Philosophy Discussion Forums

Faustus5 wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 8:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑November 1st, 2020, 10:34 am
For example Wigner put it bluntly: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness".

Wigner was absolutely wrong and just about no one in the mainstream of science who actually knows what they are talking about takes these types of claims seriously anymore. It is complete and utter hogwash.

Ffs no he wasn't. The Neumann-Wigner interpretation is probably wrong, but that a reference to something about consciousness can't be avoided, has always been correct. And today many mainstream scientists acknowledge that the measurement problem remains unsolved, in fact their numbers are growing.

Do you ever get something right?

Here are some more quotes

"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA)" [...] "Multiplicity is only apparent, there is only one mind" [...] "our science – Greek science – is based on objectivation, whereby it has cut itself off from an adequate understanding of the Subject of Cognitanze, of the mind. But I do believe that this is precisely the point where our present way of thinking does need to be amended [...]" Erwin Schrödinger

"I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are, a great liberation of thought. " Niels Bohr

“[…] the existence of quantum theory has changed our attitude from what was believed in the nineteenth century. During that period some scientists were inclined to think that the psychological phenomena could ultimately be explained on the basis of physics and chemistry of the brain. From the quantum-theoretical point of view, there is no reason for such an assumption. […] for an understanding of psychic phenomena we would start from the fact that the human mind enters as object and subject into the scientific process of psychology.” - "Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves." Werner Heisenberg

"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." Pascual Jordan

"I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment...." - "If [man] thinks of the totality as constituted of independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken, and without a border then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole." David Bohm

“Nowadays, any tentative philosophical approach to a world-view should take information coming from contemporary physics into account quite seriously. […] Some philosophers do still make unrestricted use of classical notions of quite a general nature, such as locality or distinguishability, taken to be obvious ever since Galileo’s and Newton’s times. Most of them do so without realising that the domains of validity of such notions are known, nowadays, to be severely limited.” [...] "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d’Espagnat

"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

"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—at a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; [...] in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe." - "Is the very mechanism for the universe to come into being meaningless or unworkable or both unless the universe is guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little time in its history-to-be?" - "The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself. " John Archibald Wheeler

"The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds ... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it ... It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness ... Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature ... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference." Sir Arthur Eddington

Anyway we're done here. Should some of you do some researrch anyway, you'll realize that the measurement problem is something very different than what you expected. You'll not see it coming.

Atla wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 12:04 pm Anyway we're done here. Should some of you do some researrch anyway, you'll realize that the measurement problem is something very different than what you expected. You'll not see it coming.

I've done the research, and to repeat: your (and Wigner's) claims about a connection between the measurement problem in QM and consciousness is completely out of touch with all modern, mainstream understanding of the subject and utter New Age hogwash. None of your quotes from physicists who study the subject even come close to suggesting otherwise.

You, I suggest, are the one who needs to learn a little bit more about the subject in question.

Atla wrote: ↑November 2nd, 2020, 11:42 am Your working theory doesn't fit the evidence...

The evidence is that you have made a number of assertions, but seem unable to discuss them in more depth, or properly justify them. My theory offers an explanation for these empirical observations. I'll stick with it until new and contradictory evidence comes to light.

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 many times do I have to repeat that.

The most relevant aspect of the measurement problem, though definitely not the most mysterious one I'd say, is demonstrated in chapter 3 of the book I mentioned (7 pages long). My theory seems to cover it, but I'll be surprised, to put it mildly, if any of you can say the same. I can't narrow it down any better. And I already typed this issue down, but did that register with any of you? No it didn't.

Atla wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 9:52 am 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 many times do I have to repeat that.

The most relevant aspect of the measurement problem, though definitely not the most mysterious one I'd say, is demonstrated in chapter 3 of the book I mentioned (7 pages long). My theory seems to cover it, but I'll be surprised, to put it mildly, if any of you can say the same. I can't narrow it down any better. And I already typed this issue down, but did that register with any of you? No it didn't.

Describe a specific measurement process in quantum physics showing exactly what scientists actually do, then point out precisely which step consciousness enters the picture in a way that is fundamentally remarkable and unique to quantum physics. I don't think you can.

Articulating this is the most basic task one could ask of someone who claims to understand the subject better than we do.

(Trust me--you don't.)

Atla wrote:Anyway, I don't usually recommend books, but this is in my opinion the best introduction to the measurement problem:
"Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (written by physicists)

I had a quick look on Amazon. Kindle edition £4.79. New paperback copy: £97.99! Second hand paperback copy: £21 but it won't arrive until the end of November. But weirdly, when I refreshed the Amazon page the new paperback copy reduced to £37.58. Is that all part of the observer-created-reality? Perhaps if I refresh the page again it'll keep reducing.

I suppose I could get the Kindle edition but then I'd probably be squinting at it on my phone while standing in the rain at my kid's football match (or would be if football matches hadn't been banned for November. Thanks Boris). So I'd rather get it in paperback. Before I do that: Do you give me your word that it's a thumping good page turner that I'll be unable to put down until I've finished it?

Atla wrote:The most relevant aspect of the measurement problem, though definitely not the most mysterious one I'd say, is demonstrated in chapter 3 of the book I mentioned (7 pages long).

I decided to go for the Kindle edition to save money in case I get bored of it. I'll read chapter 3 first.

Faustus5 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 10:03 am

Atla wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 9:52 am 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 many times do I have to repeat that.

