Well is there emptiness or are there objects that are in motion? If there is emptiness then there are no objects in motion such as the sun and earth. If the sun and earth exist, then they are objects in space that have motion and that motion can be measured in distance and time. You make it sound as if the sun and earth aren't real, but that what is real is a consciousness in space that creates...well...it creates emptiness of course!!
Point by point reply: 1) True. You are repeating Bishop Berkeley's POV from more than 300 years ago. 2) False. You are (intentionally?) misunderstanding what QM is and teaches - no doubt have never done a QM calculation as I have. 3a) True (Probably. Certainly even atoms have QM's wave like properties, as do their electron, neutron & proton components, but whether or not the two components of neutron & protons (quarks) have those wave like properties, AFAIK, is unknown. 3b) False. "All that exists" is not in a superposition of states. For example a brick is not. 4) False. Here again your lack of understanding of QM is exposed. For example, you read words like "Wave function collapses when an observation is made," but lack real understanding of what that means. In this case you misunderstand what is the meaning of statements that only those ignorant of QM would make (except when in a hurry and speaking to others who do know what their compressed statement is saying) For example: The statement that "the electron is both particle and wave." That is not really a statement about the nature of the electron, but about the fact the election In some experiments resembles more what humans call waves and in other interaction exhibits behavior more like what humans call particles. To generalize: The wave function (or the matrices that QM was first described with) are just that: CONVENIENT DESCRIPTIONS with which one can calculate and predict then observable results of experiments involving very tiny masses or energy packets. The have no more reality than sin(a) does. They are description one can calculate with, not things of with material existence. Sin(X) allow you to compute the length of a 90 degree triangle's "leg" opposite to the angle X that the other leg makes with the hypotenuse.. - Like the earlier QM matrices or the more modern form, the wavefunction, the sin(x) is an immaterial calculation tool. 5) False, but almost true, except for your misunderstanding of "wave in motion." Yes Lord Rutherford was greatly surprised by the result he observed when scattering of alpha particles from thin gold foil, as in 1910–11. The "raisin pudding model" of atoms was prevailing POV before he noted that all but a very tiny fraction of the alpha particles just went thru the very thin gold foil as if it was not even there, but a tiny few were strongly scattered. That is the way science works. With our creative consciousness man creates models of how reality, mater, etc. is and then tests them with experiments. If mater were just the creation of consciousness, as you claim, then the "raisin pudding model" of atoms would have been confirmed as well informed consciousness could not conceive pre-Rutherford that "sold mater" was 99.9+ percent empty space. 6) False. Most of mater is not in a superposition of QM states. It is mostly empty space but atoms are very hard non-the-less as is the brick, made from a large number of them. 7) False. Consciousness as it exists in the higher animals, is very recent addition to the universe, which started ~ 13 billion years ago, to evolve. 8) False. Parts of reality are not "emptiness" There are AFAWK, three most fundamental and indestructible types of mater: electrons and two different types of "quarks." (Up & Down). Here is your "grade" - Severn false and one true. Go back to preaching your version of religion, to believers in other forms like re-incarnation cycles, and stop exposing your vast ignorance about QM.
Description of main quantum mind approaches David Bohm David Bohm took the view that quantum theory and relativity contradicted one another, and that this contradiction implied that there existed a more fundamental level in the physical universe.[7] He claimed that both quantum theory and relativity pointed towards this deeper theory, which he formulated in terms of a quantum field theory. This more fundamental level was proposed to represent an undivided wholeness and an implicate order, from which arises the explicate order of the universe as we experience it. Bohm's proposed implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness, and he suggests that it could explain the relationship between them. Mind and matter are here seen as projections into our explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order. Bohm claims that when we look at the matter in space, we can see nothing in these concepts that helps us to understand consciousness. In trying to describe the nature of consciousness, Bohm discusses the experience of listening to music. He believed that the feeling of movement and change that make up our experience of music derives from both the immediate past and the present both being held in the brain together, with the notes from the past seen as transformations rather than memories. The notes that were implicate in the immediate past are seen as becoming explicate in the present. Bohm views this as consciousness emerging from the implicate order. Bohm sees the movement, change or flow and also the coherence of experiences, such as listening to music as a manifestation of the implicate order. He claims to derive evidence for this from the work of Jean Piaget[8] in studying infants. He states that these studies show that young children have to learn about time and space, because they are part of the explicate order, but have a "hard-wired" understanding of movement, because it is part of the implicate order. He compares this "hard-wiring" to Chomsky's theory that grammar is "hard-wired" into young human brains. In his writings, Bohm never proposed any specific brain mechanism by which his implicate order could emerge in a way that was relevant to consciousness, nor any means by which the propositions could be tested or falsified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind Of course.
