Quantum Mecahnics And Consciousness.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by BIGFOOT, Oct 16, 2014.

  1. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    You are correct. There is no communication between particles.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    That's probably because most physicists and experts who know about the subject don't believe that quantum mechanics reveals what you believe it reveals. They don't interpret quantum mechanics in the way that you do.

    That conclusion looks like a huge non-sequitur at this point. It's clearly an expression of your own faith, but it doesn't seem to follow from quantum mechanics, even if we give that branch of physics the weird interpretive spin that you favor.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    To add some pertinent quotes to the proceedings:

    "The universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of of observation by physicists." - Murray Gellman

    "It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all!" - Anthony Leggett

    "From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory.
    ... The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences."
    - John Bell

    "Caution: 'Consciousness' has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process." - John Wheeler.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,324
    Brainless, computer-less objects do receive / absorb information (environmental energies conveying patterns). But they lack stored data-structures (innate templates / programming, acquired memories, etc) and the means to use that in functional processes for understanding what they receive. They're unable to respond to the latter in specialized ways far more complex than the elementary states and reactions expected of these mind-less, non-comprehending matter aggregates or limited systemic assemblages.

    However, for the properties of particles, fields, etc to be interacting in the first place (as opposed to always passing obliviously through each other like ghosts), seems to imply a primitive, nomological or rule-following "awareness" of the presence and characteristics of "others". But it's not the kind that such basic, mechanistic sensitivity can intricately develop into at higher levels of organization. Even though "intelligence" or "mind-considered-as-intellgience" is lacking in them, routine instances of matter still successfully affect each other (and thereby, as far as a CI context goes, could bring about any supposed collapse the interpretation espouses).

    If "physical" is taken to pertain as it originally did to "the manifested evidence of extended bodies abiding in a space which distinguishes them from each other" (rather than pertaining to abstract endeavors in physics, experience-independent ontologies, or an explanatory approach involving mechanistic relationships)... Then of course that would be about a representational world -- perhaps also falling out of CI beliefs or whatever -- that IS dependent upon brains or "agents of consciousness (used as umbrella term)" to generate it. That is, produce spatiotemporal-undergirded showings of the circumstances of that reality as images, sounds, odors, etc.

    As aforementioned, rocks and tropical storms and axes don't output worlds or shown evidence like that from the information they absorb. Or even the delayed intellectual evidence of reflective thought / reasoning. But the latter's inferred metaphysical realm (i.e., beyond that experienced meaning of physical) is taken to straddle the fence. To be mind-dependent in the sense of requiring intellect to produce theories, speculations, etc concerning it; yet also mind-independent in the sense of invisibly existing beforehand without both perceptual evidence and that thinking-yielded evidence (minus phenomenal presentations and descriptions / conclusions).

    Erwin Schrödinger: "The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence. Its becoming manifest is conditional on very special goings-on in very special parts of this very world, namely on certain events that happen in a brain. That is an inordinately peculiar kind of implication, which prompts the question: What particular properties distinguish these brain processes and enable them to produce the manifestation? Can we guess which material processes have this power, which not? Or simple: What kind of material process is directly associated with consciousness?"
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    That's controversial, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.

    What's a 'conscious observer'? Why must the idea of consciousness be introduced into quantum mechanics at all? You seem to be insisting that the physical universe couldn't exist without 'conscious observers'. What support or justification can you provide for that assertion?

    That looks like a whole string of non-sequiturs. How does any of that follow from Bell's theorem, even when it's being interpreted as you want to interpret it?

    Since when does 'non-local' mean 'spiritual'? Why should we believe in the existence of 'God'? Why should we think that 'God is spirit'? What justification is there for saying that 'he' is 'creator' of reality? (You've seemingly just been arguing that reality doesn't exist, so how does that work?)

    And the preaching turns full-Biblical...
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451

    "QM does NOT say observers are necessary for the existence of reality"

    Am not sure if you are familiar with the theory, but that is exactly what it claims.This is Bells Theorem: “If the statistical predictions of quantum theory are true, an observable universe is incompatible with the laws of local causes” John Bell I may not be an expert in these fields, but the commonness inference by the theory is the necessity of observers for existence of reality. What are the statistical predictions of Quantum Theory? The predication is that at Quantum Realm, the micro structures that manifests the Macro structure we observe as reality have probabilistic existence. Meaning that even if we apprehend what we call “matter” its very existence depends on the observer. The very nature of reality is illusory. Therefore existence require observers who make sense of it. Does the fact that reality needs us observers for it to exists too much to take? Ontologically, it may place Man as very important, as if the Universe would not be there if we did not exists, but pretty much that the crazy claim being made..............and by Science. So, when I try to bring in the reason for this by introducing Religion, am preaching. Smile, you realy are very important for existence, because you are a Child of God. He created everything for you, and He individuated the Universe in you. You are a child of the Universe, and you are a micro Universe.

