The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

@richrf,

Consciousness has NOTHING to do with QM.

Where the general public has gotten this idea is from pseudoscientists like Deepak Chopra and Amit Goswami who have intentionally manipulated the words and meaning of QM to sell books. Like when people talk about the 'observer effect'. The word observed does not mean that there is literally a person looking into the quantum world to make the wavefunction collapse. Rather, its 'observed' in quotes to signify measurement devices because in order to 'see' (remember those are quotes) objects in the quantum world scientists have to bombard the quantum domain with electrons, photons, and other minute particles. So, obviously, this would disturb the quantum superposition.

Stenger wrote:

If Bohr and Heisenberg has spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than "observers", perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement.

Our thoughts and minds have no effect on either the micro or the macro -even though that's not what 'they' would have you believe. Movies like What The Bleep Do We Know and The Secret are entertainment for the gullible (aka Oprah fans) and promote this as if you can somehow control the universe just by thinking positively, even though when told to put their money where their mouth is, no evidence is cited. Which isnt a surprise.

To conclude: QM has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. The Copenhagen Interpretation is just a huge misunderstanding. Dont get fooled into thinking that things only exist when you OBSERVE them. Solipsism is for introductory philosophers and egocentric narcissists.

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

I almost agree. I agree with the observation about Amit Goswami and thought the Bleep movie was low-rate popcorn and that the field is ripe for misunderstanding and wishful thinking.

That said, the following quote might be relevant:

Quote:

I had several discussions with Heisenberg. I lived in England then [circa 1972], and I visited him several times in Munich and showed him the whole manuscript chapter by chapter. He was very interested and very open, and he told me something that I think is not known publicly because he never published it. He said that he was well aware of these parallels. While he was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore. He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China. - Fritjof Capra, interviewed by Renee Weber in the book The Holographic Paradigm (page 217-218)

As a result of those influences, Bohr adopted the yin yang symbol as part of his family coat of arms when he was knighted in 1947.

I don't think Bohr and Heisenberg can be dismissed as cranks, can they?

---------- Post added 07-22-2009 at 08:31 PM ----------

Although here is a quote in favour of your interpretation, which does not however dismiss mysticism:

Quote:

"Quantum physics deals with the abstract, symbolic analysis of the physical world-space, time, matter, and energy-even down to the subtlest level, the quantum vacuum. Mysticism deals with the direct apprehension of the transcendent Source of all those things. The former is a mathematical system involving intensive intellectual study, and the latter is a spiritual discipline involving the transcendence of the intellectual mind altogether. It's apparently only a very loose interpretation of physics, and a looser interpretation of mysticism, that allows for their surprising convergence-and opens the door to the even wilder idea that by drinking some of this quantum mystical brew, you'll be able to create your own reality.

Tom Houston

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;78763 wrote:

Rather, its 'observed' in quotes to signify measurement devices because in order to 'see' (remember those are quotes) objects in the quantum world scientists have to bombard the quantum domain with electrons, photons, and other minute particles. So, obviously, this would disturb the quantum superposition.

What is observing? The device or the scientist?

Quote:

Our thoughts and minds have no effect on either the micro or the macro -even though that's not what 'they' would have you believe.

Can you show me the proof for this?

Quote:

To conclude: QM has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. The Copenhagen Interpretation is just a huge misunderstanding.

I believe this is a completely open question.

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Quote:

The historical motivation for exploring quantum theory in trying to understand consciousness derived from the realization that collapse-type quantum events introduce an element of randomness, which is primary (ontic) rather than merely due to ignorance or missing information (epistemic). Approaches such as those of Wigner, of Stapp, and of Beck and Eccles emphasize this (in different ways), insofar as the ontic randomness of quantum events is regarded to provide room for mental causation, i.e., the possibility that conscious mental acts can influence brain behavior. The approach by Penrose and Hameroff also focuses on state collapse, but with a significant move from mental causation to the non-computability of (particular) conscious acts.

So, if you have any proof that consciousness is or is not involved in the quantum measurement event please provide it.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1063-7869/44/4/L12/PHU_44_4_L12.pdf?request-id=b497575a-ede8-4248-bd6e-dbc8d8133cb4

Quote:

We have to repeat again: the question of the mechanism of selection of alternative only arises on the metaphysical level of treatment. No one is obliged to consider the problem on this level. The conventional physical treatment is quite sufficient for all practical purposes. The resulting theory is logically closed, it can be checked experimentally and is verified perfectly well.