I want to expand some on my post 83 comment: "3b) False. "All that exists" is not in a superposition of states. For example a brick is not." A brick does not even have any QM states. It has no Eigen states it could be a super position of! QM states are no more a property of bricks than sex (male or female) is of stones. As you and even many physicists don't really understand what "superposition of states" accurately means. For example a photon that has passed thru a polarizer set with its transmission axis angle at +45 degrees to the vertical (and blocking angle at -45) is NOT by its self in a superposition of states; however, that is how we correctly describe it if the next thing it comes to is a polarizer with the transmission axis angle vertical. I.e. WRT that second polarizer it is in a mixed or super position of that polarizer's Eigen states, which are 'vertical" and "horizontal which I will call "V" and "H." The Eigen vectors or "states" are a property of the macro system the photon will or can interact with NOT OF THE PHOTON. I.e. its wave function WRT that second polarizer is Psi = 0.5 V + 0.5 H. and it has a 50/50 chance of passing thru the second polarizer. If instead that second polarizer is set like the first with the transmission axis at +45 degees that very same photon which passed thru the first polarize is in the pure Eigen state Psi = 1.0 (+45) WRT to the second polarizer. If instead the second polarizer is set with the transmission axis at -45 degrees the photon coming to it is still in pure Eigen state 1.0 (+45) and has zero probability of passing thru. That second polarizer has two Eigen states (-45) & (+45) so the (+45) is an Eigen state OF THE 2ND POLARIZER. To get a QM system that by itself is in a mixed or superposition of state is not easy. First you need two IDENTIACAL* items (photons or particles) that are joined or coupled in one QM state. Very hard to create this. So hard, AFAIK, it never occurs naturally, but here is one way you can: Some crystals have non-linear dielectric constants and dispersion. I. e. different wave lengths travel inside the crystal at different speeds. If you cut the crystal, just right, and send a high energy photon into to the non-linear interaction with the crystal will cause / slightly generate harmonics and sub harmonics in the crystal's polarization. If the direction is chosen correctly wrt to the half frequency subharmonic, then the amplitude of them, the pairs, will grow and some new photons pairs of half the original or driving photon frequency / energy will be generated and they are in a mixed QM state with zero net spin. Now you can send them to a "beam splitter" (half silvered mirror) and physically separate them but they are identical so you have ONE mixed or super positioned QM state until an interaction with macro mater occurs. As illustrated below (Sorry it is so big) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! For example the spin direction (or polarization direction) is determined (not necessarily "measured" but that is the simplest case) and it can not be zero (photons have spin magnitude +0.5 or - 0.5) if the one measured at the North end of the lab is +0.5, then measured or not the one at the west end of the lab is -0.5 as the total has always been zero. This only seems like information has gone form the N end of the lab to the west side - but it has not. To help you understand this imaging a very thick penny (say one light second thick) which a huge 10 light hour tall giant flips. The penny lands "heads up" on side closest to his eyes, but it does not take a second for the other side, (one light second away from the "heads" side) to become "tails down" as they were part of one system. Same is true of the ONE mixed state of a photon pair. One becoming +0.5 makes the other be -0.5 spin. No information flow was needed. * The two MUST be identical as if they are not then they are distinguishable. For example two hydrogen atoms could conceivable be in a mixed or super position state, although I cannot imagine how creating that could be done. A hydrogen and deuterium atom can NEVER be in a super position of states. BIGFOOT in his extreme ignorance of QM thinks every thing is in a super position of states, when in fact almost nothing is - creating a system of only two particles in super position of states (WRT all possible macro interactions) is really tough to do, even with lots of effort and cleverness!
There may not be a lot of space taken up by matter, but fields are everywhere. When you touch something, you don't directly touch the matter. You don't touch atoms. Not really. When you put your hand against a wall, the force you feel is the electrostatic field of the atoms in the wall repelling the atoms in your hand. This i why you perceive matter as solid. There's no need to invoke consciousness to explain this feeling of solidity. The stuff we see is not just matter.