    David Bolm, one of the greats Physicists, claimed that the Universe is a Hologram A Virtual Phantasm. Your Mind, according to Karl Pribram is a Hologram. But then, since not many Scientists are yet to buy in this, of course we lay guys will have to wait until they agree.[/QUOTE]

    No, Yazata is right. As usual.

    Since you express some doubt as to my familiarity with QM, I do in fact have a working knowledge of it, having chosen to study it as my supplementary subject in my chemistry degree, though I admit this was 40 years ago. I have since become aware that a lot of people who have not studied it academically seem to have picked up erroneous notions of its significance, due to the exaggeration of journalists. I suspect you may be one such and what you have said so far supports my hypothesis.

    I do not understand why you are conflating Bell's studies on the non-local effects predicted by QM (in certain very obscure and contrived circumstances) with the need for conscious observers to enable reality to exist. The latter does not follow from the former.

    The probability-based view of the physical properties of particles has nothing to say about observers being necessary, either. It arises from the wavelike nature of light and matter at the atomic scale, that's all. Any good radio engineer will have an instinctive understanding of QM. In fact, probability has applications in other branches of physics and chemistry, for example statistical thermodynamics. Nothing about observers there.

    But thanks for starting to engage in discussion, at last.

    P.S. I've just seen Sarkus' quote from John Bell, which I repeat again, as it makes the same point I have been trying to convey to you:" The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences."
    That's it.

     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
  10. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Huh. Why am I not surprised? Because “Every truth passes through three stages before it’s recognized. In the first, it’s ridiculed. In the second, it’s opposed. And in the third, its regarded as self-evident” Arthur Schopenhauer

    For now, am comfortable with being considered a nutcase. Pioneers have that unfortunate role to play.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Pioneers do have this role to play

    Without Pioneers we would be ......
     
  12. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Ahh. am glad that even the great ones are confused about consciousness. So, am not surprised that I sound crazy. What is consciousness? simply said, its the sentient proses of making sense of reality. So, Reality is what consciousness makes of it. So, what is reality? its whatever sentient process of conscious being construct with their mental tools. How is this done? We can choose to side with Rationalists or Empiricists, or we can chose to side with Kant and his Transcendental Idealism.

    I like Kant, although he does not implicitly state his real position. My point is this, that if at all, the micro systems that matter is made of have probabilistic existent, how is it possible to disconnect this characteristic with the Macro systems that are manifested by these super positioned entities? So, in as much as its observation that collapsed the Wave Function and arrests the micro systems thus making them "real" what we observe is only real.........because we observe it. Observers give sense of reality. And therefore, without observers to apply construct which make sense of reality, how can reality exist?
     
  13. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    What's a 'conscious observer'? Why must the idea of consciousness be introduced into quantum mechanics at all? You seem to be insisting that the physical universe couldn't exist without 'conscious observers'. What support or justification can you provide for that assertion?

    Conscious Observers are sentient beings that use constructs, (space, time, sense experience, Rationalism etc) to make sense of reality.

    We cannot avoid (But of course most physicist do avoid it) dragging consciousness into QM, precisely because of its outrageous claims, that reality is in fact, made of things that have probabilistic existence.

    Yep. I stand guilty of insisting that without observers, Reality is Kaput.

    Justification, is because of what QM, a scientific inquiry, have claimed. It has drawn a line on the sand, that further inquiry into what is behind reality cannot be done with local laws, or classical method. The reason for this heated debate, because, everything now, is merely conjecture. Anyone may be wrong or right.

    That looks like a whole string of non-sequiturs. How does any of that follow from Bell's theorem, even when it's being interpreted as you want to interpret it?

    Bells theorem, actually draws the line of limit of further logical inquiry into what reality is made of. Am not therefore surprised you consider it, non-sequitur. Further logic, is limited by Bells Theorem.

    Since when does 'non-local' mean 'spiritual'? Why should we believe in the existence of 'God'? Why should we think that 'God is spirit'? What justification is there for saying that 'he' is 'creator' of reality? (You've seemingly just been arguing that reality doesn't exist, so how does that work?)

    Look, Allan Aspect experiment confirmed faster that light communication between two particles previously entangled. Yet this went against Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. So, if two previously entangles particles never loose connection, doesn't that proof non-locality? And if non-local, what is there to dispute that in a way, everything is connected at Quantum Realm? And if connected, we have a wholeness. I hope you are following the line of logic, but you are free to disagree. This wholeness is what connects science with Spirituality.

