Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 192767 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

See my reply to alancalverd on the subject here above .

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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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


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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

dlorde :

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

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


*

Offline dlorde

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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

Before i do, the following :

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

The point is :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short :

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

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

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?

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

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

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


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

*

Offline dlorde

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

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

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


*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile



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

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


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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote :

"Formalism versus interpretation :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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 alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444589#msg444589 date=1416099682]

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

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

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

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

and now you've gone and spoilt it with a silly rant. Maybe I'll communicate again when you have grown up.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

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

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

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

*

Offline dlorde

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

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Incidentally, in his new book 'Life on the Edge', in a chapter about quantum consciousness theories, Jim Al-Khalili says (p.270), "There is actually no evidence that quantum mechanics is needed at all to account for consciousness".

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

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile

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

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

*

Offline dlorde

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

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

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
IMHO it is not a good idea to try to guess what Don means. That way madness lies.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

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

But you're right anyway!  [;)]



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

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

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

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

Anon.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444800#msg444800 date=1416328091]
The interpretation of quantum theory has not been solved yet , if ever , so, all its interpretations are relatively "equally " valid ,since none of them has been proven conclusively .

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

Yeah, right : that fictitious many worlds' interpretation is an obvious  major violation of Occam's razor, no matter how you or others would try to make it look or sound otherwise .If that's not a major and cristal -clear violation of Occam's razor, i don't know what is . (Why multiply the universe itself into multiverses or parallel universes , just to 'explain " the universe  ? lol : that's a totally unnecessary plurality of assumptions, not to mention its obvious complexity , beyond necessity ...instead of simplicity ...) .Not only that , on top of that ,it is just a matter of taste , aesthetics , not to mention that it is just an unfalsifiable fantasy= unscientific bullshit  , like that hidden variable theory ....

Worse : just a materialist desperate attempt to walk around the interpretation dilemma of quantum theory , in vain ,instead of looking for a simple explanation .

The latter cannot in fact be found in materialistic terms, since the universe is not exclusively physical or material ,as Wheeler said,  that's why materialists cannot but deliver such unscientific and unfalsifiable bullshit theories ...instead of confronting the fact that materialism is false, in the first place to begin with , thanks to consciousness and all its related anomalies and processes that can never be intrinsically accounted for, let alone explained , by materialism  .

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

(Prior note :
Actually , we don't even need quantum theory to acknowledge the simple fact that the observer and the observed are inseparable ,or that they affect each other , not to mention the simple fact that consciousness plays a central and key role in shaping reality .QM just brings that old and simple fact back to science or to physics .
Just tell me, dlorde : since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic and inescapable  part of the universe or reality he/she is observing , how can he/she be assumed to be separated from that observed reality ? ,as if he/she's observing the universe or reality from outside of the universe or outside of reality ,if such a 'thing " would 'exist " or make any sense at all ...as if the observer is independent from the universe or reality .

Reminds me of what Newton, once said , on the subject of atheism whose main flaw or logical fallacy is to assume that objects or people are independent entities ...

The latter don't exist as such ,since the universe is one and interconnected .) .

I know that : that's just his opinion or preferred interpretation , after exploring the relative merits of all interpretations of QM , that "agnostic " way ,as he claims at least  .

As a materialist , he cannot be a-priori that "agnostic " in fact ,as he claims ( That would be like a believer who would claim to take an a-priori atheistic or agnostic position .  lol ) ,since his materialism cannot but make him  a-priori rule out any active or proactive role , let alone a central role , of consciousness in physics .

But, if Jim would acknowledge the non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness , while ceasing to be a materialist as a result ,since materialism is false,  then , he cannot but revoke that claim of his regarding the "fact " that there is no evidence that QM can  account for consciousness ...

Well, daaahhh : there is no conclusive evidence for the rest of the interpretations of QM either ,and hence they are all  "equally valid " , as he claimed . Why single out just that particular interpretation then that happens to be totally incompatible with materialism ?

In other words , why say that that particular interpretation is hardly "valid " ? or that it is not valid at all ....while Jim's views on the subject are as "valid " as those of other physicists who hold totally different views from  his by the way ...according to the very logic of Jim lol

Actually , Jim contradicts himself , big time, thus , first by pretending to be able to take an "agnostic " position regarding the measurement paradox in QM,second by admitting that the interpretation of QM has not been solved yet conclusively , if ever ,which means that all interpretations of QM are 'equally " valid ,and hence  just a matter of taste or aesthetics , and third   by saying that hardly any physicists take the observer effect interpretation seriously , or that there is no evidence for the observer effect interpretation ...

The guy is full of contradictions thus , and his "Quantum : Guide for the perplexed " turns out to be a lost perplexed and confused "guide " in need of a guide itself : it just added to my confusion on the subject exponentially . I could have been totally lost thanks to Jim's book in question , was it not for other physicists who hold other views on the subject .

Nevertheless, QM is still a big mystery to me ,and to all  physicists,and to most people,  including Jim himself  , regardless of whether or not they would acknowledge that fact ,as Jim partly did .

