Abuse of Quantum mechanics

[Tosefos]

Im sure as many other are that the total misunderstanding of the wholeness of Quantum mechanics and its corrolarys applied to so called supernatural explanations as well as `proving` the effectiveness of crystal therapy etc is very dismaying.
All the serious works on QM by real scientists who comprehend exactly what it does and doesnt mean obviously show a total disregard for paranormalist claims. But never feel the need(and prehaps knowing that many readers are misguided new age types, `learning`) to state the limitations of QM being applied to the waitchcraft etc.
Than we get inundated with childishly weak and absurd spiritualists from every crevice of the ignorant tree crawling out flashing the gold Quantum card, and implying that science is now proving that all their nonsense is corrct. *shudder*
After much searching i have been unable to find a single article book or web site that intelligently and scientifically adress these suppernatural misuses of QM, id be very happy if anyone could give me a link to where i could find such information.
Thanks.

[Jeff Corey]

You'll have to ask Interesting (sic) Ian about that. He knows everything about it except for the equations part.

[Dr Adequate]

Twenty Real True Facts About Quantum Theory (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870700767)

But there's no point in anyone writing a whole book to debunk this stuff, because it relies, not on making subtle mistakes about quantum theory --- they don't know any quantum theory --- but on bare assertion: "Quantum theory proves that I'm right." The only reply required is to show 'em Schroedinger's wave equation and say: "So where, exactly, does this say that your favorite fantasy is true?"

[hammegk]

You should ask this guy ....

http://www.gyrons.net/page3.html

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You'll have to ask Interesting (sic) Ian about that. He knows everything about it except for the equations part. He's back!

And displaying the combination of drivelling stupidity and windy arrogance which is his trademark.

Let's immortalise his words on this thread.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870790063)
This is wholly irrelevant. Physics doesn't tell us what the world is, it only describes it. I simply need to be familiar with the philosophy of science. How do you derive a material world from your maths? I know enough about QM to recognize that no coherent metaphysical hypothesis can be advanced which models unobserved reality. QM is the final nail in the coffin for materialism. Scientific realism -- that is that science depicts a literal state of affairs existing in abstraction from our consciousnesses and independent of our theories -- is untenable. Not just QM implies this, but also the underdetermination of theories and the incommensurability of theories. In addition there is a whole slew of phenomena which is indicative that consciousness is very special indeed, and certainly cannot be accommodated by any materialist metaphysic.

Now I understand that, like almost everyone on here, you're too stupid to understand this. My previous arguments with you makes this very clear to me. But your inability in this respect is not my problem. Your metaphysic is neither philosophically tenable, nor is it consistent with science itself. I suggest you deal with it. Note the large amount of stuff he just makes up, and his assumption that he can make it up while remaining utterly ignorant of the content of quantum mechanics.

[Tosefos]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You'll have to ask Interesting (sic) Ian about that. He knows everything about it except for the equations part.

i was just about to message him, from the quote i guess hes `not playing with a full set` and would be of little help.
lol

Hopefully ill come across a some one who isnt pushing a ridiculous agenda who understand QM and is willing to give up his precious time to descend to their world and give some serious debunking(debunking i dont like to use, it implys some kind of credibility to their `theoroms`) answers

I wish there could be a week long conference where the best of the pseudo lot debates with real scientists with all their `proofs`and arguments and what these are based on.
It angers me that all their BS can only continue to exist because its always dark and fuzzy enough and kept by them at an arms lenght so that their lies can never be held up to scrutiny. They only have arrogant broad basically meaningless statements and have to pack up shop and move on to the next town the moment someone wants to know more.
It like the monster in the closet that most of us now dont beleive in, the seond u actually turn the light on and look in there u see it wasnt true, the retarded crew, prefer not to look in the closet and say, yes, but quantum mechanics proves there must be a monster in my closet, if i perceive there to be one isnt ther onea really, deal with it!.

ARgghhhh, i wouldnt mind but these people gobble up money and time and intellectual resources that could be used improving the real world.

Sorry about the rant :)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Tosefos


Hopefully ill come across a some one who isnt pushing a ridiculous agenda who understand QM and is willing to give up his precious time to descend to their world and give some serious debunking(debunking i dont like to use, it implys some kind of credibility to their `theoroms`) answers


Unfortunately, there's precious little to debunk. It's as if I made a claim that the fact that addition commutes (that is to say, that x+y is the same as y+x) implies that I don't have to stop at a red light. Or that the law of conservation of energy says that if I line my hat with aluminum foil, it will keep the black helicopters away. Once you've gotten past the "um, no it doesn't," where do you go from there in your debunking?

The problem is that quantum theory does not say what Ian and his imaginary friends think (and present) that it says. When one completely and totally misrepresent the contents of a theory, it's hard to "debunk."

[jj]

Originally posted by new drkitten
The problem is that quantum theory does not say what Ian and his imaginary friends think (and present) that it says. When one completely and totally misrepresent the contents of a theory, it's hard to "debunk."

This is often a difficulty with various kinds of misuse of science, it also happens, for instance, in the audio field, and a lot of the stuff is hard to debunk relative to the claims made about science because the claim is "xxx proves this", but there is no relationship to 'xxx' in the first place to even examine, except in the proof by blatant assertion.

Then, of course, the person making the blatant assertion says "so, what's wrong with my fantasy" (well, not in so many words, of course), when in fact there is so little relationship between what they imagine and the bit of science that they are quoting that it's hard to even start pointing out what's wrong.

It's like so many audiophile claims, many of which start out, give or take "since double-blind testing does not work for audio". When that's questioned, the asserter leaps back 4 steps to say "but nobody ever examined this tweak in a DBT, so we don't know if DBT works or not for this twest".

Sometimes it is worse, a variety of kooks on nutnoise (rec.audio.opinion, rec.audio.high-end) insist that there is "no evidence DBT's work on audiophile-grade equipment, because there are no experiments" (conveniently dismissing the experiments that do exist, and insisting that testing done with considerably more accurate and reliable pro equipment does not count, because it doesn't use the right kind of magic floobydust) that prove it does.

DBT's do show people able to hear within || of the actual, established physical limits (said limits established NOT via hearing tests, but via other electronic measurements that confirm theoretical calculations), but of course "that doesn't mean anything".

It's like "microdetails" that audiophiles always hear. +6dB SPL is the white noise (well, near-white) level at the eardrum DUE TO THE NOISE THAT THE ATMOSPHERE MAKES (it's made out of discrete molecules) +-1 dB or so, for instance. Now, since the ear is a frequency analyzer, you don't have that much energy in any one critical bandwidth (a part of the frequency scale roughly equal to one filter bandwidth on the cochlea), so you can hear below +6dB SPL quite a ways if you have unimpaired hearing and it's really quiet where you are. (The kind of quiet that doesn't exist in the real world much any more, and never did to the extent that most people assume.)

Sorry, I shouldn't hijack your rant, you've hit it right on, guys, there is so little connection between what people claim and the science that they claim it of that there is no simple way to even relate the science to the bunkum, let alone debunk it.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
He's back!

And displaying the combination of drivelling stupidity and windy arrogance which is his trademark.

Let's immortalise his words on this thread.
Note the large amount of stuff he just makes up, and his assumption that he can make it up while remaining utterly ignorant of the content of quantum mechanics.

Don't forget this excellent exchange:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870790432

Me: What does it [quantum mechanics] imply about reality? And could you use a few equations in your explaination so I gain a more precise understanding?

Ian: I don't know any equations, and they are wholly irrelevant anyway. We are not talking about physics here, but rather the metaphysical implications of physics. QM implies idealism, that the physical world only exists by virtue of mind or minds.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Tosefos
After much searching i have been unable to find a single article book or web site that intelligently and scientifically adress these suppernatural misuses of QM, id be very happy if anyone could give me a link to where i could find such information.No, but have you seen this paper - Weak Quantum Theory, complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond (http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/wqt.pdf)? It's the original text on how to make woo-quantum sound scientific. When I was looking for that url I also found something about weak quantum theory and time (http://www.mindmatter.de/mmpdf/roemer.pdf) which also looked spectactularly looney.

It's the woo answer to the obvious question "have you got the maths for that?", and really quite amusing. Particularly as regards Planck's constant.

Rolfe.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jj
*snip for space, but insert excellent rant here

Bravo, sir. You didn't hijack the thread at all. Your post put this quirky illogic into sharp relief.

[T'ai Chi]

What about someone like Josephson, who, I imagine, actually knows something about QM?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jzs
What about someone like Josephson, who, I imagine, actually knows something about QM?

He's also very very careful to avoid making statements like "QM shows that xxxx," because he knows better than that.

Prof. Josephson knows better than anyone on this forum what QM does and does not imply. He is also a believer in telepathy. You don't think he would have already published the math if QM really did imply telepathy?

[apoger]

What about someone like Josephson, who, I imagine, actually knows something about QM?

Can Josephson use QM to provide evidence for something previously unknown?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by apoger
Can Josephson use QM to provide evidence for something previously unknown?

