|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 13:06:15 GMT -5
Could that reason be that you're frustrated with E's responses to you? My reason is a cytolytic argument. I'd say (** facepalm **) but I gotta' wash may hands first.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 13:07:46 GMT -5
I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. I am clear about psychosis, but I'm talking about how reality is normally conceived, which is the basis for the discussion laffy and pilgrim were having on physics. You and enigma are on the outside of that discussion throwing psychosis rocks. That's all inside-out dude. The real psychosis is believing that there is some theory of reality and attending it through a conceptual filter.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 23, 2015 14:32:16 GMT -5
I just bumped an earlier post that I guess neither you nor E read. It corrects a few of your misconceptions concerning what I have been saying I lost interest in our direct dialog at the point that it became clear I'd have to explain your own misconceptions to you when you started denying them. If you're happy with your current understanding of the science then that's fine, I've got no interest in trying to convince you that you're misunderstanding it behind the efforts I've already made. You can simply consider me to be wrong in the same way that I consider you to be wrong, no harm no foul. If you really want me to continue the debate I'll go back and pick it up for one more round, but only if you respond to this and say so. I will probably post some quotes, maybe some comments. You can reply or not. Of course I know that there are different interpretations of these matters, but I'd rather you reply to what I say and not what I haven't said. You've made conclusions which I didn't state or imply, some completely contrary to what I have specifically said (or quoted, which would mean, unless otherwise stated, that the quote supports my view or I agree with the quote). I can make many leaps concerning what we might some day know about the universe (which I haven't done), but I'm trying to stick with what we presently know. ************************ OK, to go beyond that and speculate (meaning, you can slice me to pieces, I'm just brainstorming). I would put the measurement problem this way. If QM is the final theory and is the basis of the world, how does randomness and superposition >turn in to< the universe we observe? How does randomness >turn in to< the orderly atoms of the periodic table, and galaxies and suns and solar system, planets, life and people? The universe got along quite well without us for billions of years, IOW, it functioned well without the "observer". So pre-human was the natural state. What quantum experiments do is create an unnatural state. To use ZD's analogy, the universe was dancing quite well without us. A quantum experiment is like taking a snapshot of a dance and try to figure out what dancing is. By taking a snapshot, physicists are saying, this is what reality is like. But a quantum experiment is not at all what reality is like, a quantum experiment is an artificial creation. We're actually distorting reality via quantum experiments. So the question is, OTOneH, why do we have an almost perfect description of how reality works as randomness and the fuzziness of (wavy) superposition, and OTOH, the world of order and cause and effect and material stuff and people, how do we get from one to the other? How does randomness become orderliness? (Making us possible). If QM is the final view, then there can be no Supreme Ordering Intelligent God. A SOI would not operate on the basis of randomness (but could create a universe based upon randomness in order to hide its presence, so, behind the randomness is order, but physicists will probably never be able to show that. In order to find truth, you have to become truth). So yes, "Consciousness" has to come first. So yes, consciousness, in some manner, is altering quantum processes (it really seems). In the quantum world we have information being sent backwards in time (the delayed measurement double-slit experiment). We have entangled particles connected in some manner whereby they can instantaneously effect one another despite how far apart they are. But we don't understand how these things can be. We don't understand how the micro worlds and the macro worlds are linked. It's like SOI has pulled down a veil and is saying, No, No, No....No peeking behind the curtain to see how things work. (We are getting a tantalizing peek, but no more than a peek. Non-locality-Oneness).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2015 22:49:17 GMT -5
Source is busy mixing contexts at the moment, which is resulting in some confusion, but he claims to be speaking in the context of the scientific model of reality. It's natural for the intellect to spin on the chegg. You mean which came first, consciousness or brain?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 1:04:29 GMT -5
I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. I don't think that source believes that. From what I can see he's cognizant of the fact that either way you look at it as to which is primary, the intellect sees a paradox. If the brain arises in/as consciousness, then anyone looking for a conceptual resolution is left with your question about where consciousness resides.This question is misconceived. When you use the word 'reside', it assume that it need a place, but place itself is an appearance in consciousness. So consciousness doesn't need a place to reside.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 24, 2015 3:17:13 GMT -5