Even Feynman himself said , and rightly so, i guess ,that "I can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics ..." .

To say the contrary is a plain and simple display of dishonesty and lack of integrity , to say the least .

Even many physicists , as Jim said by the way , including our alancalverd   here , even claim there is no problem or mystery , let alone a paradox, regarding the interpretation of QM.

alancalverd   even denied the very existence of the wave/particle duality itself  as such , ironically enough .

How can he explain the wave/particle duality of light and that of the rest of the  'particles " then ?

P.S.: QM set aside , even simple logics would tell you that the observer and the observed cannot be separated or independent from each other , no way , cannot but affect each other , including at the level of science .

Simple logics would tell you that the so-called objectivity even in science is a myth : see all those different interpretations of QM .See how the Eurocentric materialism has been taken for granted as science or as the scientific world view for relatively so long now ,and counting, , without a question, by the majority of scientists and other people as well , including yourselves ...

Science that's just a human social activity , and to some extent just a cultural one as well (See how the Eurocentric materialism has been taken for granted as science ....) .

Come on, the observer cannot be separated from the observed , cannot but affect and get affected by the latter ...
Even the very design of experiments , development of theories, the interpretation of data and empirical evidence  ...cannot but be affected by the  a -priori held beliefs or world views, expectations ...of the scientists observers in question ...

Otherwise , there would be no interpretation dilemma or problem at all ,either in science or elsewhere.

Our representations of reality cannot but be mostly mental ...mental constructs (Even science says so ) , through a-priori held beliefs or world views that shape consciousness  through cultures , environment , education, nurture , perception...not to mention the role of the unconscious in all that ,and that of the collective consciousness and collective unconsciousness or collective sub-consciousness as well, as Carl G.Jung used to say ...

In short :

Try to rid yourselves of that old and false Cartesian dichotomy between the subjective and the objective , between the observer and the observed ,and of the false alleged notion of the independent observer and independent observed reality .... not to mention their  materialistic reductionistic monistic versions...

Regarding the latter , how can the observed external objective reality produce the observer through evolution thus , simply put , while  they are assumed to be independent from each other : the observed allegedly producing the observer to observe the observed : to observe itself , not only that , on top of that , to observe itself independently of itself ...  Insane puerile absurd paradoxical pseudo-scientific materialistic bullshit that pretends to be "scientific " ....wow ....
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 19:54:56 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


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

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

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

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

Good luck with that .

Tha hallmark of scientific writing is an absence of adjectives. If you have numbers, you show them. If you don't, you don't have a case. To my mind, concatenated adjectives are the sign of the ranter. Though I'll grant you that voodoo is probably being used here as a noun, however inappropriately.


Quote
alancalverd   even denied the very existence of the wave/particle duality itself, ironically enough .

I wasn't being ironic. The problem is that some people used to think that scientific "laws" were imposed on the universe by holy statute, and we knew all about them, so everything ought to behave as some aspect of a classical continuum. Hence the behaviour of light must be describable by either wave or particle equations because we know everything about wave and particle equations.  But annoyingly it turns out not to be the case, so rather than admit ignorance, people invented "duality" and blamed nature for being inconsistent.

But if we set intellectual arrogance aside and accept that scientific laws are discovered approximations, not imposed requirements, it all becomes a lot clearer: the world behaves as it does, and it is up to us to choose the most appropriate model if we want to predict what it will do next. Or we can investigate further and see if there is a more comprehensive formula. For the time being it seems that wave and particle models work pretty well, and we know which to use and when.  No paradox, just incomplete mathematics.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 19:31:42 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Andrei Linde: Quote :

 “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?”  End quote .

Indeed : how can there be any science , let alone the rest , without consciousness ? How can the latter not affect the observed reality and get affected by it as well , let alone be independent of it ... ? since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic , inseparable and inescapable part of the observed universe...

Can you observe the observed universe or observed reality from outside of the latter ? lol : Yes, that's what materialist science is basically saying, implicitly that is  : absurd ... paradox .
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 20:33:36 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
alancalverd : No time left , sorry , almost :

Did you or did you not deny the wave/particle duality of light and that of other 'particles " as such , earlier on ? Yes, you did .

You said there is no duality .

Did you or did you not deny the interpretation paradox  ,dilemma or problem of quantum theory as such , and their intrinsic mystery and weirdness ? Yes, you did .

Regarding the latter at least , you said : there is no problem ,as many other physicists did/do .

Both you and other physicists are wrong thus .

Did you or did you not deny the very fact that while using the extremely successful quantum theory , you don't understand why it works the way it does ? Yes, you did ...or as Jim said in that book of his :  Quote :  "...The majority of practicing physicists have learned to use the theory without understanding why it works ..." End quote : source : "Quantum, a guide for the perplexed " Chapter 6  "The great debate " .

The list is relatively long .I will remind you of all that , another time thus .

