0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 17:31:56If 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.
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 16/11/2014 20:01:16the 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?
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 .
.. 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... <snip copypasta>
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444589#msg444589 date=1416099682]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 20:51:32Can 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.
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 .....
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.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 17:31:56If 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 .
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 .
Materialists assume consciousness to be just a material process , so, how can it collapse the wave function ?
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg444697#msg444697 date=1416218410]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 16/11/2014 21:18:55Since 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.
QuoteMaterialists 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).
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 16/11/2014 20:08:07Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 17:31:56If 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.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 17:31:56Thank 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 ... .
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.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/11/2014 17:43:05Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 17:31:56Thank 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.
author=PmbPhy link=topic=52526.msg444605#msg444605 date=1416124084]Quote from: DonQuichotteReally ?"...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.
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).
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.
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.
Quote author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444589#msg444589 date=1416099682]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 20:51:32Can 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.
Consciousness might have preceded the universe itself , i told you once , didn't i ?
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 23:09:37Thank 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 .
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 stop shouting for a bit and start listening, others may think you less foolish than you appear.
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".