They're called "predictions," in that case. And, yes, QM has a very strong track record (exceptionally good, even by the normal standards of physical sciences) of being able to predict and describe previously unknkown phenomena

If Dr. Josephson were able to show me a set of equations that described how telepathy works, I would take the idea a lot more seriously. Unfortunately, he demonstrably can't.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tosefos
Im sure as many other are that the total misunderstanding of the wholeness of Quantum mechanics and its corrolarys applied to so called supernatural explanations as well as `proving` the effectiveness of crystal therapy etc is very dismaying.
All the serious works on QM by real scientists who comprehend exactly what it does and doesnt mean obviously show a total disregard for paranormalist claims. But never feel the need(and prehaps knowing that many readers are misguided new age types, `learning`) to state the limitations of QM being applied to the waitchcraft etc.
Than we get inundated with childishly weak and absurd spiritualists from every crevice of the ignorant tree crawling out flashing the gold Quantum card, and implying that science is now proving that all their nonsense is corrct. *shudder*
After much searching i have been unable to find a single article book or web site that intelligently and scientifically adress these suppernatural misuses of QM, id be very happy if anyone could give me a link to where i could find such information.
Thanks.

Here (http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html) is a webpage with loads of links on it. Extremely interesting links indeed.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here (http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html) is a webpage with loads of links on it. Extremely interesting links indeed.

It would be more interesting if there were any evidence that the author actually had any knowledge of QM. Thank you for providing such a clear example of what Tosefos described as "the total misunderstanding of the wholeness of Quantum mechanics and its corrolarys applied to so called supernatural explanations."

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here (http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html) is a webpage with loads of links on it. Extremely interesting links indeed.

Ian, that site is exactly the kind of thing I was referring to earlier in this thread.

Please explain to me where the Schrodinger Wave Equation fits into this, other than by using the variable Psi?

Hint: It doens't.

Nature, at its basic level, is probabilistic. That doesn't require any kind of dualism, interactive or otherwise. I don't yet know of anything better than QCED, and I'm waiting for it to develop the necessary appurtinences to explain what's missing.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten
It would be more interesting if there were any evidence that the author actually had any knowledge of QM. Thank you for providing such a clear example of what Tosefos described as "the total misunderstanding of the wholeness of Quantum mechanics and its corrolarys applied to so called supernatural explanations."

Read the papers! You can't have done already. If you do not think the famous physicist and quantum mechanics expert Henry Stapp knows what he's talking about, and you can judge this without having read any of the papers, then you're even more idiotic than I thought you were :rolleyes:

Read the papers, tell me what you disagree with.

[vbloke]

am I the only one who takes offence at the way QED is used to justify pretty much anything?

As far as I understand it, QED stops operating at anything above atomic levels, where Relativity steps in.

I know that M Theory (string theory) is attempting to reconcile the two into one coherent theory, but that's beside the point. If QED only operates at levels below the Planck length , how can it explain crystal healing, psi, predictions, ghosts, etc unless all these phenomena occured at a sub-atomic scale?

Besides, doesn't QED basically state that matter and energy have the properties of both particles and waves, it was created to explain the radiation of energy from a blackbody, the photoelectric effect, and the Bohr Theory (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/bohr.html) , and now used to account for a wide range of physical phenomena, including the existence of discrete packets of energy and matter, the uncertainty principle, and the exclusion principle.

oh yes, and the final nail:
Quantum (kwŏn'təm)
n., pl. -ta (-tə).
# Physics.

1. The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.
2. This amount of energy regarded as a unit.

so if woo science depends on QED as a source of explanation, then every woo claim should be verifiable by a simple measuring of electromagnetic radiation at a discrete wavelength. Easy to test. The equipment exists. All we need now is for someone to actually try.

[Jeff Corey]

What's all this about abuse of quantum mechanics? They're just regular people who happen to work at your local quantum repair shop. It's an honorable trade and it takes weeks or even months of training to learn it properly.
It's a small job, but somebody's got to do it.

[jj]

Originally posted by vbloke
I know that M Theory (string theory) is attempting to reconcile the two into one coherent theory, but that's beside the point. If QED only operates at levels below the Planck length , how can it explain crystal healing, psi, predictions, ghosts, etc unless all these phenomena occured at a sub-atomic scale.

Do you mean Quantum Mechanics, or Quantum Chromo-Electro Dynamics?

And neither, of course, justifies any healing or other nonsense in any way that I am aware has ever been documented, understood, or even suggested seriously.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...even more idiotic ...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jj
Do you mean Quantum Mechanics, or Quantum Chromo-Electro Dynamics?

And neither, of course, justifies any healing or other nonsense in any way that I am aware has ever been documented, understood, or even suggested seriously.

I can't say that I have ever heard anyone justify healing or other nonsense. Just sKeptics attacking strawmen as they always do. Name one person who is advocating that QM promotes healing.

[JPK]

Good afternoon.

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
What's all this about abuse of quantum mechanics? They're just regular people who happen to work at your local quantum repair shop. It's an honorable trade and it takes weeks or even months of training to learn it properly.
It's a small job, but somebody's got to do it.

Quantum mechanics use these Diagnostic Dice. (http://www.creativedice.com/)

JPK

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I can't say that I have ever heard anyone justify healing or other nonsense. Just sKeptics attacking strawmen as they always do. Name one person who is advocating that QM promotes healing.

Why don't you ask Vbloke, he's the one who brought it up.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Read the papers! You can't have done already. If you do not think the famous physicist and quantum mechanics expert Henry Stapp knows what he's talking about, and you can judge this without having read any of the papers, then you're even more idiotic than I thought you were :rolleyes:

So it all depends on how famous you are, and whether you are a QM expert? O.K. Murray Gell-Mann calls Stapp's theories "flapdoodle". Is Murray Gell Mann famous enough for you? Are you going to argue that he's not an expert in QM?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
Why don't you ask Vbloke, he's the one who brought it up.

"Name one person who is advocating that QM promotes healing."

Sounds like he asked the whole thread to me.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I can't say that I have ever heard anyone justify healing or other nonsense. Just sKeptics attacking strawmen as they always do. Name one person who is advocating that QM promotes healing.

Only one? O.K. Try "Professor" Peter Fraser...

http://www.nutrienergetics.com/

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Read the papers! You can't have done already. If you do not think the famous physicist and quantum mechanics expert Henry Stapp knows what he's talking about, and you can judge this without having read any of the papers, then you're even more idiotic than I thought you were :rolleyes:

Read the papers, tell me what you disagree with.

Ian, could you point to one particular paper? Asking me to read everything someone has ever written is a bit unfair.

I could ask you to read the entire Wikipedia and get back to me on what you don't agree with. That wouldn't yield a productive conversation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
So it all depends on how famous you are, and whether you are a QM expert? O.K. Murray Gell-Mann calls Stapp's theories "flapdoodle". Is Murray Gell Mann famous enough for you? Are you going to argue that he's not an expert in QM?

Ha Ha. No it does not depend on that. But people on here are always saying you have to be an expert in QM before talking about the metaphysical ramifications of QM.

Now Murray Gell Mann might well call Stapp's theories "flapdoodle". So what? We were asked to provide a link, so I did. I thought that possibly people might find these papers interesting.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Only one? O.K. Try "Professor" Peter Fraser...

http://www.nutrienergetics.com/

Huh?? I was talking about people on here. I was not asking people to search the Internet to find someone who expresses such beliefs! What's the point in that. Skeptics are supposed to be arguing with people on here.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ha Ha. No it does not depend on that. But people on here are always saying you have to be an expert in QM before talking about the metaphysical ramifications of QM.

Now Murray Gell Mann might well call Stapp's theories "flapdoodle". So what? We were asked to provide a link, so I did. I thought that possibly people might find these papers interesting.

Ok, so which flapdoodle (pick one) do you want people here to comment on?

Personally, I prefer flapjacks with early-tapped maple syrup.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jj
It's like "microdetails" that audiophiles always hear. I prefer to listen to music. ;)

(apologies for further derailment of thread...)

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ha Ha. No it does not depend on that. But people on here are always saying you have to be an expert in QM before talking about the metaphysical ramifications of QM.

Now Murray Gell Mann might well call Stapp's theories "flapdoodle". So what? We were asked to provide a link, so I did. I thought that possibly people might find these papers interesting.

Actually, people on here are always saying that arguments based on ideas purporting to be QM would be much more credible if the person presenting such arguments actually knew something about QM. You can talk as much as you like about the "metaphysical ramifications" of a theory you clearly don't understand, but it hardly makes your arguments credible.

Anyway, my point in trumping your "expert" was simply the old one about the (in)validity of appeals to authority. But I take your point. However, having had a brief look at Stapp's work all I see are unfounded assertions. Stapp asserts that quantum processes are manifestations of "mind" and proceeds blithely on his way redefining everything into his own personal terms. If I redefine Planck's constant to be the action of an invisible pink unicorn does that prove that all processes of the universe depend on invisible pink unicorns?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? I was talking about people on here. I was not asking people to search the Internet to find someone who expresses such beliefs! What's the point in that. Skeptics are supposed to be arguing with people on here.

Oh, O.K. I misunderstood you, my apologies.

[delphi_ote]

Ian, you seem to be ignoring a simple request here. Could you please narrow all of those papers down to one that might be directly relevant?

Or could it be that you haven't read what's on that site yourself? Could it be that you're just putting up a smoke screen because you were cornered? Could it be you were almost forced to have a conversation about the specifics of things you don't seem to understand?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Ian, you seem to be ignoring a simple request here. Could you please narrow all of those papers down to one that might be directly relevant?

Or could it be that you haven't read what's on that site yourself?

I haven't read any of them, no. Where did I say I had?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I haven't read any of them, no. Where did I say I had?

Read the first one, and I will too.

