your own materialistic outdated and false music then ? None.

Here is another "mystical deluded " quantum physicist who thinks that quantum theory can never be understood without reference to the mind  :

http://www.amitgoswami.org/

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

Not to mention the non-computational nature of consciousness ,according to Roger Penrose :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
« Last Edit: 15/11/2014 17:16:15 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."


which makes perfect sense in the context of Wheeler's definition of observation, but not yours.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Penrose hypothesizes that quantum mechanics plays an essential role in the understanding of human consciousness. The collapse of the quantum wavefunction is seen as playing an important role in brain function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."


which makes perfect sense in the context of Wheeler's definition of observation, but not yours.

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). He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on "The anthropic universe":[18]

    Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
    Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.

Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.

Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.

See above : you're the ones who misunderstood or rather misinterpreted what the man said .

Can you observe your own consciousness or unconsciousness empirically ?

By the way , can you observe your own subjective inner life ...empirically ? lol

Is all what cannot be observed empirically a synonymous of it being non-existent , or not a part of reality ?
« Last Edit: 15/11/2014 19:30:09 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.

Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.

See above
You're reading way too much into those remarks Don. What I take from his statements is this: Our existence is made reality in our minds thru the things we experience. However, our experiences are not the creators of true reality, only the reality which our mind understands. One can create any mental reality they choose to but true reality is the result that empirical experiment obtains.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Even John  Wheeler said once , to mention just that :

" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.

Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.

See above
You're reading way too much into those remarks Don. What I take from his statements is this: Our existence is made reality in our minds thru the things we experience. However, our experiences are not the creators of true reality, only the reality which our mind understands. One can create any mental reality they choose to but true reality is the result that empirical experiment obtains.

What are you exactly talking about , Ethos ?

It's all perception : we are just perceivers , no conceivers .

The observer cannot be separated from the observed .

Regarding the rest of your post :

See the many forms of scientism :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Let's get back to Wheeler : did you read the above , from wiki ?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile


What are you exactly talking about , Ethos ?
The point I'm making is this:

There are facts about reality which are very unpleasant, such as the inevitability of death, but like taxes, death is inescapable. Even though I, along with many others would prefer a different reality, I prefer to know how things really are and not how I would prefer them to be. If one chooses to ignore reality and construct a make believe world suitable for themselves,  they risk being labeled as insane.

Your position in this thread parallels that risk Don because you keep insisting that we can influence physical reality thru observation only. I choose to know the true physical reality and will not be satisfied with delusion. And to insist that one's simple observation of an event is capable of influencing it is delusional. No such evidence exists!



"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=Ethos_ link=topic=52526.msg444561#msg444561 date=1416083079]


What are you exactly talking about , Ethos ?
The point I'm making is this:

There are facts about reality which are very unpleasant, such as the inevitability of death, but like taxes, death is inescapable. Even though I, along with many others would prefer a different reality, I prefer to know how things really are and not how I would prefer them to be. If one chooses to ignore reality and construct a make believe world suitable for themselves,  they risk being labeled as insane.


You're very funny , Ethos :

Well, what you're talking about here above is totally different  from what i was mentioning . What you mentioned here above is thus a   matter of psychology .

On the other hand : What is reality ? What is the nature of reality ? That's a question all religions, philosophies, ancient wisdom ...and even science itself try to approach , their own different ways ,that is .

But , fact is : the  observed "reality " is inseparably and inescapably intertwined and linked with the observer . You cannot separate the one from the other .
So, the old  Cartesian dichotomy between the subjective and the objective , between the observer and the observed , and that they allegedly are separate from each other is false , thanks to quantum theory mainly .

And the materialist notion of the independent observer and independent observed so-called external objective reality is also false ,for the same reasons .

Quote
Your position in this thread parallels that risk Don because you keep insisting that we can influence physical reality thru observation only. I choose to know the true physical reality and will not be satisfied with delusion. And to insist that one's simple observation of an event is capable of influencing it is delusional. No such evidence exists!

I should see  a shrink  then  lol 

I was not saying that . All i was saying is that the observer and the observed cannot be separated from each other .

Even quantum theory can never be understood without reference to the mind ...

See my posts , posted quotes and short excerpts on the subject in the previous page .



*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Ethos : See the following on the subject :

Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444409#msg444409 date=1415989684]


Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe  , not life , needless to add .


Your definition of consciousness being....?

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 .....

Are the latter real entities or real things , or just concepts ?  ...to mention just that ?

I am not talking about their usual explanations . I am talking about you telling me what their real nature is .Try to do just that then .

96% of the universe is made of unknown dark matter and unknown dark energy .

All modern physics doesn't even know enough about the remaining 4 % , not even remotely close thus , despite its  bombastic talk about "the nature of reality " ,ironically enough,  like that of Caroll through the so-called standard model that allegedly can account for even all our daily human-scale world ...where our most important ,and that of the universe , most key and major feature of them all ,consciousness,not to mention life ,  is totally discarded as insiginificant or irrelevant processes, the latter in physics at least , while physics is assumed to be the basis upon which all sciences are built : psychology is just applied biology, biology just applied chemistry and chemistry is just applied physics  .