Even Feynman himself said ,and rightly so, that "I can safely say that nobody understands QM.... ", nobody does indeed , including yourself ,  ,while you said to me , earlier on : oh , it's very simple , just algebra ...

Way to go , physicist .
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 20:30:18 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality : By Manjit Kumar :

I have just started listening to this amazing book : wow : return to the source ,if you wanna "understand" QM , i guess , before it got infected by the materialistic reductionistic dogmatic  lethal disease  , that is lol :

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Einstein-Debate-Nature-Reality/dp/0393339882

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I have explained why the notions of duality and paradox exist only in the mind, and indeed only in the minds of the arrogant. There's a lot of Zen in good science.

There is no "why" in the cosmos as a whole. Why is a construct of mortal beings who require or desire motive and order in their lives. The scientific question is "how" - at least as far as physics is concerned - and although we don't have a full understanding of how quantum effects occur, we have a good handle on what to expect when they do. 

Anyway, enough from my side of the fence. Let's hear the sales pitch for your product. What does your nonmaterialist science predict more accurately or more efficiently than the methods you decry? If there are paradoxes, which ones does it unravel? I'm quite prepared to believe it is a superior approach if you can show rather than tell. 
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 22:03:42 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Just tell me, dlorde : since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic and inescapable  part of the universe or reality he/she is observing , how can he/she be assumed to be separated from that observed reality ?

Ah. Clearly you either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. If there's something in particular you didn't follow, just ask, and I'll try to help you understand it.

The whole point of 'Many Worlds' is that the observer becomes part of the system being observed. When a system in quantum superposition is measured by interaction with some apparatus (or observer), the interacting apparatus becomes part of the superposition (the superposed wavefunction encompasses both system & apparatus), and when the apparatus interacts further with the environment, the environment becomes part of the superposition too. By this point, the initial superposition is said to have decohered because it has spread irretrievably into the environment. Each 'aspect' of the superposition sees one outcome of the measurement. This is just an extended evolution of the overall wavefunction of the whole ensemble - no magical 'collapse' involved. What part of this do you find difficult to follow?

If it will help you see the reality of superposition, here's the first undergraduate MIT lecture in quantum mechanics, called 'Introduction to Superposition', which explains very simply and clearly the empirical evidence for superposition, which is all the 'Many Worlds' interpretation relies on.

By all means object to the interpretation, but for your objection to be worth anything, it must be based on what the interpretation actually says, not a misunderstanding of what it says. So what are your particular grounds for objecting to it ? (bearing in mind that the superposition at the core of QM has been empirically confirmed many times).
« Last Edit: 19/11/2014 23:31:26 by dlorde »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
... Just tell me, dlorde : since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic and inescapable  part of the universe or reality he/she is observing , how can he/she be assumed to be separated from that observed reality ?

Ah. Clearly you either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. If there's something in particular you didn't follow, just ask, and I'll try to help you understand it.

The whole point of 'Many Worlds' is that the observer becomes part of the system being observed. When a system in quantum superposition is measured by interaction with some apparatus (or observer), the interacting apparatus becomes part of the superposition (the superposed wavefunction encompasses both system & apparatus), and when the apparatus interacts further with the environment, the environment becomes part of the superposition too. By this point, the initial superposition is said to have decohered because it has spread irretrievably into the environment. Each 'aspect' of the superposition sees one outcome of the measurement. This is just an extended evolution of the overall wavefunction of the whole ensemble - no magical 'collapse' involved. What part of this do you find difficult to follow?

If it will help you see the reality of superposition, here's the first undergraduate MIT lecture in quantum mechanics, called 'Introduction to Superposition', which explains very simply and clearly the empirical evidence for superposition, which is all the 'Many Worlds' interpretation relies on.

By all means object to the interpretation, but for your objection to be worth anything, it must be based on what the interpretation actually says, not a misunderstanding of what it says. So what are your particular grounds for objecting to it ? (bearing in mind that the superposition at the core of QM has been empirically confirmed many times).

Ok,I did not read that article , to be honest ,so .

I will just refer you to what the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." said about  that many worlds' interpretation , as follows :

Excerpt from Chapter 15 : "What’s Going On? Interpreting the Quantum  Enigma: "

Quote :

"
Many Worlds :

The Many Worlds interpretation accepts what quantum theory says
literally . Where the Copenhagen interpretation has observation mysteriously collapsing the atom’s wavefunction into a single box, and Schrödinger’s cat into the living or dead state, the Many Worlds interpretation just says “no” to collapse. Quantum theory says the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. So be it! In one world, Schrödinger’s cat is alive, and in another it is dead.

Hugh Everett came up with the Many Worlds idea in the 1950s to
allow cosmologists to deal with a wavefunction for the entire universe.
With no need for “observers” to collapse the wavefunction, the Many
Worlds interpretation presumes to resolve the quantum enigma by the
sensible-seeming ploy of including consciousness as part of the physical
universe described by quantum mechanics.

