0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/12/2014 17:46:31 before you look we could have proven—with an interference experiment—that each atom was a wave equally in both boxes. Wrong. Not "proven" but "modelled"QuoteAfter you look it was in a single box. YesQuote It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box. No.Before the race, we had a good idea of which dog was likely to win, based on previous form - a probability model. Indeed the bookies have a reasonable wave function for all the dogs. After the race we know exactly which dog won. But our presence at the finishing post had nothing to do with it - he won by being faster than the others over the half mile that we didn't see.If observation creates the reality of the atom in the box, then observation equally creates the nonexistence of the atom in the other box. But that is absurd - either the same action (opening the box) produces two completely different outcomes, or every observation creates an atom - which is patently untrue as it means that two simultaneous observations creates two atoms where only one existed beforehand. That would indeed be interesting: it would mean that the universe is doubling its mass every time an atom interacts with another - which is not observed. So, put simply, in quantum mechanics "observation" does not have its colloquial meaning.
before you look we could have proven—with an interference experiment—that each atom was a wave equally in both boxes.
After you look it was in a single box.
It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box.
dlorde , alancalverd : What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't you understand from the following ?
dlorde : Since the materialistic identity or production theory regarding the origin function and emergence of consciousness is a false belief , no scientific theory , what alternatives for that can you propose ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/12/2014 21:01:31dlorde : Since the materialistic identity or production theory regarding the origin function and emergence of consciousness is a false belief , no scientific theory , what alternatives for that can you propose ?Since the theory of immaterial non-physical consciousness interacting with the brain is a self-contradictory, unevidenced example of magical thinking, what alternatives can you propose? []
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/12/2014 20:53:11dlorde , alancalverd : What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't you understand from the following ? I understand all the quotes you posted. What's your point?
Really ? See my 20+ points to our Cheryl here above then .I am not quite sure about some of them at least .
P.S.: Forget about what happened earlier on .These kindda topics cannot but involve heated passions sometimes....nothing personal thus .My apologies .Thanks .Good night .Take care .Cheers .
What i meant was/is :You have (mis)interpreted them materialistically , i guess ,while they were so clear about what they were saying about classical realism ,classical determinism, and classical locality that have been challenged by QM and and by Bell's theorem and its related experiments ....Later , more
Cheryl : You wanted 10 points .I will give you 20 .I am very generous ,so people say lol at least .I will summarize my 20 points for you, regarding consciousness in its mutual interactions with its environment , including with the physical brain and with the rest of the physical reality , as follows :
But the experiments of German physicist Helmut Schmidt and other physicists indicate that the consciousness of the observer may not only collapse the wave function to a single outcome but may also help specify what outcome occurs by shifting the odds in a desired direction." End quote
11-QM had replaced the deterministic universe of classical physics with the probabilistic one .12-QM had replaced the causally closed universe of classical physics with the causally open one,or as Von Neumann proved through rigorous maths : a non-physical process is the one that might be collapsing the wave function via a non-mechanical causation : consciousness of the observer at the end of the measurement chain, since conscious observation has to be made at the end of that chain,after all .13-QM can never be understood without reference to the mind : the 2 major enigmas have been encountering each other thus : consciousness and QM that are inseparable from each other .14-QM had challenged locality and realism of classical physics, and had intoduced the limited notion of free will as well at the level of the measurements in QM ,as Bell's theorem and its related or stimulated experiments had proved .15-Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated the predictions of QM by challenging the classical realism :The properties of the observed particles are NOT independent of their observation : the observed is not independent of the observer .16-QM has already been proving the fact that any real progress in the scientific study of the physical universe will be almost impossible without that in the study of consciousness ,since the former and the latter are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446745#msg446745 date=1418854587]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/12/2014 21:43:42Really ? See my 20+ points to our Cheryl here above then .I am not quite sure about some of them at least .Those that made any kind of sense were either variations on the assertion 'materialism is wrong so you're wrong', or non-sequiturs. Hitchens's razor applies.
QuoteP.S.: Forget about what happened earlier on .These kindda topics cannot but involve heated passions sometimes....nothing personal thus .My apologies .Thanks .Good night .Take care .Cheers .You've done that often enough that I'm well aware of your instability.
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg446748#msg446748 date=1418858503]Sorry, Don, but repetitively quoting something I had carefully pointed out was obviously wrong, doesn't make it right.
We now have the capability to detect a single photon or particle with versions of the double-slit experiment. When we do so, it is in one place only. If we repeat the experiment, the next particle may turn out to be somewhere else. And when we do it lots of times, we get a distribution that looks exactly like the diffraction pattern of the wave function of a single particle. No problem: that is how nature works. I can't see why you get so excited by it.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446746#msg446746 date=1418854874]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/12/2014 21:50:37What i meant was/is :You have (mis)interpreted them materialistically , i guess ,while they were so clear about what they were saying about classical realism ,classical determinism, and classical locality that have been challenged by QM and and by Bell's theorem and its related experiments ....Later , more More unevidenced assertion. By all means explain how I'm mistaken, or produce a reasoned argument
I won't hold my breath.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446767#msg446767 date=1418908719]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/12/2014 19:59:3011-QM had replaced the deterministic universe of classical physics with the probabilistic one .12-QM had replaced the causally closed universe of classical physics with the causally open one,or as Von Neumann proved through rigorous maths : a non-physical process is the one that might be collapsing the wave function via a non-mechanical causation : consciousness of the observer at the end of the measurement chain, since conscious observation has to be made at the end of that chain,after all .13-QM can never be understood without reference to the mind : the 2 major enigmas have been encountering each other thus : consciousness and QM that are inseparable from each other .14-QM had challenged locality and realism of classical physics, and had intoduced the limited notion of free will as well at the level of the measurements in QM ,as Bell's theorem and its related or stimulated experiments had proved .15-Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated the predictions of QM by challenging the classical realism :The properties of the observed particles are NOT independent of their observation : the observed is not independent of the observer .16-QM has already been proving the fact that any real progress in the scientific study of the physical universe will be almost impossible without that in the study of consciousness ,since the former and the latter are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other .Regarding 11-16:I really didn’t ask for your 10 points in order to toss back at you the same criticisms I’ve made before. I was genuinely trying to piece together the logical steps in your own version of consciousness theory (as opposed to just materialism is false.)