To many the transition to the metaphysical level and to additional questions might seem just an unnecessary game, and this standpoint is quite reasonable and even advantageous in many respects. What I tried to say in the second part of my article was formulated very cautiously: if for some reason or other (perhaps just out of curiosity or by way of intellectual exercise) we go over to metaphysical level and begin asking `nonphysical' questions, then one of these questions will be concerned with the mechanism of selection of an alternative, and one of the possible answers (elegant in my opinion) consists in identifying the consciousness and the selection.

As a philosophy forum we are obliged to discuss quantum theory and the metaphysical consequences thereof. This is not a question of the predictive characteristics of quantum mechanics, rather this is a question of the descriptive characteristics and various possible interpretations of the non-physical descriptive implications of quantum mechanics. Something that is totally outside the realm physics - unless of course you would like to give a provable, physical description of consciousness. Or maybe you would like to do away with study of metaphysics in its entirety?

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;78790 wrote:

So, if you have any proof that consciousness is or is not involved in the quantum measurement event please provide it.

I wonder why there should have to be a proof.
If somebody gets killed in your town, would you accept if the police asks you to give any kind of proof that you were or were not involved?
Ok, if they really don't have a clue, why not ask everybody, but referring to QM this would mean we could also demand a proof that soul is not involved. Or god is not involved. Or ferries are not involved.
First of all the observation obviously already changes the subject of observation. Kielicious has already provided a simple answer why that has to be like that.
if you want to observe a ball normally you do so by perceiving its picture when the photons hit your eye.
However if the ball is as small as photons it seems logical to me that the photons you send out will play pool billiard with your object. So each information you get from a photon will have changed the situation of your object.
There could be nothing more logical than that.

By the way whenever two particles meet, they exchange information.
When a billiard ball A hits another one B, this other one receives a package of information about A.
At the moment of collision B will have precise information about the location of A for example. Further it will receive information about kinetical energy from A and abouts its motion in space.
We can say an information transfer takes place.
The observation of a scientist is of course an information transfer on an extremely more complex level. But basically it's the same.
He wants to observe the world's most tiny ball in a box, and the only way to do so is to send another tiny ball inside the box and see if the collision returns any kind of useful data (i know that we don't see particles as balls anymore however for better understanding this picture works very well).
The quantum decoherence does certainly not take a conscious mind to observe. The interaction (exchange of information) between particles is enough to make the wave function collapse. Otherwise how could there have been a world before human beings?
Has there been no universe before humans appeared?
This would lead to a time paradox. Has the evolution taken place AFTER humans appeared? Backwards in time?
This sounds like an explanation of why humans are the center of the universe, however not of how QM works.
Seeing the exchange of information between particles as the minimal possible 'observation' is certainly an explanation rational and simple enough to meet all the demands of Ockham's razor.
Actually replacing the word observation by 'exchange of information' or even just 'interaction' makes the whole thing reasonable.
Putting a conscious mind as an observer into the theory as the most important factor however leads to paradox and reverse time effects and actually removing the principle of causality.
This has all the characteristics of a theory that has minimal chance of making it.
Interaction is exchange of information.
Opening the box to see if the cat is still alive, like in Schroedingers thought experiment is nothing but exchange of information between particles.
Of course the cat in the box will not remain in a superposition unless we open it (causing the collapse of the wave functions).
Particles do the job.

0 Replies

@Exebeche,

This is one way I have of understanding 'quantum strangeness'. If it is wrong I am happy to stand corrected.

It seems to me that the attribute of indeterminacy undermines the idea that objectivity is absolute. Normally if you measure the position, mass and path of a macroscopic entity, you can be safe in dividing the observer from the thing observed. There is the billiard ball, here the observer, measuring it.

Now with the observation of quantum particles, what we have is a description which must include the thing being measured and the act of measurement. Therefore, at the very least, the line between subject and object is no longer distinct and objectivity is no longer absolute.

My naive understanding of the way science conceives the world is that it is 'absolutely there'. However it seems that with the idea of 'virtual particles' and so on, on one level all that matter has is a tendency to exist. The reason why many find this so disturbing is because it undermines the idea of absolute objectivity. We can make objective measurements, but only up to a point.

Then the question becomes - if objectivity is not absolute, then what is?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;78854 wrote:

Then the question becomes - if objectivity is not absolute it, then what is?

Hi there,

There are two aspects of quantum physics. One is the predictive aspects. The other is the interpretation - i.e, what it all means. Many, including myself, and physicists such as Bernard d'Espagnat, share interpretations that brings into question the concept of the existence of objects that are independent of consciousness.

Bernard d'Espagnat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Bernard d'Espagnat (b. Fourmagnac, France, 1921) is a French theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, and author, best known for his work on the nature of reality.