It's natural for the intellect to spin on the chegg. You mean which came first, consciousness or brain? You could put it that way, but rather than involve history, you can just ask where consciousness is arising from right now. If it's an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but the substance of the brain has no objective material existence, how does that happen? If it's not an emergent phenomenon of the brain, then how does this hypothetical non-physical process give rise and influence physicality? I'm sure the misconceptions in these questions are quite obvious to you, but if someone is looking with intellect alone, there's no solution other than to rely on the great unknown and undiscovered country of future scientific breakthroughs.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 24, 2015 3:18:49 GMT -5
I don't think that source believes that. From what I can see he's cognizant of the fact that either way you look at it as to which is primary, the intellect sees a paradox. If the brain arises in/as consciousness, then anyone looking for a conceptual resolution is left with your question about where consciousness resides.This question is misconceived. When you use the word 'reside', it assume that it need a place, but place itself is an appearance in consciousness. So consciousness doesn't need a place to reside. Yes, I know that's not the way you state the question but your interest in "outer world stability" and your theory involving God are just another form of it, as illustrated by your questions about where the potential of the Moon resides when noone is looking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 11:51:21 GMT -5
You mean which came first, consciousness or brain? You could put it that way, but rather than involve history, you can just ask where consciousness is arising from right now. If it's an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but the substance of the brain has no objective material existence, how does that happen? If it's not an emergent phenomenon of the brain, then how does this hypothetical non-physical process give rise and influence physicality? I'm sure the misconceptions in these questions are quite obvious to you, but if someone is looking with intellect alone, there's no solution other than to rely on the great unknown and undiscovered country of future scientific breakthroughs.Very clear, the best definition of chegg so far. But I would argue that there is a solution for the intellect and it points to Unity and a single source of everything. Although it isn't provable it solves the brain/ consciousing problem, the subject object problem as well as the physical universe/Consciousness problem. There is no-thing other than Awareness/Consciousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2015 12:38:27 GMT -5
I am clear about psychosis, but I'm talking about how reality is normally conceived, which is the basis for the discussion laffy and pilgrim were having on physics. You and enigma are on the outside of that discussion throwing psychosis rocks. That's all inside-out dude. The real psychosis is believing that there is some theory of reality and attending it through a conceptual filter. That may be so laffy, but it is the only practical description of Life and our place in it that offers any semblance of security in the face of the unknown.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 25, 2015 5:59:23 GMT -5
That's all inside-out dude. The real psychosis is believing that there is some theory of reality and attending it through a conceptual filter. That may be so laffy, but it is the only practical description of Life and our place in it that offers any semblance of security in the face of the unknown. To whom?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 25, 2015 6:00:31 GMT -5
You could put it that way, but rather than involve history, you can just ask where consciousness is arising from right now. If it's an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but the substance of the brain has no objective material existence, how does that happen? If it's not an emergent phenomenon of the brain, then how does this hypothetical non-physical process give rise and influence physicality? I'm sure the misconceptions in these questions are quite obvious to you, but if someone is looking with intellect alone, there's no solution other than to rely on the great unknown and undiscovered country of future scientific breakthroughs.Very clear, the best definition of chegg so far. But I would argue that there is a solution for the intellect and it points to Unity and a single source of everything. Although it isn't provable it solves the brain/ consciousing problem, the subject object problem as well as the physical universe/Consciousness problem. There is no-thing other than Awareness/Consciousness. To settle on the idea of this instead of quiescing the mind is about the worst cheat that I can possibly ever imagine.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 25, 2015 8:06:48 GMT -5
QM quotes:
Nevertheless, the Copenhagen view asserts a privileged position to the observer, be it human or a mechanical device, in the construction of reality. But all matter is made up of atoms and therefore subject to the laws of QM, so how can the observer or measuring apparatus have a privileged position? This is the measurement problem. The Copenhagen's interpretation's assumption of the prior existence of the classical world of the macroscopic measuring device appears circular and paradoxical.