In the Many Worlds interpretation, you are part of the universal wavefunction.
 Consider our box pairs. Looking into one of the boxes, you
entangle with the atom’s superposition state. You go into a superposition
state both of having seen the atom in the box you looked in and also of
having seen that box empty. There are now two of you, one in each of two
parallel worlds. The consciousness of each one of you is unaware of
the other “you.” Instead of looking in a box, yet another “you” did an interference experiment. Nothing we actually experience conflicts with this
bizarre view.

To bring more than one observer into the picture, let’s go back to
Schrödinger’s cat. Alice looks in the box while Bob is far away. In one
world Alice, call her Alice 1 , sees a live cat. In the other, Alice 2 sees a dead cat.
At this point Bob is also in both worlds, but Bob 1 and Bob 2 are essentially identical.

Should Bob 1 meet Alice 1 , he would help her get milk for the hungry cat. Bob 2 would help Alice 2 bury the dead cat. Macroscopic objects Alice 2 and Bob 1 exist in different worlds and, for all practical purposes, never encounter each other.

After Bell’s theorem and the experiments it allowed, we know that our
actual world perhaps cannot have reality and, certainly cannot have separability.
In the Many Worlds interpretation there is no separability. In that
world in which Alice finds the cat alive, Bob instantly becomes a person in
the cat-alive world. And there is clearly no single reality, which seems
equivalent to no reality.

The Many Worlds interpretation stirs strong feelings. One academic
author decries it as “profligate” and refers to its proposer as a “chain-smoking, horned-Cadillac-driving, multimillionaire weapons research analyst.”
(At the time Everett proposed it, he was just a graduate student.)

On the other hand, a leader in quantum computing writes that the Many Worlds interpretation “makes more sense in so many ways than any previous world-view, and certainly more than the cynical pragmatism which too often nowadays serves as a surrogate for a world-view among scientists.”
(By “cynical pragmatism” he surely means the unquestioning acceptance
of Copenhagen.).

The Many Worlds interpretation is today the favorite interpretation of
many quantum cosmologists for the early universe they consider.
 They can ignore the observer problem. No observers around then. Since the universe includes everything, it is by definition isolated from any external “environment.”

Decoherence thus need not be an issue. A quantum cosmologist colleague tells us that the Many Worlds interpretation is his favorite, although he doesn’t like it.

There’s an unresolved problem with the Many Worlds interpretation:
What constitutes an observation? When does the world split? The splitting
into two worlds is presumably just a way of speaking. Are infinitely many
worlds continuously created?.

In any event, the Many Worlds interpretation vastly extends what
Copernicus started. Not only are we removed from the center of the cosmos to a tiny spot in a limitless universe, but the world we experience is just a minute fraction of all worlds. However, “we” exist in many of them. Many Worlds, the most bizarre description of reality ever seriously proposed, provides a fascinating base for speculation, and for science fiction." End quote .
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 17:39:58 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
I have explained why the notions of duality and paradox exist only in the mind, and indeed only in the minds of the arrogant. There's a lot of Zen in good science.

There is no "why" in the cosmos as a whole. Why is a construct of mortal beings who require or desire motive and order in their lives. The scientific question is "how" - at least as far as physics is concerned - and although we don't have a full understanding of how quantum effects occur, we have a good handle on what to expect when they do. 

Anyway, enough from my side of the fence. Let's hear the sales pitch for your product. What does your nonmaterialist science predict more accurately or more efficiently than the methods you decry? If there are paradoxes, which ones does it unravel? I'm quite prepared to believe it is a superior approach if you can show rather than tell.

( Prior note :

How can you deny the wave /particle duality a such ? ,while it has been demonstrated to occur even at the level of some large molecules ...Many experiments have shown that , not to mention the famous double slit experiment ...Many physicists even say that the whole universe is quantum "mechanical " ,so , the wave/particle duality might exist even at the level of our relatively large-scale human world : it just can't be detected as such ..yet , that is . )

Ok, the "Why " was used even by Jim in that quote of his . He should have used the word " how " indeed , in the sense that " ...The majority of practicing physicists have learned to use the theory without understanding why (how )  it works ..." .

What about Bell's theorem ? See the following on the subject :

From "Quantum Enigma ..." , Excerpt from Chapter 14 : " Experimental metaphysics" :

Quote :



Experimental Metaphysics :


"All men suppose that what is called wisdom deals with the first causes and the principles of things."

— Aristotle, in Metaphysics

Metaphysics , literally, “after physics,” is the title a fi rst-century editor gave to a collection of Aristotle’s philosophical works that came after his book Physics .

 Were Aristotle around today, he would surely explore “fi rst causes” by trying to understand what quantum mechanics is telling us about the world, and about us.
Our title for this chapter, “Experimental Metaphysics,” was inspired by
a recent collection of essays by that name discussing laboratory experiments exploring the foundations of quantum mechanics.

The book’s first chapter (by John Clauser) has the provocative title “De Broglie Wave Interference of Small Rocks and Live Viruses,” which are the experiments Clauser is proposing.