Quote: "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."[1]

Quote:

D'Espagnat remained troubled by the scant attention most physicists paid to the interpretational questions raised by quantum mechanics. His first book, Conceptions of Contemporary Physics (1965), asked these questions and sketched possible resolutions, underscoring his insistence that scientists face the issues raised by their own pursuits.

There are many interpretations of quantum physics put forward, and all are open to discussion, since quantum physics formulas in themselves provide no clue as to whether one interpretation is any more acceptable than another. Interpretation is all speculation at this time and is well within the province of both physicists and philosophers alike.

But, whatever interpretation one embraces pursues, quantum physics continues to be very spooky. The Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment being one of the spookiest that I have come across yet.

Rich

---------- Post added 07-22-2009 at 05:30 PM ----------

Exebeche;78853 wrote:

I wonder why there should have to be a proof.

There doesn't have to be since this is all metaphysical speculation. As long as it is understood that everyone is just speculating.

Quote:

First of all the observation obviously already changes the subject of observation. Kielicious has already provided a simple answer why that has to be like that.

Yes, observation is entangled in any experiment.

Quote:

However if the ball is as small as photons it seems logical to me that the photons you send out will play pool billiard with your object.

You are likening photons to a particle. Photons are not particles or waves. However, depending upon the nature of the experiment they can act as one or another. The nature of photons is unknown and open to interpretation. This is the crux of the issue. What's more, they are probabilistic waves, the collapse of which takes place upon observation.

Wave function collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The existence of the wave function collapse is required in

the Copenhagen interpretation

the objective collapse interpretations

the so-called transactional interpretation

in a "spiritual interpretation" in which consciousness causes collapse.

On the other hand, the collapse is considered as a redundant or optional approximation in

interpretations based on consistent histories

the many-worlds interpretation

the Bohm interpretation

the Ensemble Interpretation

Even interpretations that do not require a wave form collapse, e.g. Bohm interpretation, invokes entanglement between consciousness and matter:

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#MATTER%20AND%20CONSCIOUSNESS

Quote:

Bohm's own reflection on these questions seems to have evolved over time. Early on, in response to Wigner and others who proposed that consciousness should be included in quantum theory, Bohm said that his aim was to describe the quantum potential without bringing in the conscious observer in any fundamental role. Later, Bohm came to believe that material and informational processes are inextricably intertwined together in all things, and he used the term soma-significance to refer to this intrinsic interpenetration. As he explains (in Bohm and Peat 1987, 185-186 and Weber 1986, 215), "Consciousness is much more of the implicate order than is matter. . . Yet at a deeper level [matter and consciousness] are actually inseparable and interwoven, just as in the computer game the player and the screen are united by participation in common loops. In this view, mind and matter are two aspects of one whole and no more separable than are form and content. "Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty because even in the vacuum matter is one; and if we don't see this, it's because we are blinding ourselves to it."

Quote:

So each information you get from a photon will have changed the situation of your object. There could be nothing more logical than that.

I don't think there is anything logical about quantum physics and I doubt there a many physicists who will claim such. The Aspect experiment, the double-slit as well as the delayed double-slit continue to confound interpretation and as such only invite speculation by physicists and philosophers alike.

Quote:

By the way whenever two particles meet, they exchange information.

Again, you refer to a photon as a particle. It is only one of the possible states that may exist depending upon the experiment.

Quote:

Opening the box to see if the cat is still alive, like in Schroedingers thought experiment is nothing but exchange of information between particles.

The issue of exchange of information is brought into question by Einstein EPR Paradox and the Bell Theorem and Aspect experiments.

Quote:

Bell's Interconnectedness theorem, proved by the physicist John Bell in 1964, asserts that no local model of reality can do justice to the facts of quantum behaviour. A local model of reality is one in which all causal connections propagate by signals that travel at less than the speed of light. Bell showed that quantum mechanics describes correlations that cannot be explained by a local model. The theorem considers a set-up which is a variation on that of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, and proves that if reality is local, we would expect certain defined measurements to show a certain inequality (the Bell inequality). But in fact the experimental results are otherwise, suggesting a conflict with relativity theory, which appears to require locality. Interpreters disagree whether the conflict is real-for example, perhaps one should say that the correlations are unexplained brute facts.

Quote:

Particles do the job.

Alas, if it was all only particles, life would be so much easier. We could scrap quantum physics and go back to the 1800s and be comfortable with Newtonian physics. But, life is not so kind, and we have to live with the dual nature of photons and other wave/particle forms, and what the heck it all might mean. I am not sure you realize it, but your description of quanta is out of date by at least 80 years. Even Einstein was forced to scrap the notion of determinism and hidden variables in favor of the quantum physics spookiness.