[Explorer]

It is not at all surprising that supporters of the paranorma/supernatural use quantum mechanics to support their case.

IMHO, thay are simply using one bizarre model of our physical world, to explain another.

Quantum mechanics is bizarre, there is no doubt about that. It does not not fit old scientific models of how we perceived matter to behave.

I do not pretend to understand the detail of it all, but I have read about scientific experimentation which suggests that information can travel faster than the speed of light, separated particles can "communicate" that information to each other, and that at least one parallel universe, apparently exists.

They are "having a laugh", aren't they?

[vbloke]

QM or QCED both

in any case, the use of the word "quantum" in front of anything is part of confusion by association. People in general have heard that quantum theory is odd and hard to understand - even people who study it are often quoted as saying how weird it is. Now, tack the word quantum in front of anything and it automatically gives it gravitas (like it's being supported by science) and enough justification that it's too difficult to understand unless you're an expert.

It matter not which branch of quantum science you talk about. The fact that, even though it is weird, it does work as a reliable model of how the universe appears to work at a subatomic level. The computer I'm typing this reply on relies on our understanding of quantum theory for it's inner workings.

My point was, in case I didn't make it clear the first time, is that Quantum Theory does not work ABOVE SUBATOMIC LEVELS. Therefore, if things are claimed to work because of "quantumness", then they must happen at this level, and I've never heard of any subatomic ghosts being seen at CERN.

[AWPrime]

I am now debating someone that......let me just give some quotes:

I think modern day physics, quantum mechanics and chaos mathematics proves there is design and a creator.

The creation of anti-particles requires making real particles from a "kind of" energy plasma. It requires knowledge and action from an outside source, otherwise the plasma just sits there.


My responce:You don't know what you're talking about do you?


Does anyone have any tips from me. I don't know much of QM, but this smells like BS.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by vbloke
QM or QCED both

in any case, the use of the word "quantum" in front of anything is part of confusion by association. People in general have heard that quantum theory is odd and hard to understand - even people who study it are often quoted as saying how weird it is. Now, tack the word quantum in front of anything and it automatically gives it gravitas (like it's being supported by science) and enough justification that it's too difficult to understand unless you're an expert.

It matter not which branch of quantum science you talk about. The fact that, even though it is weird, it does work as a reliable model of how the universe appears to work at a subatomic level. The computer I'm typing this reply on relies on our understanding of quantum theory for it's inner workings.

My point was, in case I didn't make it clear the first time, is that Quantum Theory does not work ABOVE SUBATOMIC LEVELS. Therefore, if things are claimed to work because of "quantumness", then they must happen at this level, and I've never heard of any subatomic ghosts being seen at CERN.

That's not true. Quantum theory works at all levels and all distances. However quantum effects are generally negligible in terms of overall effect on matter in a macroscopic scale. At macroscopic scale the classical laws of physics hold. They are strictly an approximation, but the error due to quantum variances is absolutely negligible, so the classical laws are accurate within the scope of most practical measurements.

The other thing is that quantum effects are only "weird" if you think about them in a particular way. There are many ways of thinking about quantum effects and from some points of view they are not at all weird. The problem is the popular misconceptions that get bandied around.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by AWPrime

Does anyone have any tips from me. I don't know much of QM, but this smells like BS.

Yes, it's BS. But debunking it is hard because it's so nonsensical that there's nothing much to debunk!

The creation of anti-particles requires making real particles from a "kind of" energy plasma. It requires knowledge and action from an outside source, otherwise the plasma just sits there.

Material particles (like electron/positron pairs) can appear out of "vacuum". It's difficult to describe what is going on in simple terms, but you could say that when the potential within a quantum field exceeds a certain threshold that the field breaks down into material particles. But there is no "energy plasma", no "knowledge" is required, or external action. It's just a spontaneous event that occurs when certain physical conditions are achieved.

Don't know if that helps!

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I haven't read any of them, no. Where did I say I had? You said:Extremely interesting links indeed.This at least implies that you have read them. How would you know anything about them if you hadn't? Would it be in the same way that you understand QM without doing the maths?

[rppa]

Originally posted by AWPrime
I am now debating someone that......let me just give some quotes:
The creation of anti-particles requires making real particles from a "kind of" energy plasma. It requires knowledge and action from an outside source, otherwise the plasma just sits there.

My responce:You don't know what you're talking about do you?

Does anyone have any tips from me. I don't know much of QM, but this smells like BS.

I can't guess what this person means by "knowledge and action from an outside source". The early universe was pure energy, eventually it cooled down to the point where some of that energy formed into matter in particle/anti-particle pairs. What "knowledge and action" does this person think is required that is different from what happens when water freezes into ice? Or does he/she also believe that water below 0 C just sits there as liquid unless "knowledge and action from an outside source" makes it freeze?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Material particles (like electron/positron pairs) can appear out of "vacuum". It's difficult to describe what is going on in simple terms, but you could say that when the potential within a quantum field exceeds a certain threshold that the field breaks down into material particles. But there is no "energy plasma", no "knowledge" is required, or external action. It's just a spontaneous event that occurs when certain physical conditions are achieved.

Don't know if that helps!

It helps, and keep them comming!


Now, he is started to technobabble about NiH plasma......Does it have any special properties?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Material particles (like electron/positron pairs) can appear out of "vacuum". It's difficult to describe what is going on in simple terms, but you could say that when the potential within a quantum field exceeds a certain threshold that the field breaks down into material particles. But there is no "energy plasma", no "knowledge" is required, or external action. It's just a spontaneous event that occurs when certain physical conditions are achieved.

Don't know if that helps!

Didn't Hawkings describe this in one of his books? You know, where he presents his black hole evaporation? If I recall correctly, he devoted several pages to the topic, explaining his concept of quantum "foam", and how the particle pairs aren't "real" unless one of them falls inside the event horizon.

For some reason (can't remember why) he made a case for antimatter particles falling into the horizon more often than "regular" matter, eventually reducing the mass of the black hole to the point where it disappears.

If you can find the text on this (might be in a Brief History of Time), then it should help. He did a great job of explaining it.

(If it's not Hawkings, let me know and I'll check my books at home and tell you the proper reference.)

[Interesting Ian]

II
Extremely interesting links indeed.

Mojo
This at least implies that you have read them.

Not at all. Someone told me they were -- a person whom I trust and who has similar interests to me. I've checked out the papers to see what they are about, how easy they are to understand etc, and I agree with the other person that they do indeed seem interesting.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by AWPrime
It helps, and keep them comming!


Now, he is started to technobabble about NiH plasma......Does it have any special properties?

Nickel Hydride? I presume that's what he's referring to. Nickel Hydrides are used in batteries. If you bombarded Nickel with a Hydrogen plasma I daresay some Nickel Hydride (NiH₂) would be deposited on the surface upon cooling. But given that a plasma is an ionized gas and that the energy levels in plasmas usually involve the decomposition of molecules, I can't really see that a "Nickel Hydride plasma" as such would even be possible - although I could be wrong. In a plasma containing both Hydrogen and Nickel ions I daresay a few Nickel Hydride molecular ions (NiH⁺) would be transiently formed. But precisely what this has to do with anything I don't know.

Without knowing precisely what he's claiming, it's very difficult to comment sensibly on it.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jmercer
Didn't Hawkings describe this in one of his books? You know, where he presents his black hole evaporation? If I recall correctly, he devoted several pages to the topic, explaining his concept of quantum "foam", and how the particle pairs aren't "real" unless one of them falls inside the event horizon.

For some reason (can't remember why) he made a case for antimatter particles falling into the horizon more often than "regular" matter, eventually reducing the mass of the black hole to the point where it disappears.

If you can find the text on this (might be in a Brief History of Time), then it should help. He did a great job of explaining it.

(If it's not Hawkings, let me know and I'll check my books at home and tell you the proper reference.)

Quite possibly. I haven't read any of Hawking's books so I can't comment. The effect I described however is well known in physics and isn't confined in any way to black holes.

In high energy accelerators during collisions and other interactions electron/positron pairs are often spontaneously formed.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not at all. Someone told me they were -- a person whom I trust and who has similar interests to me. I've checked out the papers to see what they are about, how easy they are to understand etc, and I agree with the other person that they do indeed seem interesting.

So what do you think about them Ian? You find them interesting, O.K. But are they correct? Is the theory credible with respect to conventional quantum theory and if so, why?

[crocodile deathroll]

The real absurdity of this is the position some mystics adopt that QM is mysterious and consciousness is mysterious therefore one should explain the other.
That is IMO as absurd as stating we do no know the identity of Jack the Ripper and we do not know who or what was responsible for the school girls who went missing at Hanging Rock in Victoria, Australia. Therefore the same murderer was behind both mysteries.

:crc:

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here (http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html) is a webpage with loads of links on it. Extremely interesting links indeed.

Ok, i read most of the first article.

The author makes a fundamental mistake:

From the correct fact, that according to QM, a system is only a sum of possibe states until some outside effect acts upon the system(superposition).
As in good experimental science few things happen(at least that experimentalists hope for), that were not intended by the designer and QM was designed for explaining the results of experiments. Therefore QM uses a language, that has a lot to do with experiments and the choices made thereby.
The author gets confused by this language and concludes that some concious setup measuring a system is necessary to force the system to end up in one state.
As brain activity cannot be explained exactly with classical mechanics(here he might be correct), the brain will remain in a superposition of different states. But that contradicts everyday experience, that sooner or later we decide whether to continue breathing or whether to open a door. So humans have some mechanism to keep the brain from remaining in a superposition.
Here kicks his mistake in, as he thinks this mechanism requires a concious setup acting upon the brain, he concludes there is human concious.