Einstein and Schrodinger believed it to be a glaring indication of the incompleteness of QM as a total world-view, and Schrodinger tried to highlight it with his cat-in-the-box. Measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation remains an unexplained process, since there is nothing in the mathematics of QM that specifies how or when the wave function collapses. Bohr 'solved' the problem by simply declaring that measurements can indeed be made, but never offered an explanation of how. (page 318)
Einstein accepted that QM was the best theory available, but it was 'an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics)'. (page 321)
Since the macroscopic world is described by classical physics and its concepts, Bohr argued that even to seek to go beyond them was a waste of time. He had developed his framework od complementarity in order to save classical concepts. For Bohr there was no underlying physical reality behind that exists independently of measuring equipment, and that meant, as Heisenberg pointed out, 'we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using classical concepts'. It is the Bohr-Heisenberg call to retain classical concepts that Einstein called a 'tranquilizing philosophy'. Einstein was desperately seeking to change the physics as well; for he was not the conservative relic many thought. He was convinced that the concepts of classical physics would have to be replaced by new ones. Einstein never abandoned the ontology of classical physics, an observer independent reality, but he was prepared to make a decisive break with classical physics. The view of reality endorsed by the Copenhagen interpretation was all the evidence he needed of the necessity to do so. He wanted revolution more radical than the one offered by QM. It was hardly surprising that Einstein and Bohr left so much unsaid. (page 321)
'This problem of getting the interpretation proved to be rather more difficult than just working out the equations', said Paul Dirac 50 years after the 1927 Solvay conference. The American Noble laureate Murray Gell-Mann believes part of the reason was that 'Niels Bohr brain-washed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem had been solved'. A poll conducted in July 1999 during a conference on quantum physics held at Cambridge University revealed the answers of a new generation to the vexed question of interpretation. Of the 90 physicists polled, only four voted for the Copenhagen interpretation, but 30 favored the modern version of Everett's many worlds. Significantly, 50 ticked the box labeled 'none of the above or undecided'.
The unresolved conceptual difficulties, such as the measurement problem and the inability to say exactly where the quantum world ends and the classical world of everyday life begins (which the Paradox of Schrodinger's cat was designed to point out in 1935, note sdp), have led an increasing number of physicists willing to look for something deeper than QM. 'A theory that yields "maybe" as an answer,' says the Dutch Nobel Prizewinning theorist Gerard 't Hooft, 'should be recognized as an inaccurate theory'. (page 358)
Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Quantum Nature of Reality by Manjit Kumar, 2008 (American edition 2010) Kumar has degrees in physics and philosophy
*****************
I'd say that backs up many of my points.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 25, 2015 9:08:40 GMT -5
QM quotes: Nevertheless, the Copenhagen view asserts a privileged position to the observer, be it human or a mechanical device, in the construction of reality. But all matter is made up of atoms and therefore subject to the laws of QM, so how can the observer or measuring apparatus have a privileged position? This is the measurement problem. The Copenhagen's interpretation's assumption of the prior existence of the classical world of the macroscopic measuring device appears circular and paradoxical. Einstein and Schrodinger believed it to be a glaring indication of the incompleteness of QM as a total world-view, and Schrodinger tried to highlight it with his cat-in-the-box. Measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation remains an unexplained process, since there is nothing in the mathematics of QM that specifies how or when the wave function collapses. Bohr 'solved' the problem by simply declaring that measurements can indeed be made, but never offered an explanation of how. (page 318) Einstein accepted that QM was the best theory available, but it was 'an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics)'. (page 321) Since the macroscopic world is described by classical physics and its concepts, Bohr argued that even to seek to go beyond them was a waste of time. He had developed his framework od complementarity in order to save classical concepts. For Bohr there was no underlying physical reality behind that exists independently of measuring equipment, and that meant, as Heisenberg pointed out, 'we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using classical concepts'. It is the Bohr-Heisenberg call to retain classical concepts that Einstein called a 'tranquilizing philosophy'. Einstein was desperately seeking to change the physics as well; for he was