Tell me about the nature of the above , then , and only then , you can pretend to be able to approach what consciousness or life might be all about , if ever thus .

Modern science has been enabling scientists to explore the universe , without even being able to explore the most important and key major universe of them all , the one within each one of us , ironically enough : consciousness .

But , quantum theory has been showing that the study of the universe and that of consciousness are intrinsically and inseparably intertwined : the one is impossible to do without the other : quantum theory that can never be understood without making reference to the mind or to consciousness, ironically enough .

How can then quantum theory be compatible with relativity theories , with the usual explanations of gravity.... with the so-called standard model , let alone with the old and false Cartesian notion of separate mind and separate so-called external objective reality, or old and false Cartesian dichotomy  : a separate  mind  and the so-called separate external objective reality , or just with the materialistic monistic false and old notions of the so-called independent observer , independent observed so-called external objective reality ,  and insignificant irrelevant mind and consciousness ...(which are  the products of the physical brain through evolution via the natural selection : that of  the observed so-called external objective reality , that is ) upon which all materialist science has been built ...?

Yet , without a mind or consciousness, there could be no science , ironically enough .

How can consciousness and  the mind + their related processes and anomalies ,needless to add,  the observer thus (note that the physical brain is supposed to have been the product of evolution through natural selection , the brain that has also to obey the laws of physics thus . To assume that consciousness and  the mind ....are the products of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain is also assuming that the observed so-called external objective reality has produced consciousness and  the mind , the observer thus , through the physical brain ... ) , how can consciousness and the mind thus , the observer thus, be just the products of the observed so-called external objective reality ????

How can the 'tool " through which one observes or tries to apprehend the so-called objective external reality, the observed thus ,  be the product of the latter ????

The observer produced by the observed to observe the observed ....lol

The observer produced by the observed to observe itself lol , not only that , on top of that , to observe itself independently of itself : to observe itself independently of the observer that 's just the product of the observed lol


Insane materialistic paradoxical bullshit ...

How can consciousness and  the mind , the observer thus , be just the products of the observed physical laws ,forces and fields ????? = a real paradox .

Not only that , on top of all that , once again : there is the materialist notion of the independent observer and independent observed so-called external objective reality : the former as just the product of the latter , and yet , they are assumed to be independent of  each other ....

Is there any insane puerile absurd ridiculous paradoxical non-sense like that , ever ???????

Materialistic naturalistic monism is thus almost the exact opposite of what the simple explanation of quantum theory is all about, to say the least thus  : reudctionist materialism is thus incompatible with quantum theory , to say the least thus .

No wonder that materialists would never accept that simple explanation of quantum theory that has been delivered by Von Neumann school, by almost all founders of quantum theory , by many other prominent and less -prominent physicists , yesterday and today ,  like the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." , like Amit Goswami and many many others ...





« Last Edit: 15/11/2014 20:54:26 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile

I should see  a shrink  then  lol 

A word to the wise is sufficient!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

I should see  a shrink  then  lol 

A word to the wise is sufficient!

lol

All revolutionary scientists who revolutionized science , all revolutionary thinkers ....must go together with me to see a shrink indeed .

Maybe , i should lol

Try to read the above , Ethos .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • 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.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 00:26:32 by cheryl j »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

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.

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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • 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.
It is.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1449
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
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.
The closest word that comes to mind for what he's suggesting is 'magic'.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
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.
The closest word that comes to mind for what he's suggesting is 'magic'.
Indeed,..........akin to a miracle as in the miraculous.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2804
    • View Profile
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.

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.


« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 07:59:42 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • View Profile
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.

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.




It's still hard to tell in the second quote whether by "reality' he is referring to the literal physical existence of things, or our subjective experience of them. The idea of the physical world existing unobserved may seem peculiar, like a movie running for billions of years in an empty theater. But the idea that consciousness creates reality, and that our consciousness even "reaches back" and constructs the past results in so many absurd inconsistencies on the human scale, not just in very small or very large scales for which we arguably have no intuitive understanding or practical experience.

When I read the second quote I think of early humans, or other primates, observing the world, plants and animals, things falling to the ground, weather, the workings of their own bodies, disease, the sun, the moon, the stars.  And I don't see how a "concept," connected to any of it, or lack of one, or the rightness or wrongness of it,  would have altered or diminished their sensory experience of it, or the physical processes themselves.

If the type of consciousness does not matter (whether its a scientist, a medieval peasant, an orangutan, or a lizard) and what that consciousness actually believes about that phenomena does not matter (one observer says the sun goes around the earth, another says the earth goes around the sun, another is completely blind can't see it at all) then why should I think consciousness has any effect at all in creating physical, non-subjective reality? What aspect of consciousness does matter causually if its neither of those? 

It's entirely different things to say we are dependent on, or even trapped by, brain and sensory processes in our selective filtering and interpretation of information about the physical world, and Wheeler's claim that those processes, and their limitations, actually alter that world in some way.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 17:40:34 by cheryl j »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • 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.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 18:04:23 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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 .
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 19:03:25 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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 .
« Last Edit: 16/11/2014 19:42:45 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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 DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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 .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1463
    • 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?