What suprises me most is that the author actually mentions a futher possibility, but fails to realize, that this invalidates his conclusions:
"“Nature” will eventually choose between “Yes” and “No”, but we focus here on the prior Process 1, the agent’s choice. Nature’s subsequent choice we shall call Process 3":(

That's the point, even if for some reason your brain is stuck in a superposition, without any method to measure itself so the superposition evolves into one state, the lion charging towards you has some devices perfectly able to measure, which state your brain is in.:D
And even the fluid exchange inside brain cells are more than enough to measure the system "brain" and thereby causing it to end up in one state.

Carn

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Carn
Ok, i read most of the first article.

The author makes a fundamental mistake:

From the correct fact, that according to QM, a system is only a sum of possibe states until some outside effect acts upon the system(superposition).
As in good experimental science few things happen(at least that experimentalists hope for), that were not intended by the designer and QM was designed for explaining the results of experiments. Therefore QM uses a language, that has a lot to do with experiments and the choices made thereby.
The author gets confused by this language and concludes that some concious setup measuring a system is necessary to force the system to end up in one state.
As brain activity cannot be explained exactly with classical mechanics(here he might be correct), the brain will remain in a superposition of different states. But that contradicts everyday experience, that sooner or later we decide whether to continue breathing or whether to open a door. So humans have some mechanism to keep the brain from remaining in a superposition.
Here kicks his mistake in, as he thinks this mechanism requires a concious setup acting upon the brain, he concludes there is human concious.

What suprises me most is that the author actually mentions a futher possibility, but fails to realize, that this invalidates his conclusions:
"“Nature” will eventually choose between “Yes” and “No”, but we focus here on the prior Process 1, the agent’s choice. Nature’s subsequent choice we shall call Process 3":(

That's the point, even if for some reason your brain is stuck in a superposition, without any method to measure itself so the superposition evolves into one state, the lion charging towards you has some devices perfectly able to measure, which state your brain is in.:D
And even the fluid exchange inside brain cells are more than enough to measure the system "brain" and thereby causing it to end up in one state.

Carn

"Nature" of course being decoherence.

Good analysis, I'd agree with that.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Carn
From the correct fact, that according to QM, a system is only a sum of possibe states until some outside effect acts upon the system(superposition).
Carn

Is this the part of QM that supports the observer effect and Shroedinger's cat example?

[Carn]

Originally posted by jmercer
Is this the part of QM that supports the observer effect and Shroedinger's cat example?

What do you mean with "supports" exactly?

But it is certainly part of the reason, why Schroedinger thought it's cat example, to show, that it would be a mistake to understand "observation" and "observer effect" only as concious observation.
"Observation" just means that something changes so that the system no longer can be in a superposition.
E.g. if you have a positron, that is either in area A or B and flood area A with electrons, then shortly afterwards the positron will no longer be in A and B but only in B or (very very shortly) in A. Because if it is in A it will annihilate with an electron very soon and if it is in B such an event will not happen. If you have adequate instruments to measure the energy of the annihilation, then you will be able to tell, which area the positron happened to be.
But even if you had nothing to measure the annihilation products, the positron will either be in A and will quickly be annihilated or will live happily ever after in B.
Same is with the double slit experiment, the electron movement is a superposition of 2 or more paths and it's position is undetermined. Until it hits the screen, then its position is very precisely determined.(uncertainity certainly gets lesser than atom radius, though it can diverge afterwards again depending on what reaction it has with the atom it hits.) It's scientifically only preferable to calculate and measure the double slit experiment, when actually we know all parameters, but comparable effects happen constantly in the universe, we just do not see them and when we would see them, they would not happen any differently, unless we use some crude methods of seeing.

As i said elsewhere already, in case you want to know whether schroedinger's cat is alive or dead ask the cat, it will know all the time exactly, whether it's alive, dying or dead.(Ok, when it's dead it cannot answer, but no answer is also an answer.)


Carn

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Carn
it would be a mistake to understand "observation" and "observer effect" only as concious observation.


According to Evan Harris Walker, an observation is just a euphemism for something registering in consciousness. He spends sometime in arguing for this in his book "the physics of consciousness".

[Pragmatist]

Just to address the old Schrodinger's cat issue.

Schrodinger never seriously proposed the cat experiment. He was setting up a deliberate straw man (rather like the "moon is made of green cheese" issue - don't get me started on that again! :D). He thought that some of the ideas of quantum indeterminacy being proposed at the time were so absurd that his idea was to make up an utterly ridiculous "example" of how far that could lead to error. Unfortunately, and much to his horror, the joke backfired on him when philosophers started treating it as a serious proposition.

It's very instructive to look at the original writings of some of the quantum pioneers - it gives a completely different impression to the populist accounts that are so ubiquitous today.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
According to Evan Harris Walker, an observation is just a euphemism for something registering in consciousness. He spends sometime in arguing for this in his book "the physics of consciousness".

Well, you've put your finger on a good point there. What people in general (and philosophers) understand by the word "observation", is not necessarily what scientists understand by the same word in QM.

In QM an "observation" causes a perviously valid wavefunction to become invalid (I hate the "collapse" terminology). But a wavefunction becomes invalid (and a new wavefunction is formed) when a quantum system interacts with something else. For example, the quantum state of an electron (and the wavefunction associated with it) changes when a photon collides with the electron. In QM, that collision is an "observation".

Now philosophers like to make a big deal of this and speculate about whether someone subsequently viewing that photon (that was involved in the collision) would alter the state of the electron. Philosophically it's an interesting discussion point, but nothing in that indicates that consciousness has to be involved.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
According to Evan Harris Walker, an observation is just a euphemism for something registering in consciousness. He spends sometime in arguing for this in his book "the physics of consciousness".

[Pragmatist beat me to answer, i'll save you from reading the same explanation in more words.]

Where did Evan Harris Walker study physics?

And what is your defintion of "observation"?

Carn

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Carn
[Pragmatist beat me to answer, i'll save you from reading the same explanation in more words.]

Where did Evan Harris Walker study physics?

And what is your defintion of "observation"?

Carn

I don't have a definition of observation. Nor do I know whether one is compelled to come to the conclusion that it is consciousness per se which collapses the wave function. I do not have the necessary knowledge to judge this, and I have not read any of the papers that I linked to. Moreover, I have not read this book "the physics of consciousness" which I have in front of me (I am absolutely inundated with books to read! :( ). All I've done is briefly glance through it to see where he's coming from. But if Evan Harris Walker is correct then this is a refutation of materialism. Of course it really doesn't matter what quantum mechanics implies since the notion of reality existing in abstraction from our consciousness is unintelligible.

Anyway, at the back of the book it says he received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Maryland in 1964. He has published more than a hundred papers in scientific journals and holds a dozen patents.

Edited because this voice recognition software mysteriously posted my message when I said "of course".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Well, you've put your finger on a good point there. What people in general (and philosophers) understand by the word "observation", is not necessarily what scientists understand by the same word in QM.

In QM an "observation" causes a perviously valid wavefunction to become invalid (I hate the "collapse" terminology). But a wavefunction becomes invalid (and a new wavefunction is formed) when a quantum system [b]interacts with something else. For example, the quantum state of an electron (and the wavefunction associated with it) changes when a photon collides with the electron. In QM, that collision is an "observation".


No, you would need to observe it before it is an observation.



Now philosophers like to make a big deal of this and speculate about whether someone subsequently viewing that photon (that was involved in the collision) would alter the state of the electron. Philosophically it's an interesting discussion point, but nothing in that indicates that consciousness has to be involved.

Many physicists think that QM proves that consciousness collapses the wave function. Are you more qualified than they are?

(I love the word collapses; well . .at least in the context of QM LOL)

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't have a definition of observation. Nor do I know whether one is compelled to come to the conclusion that it is consciousness per se which collapses the wave function. I do not have the necessary knowledge to judge this, and I have not read any of the papers that I linked to. Moreover, I have not read this book "the physics of consciousness" which I have in front of me (I am absolutely inundated with books to read! :( ). All I've done is briefly glance through it to see where he's coming from. But if Evan Harris Walker is correct then this is a refutation of materialism. Of course it really doesn't matter what quantum mechanics implies since the notion of reality existing in abstraction from our consciousness is unintelligible.

Anyway, at the back of the book it says he received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Maryland in 1964. He has published more than a hundred papers in scientific journals and holds a dozen patents.

And materialism is thus refuted... Is there an echo in here? :D

Well Walker didn't do too well in some reviews. And it's most interesting that he's developed a theory of "psi phenomena". I wonder why he keeps the evidence for their existence to himself? :)

From: http://twm.co.nz/consc_phys.htm

The measurement problem in Quantum Mechanics has existed virtually from the inception of quantum theory. It has engendered a thousand scientific papers in fruitless efforts to resolve the problem. One of the central features of the controversy has been the argument that characteristics of QM imply that an observer's thoughts can affect an objective apparatus directly, which in turn implies the reality not only of consciousness but of psi phenomena. I have written several papers saying that such a feature of QM is not a fault, but rather represents a solution to problems that go beyond the usual perview of physics. Thus, I have developed a theory of consciousness and psi phenomena that arises directly from these bizarre findings in QM, findings now supported by specific tests of the principles of objective reality and/or Einstein locality.