not the conservative relic many thought. He was convinced that the concepts of classical physics would have to be replaced by new ones. Einstein never abandoned the ontology of classical physics, an observer independent reality, but he was prepared to make a decisive break with classical physics. The view of reality endorsed by the Copenhagen interpretation was all the evidence he needed of the necessity to do so. He wanted revolution more radical than the one offered by QM. It was hardly surprising that Einstein and Bohr left so much unsaid. (page 321) 'This problem of getting the interpretation proved to be rather more difficult than just working out the equations', said Paul Dirac 50 years after the 1927 Solvay conference. The American Noble laureate Murray Gell-Mann believes part of the reason was that 'Niels Bohr brain-washed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem had been solved'. A poll conducted in July 1999 during a conference on quantum physics held at Cambridge University revealed the answers of a new generation to the vexed question of interpretation. Of the 90 physicists polled, only four voted for the Copenhagen interpretation, but 30 favored the modern version of Everett's many worlds. Significantly, 50 ticked the box labeled 'none of the above or undecided'. The unresolved conceptual difficulties, such as the measurement problem and the inability to say exactly where the quantum world ends and the classical world of everyday life begins (which the Paradox of Schrodinger's cat was designed to point out in 1935, note sdp), have led an increasing number of physicists willing to look for something deeper than QM. 'A theory that yields "maybe" as an answer,' says the Dutch Nobel Prizewinning theorist Gerard 't Hooft, 'should be recognized as an inaccurate theory'. (page 358) Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Quantum Nature of Reality by Manjit Kumar, 2008 (American edition 2010) Kumar has degrees in physics and philosophy ***************** I'd say that backs up many of my points. It is a possible indication that most of the participants understand that existence is still evolving/devolving(?), and are not interested in attaching to any particular theory.. rather, for the scientist/explorer there is the genuine curiosity of the unknown, allowing it to unfold without attachment to theories.. Micro AND macro are not separate, they unite in the reality we are experiencing..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 25, 2015 9:29:46 GMT -5
And lest one thinks the last quotes out of order, some more:
Although obviously intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek (writer Louisa Gilder says it was specifically "reduction ad absurdum", pg 345, The Age of Entanglement, When Quantum Physics Was Born, 2008), Schrodinger's paradox nevertheless raised an important difficulty. The Copenhagen interpretation says that elements of an empirical reality are defined by the nature of the experimental apparatus we construct to perform measurements on a quantum system. .......Surely he (Schrodinger) argued, Bohr was overlooking the possibility that future scientific developments might undermine Bohr's assertion that the measuring instrument must always be treated classically. Bohr replied briefly that, if they were to serve as measuring instruments , then these instruments simply could not belong within the range of applicability of quantum mechanics.
The infinite regress implied by the cat paradox is avoided if the measuring instruments are treated only as classical objects, as classical objects cannot form superpositions in the way that quantum objects can. This was self-evident to Bohr (as indeed it was to Schrodinger himself), but there remained no clues as to the precise origin and mechanism of the collapse of the wave function. (a point made in the previous quotes, note sdp) It was just supposed to happen. (Baggott's emphasis) Schrodinger's cat paradox highlighted the simple fact that in discussions of the collapse of the wave function, no reference had yet been made to the point in the measurement process at which the collapse is meant to occur. ......The problem is that the collapse is itself not contained in any of the mathematical apparatus of quantum theory. (A point also made by the Kumar quotes, note sdp). As von Neumann had discovered, the only way to introduce such a collapse (or projection) into the theory was to postulate it. (Baggott's emphasis) page 156
The Quantum Story, A History in 40 Moments by Jim Baggott, 2011
***********************
Bohr, and therefore the Copenhagen interpretation, considers the measuring device as part of the classical world. The claim that consciousness is the observer (and not a mechanical measuring device, like a Geiger counter) was later brought in by Eugene Wigner, especially John Von Neumann and later John Wheeler (maybe piggybacking on Schrodinger's cat, if so, the reverse of Schrodinger's intention). And again, Baggott points out the major problem with the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr never felt any need to try to explain this dividing line between the micro world and the macro world where/when/how the collapse of the wave function occurs.