Because the microscopic realm of atoms differs by so many orders of
magnitude from the macroscopic realm of humans, some argue that quantum mechanics has little implication for our human-scale view of Nature, “what’s really going on.” That was not the attitude of Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and the other developers of quantum theory. In later years, however, as the quantum enigma remained unresolved, and the theory worked so well for all practical purposes, the early concerns waned.
That’s changed. There’s lots of agreement today that we fundamentally
don’t understand what’s going on. At least there’s lots of dis agreement about what’s going on, which is pretty much the same thing.

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

From a classical physics point of view, some argue that we are just
objects governed by biology and chemistry, and therefore ultimately
by deterministic physics. However, since Bell’s theorem, the human
element, free choice, for example, is seen as an issue in fundamental
physics questions.

While the free choice of the experimenter was implicit in classical
physics there is no classical physics experiment where free choice, a human
element, becomes problematic. Although it may never be practical to do a
quantum experiment critically involving free choice, a suggested one
discussed below comes close.
In the rest of this chapter, we touch on several experiments and proposed
experiments that ever more tightly, but mysteriously, connect the
strange microscopic world with the “reasonable” macroscopic world we
experience.

Macroscopic Realizations :

So far, in our telling of an object’s existence in two places at once, or its
entanglement with another object, the objects were photons, electrons, or
atoms, objects small enough to be physically isolated from their macroscopic surroundings.

 In recent years, quantum phenomena have been extended to
larger objects, and even more signifi cantly, to objects with substantial contact with the macroscopic environment. By the time this book is in print there will surely be dramatic phenomena we would have included...." End quote .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

What about Bell's theorem ? : See my  post to alancalverd on the subject here above .

Bohr was right , after all , and Einstein wrong , regarding that famous dispute of theirs at least .

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4974

Take a look at the following quote from what i posted to alancalverd here above on the subject : Quote :

"....

The book’s first chapter (by John Clauser) has the provocative title “De Broglie Wave Interference of Small Rocks and Live Viruses,” which are the experiments Clauser is proposing.

Because the microscopic realm of atoms differs by so many orders of
magnitude from the macroscopic realm of humans, some argue that quantum mechanics has little implication for our human-scale view of Nature, “what’s really going on.” That was not the attitude of Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and the other developers of quantum theory.

 In later years, however, as the quantum enigma remained unresolved, and the theory worked so well for all practical purposes, the early concerns waned.

That’s changed. There’s lots of agreement today that we fundamentally
don’t understand what’s going on. At least there’s lots of dis agreement about what’s going on, which is pretty much the same thing.

Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible.

They did more than confirm the weird predictions of quantum theory.

 The experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual world as a “reasonable” one.
 Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?
  End quote .

P.S.: Whenever i try to fix the display of the above quotes , they just appear as they do here above , sorry .
« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 18:43:30 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
The nature of reality is this: It is hidden, and it is hidden, and it is hidden.

–Rumi

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

Wonderful, Wonderful
Copenhagen:


Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen . . .
Salty old queen of the sea
Once I sailed away
But I’m home today
Singing Copenhagen, wonderful, wonderful
Copenhagen for me.
— “Wonderful Copenhagen,” by Frank Loesser

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Quote
How can you deny the wave /particle duality a such ? ,while it has been demonstrated to occur even at the level of some large molecules ...Many experiments have shown that , not to mention the famous double slit experiment ...Many physicists even say that the whole universe is quantum "mechanical " ,so , the wave/particle duality might exist even at the level of our relatively large-scale human world : it just can't be detected as such ..yet , that is . )

Decry rather than deny. Duality is the construct of an arrogant and lazy mind, that thinks it knows everything, so the world must be made of classical waves or classical particles,or things that can be either. Fact is the world is made of things that are neither, but can be modelled as either.

Previous generations of scientists, brought up on classical mechanics, can be forgiven for talkijng about dality wen addressing a lay audience, but for the last 50 years at least, chemistry and physics have been taught from a quantum perspective, so most current professionals don't waste their lives arguing about duality.

OK, I've now convinced myself. Duality is nonsense. The quantum world is a lot more subtle than that.   

And I'm still waiting for an example of something predicted by this nonmaterial physics that turns out to be more true than anything predicted by material physics.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I will just refer you to what the authors of "Quantum Enigma ..." said about  that many worlds' interpretation
<snipped long copypasta>
Yup, that's pretty much it. It simply accepts the empirical evidence that quantum mechanics is real, and doesn't try to hack it to conform to our intuitive view of reality.
 
Quote
There’s an unresolved problem with the Many Worlds interpretation:
What constitutes an observation? When does the world split? The splitting
into two worlds is presumably just a way of speaking. Are infinitely many
worlds continuously created?
Not really unresolved - an observation is any interaction with the quantum system. The result is that whatever interacts with it joins the superposition. In that sense, the world doesn't really split at all. The original superposition extends to encompass the measuring apparatus and, through further interactions, the environment. What is called a 'world' is just one state of that superposition. This 'sharing' of superposition is going on continually in Hilbert space, there's plenty of room and no interaction between superposed outcome states ('worlds').