See also:

http://mentalhelp.net/books/books.php?type=de&id=632

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v7/psyche-7-15-donald.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_64/ai_70654645

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Edited because this voice recognition software mysteriously posted my message when I said "of course".

Wow! Must have been a paranormal event. Go for the million Ian! :D

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't have a definition of observation.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, you would need to observe it before it is an observation.

:dl:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Many physicists think that QM proves that consciousness collapses the wave function. Are you more qualified than they are?

How would I know? I don't know who they are. Feel free to name them though. And be prepared to show some first hand evidence that they do actually say what you claim they do.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't have a definition of observation.

No, you would need to observe it before it is an observation.


As Pragmatists already expressed with a picture:
How can you without any defintion of "observation" decide if an "observation" has happened?

I still think you miss the important point:

In everyday language and in normal dictionaries "observation" means something like "someone noticed something". E.g. If i say "i observe that it is raining", then most people will assume, that i somehow registered in my mind sensory information, which allows as most likely conclusion, that it is raining(e.g. i feel water upon my skin and see drops of water falling from above,...)

QM did use the term "observation" in a different way, it's simply an outside effect acting upon the system.

People could also have thought up a word instead of "observation" in QM, e.g. "Hadropping", the content of QM and the consequences for us would not change in any way.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But if Evan Harris Walker is correct then this is a refutation of materialism.

What defintion of materialism?
How is he refuting it?
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Of course it really doesn't matter what quantum mechanics implies since the notion of reality existing in abstraction from our consciousness is unintelligible.

If it does not matter what QM implies, how is it then possible to refute materialism with QM?
And why is a reality existing in abstraction of our consious unintelligible?
Obviously one cannot prove that reality exists independent from our consious, so we'll never know whether we live in the matrix, but why is it unintelligible? Is it so strange that a tree falling without anyone there to hear does nonetheless make a sound?

Carn

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Many physicists think that QM proves that consciousness collapses the wave function.

And many many more think, that QM proves nothing so far about conscious, except that precise prediction of human behaviour as precise prediction of anything else is impossible.
Shall i make a fool of myself and make a poll among my colleagues?
I could get a reasonable sample size of 100-150 and i'm quite certain, that most will answer "the wave funcition is not collapsed by human conscious", though i expect many to answer something like "don't waste your time with such nonesense" or simply laugh and go on with their buisiness.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Are you more qualified than they are?


The exact level of qulification is realy irrelevant, as long as someone is above a minimum level of qualification.
And with QM i'm above that minimum level, simply because i'm able to understand QM papers roughly on first reading and have a chance to spot mistakes(with QCD i still have problems).

With the articles you linked to, i can tell you that the first one(the others i did not look at so far), does have mistakes that invalidate all conclusions.

Now is there any reason, why do you think Walker avoided the same mistakes in that book?

Carn

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course it really doesn't matter what quantum mechanics implies... How fortunate for you.
Edited because this voice recognition software mysteriously posted my message when I said "of course". That is mysterious. It should have got used to you saying "of course". In fact, it ought to edit it out automatically like a cough or a burp.

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian
I don't have a definition of observation.
..................
No, you would need to observe it before it is an observation.

Carn
As Pragmatists already expressed with a picture:
How can you without any definition of "observation" decide if an "observation" has happened?



Ok, I do have a definition of observation; namely an observation is defined as when one observes something. But this is scarcely an enlightening definition is it? :rolleyes:



I still think you miss the important point:

In everyday language and in normal dictionaries "observation" means something like "someone noticed something". E.g. If i say "i observe that it is raining", then most people will assume, that i somehow registered in my mind sensory information, which allows as most likely conclusion, that it is raining(e.g. i feel water upon my skin and see drops of water falling from above,...)

QM did use the term "observation" in a different way, it's simply an outside effect acting upon the system.



Yes . .um . .tell me Carn. How do we know if an "outside effect" acts upon some system? ;)



People could also have thought up a word instead of "observation" in QM, e.g. "Hadropping", the content of QM and the consequences for us would not change in any way.



No, observation is fine since we only know of an effect by becoming consciously aware of it.



quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But if Evan Harris Walker is correct then this is a refutation of materialism.

Carn
What defintion of materialism?
How is he refuting it?


The experiencer and the experienced have to be of the same ontological status should materialism be true. In other words consciousness cannot be special as compared to all other physical things. In particular it cannot be consciousness per se that collapses the wave function. At most it could only be the neural correlates which is causally efficacious in doing the collapsing (should materialsm be true).



quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Of course it really doesn't matter what quantum mechanics implies since the notion of reality existing in abstraction from our consciousness is unintelligible.

Carn
If it does not matter what QM implies, how is it then possible to refute materialism with QM?



Because people will always be unconvinced by an abstract philosophical proof. Clearly it is possible that materialism can be refuted in more than one way. QM might. Creating an android which acts indistinguishably from a human being, yet is not conscious, arguably would refute materialism etc.


And why is a reality existing in abstraction of our consious unintelligible?


No sorry, that was an error on my part. Not unintelligible, but if there is such a reality we can never in principle know anything about it, and it would be wholly unimaginable. Moreover it would appear to be superfluous. It is certainly not required by physics (contrary to what the materialists maintain).


Obviously one cannot prove that reality exists independent from our consious, so we'll never know whether we live in the matrix, but why is it unintelligible? Is it so strange that a tree falling without anyone there to hear does nonetheless make a sound?


Remember there's 2 differing definitions of the word sound, colours, smells, and everything we ever perceptually experience. Thus there are colours as actually experienced, and there's colours as in the scientific definition -- namely a certain wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. Same for sound. There are sounds as experienced (phenomenological sound, or the qualia of sound as we might put it), and there's the scientific concept of "sound" (rarefactions and compressions of the air, or whatever the definition is). So clearly the falling tree does not make a sound as experienced (the qualia), because there is no one around to experience it. Now if we consider the scientific definitions of words to simply describe the patterns of perceptual experiences (qualia), then, literally speaking, the tree makes no sound at all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Many physicists think that QM proves that consciousness collapses the wave function.

Carn
And many many more think, that QM proves nothing so far about conscious, except that precise prediction of human behaviour as precise prediction of anything else is impossible.


Of course.



Shall i make a fool of myself and make a poll among my colleagues?
I could get a reasonable sample size of 100-150 and i'm quite certain, that most will answer "the wave funcition is not collapsed by human conscious", though i expect many to answer something like "don't waste your time with such nonesense" or simply laugh and go on with their buisiness.



Yes, make a poll, but ask 2 questions. Tell them first of all to imagine that classical physics adequately describes (or tells us what) reality is. In other words QM had never happened and there are no anomalous effects revealed by experimentation that classical physics needed to explain. Ask your scientist friends that whether in this scenario they would believe in a reality existing in abstraction from our sensory perceptions (or qualia). Then ask them whether they do taking QM into account.

3 possibilities for each question.

a) Yes, such a mind-independent reality almost certainly definitely exists.

b) Unsure.

c) Such a reality is very unlikely.

My suspicion would be that all of them will answer that they most definitely subscribe to a mind-independent reality under both scenarios. This would lend weight to my suspicion that people, including scientists, have their beliefs determined by implicit unexamined suppositions about the nature of reality which QM, or any other factors (PSI etc) ain't going to be able to overthrow. Hell, you've practically admitted their irrationality yourself when you say they most probably would answer ""don't waste your time with such nonesense" or simply laugh and go on with their buisiness".

[jmercer]

Carn, Pragmatist - thanks for the excellent education on what QM means by observation - I either wasnt' aware or had forgotten how it's used in QM. I'm strictly an interested amateur at any form of physics, but I do like to read up on it... and I've seldom had the opportunity to ask questions of those that have a real grasp of many of the nuances. :)

Carn - just as a quick answer - I used the word "support" because I couldn't think of another word at the time... but you grasped the meaning of my question anyway, so thanks.

Regarding Shroedinger's cat - I've always understood that to be a logic experiment, but now I'm a little fuzzy over it after your post. (pun intended. ;))

Does the cat scenario represent a valid example, or does it refute the concept? (I always thought it was a valid example.)

Also, maybe you guys can clear something up about the slit experiment (which I actually got to do - cool!). I was originally taught that photons are both waves and particles, and that's what caused the effect. Years later, I started reading something about quantum probability being involved.

What is the current (or actual?) explanation for the slit effect?

Thanks in advance for any answers - sorry if I'm hijacking the thread a bit, but heck, this is the forum of an educational foundation. ;)

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My suspicion would be that all of them will answer that they most definitely subscribe to a mind-independent reality under both scenarios. This would lend weight to my suspicion that people, including scientists, have their beliefs determined by implicit unexamined suppositions about the nature of reality which QM, or any other factors (PSI etc) ain't going to be able to overthrow. Hell, you've practically admitted their irrationality yourself when you say they most probably would answer ""don't waste your time with such nonesense" or simply laugh and go on with their buisiness".
Twaddle.

The real problem is that idealism has never come up with a useful model for anything, and dualism is inherently self-contradictory.

Scientists are materialists/naturalists because every shred of evidence anyone has ever discovered about anything points in that direction.