The most relevant aspect of the measurement problem, though definitely not the most mysterious one I'd say, is demonstrated in chapter 3 of the book I mentioned (7 pages long). My theory seems to cover it, but I'll be surprised, to put it mildly, if any of you can say the same. I can't narrow it down any better. And I already typed this issue down, but did that register with any of you? No it didn't.

Describe a specific measurement process in quantum physics showing exactly what scientists actually do, then point out precisely which step consciousness enters the picture in a way that is fundamentally remarkable and unique to quantum physics. I don't think you can.

Articulating this is the most basic task one could ask of someone who claims to understand the subject better than we do.

(Trust me--you don't.)

And this is your problem, you decide in advance that you know a topic better than people who have actually looked at it. And this time try to accept that the word 'consciousness' may also be used in different ways than how the GNW model uses it.

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

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 10:36 am

Atla wrote:The most relevant aspect of the measurement problem, though definitely not the most mysterious one I'd say, is demonstrated in chapter 3 of the book I mentioned (7 pages long).

I decided to go for the Kindle edition to save money in case I get bored of it. I'll read chapter 3 first.

Okay well I won't tell people to just grab a pdf from the net and read it.
It's a legit book, no woo. You can read some of the reviews if you want, many people seem to see it as the best introductionary course to the really weird part. Here a few reviews:

"A remarkable and readable presentation of the basic mysteries of science, our universe, and human life. Critically important problems in our understanding are interestingly discussed with perception, depth, and careful objectivity."--Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, inventor of the laser, and Templeton Prize recipient

"I am a theoretical physicist but I must admit I did not fully appreciate the Quantum Enigma until I read the first edition of this book a few years ago. I first learned quantum mechanics over 40 years ago and have actively practiced it. That is, I used it to calculate theoretical predictions. 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!" Fully appreciating the vast gap between the "classical" world we live in and the "quantum world" took some time for me. That kind of profound ignorance takes time to appreciate. I now better understand what I have read in biographical books about Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger. As the realization slowly set in as to what quantum mechanics was saying, these men and other physicists struggled with each other in an almost religious battle. Now over 80 years later we know no more than we did then. In the end, everyone has to come to appreciate the profound ignorance we have at this point in history. For any interested layman or scientist, the Quantum Enigma is a must-read item."

And one for laughs: https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html

I'm always a little surprised to read comments like this...

"I am a theoretical physicist but I must admit I did not fully appreciate the Quantum Enigma until I read the first edition of this book a few years ago. I first learned quantum mechanics over 40 years ago and have actively practiced it. That is, I used it to calculate theoretical predictions. 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!"...

...from people who've clearly studied physics to first degree level and beyond. In my experience, studying physics to first degree level, and thereby reading things like the Feynman lectures and other QM textbooks and discussing quantum mechanics with lecturers in seminars and so on, I don't see how it's possible to miss that central lesson about QM. But maybe there are some people who do simply diligently work their way through it as they would any other problem in applied mathematics and don't take time to think about it as anything other than a set of exam problems to solve.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 11:02 am I'm always a little surprised to read comments like this...

"I am a theoretical physicist but I must admit I did not fully appreciate the Quantum Enigma until I read the first edition of this book a few years ago. I first learned quantum mechanics over 40 years ago and have actively practiced it. That is, I used it to calculate theoretical predictions. 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!"...

...from people who've clearly studied physics to first degree level and beyond. In my experience, studying physics to first degree level, and thereby reading things like the Feynman lectures and other QM textbooks and discussing quantum mechanics with lecturers in seminars and so on, I don't see how it's possible to miss that central lesson about QM. But maybe there are some people who do simply diligently work their way through it as they would any other problem in applied mathematics and don't take time to think about it as anything other than a set of exam problems to solve.

That's because the really weird parts were intentionally left out from the textbooks. For example the Copenhagen treatment of QM was mostly designed to avoid, work around the weirdest metaphysical issues, and concentrate on the practical results. In fact there was a long time, when physicists were ridiculed or could even endanger their careers, when looking into the philosophical underpinnings of the theory. In short:

"Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job of interpreting quantum theory was done 50 years ago." (1969 Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann)

And the main reason for this isn't even pragmatism and the need to produce resultst, not philosophy. Instead it's that no one knows what that central lesson you refer to, actually is. Here's a Feynman lecture:

"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possible avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

No one has escaped that blind alley yet.. so maybe it's best if most scientists don't even try to go there, and just focus on the job.

Atla wrote:Here's a Feynman lecture :... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Feynman said that and similar things in the Feynman lectures on physics which are probably the most well read and well known undergraduate physics textbooks ever written. Every physics undergraduate since the 60's has, or ought to have, read them. My copies were given to me by my father, who also studied physics. That's why when a physics graduate says something like the thing that you quoted and I re-quoted in my previous post I'm surprised.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 11:54 am

Atla wrote:Here's a Feynman lecture :... "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Feynman said that and similar things in the Feynman lectures on physics which are probably the most well read and well known undergraduate physics textbooks ever written. Every physics undergraduate since the 60's has, or ought to have, read them. My copies were given to me by my father, who also studied physics. That's why when a physics graduate says something like the thing that you quoted and I re-quoted in my previous post I'm surprised.

But that's the general attitude, or at least had been until at least 1980-1990, for both professionals and public: that there really must be no deeper mistery to QM. People like Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, Neumann etc. were simply confused people who simply invented something they didn't understand, misunderstood. That Feynman also didn't really know what he was talking about, because obviously many people have learned QM by now.

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?"