It may seem bizarre, unintuitive, and unexpected, but that's just a consequence of it depending on the confirmed reality of quantum superposition, which is itself bizarre, unintuitive, and unexpected - as clearly described in the MIT tutorial video which you presumably didn't watch either.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Infinite realities  is equal to no reality : many worlds' interpretation belongs more to sci-fi than to science , even though the former can become the latter sometimes , but not in this case .

What makes the universe 'split " ,and how ? How can one falsify that fantasy ?

Why did you ignore that yet another game changer : Bell's theorem , i wonder .

"Your perception is your reality " i say , almost thus .

alancalverd :

Chill, man : the Nobel prize winner son of Bohr and others do even say that there is no atomic or sub-atomic world as such even, through their extreme Copenhagen interpretation ...

For the rest , later then .

Thanks. Cheers.

« Last Edit: 20/11/2014 21:37:52 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Still no predictions or explanations. I'm beginning to suspect he hasn't got any, which means it isn't science.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Still no predictions or explanations. I'm beginning to suspect he hasn't got any, which means it isn't science.

Don't worry , Alan : I will provide you with way more than you can ever handle .Take care .

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
dlorde :
What about Bell's theorem ?
What about it? Bell gave the criteria for demonstrating whether quantum entanglement could be explained classically or was something quite different. The experiments that have been done to date appear to violate Bell's criteria (Bell's inequalities) for being consistent with classical mechanics. IOW, they are consistent with QM, and it looks like the world doesn't follow classical rules. Some say the experiments aren't definitive, but their case is looking weaker by the day.

As usual, one should follow the evidence with an open mind. We know, both empirically and theoretically, very precisely what QM does and what it doesn't do; but we don't know what's going on 'behind the scenes' - or even if there is a 'behind the scenes'.

The violation of Bell's inequalities is consistent with the 'Many Worlds' interpretation, which doesn't include counterfactual definiteness (definite knowledge of unmeasured properties), but is otherwise realist, deterministic, and local, in the manner of classical mechanics. This makes it more like classical mechanics than collapse interpretations, e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, which introduce the indeterministic and non-local collapse of the wavefunction.

Since, in the MW interpretation, the unitary, deterministic dynamics of the evolution of the wavefunction results in the appearance of wavefunction collapse for each superposed state, the problematic inclusion of an actual collapse in the theory is unnecessary - Ockham's razor suggests we remove it, (and, incidentally, Einstein's criticism of QM is thereby resolved).

So it is the collapse interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, which introduce non-determinism and non-localism when they introduce the unnecessary wavefunction collapse.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 14:28:34 by dlorde »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
What makes the universe 'split " ,and how ? How can one falsify that fantasy ?
I already answered that above. Sadly for you, superposition isn't a fantasy - just watch the MIT 'Introduction to QM' lecture I linked above. You'll notice that the lecturer goes to great pains to emphasise how apparently illogical and unreasonable superposition is - yet it is clearly established empirical fact.

Quote
Why did you ignore that yet another game changer : Bell's theorem , i wonder .
Violation of Bell's inequalities is consistent with MW as mentioned above.


« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 14:26:12 by dlorde »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Still no predictions or explanations. I'm beginning to suspect he hasn't got any, which means it isn't science.

Don't worry , Alan : I will provide you with way more than you can ever handle .Take care .

Just one will suffice. But hurry before I lose interest.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444884#msg444884 date=1416439722]
... Just tell me, dlorde : since the observer cannot but make an intrinsic and inescapable  part of the universe or reality he/she is observing , how can he/she be assumed to be separated from that observed reality ?

Ah. Clearly you either didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. If there's something in particular you didn't follow, just ask, and I'll try to help you understand it.

Well, i have just read some parts of it ,after all (I will read the rest of it as well , later on, and will watch those MIT lectures as well , whenever i would have time for just that , thanks .) .It's an easy one to grasp : that's its most appealing part , i guess . Caroll is a clear materialist bastard lol : it's quite a fascinating and elegant theory , but,it makes sense only from the materialistic perspective ,that is , not to mention that it belongs more to sci-fic than to science :

0- Its main and most lethal flaw that's largely sufficient in or by itself to declare it as irreversibly false is that it is just a materialistic theory , in the sense that it assumes that consciousness is just a material process that cannot but make part of the physical universe,so, consciousness cannot but get entangled with its environment and remain in a superposition state, while the non-local and non-physical nature of consciousness is synonymous of the fact that consciousness can never be in a superposition state , since it is not material ,as Von Neumann proved  .

1-Takes QM literally .

2 - Violates Bell's theorem , not regarding separability or locality , but regarding reality or realism . That theorem and all those related experiments done by Bell, Aspect, Clauser ,Freedman ... clearly show that there is no separability or locality and no reality as such , proving Bohr to be right and Einstein to be wrong on the subject .

3_ Doesn't resolve the observation problem, since conscious observation has to be made after all , at the end of the measurement chain , as Von Neumann used to say .

To mention just the above , for the time being at least .