That also explains why (with rare exceptions, such as Popper) scientists pay no attention to philosophers.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
The real absurdity of this is the position some mystics adopt that QM is mysterious and consciousness is mysterious therefore one should explain the other.
Mystics like Roger Penrose, who really should know better.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ok, I do have a definition of observation; namely an observation is defined as when one observes something. But this is scarcely an enlightening definition is it? :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yes . .um . .tell me Carn. How do we know if an "outside effect" acts upon some system? ;)


Something has to notice it and publish it.
It consist of several steps(omitting some), first there happens the QM "observation", where a systems wave function is collapsed, then a lot of detectors do their job, then an output on some screen is generated, then a human observes(here your above defintion) the change on the screen and informs others about it.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, observation is fine since we only know of an effect by becoming consciously aware of it.


Though you should not think the 2 versions of "observation" are identical.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The experiencer and the experienced have to be of the same ontological status should materialism be true. In other words consciousness cannot be special as compared to all other physical things. In particular it cannot be consciousness per se that collapses the wave function. At most it could only be the neural correlates which is causally efficacious in doing the collapsing (should materialsm be true).

No problem with that defintion, how is the guy refuting "materialism"?
Does he try to prove that concsious is collapsing the wave function?
That would suprise me, as i do not think it is possible to prove that.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian



Because people will always be unconvinced by an abstract philosophical proof.

I'm listening, please tell.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Creating an android which acts indistinguishably from a human being, yet is not conscious, arguably would refute materialism etc.

How do you detect, that the android has no conscious?
I only can imagine 2 ways:
-detecting a difference in behaviour, that can be only caused by having no conscious, but that option is not avaible due to what you say above
-showing from the construction plans, etc., that the android cannot have a conscious. But that is only possible if you have an exact idea what conscious is and that means that you already proved there is conscious, so you need no longer the test.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian



Not unintelligible, but if there is such a reality we can never in principle know anything about it,

Agreed.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

and it would be wholly unimaginable.

Why?
I have some imagination how reality looks like. No i can be wrong or right, i'll never know, but i can imagine something about reality.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Moreover it would appear to be superfluous. It is certainly not required by physics (contrary to what the materialists maintain).

What do you mean with "required"?
Certainly physics can be constructed without any resemblance to reality(then i think it would be a part of mathematics), but it would be a useless toy, if it had nothing to do with reality.
Practically every technical device was built, based on the assumtption, that physics in part correctly describes reality.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian



Now if we consider the scientific definitions of words to simply describe the patterns of perceptual experiences (qualia), then, literally speaking, the tree makes no sound at all.

And why should we change the scientific definition of sound?
Certainly with enough defintion changes you can prove anything, i guess even your beloved materialism can be proven beyond doubt, if enough defintions are changed(i would start with "reality").

Carn

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ok, I do have a definition of observation; namely an observation is defined as when one observes something. But this is scarcely an enlightening definition is it? :rolleyes:

It's just as enlightening as any of your usual ones! :)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes . .um . .tell me Carn. How do we know if an "outside effect" acts upon some system? ;)

D'oh! Because the influencing factor is not included within the wavefunction of the thing it influences by definition. Therefore the "outside effect" is outside the wavefunction. If it was inside the wavefunction it couldn't collapse the wavefunction.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, observation is fine since we only know of an effect by becoming consciously aware of it.

That's the old "tree in the forest" canard. Unattended video cameras that nobody happens to be watching often capture events, ergo such events occur indepedently of the "consciousness" of any later observer.

And materialism is thus vindicated! :D

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because people will always be unconvinced by an abstract philosophical proof.

That's because there is no such thing - unless you happen to be talking about something like mathematics.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian




My suspicion would be that all of them will answer that they most definitely subscribe to a mind-independent reality under both scenarios.

Why do you think adding of QM could change the answer
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

This would lend weight to my suspicion that people, including scientists, have their beliefs determined by implicit unexamined suppositions about the nature of reality which QM, or any other factors (PSI etc) ain't going to be able to overthrow.

Got us, we scientists make ridiculous unsupported unspoken assumptions, which are very likely to be wrong and if so all of sciences collapses. A few examples:
- if i'm perceive being in a room and see something my mind tends to name "wooden table" in that room at the position my mind tends to name "middle" and on the other side i see something i'd call "door", if then, after i did what i'd call "walking" "until" the "table" fills a rather big part of my vision and did what i'd call "touching the table with my hand", i get the sensation of "touching" something, which coresponds to the way the table looks like, if then i "go thorugh" the "door" and perceive things, my mind calls "other humans" and hear "language" from then, which my brain interprets as "did you also see the table in that room", then as a lousy scinetist, i unjustified and imprecisely conclude, that there is realy something in the room, made of wood, with a plate upon several legs(i even fail to define legs, wood and plate properly). And i conclude that the majority of humans(even stone age guys) walking into that rooom would afterwards confirm, that there is something in that room. Humans, who would be unable to confirm this, although all the others still see the table in the toom, i would classify as "mad" and consequently disregard anything they say.

I agree, this is from a philosophical pov a ridiculous behaviour, to conclude such a unproven mad notion, but that's how we scientists are, sorry.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Hell, you've practically admitted their irrationality yourself when you say they most probably would answer ""don't waste your time with such nonesense" or simply laugh and go on with their buisiness".

Again, why should QM make a difference, when answering your question?
Even QM assumes, that there is a reality out there, that would continue perfectly to exists and function after all humans or any other conscious beings are gone. I cannot see how such an assumption can be proven or disproven, much less with QM.

After all, how can you prove, that something, that is only perceivable via your senses, exists only as long as you perceive it.


BTW, i think we have some good evidence, that reality is mostly independant about conscious observations:
Accidents, most accidents happen, because someone thinks and even perceives something is at a place, but he misperceived the situation and his actions based on his wrong perceptions lead to an accident. The best explanation i have for that situation is, that the ladder is where it is, independently from where you think it is and where you actually place your feet.
But that's no prove, prove is impossible.

AFAIK there is only one thing, that can be proven without assuming anything:
No not good old Descarte's "I think, so i am", that is wrong conclusion, only possible thing is "I think, so something is".
Doing anything beyond that, e.g. living a live, requires some sort of assumption.

Carn

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jmercer
Regarding Shroedinger's cat - I've always understood that to be a logic experiment, but now I'm a little fuzzy over it after your post. (pun intended. ;))

Does the cat scenario represent a valid example, or does it refute the concept? (I always thought it was a valid example.)

Also, maybe you guys can clear something up about the slit experiment (which I actually got to do - cool!). I was originally taught that photons are both waves and particles, and that's what caused the effect. Years later, I started reading something about quantum probability being involved.

What is the current (or actual?) explanation for the slit effect?

Thanks in advance for any answers - sorry if I'm hijacking the thread a bit, but heck, this is the forum of an educational foundation. ;)

Schrodinger's Cat arose in a paper he wrote in 1935, "Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,'' Naturwissenschaftern. 23 : pp. 807-812; 823-823, 844-849. (1935)." He was discussing the wider philosophical implications of quantum measurement problems, in particular where the dividing line lay between microscopic quantum indeterminacy and macroscopic events. At the same time he was attacking some of the ideas being promoted by Bohr and Heisenberg. Here is what he actually said:

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

The issue here was whether quantum indeterminacy actually extended to the macroscopic domain. Schrodinger believed it didn't - he thought the idea of a half-dead cat was absurd - and this was his reason for mentioning it. Note he starts by saying, "One can even set up quite ridiculous cases". Schrodinger, despite the fact that he some mystical leanings, was quite opposed to the more metaphysical interpretations in quantum mechanics. He even didn't like the idea that his wavefunction idea had led to such concepts, he once said something to the effect that if he regretted ever publishing it. Similarly when asked about the cat much later he said something like, "I wish I'd never met that cat"!

The slit experiment is an example of the limit of knowledge about a system imposed by Heisenberg's uncertainty. We don't know what the "particle" is, we currently have no way of knowing. All we can observe is that when it interacts with other things sometimes it behaves like a particle and sometimes it behaves like a wave. The important thing to remember is that what we see is only the interaction - which tells us nothing about the actual underlying nature of the particle itself - because in effect an interaction is always a composite of two different things, therefore who is to say whether the wavelike or particle like properties are exclusively due to the particle? Any experiment to resolve the contradictions inevitably falls within the limits of uncertainty and therefore the result is always uncertain or contradictory.

There are numerous different quantum theories. Some theories, for example the De Broglie Bohm Pilot wave theory maintains that the particle is definitely a particle and always passes through only one slit, but its path is influenced by an associated "pilot wave" in an underlying quantum field. QED, Feynman's theory, doesn't attempt to say what is happening but gives us an elegant way of determing the correct result by simply adding together influences from all possible paths - in such a way that all the paths not followed simply cancel themselves out. However, Feynman himself always insisted that a particle was a particle, not a wave.

The really honest and simple answer to most of these things is that we simply dont know - and as far as we know at present, there appears to be no way of knowing. But those grey areas are fertile grounds for imagination, and hence are potentially exploitable by the woo contingent because nobody can unequivocally prove them wrong.

[jmercer]

Clear as a bell, and most cogent. Feynman's viewpoint was one I was more recently acquainted with, but I had no idea if it were still "up in the air" or not.

And thanks for the cat clarification, too. :)

[Carn]

Originally posted by jmercer

Carn - just as a quick answer - I used the word "support" because I couldn't think of another word at the time... but you grasped the meaning of my question anyway, so thanks.

