Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Atla]

When that guy you quoted says this:

It was only in the last 10 years or so that I asked myself, "What is the electron actually doing when light is emitted from an hydrogen atom?" After reading this book I realized the answer is, "Nobody has the slightest idea!"

I think to myself "Why only after reading this book? What were you studying at University?"

Again: the measurement problem is intentionally left out from textbooks and is not taught at universities. It is not part of standard QM studies. Many of the graduates don't even know that it exists, or maybe think that it's nothing more than New Age woo.

Here's a similar example for these kind of things, from the third review I linked:

“That’s crazy” a physicist said to me just the other day, when I described the quantum Zeno effect. Yet this physicist has worked lifelong in quantum-intensive research!

All I had mentioned was that, if you observe a quantum system with a short half life, it will not make the transition to the lower state. Your simply observing it (not interacting with it in any way) causes it to remain in its higher-energy state. (Just Google on “quantum Zeno effect,” should it happen that you don’t believe me!)

[Pattern-chaser]

Of course I'm unable to do so, you guys have absolutely no idea about the topic. This isn't some kindergarten stuff that one can google during the lunch break, this requires long dedication.

How can we accept your verdict on our ignorance when you cannot or will not demonstrate your own authority on this subject? You tell us how ignorant we are, and imply your own depth of knowledge, but you don't give us the benefit of the latter. If you continue just to tell us we're too stupid to understand, you will achieve nothing. It seems strange for an autist to be saying this, but: you need to start communicating clearly instead of preaching, and demeaning your audience.

[Pattern-chaser]

Again: the measurement problem is intentionally left out from textbooks and is not taught at universities.

And yet the internet, the source of most information these days, easily finds a comprehensible description of the measurement problem. It doesn't solve the philosophical problems, of course, but it describes them clearly, in a way that (I suggest) any member of this forum could easily understand. Your objection appears to be without foundation; the information is freely available, even if it is not taught at universities. Design isn't taught there either, and yet they turn out thousands of engineers every year....

[Steve3007]

Again: the measurement problem is intentionally left out from textbooks and is not taught at universities.

Which undergraduate physics textbooks are you referring to? You've read some, yes?

[Atla]

Again: the measurement problem is intentionally left out from textbooks and is not taught at universities.

And yet the internet, the source of most information these days, easily finds a comprehensible description of the measurement problem. It doesn't solve the philosophical problems, of course, but it describes them clearly, in a way that (I suggest) any member of this forum could easily understand. Your objection appears to be without foundation; the information is freely available, even if it is not taught at universities. Design isn't taught there either, and yet they turn out thousands of engineers every year....

Yeah I was "waiting" for this comment.
The Wiki page equates one aspect of the measurement problem, the collapse of wave-functions, with the measurement problem. Takes it out of context, that's the standard treatment to sidestep the bigger issues. Unfortunately you also assume that you know a subject better than those who have actually looked at it.

[Atla]

Again: the measurement problem is intentionally left out from textbooks and is not taught at universities.

Which undergraduate physics textbooks are you referring to? You've read some, yes?

I haven't seen a textbook that explores the issue from chapter 3 of the book I linked, but maybe there are some. Now it's becoming less of a taboo.

If the information is really in all the textbooks, then, as you say, how come so many physicists are unaware of it for decades?

[Pattern-chaser]

If the information is really in all the textbooks, then, as you say, how come so many physicists are unaware of it for decades?

Bacause it isn't physics. It's philosophical metaphysics, which is a different area of understanding. Some who are highly educated and knowledgeable of physics do not extend their expertise into metaphysics as well. There are so many things to learn, and to know, that we prioritise our own time according to our own personal interests and beliefs. You are trying to introduce an interesting metaphysical conversation - which we have not yet had, as perhaps you suggest? - but confusing the subject with physics too. The subject emerges from physics, but it is not physics.

Also, please stop telling us how no-one else knows anything about this subject, and enlighten us. Give us the benefit of your understanding, that we might all benefit and learn. How about it?

[Steve3007]

If the information is really in all the textbooks, then, as you say, how come so many physicists are unaware of it for decades?

Apart from the Feynman Lectures, the only other undergraduate QM text that immediately springs to mind, which was one of the recommended texts when I was a student in the early 90's, was "Quantum Mechanics" by Alistair I M Rae. As far as I recall it had a section on the measurement problem.