Quote
The whole point of 'Many Worlds' is that the observer becomes part of the system being observed. When a system in quantum superposition is measured by interaction with some apparatus (or observer), the interacting apparatus becomes part of the superposition (the superposed wavefunction encompasses both system & apparatus), and when the apparatus interacts further with the environment, the environment becomes part of the superposition too. By this point, the initial superposition is said to have decohered because it has spread irretrievably into the environment. Each 'aspect' of the superposition sees one outcome of the measurement. This is just an extended evolution of the overall wavefunction of the whole ensemble - no magical 'collapse' involved. What part of this do you find difficult to follow?

See above : that whole point of that theory is built upon sand castles , since consciousness is a non-physical and non-local process , and hence can never be in a superposition state .



Quote
If it will help you see the reality of superposition, here's the first undergraduate MIT lecture in quantum mechanics, called 'Introduction to Superposition', which explains very simply and clearly the empirical evidence for superposition, which is all the 'Many Worlds' interpretation relies on.

I will watch that , thanks .

Consciousness as a non-material and non -local process can never be in a superposition state , once again , since it is not material at least .

Quote
By all means object to the interpretation, but for your objection to be worth anything, it must be based on what the interpretation actually says, not a misunderstanding of what it says. So what are your particular grounds for objecting to it ? (bearing in mind that the superposition at the core of QM has been empirically confirmed many times).

See above .

Consciousness is no part of the physical universe , it shapes it , from outside of the laws of physics , from outside of space and time , as Von Neumann proved ,so, consciousness as a non-physical and non -local process can never be in a superposition state .

Since materialism assumes that consciousness is just a material process ( a materialist claim or production theory for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it .) ,then , no wonder that materialists assume that consciousness is just a part of the physical universe , no wonder that that false materialist premise is the backbone of many worlds theory , a broken backbone that is : that's more than enough to prove many worlds' interpretation of quantum theory or of its measurement problem to be ...false irreversibly .


In short :

If there is some process that can collapse the wave function , then consciousness is the only   serious candidate for that , as Von Neumann proved .
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 18:15:45 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444946#msg444946 date=1416522791]
What makes the universe 'split " ,and how ? How can one falsify that fantasy ?
I already answered that above. Sadly for you, superposition isn't a fantasy - just watch the MIT 'Introduction to QM' lecture I linked above. You'll notice that the lecturer goes to great pains to emphasise how apparently illogical and unreasonable superposition is - yet it is clearly established empirical fact.


When i wrote the above , i had not read that Caroll's article ,so .

I have never  questioned  the superposition state though , i am just saying that since consciousness is not a material process that makes part of the physical universe (see above ) , so it can never be in a superposition state , since consciousness is a non-local and a non-physical process that might be the one that collapses the wave function from outside of the laws of physics , from outside of space and time, as Von Neumann proved .

Quote
Quote
Why did you ignore that yet another game changer : Bell's theorem , i wonder .
Violation of Bell's inequalities is consistent with MW as mentioned above.

MW is consistent only with the part of Bell's theorem that proves there is no separability or locality , but it is inconsistent with that theorem 's part that proves reality to be a kind of illusion .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"After Bell’s theorem and the experiments it allowed, we know that our
actual world perhaps cannot have reality and, certainly cannot have separability.In the Many Worlds interpretation there is no separability, and there is clearly no single reality, which seems equivalent to no reality.
" Quote from "Quantum Enigma ..." .

But , i disagree with the latter sentence from the above mentioned quote , in the sense that since materialism or its positivism or realism assume that there is an observed objective external reality out there that's independent of  the observer ,as there is locality or separability ,at the macroscopic classical  level at least , and since  that materialistic MW theory says almost the opposite at the quantum level : there is no separability and many realities as well (many realities is no synonymous of no reality ) , then materialism is contradicting itself thus , while the whole universe is supposed to be quantum "mechanical " : See the paradox ?

In other words :

Materialism says there is an observed external objective reality out there ,at the macroscopic or classical level at least , that's supposed to be independent of or separated from the observer : there is both separability or locality and reality as such , but  at the quantum level , the materialistic MW theory says almost  the very opposite : there is no separability (there is non-locality ) and there are many worlds or realities ,while the whole universe is supposed to be quantum "mechanical " in fact : see the contradictions of materialism ?

How can materialism "unify " its MW theory at the quantum level which says that there is no separability and there are many realities , with its materialistic assumptions of locality and separability at the macroscopic level then ? ,since the whole universe is supposed to be quantum "mechanical " .
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 19:00:32 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
"I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory."

— Albert Einstein

"I cannot seriously believe in [quantum theory] because . . . physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky action at a distance."
 
— Albert Einstein


Bell, Aspect , Clauser and others proved Bohr to be right and Einstein to be wrong : there are both "spooky actions at a distance " = non-locality or non-separability ,as well as no reality as such .