Regarding Shroedinger's cat - I've always understood that to be a logic experiment, but now I'm a little fuzzy over it after your post. (pun intended. ;))

Does the cat scenario represent a valid example, or does it refute the concept? (I always thought it was a valid example.)

The cat example is unable to show anything about superpostion and so on, because long before the cat even starts being affected by the poison, an observation has happened by products of the atom decay hitting some atoms or whatever.

The fact that things actually can be in a superpositioned state until measurement happens, is far more difficult to prove.
It is done with experiments which are slightly modified versions of the one proposed by EPR-Paradoxon, checking whether Bell's inequations are fulfilled or not.
In case they had been confirmed by experiments, it would have been proven, that at least in this case QM says there is a superposition although in reality, the particles already are in one state.
As experiments showed that Bell's inequations are wrong, it is proven, that what we call superposition is either that or the real mungo jumbo being several things at once with shifting in between sometimes randomly, somtimes due to things that happen at the other end of the universe(ok at least at the other end of the lab), while also things as time travel and above light speed travel go on.

I tried to explain it, but i realize, that i do not remeber precisely and it's been some years, maybe i will find remeber correct description tomorrow. Didn't find anything useful on the net.


Originally posted by jmercer

Also, maybe you guys can clear something up about the slit experiment (which I actually got to do - cool!). I was originally taught that photons are both waves and particles, and that's what caused the effect. Years later, I started reading something about quantum probability being involved.

What is the current (or actual?) explanation for the slit effect?



It's a particle, but it's speed and postion is "determined" by it's probability wave functions.
Therefore as soon as you narrow the wave functions down enough through measurering, the particle will be seen at one spot. Before measuring it is in all places the wave function allows at once.

So the picture we end up is particles smeared over space.
Not nice, but maybe god does not have a better picture.'

BTW, the best "philosophical" conclusion i can come up with from QM, is that our universe is run on a computer with a pretty limited memory. As the memeory is limitedthe programmer thought up some trick to speed up things:
Always keeping precise track of all particles's momentas and positions is a big waste of memory resources, it is enough to know them, when they are needed(e.g. in case of "measurement"). Therefore he/they decided just to use average values + some variance according to circumstance and feed this into a function using some random parameter, whenever a more precise value is needed to calculate what happens further.
For the same memory reason, they decided for the quantization stuff, an electron can no longer have 1000s of possible position in an atom, they can use integer instead of longint or even real.
Maybe that's the whole goal, to avoid using real variables, they are far slower than integer ones.

Also an advantage is that calculation errors and small runtime changes are hidden beneath that randomness, they can change their simultion without stopping the programme or needing to evaluate all consequences beforehand. Especially, if they run this experiment to simulate the development of intelligent live, it is fundamental, that the intelligent live does not always realize, when they install and update.

Carn

[Interesting Ian]

There's a lot for me to respond to so I'll just respond to this comment for now.


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, observation is fine since we only know of an effect by becoming consciously aware of it.


Pragmatist
That's the old "tree in the forest" canard. Unattended video cameras that nobody happens to be watching often capture events, ergo such events occur indepedently of the "consciousness" of any later observer.

And materialism is thus vindicated! :D



Fiirst of all materialism involves more than the contention that a mind-independent reality exists ;)

But this reasoning regarding the video camera is wrong. The recording on the tape does not assume a "concrete reality" until viewed by a sentient being. This is backed up by the phenomenon of retropsychokinesis (as well as QM and philosophical arguments for idealism). See the link below:

Martial arts students influence the past (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/martial.html)

[AWPrime]

First this thread was about abuse of QM, now it has ventured into pure insanity.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by AWPrime
First this thread was about abuse of QM, now it has ventured into pure insanity.

I know, I know. You two, Pragmatist and Carn. Cut it out! :mad:

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Fiirst of all materialism involves more than the contention that a mind-independent reality exists ;)

I know, I'm just yanking your chain! :D

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But this reasoning regarding the video camera is wrong. The recording on the tape does not assume a "concrete reality" until viewed by a sentient being. This is backed up by the phenomenon of retropsychokinesis (as well as QM and philosophical arguments for idealism). See the link below:

Martial arts students influence the past (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/martial.html)


Ohmigod! That one's a real Tai Kwon Dodo...

:dl:

Let me introduce you to a new paradigm alternative to Schrodinger's Cat - this one is "Pragmatist's Camera".

I take a roll of film (the old fashioned kind that needs developing) - or better yet, an unattended camera automatically takes a roll of film with no conscious entities in the frame. I take that undeveloped film, to a processing lab who put it one of their automatic processing machines. The machine produces prints, but we don't let anyone look at them. We measure the amount of chemicals and waste residues in the machine both before and after the developing (without ever looking at the prints). Will the usage of chemicals be impossible to measure prior to anyone looking at the prints?

[Vikram]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Mystics like Roger Penrose, who really should know better.

I attended a talk by Penrose about two years ago. The mathematical segment of his talk was very interesting but his views on consciousness were pretty much 'grey area mumbo-jumbo' - QM is the grey area in physics and consciousness is the grey area in biology, hence they must be linked.

Perhaps the most idiotic statement ever made about QM was by an acquaintance of mine who completely believes in the existence of psychic abilities: "According to Heisenberg's uncertainly principle, psychic ability fails when you try to test it."

[Vikram]

Stumbled across this link while googling QM:

Towards a Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of Homeopathy
http://www.cs.rug.nl/~michael/qthair.pdf

It's obviously a parody. Quite a good one at that.

The concept of "homeopathic exercise" is truly brilliant!

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Vikram
Stumbled across this link while googling QM:

Towards a Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of Homeopathy
http://www.cs.rug.nl/~michael/qthair.pdf

It's obviously a parody. Quite a good one at that.

The concept of "homeopathic exercise" is truly brilliant!

That's hilarious! Brilliant! :D

I agree with you about Penrose BTW, his math stuff is really interesting, the rest... well, you know! ;)

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
That's hilarious! Brilliant! :D

I agree with you about Penrose BTW, his math stuff is really interesting, the rest... well, you know! ;)


Phone: (Ring, Ring)
Roger Penrose: Hello?
Phone: Dr. Penrose, I presume...
Roger: Yes?
Phone: I have something to tell you.
Roger: What?
Phone: Listen carefully. I am from the year 3212 and we have unraveled the secret of consciousness.
Roger: :eek: TELL ME!!!
Phone: It's all based upon Quantum Physics. The cellular microfibers....bzzt...crackle...bzzt...
Roger: Hello? Hello? Hello? Are you still there?
Phone: (irritating female voice) We're sorry. This call has been disconnected.
Roger: Oh crap... This is going to be tough...

[Interesting Ian]

Yup, all these brilliant mathematicians and physicists must all be stupid and all their arguments must obviously be flawed because they do not believe precisely what you lot believe. :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I know, I'm just yanking your chain! :D




Ohmigod! That one's a real Tai Kwon Dodo...

:dl:

Let me introduce you to a new paradigm alternative to Schrodinger's Cat - this one is "Pragmatist's Camera".

I take a roll of film (the old fashioned kind that needs developing) - or better yet, an unattended camera automatically takes a roll of film with no conscious entities in the frame. I take that undeveloped film, to a processing lab who put it one of their automatic processing machines. The machine produces prints, but we don't let anyone look at them. We measure the amount of chemicals and waste residues in the machine both before and after the developing (without ever looking at the prints). Will the usage of chemicals be impossible to measure prior to anyone looking at the prints?

The laws of physics are precisely the same. It's just that I do not believe in a mind-independent reality. What can you not understand about that?

Retropsychokinesis shows that reality need not be determined before it enters a conscious mind. This is also compatible with QM. Compare that to your world view.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yup, all these brilliant mathematicians and physicists must all be stupid and all their arguments must obviously be flawed because they do not believe precisely what you lot believe. :rolleyes: Who?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...Retropsychokinesis {ZZZ!!!fahrtpop!!}* shows that reality need not be determined before it enters a conscious mind. This is also compatible with QM. Compare that to your world view. Retroproctology, rather. Proactivepsychokinesis, maybe.
*insert.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Retropsychokinesis shows that reality need not be determined before it enters a conscious mind. This is also compatible with QM. Compare that to your world view.
Ian, retropsychokinesis does not happen.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
The slit experiment is an example of the limit of knowledge about a system imposed by Heisenberg's uncertainty. We don't know what the "particle" is, we currently have no way of knowing. All we can observe is that when it interacts with other things sometimes it behaves like a particle and sometimes it behaves like a wave. The important thing to remember is that what we see is only the interaction - which tells us nothing about the actual underlying nature of the particle itself - because in effect an interaction is always a composite of two different things, therefore who is to say whether the wavelike or particle like properties are exclusively due to the particle? Any experiment to resolve the contradictions inevitably falls within the limits of uncertainty and therefore the result is always uncertain or contradictory.

Regarding the observation bit. From what I understood its the physical instruments we use that effect what quantum interactions we observe. Take the two slit experiment. If we don't try to determine which slit a particle might pass through, and simply let it hit the detection screen, it acts like a particle (or is it a wave, my memory sucks). If we try to observe/measure the slits themselves in an effort to determine which slit the particle passes, the pattern changes and acts like a wave. By actively trying to observe the particle before it hits the screen, the radiation emitted by say that the equipment we use to observe the particle, changes or forces it into one potential path, therefore changing the pattern of what we see on the detection screen. As soon as we stop trying to detect what slit the particle passes through, and simply let it hit the detection screen unimpeded, it goes back to the previous pattern of probabilities.