You say "For example a brick is not" And "As you and even many physicists don't really understand what "superposition of states" accurately means" For one, let me make it clear so that may be you can come down to where I am and understand my approach. Lets assume you were reduced to a "photon" From now on, imagine you were a "Photon" and then you can correct me if I am wrong. Now, you being a photon, can you see "things" So down there in the photon world, my position is that you will not see "a brick" My position, is that you will not see boundaries. Everything will be bathed in light, with a halo which gives things an identity of "being" Its not that I do not understand "super positioning" Supper-positioning is an imaginary state of quantum system, arising from assuming that quantum systems are made of "things" I mention them because its a state that many scientists accept. But I have been persuaded by . Dr. Milo Wolff, Geoff Haselhust and the late Gabriel LaFreniere that particles in matter do not really exists, and what we have is Wave in Motion. When this wave collapses during observation (oops!) measurement, that is when particle arises from He quotes none other that Einstein, who reportedly stated' "Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein) "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen. (appearances)Schrodinger, See: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm
Human beings discover themselves to be physical beings in a physical world. That's kind of a given, our starting point. We eat, we walk around, we get out of the rain. Physics is basically humanity's attempt to better understand that world, by identifying some of the most basic and general principles operating in it. It's interesting how a quasi-scientific anti-science tendency has arisen during the twentieth century that tries to use some of the most esoteric areas of physics, not to better understand the physical world, but to subvert it, to make it go away. Which clears the decks for what we are assured is a 'higher' reality, that of 'spirit'. We don't typically see practicing scientists saying these kind of things in their professional publications. Most scientists I've talked to about this are rather disdainful of it. But there's a whole genre of popular 'science-writing' out there aimed at laymen that actively promotes the idea that the most 'advanced' physics, typically quantum-mechanics, has revealed that all of the rest of science, to say nothing of the physical universe that science studies, is is merely an illusion. Countless laypeople believe this. And when they are finished pecking that message out on their computer keyboards, they walk through the doorway (and not the wall), open the fridge and look for something to eat.
Consciousness occurs in tangible creatures. It has never been shown that imaginary creatures have a consciousness about them. If in fact the imaginary creatures existed in reality, even then, what makes you think they have a consciousness? Why can't they be like robots or trees? Consciousness requires fuel. No fuel no consciousness. It's just that simple. You are trying to claim that imaginary creatures exist in space that have a consciousness about them, that create heat from nothing. You are claiming perpetual motion, and then some!
They don't have a clue. They don't know how the alarm clock works. They don't know how the coffee pot works. They don't know how the shower, faucet, electric toothbrush, toilet, refrigerator, car, or how anything else works that they come in contact with on a daily basis. But if it's one thing they do know it's that there is a supreme consciousness in space that can speak universes into existence at will. That they know for a fact!
No thanks. I spent too many years (more than a decade) to escape from that level, via university education.
You have, once more, half-understood something. There is certainly a case for viewing wave/particle entities on the basis that the wave occupies space and contains all the information about the entity, whereas in its interactions, the measurable manifestations of the entity always appear as discrete values, of the type we associate with a particle. Where you then go wrong, as you often seem to, is to extrapolate from this that matter is somehow not real. That does not follow. When we describe the wave/particle behaviour of matter, we mean that that is what reality looks like - or rather science's best current model of it - at the atomic scale. The fact that this model of atomic scale reality is not intuitive to people unfamiliar with quantum theory doesn't make it any less real, any more than General Relativity is unreal due to it also being hard to grasp.
Continue sleeping in your "Classical Box" At least the greats in Science are of the opinion you reject.\ "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck So there!!
Today, people are able to make artificial stuff which appear to have properties of for example meat, sugar, etc. When you eat some of this stuff without examining it, you may think that you are eating the real stuff. My point is that we are refusing deliberately to realize what QM have confirmed about reality. I think its like a fellow told me about how people react to illusion.
Science refuses to entertain notions that cannot be corroborated by observation. That's all. This rules out religious or other metaphysical speculations. That, whether you like it or not, is a basic, inalienable, principle of the scientific method. This has been true ever science first disentangled itself from superstition, alchemy and religious dogma. It is not at all some recent "atheistic" or "materialistic" vogue in science, as many creationists like falsely to maintain. It is utterly fundamental.
"Bells theorem marks the boundary of physics’ logical and therefore scientific investigation of quantum state of matter. It draws a line on the sand as the limit of any further scientific investigation into quantum reality, rendering any further investigation of quantum fact and quantum reality mare conjecture. You scientists have been "Mark-timing" on that line ever since, and you want us to believe you are heading somewhere with your science? Keep Mark timing.