Considering how critical you are of gaps, there would seem to be a lot of them. Perhaps you can fill them in for me. Your theory seems to go something like this:An observation in quantum mechanics requires a conscious human to make a choice in what to measure, and become aware of the result in order to collapse the wavefunction. --->Consciousness can collapse wave functions without measuring devices made up of physical material. Not only is an observation “not just,” it does not even require physical interactions, interference by particles. Immaterial thoughts alone will have the same effect. --->
Consciousness can collapse the wave functions in the brain without actually being aware that it is engaging in that the process.
While Stapp used quantum effects mainly to explain how an unidentified conscious agency freely selects from a number of conscious choices,
Hammeroff says that somehow these options may bubble up from the subconscious neural machinery, and consciousness selects from among them, which is not entirely different from Libet or any materialist theory,
(other than materialists see the executive function as being generated by the structures like the prefrontal cortex)
.But with any of these scenarios, the process itself is subconscious, and it only becomes conscious after the results are in. That is, I am not aware of where to go looking for these ideas or options, how or when they first took up residence. I am not aware of this underlying quantum activity or its application, as if I were perusing and selecting from my closet which shirt I am going to wear that day. I am unaware of these underlying interactions (quantum or conventional) or the location or generation of these choices. When I have a “tip of the tongue” experience, I do not know where to go looking for the celebrity name that I can’t recall or why it suddenly pops in my head 3 hours later.
It would appear that Stapp and Hammeroff are replicating in their theory the set up of the interference experiment on a microscopic scale in the brain, as near as I can tell, even though the “choices” to be selected from (to measure or not measure) are manifestly conscious in the experiment, and the specific outcome is not actually controllable.
Or perhaps the above is not how your own theory works at all – that from your “consciousness collapses the wave function” assertion you jump to the idea that consciousness is a kind of as yet undetected universal field, that finds its way to my brain transceiver and controls me like a robot, but the real work of consciousness, all thought and deliberation, all subjective experience and qualia, etc occurs elsewhere though mechanisms that are unknown and undetected. Some aspect of this nonlocal consciousness is discrete and unique to “me” and no one else, separate from other biological robot's designated share of the universal consciousness.
That is quite a leap, and you haven’t actually presented any evidence from physicists, or even models from physicists who think the above might be true. If I’m confused about how your theory actually works, perhaps you could enlighten me and bridge those explanatory gaps.
Don't imitate , innovate ,Cheryl .Don't imitate dlorde by reducing all my points to just "materialism is false " assertions .
It's not that i did not tell you about what all those non-materialistic theories of consciousness were all about , it is exactly the other way around : you either forgot about all those excerpts , other material and more ,or you just did not make the necessary effort to research about that .
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446747#msg446747 date=1418856484]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 17/12/2014 19:59:30Cheryl : You wanted 10 points .I will give you 20 .I am very generous ,so people say lol at least .I will summarize my 20 points for you, regarding consciousness in its mutual interactions with its environment , including with the physical brain and with the rest of the physical reality , as follows :As I anticipated, most of your points for your view of consciousness were variations of "materialism is false."
You reject mounds of evidence regarding neuroscience as mere correlation (or the "image" of the process), but are not bothered in the least by the dismal lack of direct evidence (or even well replicated correlations!) for psi, souls, life after death, psycho-kinesis, consciousness outside the brain, etc.
You haven't convinced me that your amalgamation of quantum mechanics contributes anything to the understanding of consciousness itself, and it utterly fails to address any of the deficits you attributed to material explanation when you first began this thread.
Your particular brand of quantum woo is less of a means to describe any aspect of consciousness than it is an attempt to justify an irrational argument lacking evidence. If there is no determinism on any level, OR if consciousness is exempt from even probabilistic predictions, then one theory of consciousness is as valid as the next, equally likely, irrefutable, and simply a preference.
It would be essentially the same argument if you proposed that because of indeterminacy in the universe, astrology, voo-doo, crystal healing, homeopathy, magic spells -anything at all - must all be considered equally valid phenomena, since there is no basis for any criteria for facts or beliefs.
Basically your strategy is, if you can't construct a rational argument, attack rationality itself, and assert that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, fool, etc.
Besides proving non-locality to occur as QM predicted , Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge the classical realism too as QM predicted also ,classical realism in the sense that the measured objects do have their own properties that are independent of the fact of whether or not they are observed : the so-called objective reality out there is independent of any observation : realism was thus challenged too ( Will the moon be still there when you don't look at it,as Einstein jokingly said . ) .
Quote I won't hold my breath.Please, stop using these kindda irritating remarks that do really "push my buttons" , thanks .