Is this basically correct? I'm no expert by any means.

As for the tree falling in the forest here is a different way of thinking of it Ian. You say that since there is no conscious observer to hear the tree, the qualia of the sound experience cannot exist. But then you admit that if we record the event with a camera, it still means nothing until a conscious observer watches the video and hears the tree fall, at which point the qualia kick in. So it would seem there can be no qualia without the source information. However you are over-looking something in my opinion. Simply that all the information required to trigger your supposed qualia are contained within the physical media of the video, and the video is capable of producing these qualia-type reactions in you. In fact, they seem inextricably tied to it. So all your qualia are in this sense is what "meaning" the information you are received prompts in you. Making qualia somehow non-physical/material does nothing to change this.

So where and when the information is received from isn't always particularily relevant in terms of our response to it, or your qualia. How you interpret that information, or rather what it means to you is what is important. To you it might invoke some sort of memory or feeling. To someone else they might just go..."yah its a tree falling...so what?". A deaf or blind person would have a different interpretations again. That conscious appreciation, of the information you are receiving, is merely your interpretation of what the meaning of the information is to you and your experiences.

Now what exactly the nature or subjective meaning of information is, especially at the quantum level is also pretty hard to discern from what I understand.

Here's a fun one, If a tree falls in the forest and only a deaf person see's it...does it make a sound? :D

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The laws of physics are precisely the same. It's just that I do not believe in a mind-independent reality. What can you not understand about that?

I do not think anyone has a big problem, with you believing, that there is no mind-independant reality, since disproving this believe is impossible unless you prefer a specific mind dependant reality.

Do you prefer one?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Retropsychokinesis shows that reality need not be determined before it enters a conscious mind. This is also compatible with QM. Compare that to your world view.

Here comes what we have problems with:
You claim, that it can be proven, that there is no mind-independant reality.
As prove you offer:

-psi experiments: Granted, if they show these results repeatedly, independantly of exact test design and who runs the test, then yes, it proves, that there is some mind dependness of reality. But it does not prove that there is no part of reality, that is mind-independant

-philosophical arguments: I did not know, that it is possible to prove anything in philosophy without first making an assumption, would you please explain the argument and show if/which assumptions have to be made and explain, why you think the assumptions are good ones?

-QM: Now here there is the problem, that at least Pragmatists and I both have some knowledge of QM and we both fail to see, why it proves in any way, that there is no mind-independant reality. So what does QM say about the problem, whether there is a mind independant reality, and how does it prove something in the favour of one or the other? And especially what has QM to offer in this respect, that is not present in calssical mechanics?




While i have no problem with you believing reality is mind dependant, i'm still curious:
If you are stading before a large shelf and accidentally hit the shelf so, that it starts to shake so much, that it is upon the brink of falling upon you, but you are certain, that you cannot move away fast enough, do you:
-use your hands/feets/whatever is lying around to shield your more vital parts(e.g. head) aginst the potential collapsing shelf?
-turn around, close the eyes, stick fingers in your ears and hum loudly, so that your senses cannot perceive, whether the shelf realy starts collapsing?

As far as i understand your believe, the second option might offer more safety against the dangers of a shelf that might collapse. Or do i misunderstand you?

Carn

[Soapy Sam]

II
Extremely interesting links indeed.

Mojo
This at least implies that you have read them.

II
Not at all. Someone told me they were -- a person whom I trust and who has similar interests to me. I've checked out the papers to see what they are about, how easy they are to understand etc, and I agree with the other person that they do indeed seem interesting.

Irrespective of the subject matter, this is a dangerous way to work, Ian. If you now recommend them to someone who trusts you, will you advise him that they are easy to understand, or that they are informative?

Much which is easy to understand is wrong. A lot of hard stuff may be wrong too, but we don't improve the quality of our understanding by sticking to simplicity.

I make no statements about the implications of QM, because I do not understand the mathematics and the many popular books I have read confuse me.

I have personally, in the last month, heard no less than three people in "real life" say that QM explains various things, including synchronicity, "energy" healing and telepathy. All these folk believed what they said to be factually correct, "proven" by scientists. Not one of them had any more understanding of QM than I.

This delusion is widespread. I suggest this is partly so due to people uncritically recommending papers which they have not themselves actually bothered to read.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Ian, retropsychokinesis does not happen.

The evidence dictates otherwise.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mojo

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yup, all these brilliant mathematicians and physicists must all be stupid and all their arguments must obviously be flawed because they do not believe precisely what you lot believe.

Mojo

Who?

You know, Walker, Stapp, Goswami, Goedel, Penrose etc etc.

From here (http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Summer99/goswami9901.htm):


The interpretational difficulties of quantum mechanics can be solved with the hypothesis (von Neumann, 1955; Wigner, 1962) that consciousness collapses the quantum wave function. The paradoxes raised against this hypothesis have now all been satisfactorily solved (Bass, 1971; Blood, 1993; Goswami, 1989, 1993; Stapp, 1993).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
II
Extremely interesting links indeed.

Mojo
This at least implies that you have read them.

II
Not at all. Someone told me they were -- a person whom I trust and who has similar interests to me. I've checked out the papers to see what they are about, how easy they are to understand etc, and I agree with the other person that they do indeed seem interesting.

Irrespective of the subject matter, this is a dangerous way to work, Ian. If you now recommend them to someone who trusts you, will you advise him that they are easy to understand, or that they are informative?

Much which is easy to understand is wrong. A lot of hard stuff may be wrong too, but we don't improve the quality of our understanding by sticking to simplicity.

I make no statements about the implications of QM, because I do not understand the mathematics and the many popular books I have read confuse me.

I have personally, in the last month, heard no less than three people in "real life" say that QM explains various things, including synchronicity, "energy" healing and telepathy. All these folk believed what they said to be factually correct, "proven" by scientists. Not one of them had any more understanding of QM than I.

This delusion is widespread. I suggest this is partly so due to people uncritically recommending papers which they have not themselves actually bothered to read.

Sorry, but this guy who started the thread asked for links. I believed I was doing him and indeed others a favour. If he did not wish me to provide a link, or for me to only provide links which I have read in depth myself, that should have been specified.

From what I have read they seem pretty interesting to me. I will read them (or at least some), but I'm up to my ears in library books and interloan library books at that, at the moment.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You know, Walker, Stapp, Goswami, Goedel, Penrose etc etc.Note which words from your post I put in bold in my reply: "you lot." I was pointing out your strawman.

As far as I'm aware, Walker, Stapp, Goswami, Goedel and Penrose are not regular posters on this forum.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Mojo
Note which words from your post I put in bold in my reply: "you lot." I was pointing out your strawman.

As far as I'm aware, Walker, Stapp, Goswami, Goedel and Penrose are not regular posters on this forum.

I'd like to know if Ian has read any of the references he just cited and can back up his implication that what is meant by the relationship between "consciousness" and wave function by all five of those authors is the same as what he's claiming. In fact, I'd like some evidence that the author of this reference, from the "Institute of Noetic Sciences", has read the sources he cites.

However, even this woo-woo author is not taking the position that Ian is vis a vis those authors, since his little essay is saying the above authors have left UNANSWERED Ian's central premise: There is, however, one question that continues to be raised: Is consciousness absolutely necessary for interpreting quantum mechanics?

Edited to add: Actually, Ian slipped the name of Goswami into that little list as one of his supposedly eminent physicists/mathematicians. Goswami is the principle author of the original paper and is a "researcher" as I said, at the "Institute of Noetic Sciences".

[Carn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You know, Walker, Stapp, Goswami, Goedel, Penrose etc etc.

From here (http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Summer99/goswami9901.htm):

The interpretational difficulties of quantum mechanics can be solved with the hypothesis (von Neumann, 1955; Wigner, 1962) that consciousness collapses the quantum wave function. The paradoxes raised against this hypothesis have now all been satisfactorily solved (Bass, 1971; Blood, 1993; Goswami, 1989, 1993; Stapp, 1993).



You should have read more than the first sentence:
"There is, however, one question that continues to be raised: Is consciousness absolutely necessary for interpreting quantum mechanics? Can we find other alternatives to collapse and consciousness as the collapser?

Some of these alternatives propose to modify quantum mechanics in a major way (for example, nonlinear theories); others are not philosophically satisfactory (for example, decoherence theories);"

So "decoherence" is a bad answer because it is "not philosophically satisfactory"?

I thought this is about science and proving things?
What the hell does "satisfaction" matter?

What use is all that explanation, if it is just "uh, i do not like the interpretation you propose, i'll create my own one, but i will not get any different predictions from it"?

That does not prove anything, except that it is possible, that we live in the matrix. That's religion, "uh i do not like your interpretation, that this earth quake happened by chance, there most be some god pursuing a wise plan and unfortunately earth quake had to be part of it."

Ok, enough ranting, as you can read yourself in that paper Interesting Ian, there is an alternative explanation for that wave function collapse problems and so on, "decoherence". So even that guy says, that QM does not require some conscious collapsing, he just doesn't like "decoherence" and therefore looks for a different interpretation, that feels better for him.

I feel better with "decoherence", discussion done, QM does not prove or disprove in any way(as all physic theories so far), that human conscious is special.

I'd still like to know about your android experiment, how do you measure, conclude, prove or whatever, that the android has or has not a conscious?
BTW, how do you know that other humans have a conscious?

Carn

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Carn


I'd still like to know about your android experiment, how do you me