Quote : "...Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in the last half of the twentieth century.” It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory.
We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events
at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of
your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable
in any normally complex situation.
Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement,
now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication. Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness."
End quote : "Quantum Enigma ..." .
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 19:16:58 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Don, your repeated statement "since consciousness is not a material process..." isn't a proven statement. Every thing you say after that hinges on an assertion you can't prove. There's also no meaning in your complaint about the "separation" of the observer and observed in materialism or naturalism.  If anything, materialism is more inclusive because in that view, everything is made of the same stuff,and is subject to the same physical laws. You're the one making a special case for consciousness and  separating it from the rest of the physical world. All that materialism denies is that subject experience is the same reality. If my thermostat in my house is broken, there is a not another reality in which my house is actually warm. The thermostat is just wrong. If my thermostat cannot detects sound waves, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Likewise our subject experience, what aspects of reality we can detect, has limitations. What is so confusing to you about that?
« Last Edit: 21/11/2014 19:11:21 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg444997#msg444997 date=1416596956]
Don, your repeated statement "since consciousness is not a material process..." isn't a proven statement. Every thing you say after that hinges on an assertion you can't prove.

Ok, It's the other way around : Many worlds theory is all built upon the materialistic  assumption or false premise that the consciousness of the observer makes part of the physical reality (consciousness as just a material process : materialist production theory for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to support it .) ,so, consciousness of the observer cannot but get entangled with its environment and remain in a superposition state .

On the other hand , there is an indirect overwhelming evidence for the non-local and non-physical nature of consciousness ,as Von Neumann and others proved .

Better still : Bell's theorem and other related experiments proved the non-locality or no separability as well as the non-reality at the quantum level , and since the whole universe is supposed to be quantum "mechanical ", then that non-locality and no reality do apply also to our human -scale world , since non-locality or entanglement has been proved even at the level of some large molecules  also ....so, the non-local and non-physical non-materialist conception  of consciousness is the one that can account for consciousness and all its related anomalies and processes , not to mention that the Von Neumannian fact that consciousness as a non-physical process that acts from outside of the laws of physics or outside of space and time is the only serious candidate for the collapse of the wave function, since consciousness as a non-physical process can thus never be in a superposition state ...

Quote
There's also no meaning in your complaint about the "separation" of the observer and observed in materialism or naturalism.


Naturalism is not only materialistic , remember : goes beyond that .Naturalism that's all about methodology and epistemology , not about the alleged separation between the observer and the observed .The latter is the materialistic realism or positivism ...

Materialism is so full of intrinsic inescapable contradictions : here is a sample , so to speak :

The materialistic MW theory that allegedly can account for the interpretation of quantum theory or for its measurement problem says that the observer and the observed are inseparable : consciousness of the observer makes part of the physical reality : there is no separability thus , as there are many worlds or realities .

On the other hand , materialism also says that there is what can be called the observed objective external reality out there that's allegedly independent or separated from the observer ,at the macroscopic level at least , which means there is separability or locality ,and there is reality as such .

Compare between the above 2 : the materialist MW theory says there is no  separability between  the  observer and between the observed ,since they all make part of the same physical universe , and there are many realities as well , which some say is equal to no reality .

On the other hand , at the macroscopic level, materialism says almost the opposite : there is separability ,as well as 1 reality : that of the physical universe .


Quote
If anything, materialism is more inclusive because in that view, everything is made of the same stuff,and is subject to the same physical laws.


Everything ? Sure about that ? What makes you think that everything is made up of atoms ? lol ,consciousness ,for example, is not .

Quote
You're the one making a special case for consciousness and  separating it from the rest of the physical world.

See above : consciousness is non-physical ,and hence cannot make part of the physical universe , it even shapes it .It's almost all mind : Bell's theorem and its related experiments which were done by Bell, Aspect , Clauser , Freedman and others have proved that the so-called properties of particles might be just in the mind of the observer (not real ) ,since there is no separability between the observed objects and between the mind of the observer : there might be no external objective reality out there that can be independent of the mind of the observer .

In other words :

As that posted quote to our physicist alancalverd shows : Bell's theorem proves clearly the observer effect at the quantum level, by proving Bohr to be right ,and Einstein to be wrong on both accounts : on the subject of reality and separability  .

Quote
All that materialism denies is that subject experience is the same reality. If my thermostat in my house is broken, there is a not another reality in which my house is actually warm. The thermostat is just wrong. If my thermostat cannot detects sound waves, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Likewise our subject experience, what aspects of reality we can detect, has limitations. What is so confusing to you about that?

Bell's theorem and its related experiments have shown that there is no separability or locality , in the sense that the whole universe is interconnected ,so "spooky action at a distance " does occur : distant objects or minds do affect each other ,as there is no reality as such : it's almost all mind .



*

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Quote :

"According to Bell:

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

 Even though Einstein was wrong about separability and reality , he nevertheless was somehow right about the philosophy of physics ,which means that science in general cannot do without philosophy of science . Philosophy is not   dead as Hawking said .On the contrary , it is necessary to science and to its progress ...

" In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."

— Martin Rees

That might have answered your earlier question about consciousness and the observed universe .