Quotes again backing up my earlier posts.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 25, 2015 10:13:46 GMT -5
QM quotes: Nevertheless, the Copenhagen view asserts a privileged position to the observer, be it human or a mechanical device, in the construction of reality. But all matter is made up of atoms and therefore subject to the laws of QM, so how can the observer or measuring apparatus have a privileged position? This is the measurement problem. The Copenhagen's interpretation's assumption of the prior existence of the classical world of the macroscopic measuring device appears circular and paradoxical. Einstein and Schrodinger believed it to be a glaring indication of the incompleteness of QM as a total world-view, and Schrodinger tried to highlight it with his cat-in-the-box. Measurement in the Copenhagen interpretation remains an unexplained process, since there is nothing in the mathematics of QM that specifies how or when the wave function collapses. Bohr 'solved' the problem by simply declaring that measurements can indeed be made, but never offered an explanation of how. (page 318) Einstein accepted that QM was the best theory available, but it was 'an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics)'. (page 321) Since the macroscopic world is described by classical physics and its concepts, Bohr argued that even to seek to go beyond them was a waste of time. He had developed his framework od complementarity in order to save classical concepts. For Bohr there was no underlying physical reality behind that exists independently of measuring equipment, and that meant, as Heisenberg pointed out, 'we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using classical concepts'. It is the Bohr-Heisenberg call to retain classical concepts that Einstein called a 'tranquilizing philosophy'. Einstein was desperately seeking to change the physics as well; for he was not the conservative relic many thought. He was convinced that the concepts of classical physics would have to be replaced by new ones. Einstein never abandoned the ontology of classical physics, an observer independent reality, but he was prepared to make a decisive break with classical physics. The view of reality endorsed by the Copenhagen interpretation was all the evidence he needed of the necessity to do so. He wanted revolution more radical than the one offered by QM. It was hardly surprising that Einstein and Bohr left so much unsaid. (page 321) 'This problem of getting the interpretation proved to be rather more difficult than just working out the equations', said Paul Dirac 50 years after the 1927 Solvay conference. The American Noble laureate Murray Gell-Mann believes part of the reason was that 'Niels Bohr brain-washed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem had been solved'. A poll conducted in July 1999 during a conference on quantum physics held at Cambridge University revealed the answers of a new generation to the vexed question of interpretation. Of the 90 physicists polled, only four voted for the Copenhagen interpretation, but 30 favored the modern version of Everett's many worlds. Significantly, 50 ticked the box labeled 'none of the above or undecided'. The unresolved conceptual difficulties, such as the measurement problem and the inability to say exactly where the quantum world ends and the classical world of everyday life begins (which the Paradox of Schrodinger's cat was designed to point out in 1935, note sdp), have led an increasing number of physicists willing to look for something deeper than QM. 'A theory that yields "maybe" as an answer,' says the Dutch Nobel Prizewinning theorist Gerard 't Hooft, 'should be recognized as an inaccurate theory'. (page 358) Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Quantum Nature of Reality by Manjit Kumar, 2008 (American edition 2010) Kumar has degrees in physics and philosophy ***************** I'd say that backs up many of my points. It is a possible indication that most of the participants understand that existence is still evolving/devolving(?), and are not interested in attaching to any particular theory.. rather, for the scientist/explorer there is the genuine curiosity of the unknown, allowing it to unfold without attachment to theories.. Micro AND macro are not separate, they unite in the reality we are experiencing.. I would say that it has just taken some years for physicists to see that Bohr had used smoke and mirrors to pull the wool over everybody's eyes, that he was playing a shell game. He actually did a great deal of bull-sh!tting in talking his way out of these philosophical problems. He gave the example of a blind man with a cane, the blind man makes the cane a part of his sensory system, an extension of himself. IOW, he gave the impression he knew what he meant, that you didn't know what he meant was your problem, not his. The 50 that picked none of the above are probably just unhappy that the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't explain enough, doesn't go deep enough. But there actually may not be a way to go any deeper, in a physical manner. Exploring consciousness probably is the way to go forward, but this gets out of the realm of physics (unless you are the great John Wheeler), so physicists are no longer interested at this point. The fact that the micro world and the macro world are not separate is actually the crux of the problem. The question is why does the quantum world operate randomly but the macro world operates deterministically? Quantum mechanics is effective because of adding up statistical probabilities. One-by-one the results are random. But if you add up the one-by-one random results you end up with macro-world picture of events. QM has never been proven to be wrong. You've have probably heard the saying, "You can't get there from here". This is the quantum world. Nobody can explain how you can get "there from here". The math works, always, but nobody can explain why. There is no agreement on a "philosophical" picture of what's happening. Thus, it is said, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics, anyone who says they do, doesn't", Richard Feynman.
|
|