As I've said, if there are people who have studied physics and somehow stayed completely unaware of the philosophical questions arising from QM I assume that it's because they've simply treated the whole subject of physics as an exercise in solving applied mathematics problems. As I recall, when I was a student there were people like that, as well as some who simply found the whole thing too baffling and dropped out, presumably to do something more useful (I remember at least one student in my year who did this).

I remember lecturers in both lectures and seminars were certainly keen not to treat the whole thing as a dry exercise in mathematics and were keen to get across the philosophically interesting parts of it. For my part, that was the main reasoning for studying physics in the first place. It certainly wasn't training for a job! I've used it a bit in parts of my subsequent career, but not much.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Wiki page equates one aspect of the measurement problem, the collapse of wave-functions, with the measurement problem. Takes it out of context, that's the standard treatment to sidestep the bigger issues.

So explain, please, about the parts that Wikipedia misses. Educate us, instead of asserting our ignorance.

[Atla]

So explain, please, about the parts that Wikipedia misses. Educate us, instead of asserting our ignorance.

the issue of this perfect correlation/connection/whatever we want to call it, between mental content such as human choices, and states of the outside physical world, where the states can be irreconcilable with each other.

Depending on which measurement you decide to perform, the universe will always behave accordingly (hence the perfect connection), but these different behaviours are irreconcilable.

How does your theory resolve/dismiss this issue? That in a sense the universe appears to 'manifest' in perfect accordance with what you are doing, so you can 'decide' to make the universe be this way of that, event though those ways are mutually exclusive?

[Faustus5]

And this is your problem, you decide in advance that you know a topic better than people who have actually looked at it.

Except that I HAVE LOOKED INTO IT!!!!! I've got at least a dozen books in my library that delve into this subject from various angles, and this is why I know that what you are spouting in this thread has no support whatsoever from the mainstream of science. It is literally New Age hogwash.

This is why I am asking you to carefully explain the actual process of the measurement problem and pinpoint where consciousness enters the picture. Because once you take the care to actually think about this issue in detail, you will find your previous assertions are not backed up by the science.

And this time try to accept that the word 'consciousness' may also be used in different ways than how the GNW model uses it.

If physicists are using the word "consciousness" differently than the way scientists who are actually qualified to study and model consciousness use the term, then physicists are simply and stupidly misusing the word.

[Atla]

And this is your problem, you decide in advance that you know a topic better than people who have actually looked at it.

Except that I HAVE LOOKED INTO IT!!!!! I've got at least a dozen books in my library that delve into this subject from various angles, and this is why I know that what you are spouting in this thread has no support whatsoever from the mainstream of science. It is literally New Age hogwash.

This is why I am asking you to carefully explain the actual process of the measurement problem and pinpoint where consciousness enters the picture. Because once you take the care to actually think about this issue in detail, you will find your previous assertions are not backed up by the science.

And this time try to accept that the word 'consciousness' may also be used in different ways than how the GNW model uses it.

If physicists are using the word "consciousness" differently than the way scientists who are actually qualified to study and model consciousness use the term, then physicists are simply and stupidly misusing the word.

Consciousness can have at least half a dozen different meanings in science and philosophy. Trying to squeeze everything into the box of the GNW is something the likes of Dennett would do.

[Steve3007]

Which undergraduate physics textbooks are you referring to? You've read some, yes?

I haven't seen a textbook that explores the issue from chapter 3 of the book I linked, but maybe there are some. Now it's becoming less of a taboo.

When you say "I haven't seen..." do you mean that you've read some undergraduate physics textbooks and found that they don't contain what you're referring to here? Or do you mean that you haven't looked? Or neither of those two things? At this point, I'd be interested to know: have you studied physics?

[Steve3007]

...chapter 3 of the book...

We're talking about the chapter entitled "The Visit to Heg Ahne Poc - A Quantum Parable" yes?

I've just been briefly reading it but had to break off to do something else. First thought: it looks like the sort of parable/analogy that might occur, in various forms, in other popular accounts of QM. I'll read it again when I get some time and comment some more.

[Faustus5]

Consciousness can have at least half a dozen different meanings in science and philosophy. Trying to squeeze everything into the box of the GNW is something the likes of Dennett would do.

It's only something that people who want to successfully model consciousness like to do. In other words, it isn't your thing.