    And so, He did this so that they might seek the deity and, by feeling their way towards Him, succeed in finding Him; and indeed he is not far from any of us, since it is in Him that we live and move and exist, as in deed some of you own writers have said: We are his Children” Acts 17: 27-27


    And the preaching turns full-Biblical...[/QUOTE]


    Yep.
     
  14. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    I am a supporter of David Bolm. There are no two particles. Its just one. Reality is a paradox.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Depends on your perspective
     
  16. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    You sound too much like Emmanuel Kant. My argument is that Reality is like the fiat money that we use which is not backed by anything. If I gave you 1 Million Yen in notes, and you did not know that is was Japanese currency, most likely you may think that its Monopoly money and just ditch it. But a Japanese would be very grateful because the Japanese government has impost on it a "value" as a legal tender for Japan. So its the same with reality. Unless there are sentient beings to make sense of reality, how could reality exist? Who is there to recognize it as such? who care even if it exists? As far as Consciousness is not there to impose constructs and therefore give it sense, it does not exists. A dream is the same. And therefore, Physicality is a subjective character imposed by sentient being with subjective tools. So, without this subjectively imposed "physicality" or reality, an objective reality does not exists. And since QM. claimed that this subjectivity is an illusion, why cant we even agree with the conclusions of a methodology that we have always trusted? Objective Reality is an Illusion. We are Unity.
     
  17. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Our Subjective perception is the problem. Its biased.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Yes but, as it is not observation that collapses the wave function - as has now been pointed out to you at least three times - the conclusion you draw does not apply.

    You refuse to listen.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Again, as I and others have pointed out to you on the other thread with the same title that you started originally, you are erroneously hung up on "observed". It is not observation that collapses the wave function, it is interaction of the wave-particle entity with something.

    There is no requirement whatsoever for an observer to be present.

    Creationists have a sorry track record of deliberately misrepresenting science, in order to fool the uneducated among their congregations. You seem to be - possibly unwittingly - doing the same thing. Kindly stop it.
     
  20. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Wao, looks like someone is getting really heated up. Its normal. Take time and Breath in....................breath out.............Breath in..............breath out. Now, its not me, who is claiming that observation collapses the Wave Structure. You are like the guy who was caught with another lady by his wife and then he asked her "Are you going to believe me or are you going to believe your laying eyes?"

    Huh. "It is not observation that collapses the wave function, it is interaction of the wave-particle entity with something" You are saying the sam thing and then denying it! Interaction of the Wave Particle entity with something else, (Particle accelerators/Particle smashers) happened during observation. So.......there
     
  21. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    You refuse to listen.[/QUOTE]

    Our observation of reality is biased, and that is what is confirmed by the collapse of the Wave Function. What you need to understand is that whatever we do at the micro level, QM, impacts on how we view the macro systems. If Man did not use the particle accelerators to understand (by observation) the nature of the basic structures of matter, we would not know how our reality is constructed. Now, QM, tells us, (After using Particle accelerators to observe subatomic particles, that they exists both as "particles" and "Wave" And accelerators, (which we use to observe them) collapse the Wave Structure. It collapses, because we impose wrongly an objectivity using the mindset of classical theory, which takes for granted that reality is analyzable, and its objective, out there, occupying space, and its material. But QM, which itself is totally radically opposed to classical theory, says that reality is non-local, and have a probabilistic existence. Now, we have to shift our paradigm, from classical thinking, to the New (Guess its turning our to be difficult for you) We need to understand what is happening at Quantum Realm. We are measuring a reality, which is Unity. By mare measuring it, we are imposing classical tools in order to understand something totally new! But we need to use our Master Logic.

    “No one sews a piece of unshrunken cloth on an old cloak; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old and tear gets worse. And nobody puts new wine into an old wineskin; otherwise the wine will bust the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins too. No! New wine into the fresh skins!” Mark 2: 21-22 Then again He stated"

    So measurement of subatomic particle is in itself classical. But since we have to use something to understand our reality, we have to deal with its limitation, but we must now realize that the collapse of he Wave Function has dramatically changes our notion of how our reality is constructed. It collapsed, to confirm that before objectivity was imposed on it reality and observation was a Unity. Reality, is Observation, that's why they are a Unity. That's my take.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2014
  22. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Reality being the Sun, Earth, Moon, water, wind, stupid fish, and even toads (not the Dr. kind, though), and sentient beings resembling humans, the death of all sentient beings in space would not a Sun, Moon, Earth, nor stupid fish death make!

    Hence, reality can exist without stupid fish too.
     
  23. BIGFOOT Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    282
    Good........that then, should tell you that there exists a separate consciousness which has expressed this reality which we sentient human being experience. That Consciousness must be, God. That is my take.
     

Share This Page