But we are all in the same boat. Anyone who claims to understand quantum physics is .... well let be quote Niels Bohr:

Quote:

If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. Niels Bohr

A simple pool ball example does not do justice to any interpretation of quantum physics. It is far, far weirder than that, and continues to confound physicists and philosophers alike. We can all speculate and believe as we wish, but to present certainty in the world of quantum physics is rather ...

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

jeeprs;78854 wrote:

Then the question becomes - if objectivity is not absolute it, then what is?

Actually objectivity has turned into one of my favorite topics.
Let me start this way:
Back in the 90's i spent some time working as a rainbow scientist.
I did some serious research on rainbows and the outcome was amazing :
Rainbow science is not so different from Quantum mechanics.
I found some interesting things like: The rainbow can not be affected by any physical power like kinetic, magnetic or electrical power. It will remain the same no matter what kind of force you apply to it.
Other things came into play like: The highest point of the rainbow will always be where your own shadow points to.
Strange enough, this law will stay the same regardless of the observer.
No matter who observes the rainbow, regardless from which position, the observer's shadow will always point to the highest point of the rainbow.
This leads to one of the most interesting results of my research:
The rainbow can not be seperated from the act of observation nore from the observing person.
The most mysterious question is: If there is no observer, is there a rainbow at all?
Obviously this story is just a proof of my sometimes strange humour, which normally i wouldn't explane, but since in this thread i have already been asked to warn the audience when i am being funny, here is the claim: This is a joke.
The story i am telling however has a serious background.
All of the observations are real.
The rainbow example normally serves as an explanation of why ontological (metaphysical) views lead to errors.
No matter how many people are there, they will normally agree on seeing 'the rainbow'.
The rainbow has an ontological existence, it's an existing entity (from a metaphysical perspective).
The most solid proof of something being real, thus having an objectively true existence is empirical data.
Which means the more people observe the rainbow, the more empirical data is provided to prove the rainbow is real.
And the more empirical data is provided about people having observed rainbows during history, the more evidence we have that rainbows are existent. Empirically (scientifically) proven.
The problem, you guess it, is: The existence of the rainbow begins in our eye.
There has never been such a thing as a rainbow out there. The only thing that exists is diffused light.
When two people talk about one rainbow, they can be standing one inch or five hundred feet away from each other. They believe they talk about THE rainbow, but they see something completely different.
Not only are the photons hitting their eyes completely different, but they really do see a different part of reality.
Plus this observed object does not even exist.
The rainbow itself has no existence.
There is only a soup of diffused light.
Immanuel Kant was one of the first to explain how and why objective truth is something we have no access to.
The 'thing in itself' or 'the world of things' will always remain unreachable for us.
When you see a rainbow you believe you see something that has objective reality. However it is a part of realtiy that has gone through a PHYSICAL filter.
When you touch the table in front of you, you believe you touch a table, a table being something that has objective reality. However it is part of reality that has gone through your MENTAL filter.
When you touch a rock you may think it's a rock, however 2000 years ago people might have called it an altar.
A table can be an altar, and a rock can be an altar. A piece of wood can be a table. Everything you have a name for has passed a mental filter.
And everything you see has a name.
Objective reality is unreachable for humans.
Our concept of reality is a huge construct of concepts that we put on things like gloves on hands.
We don't really perceive the 'thing in itself', we only see the gloves we made for it.

(Hello richrf, just saw you new post, i am going to answer later)

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;78875 wrote:

There has never been such a thing as a rainbow out there. The only thing that exists is diffused light.

But it is rather surprising that something in here is precieved as being out there. Especially when there are things perceived in here that appear to be not out there (e.g. ideas). So why the difference, in the way things are perceived, if they are all supposedly appearing in the same mind (brain). I, and others are willing to consider that consciousness may exist beyond our physical body, so that it is a merging of out there and in here - or as some say, unity. Not too different from waves within an ocean.

Rich

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;78790 wrote:

What is observing? The device or the scientist?

The device is 'observing' not the scientist. Remember nothing in QM requires human involvement.

Rich wrote:

Can you show me the proof for this?

The onus isnt on me to prove a negative. The burden is on the one asserting the positive claim. If you think your thoughts can manipulate not only the micro but the macro then please provide the evidence.

Rich wrote:

So, if you have any proof that consciousness is or is not involved in the quantum measurement event please provide it.

Again the onus isnt on me to prove negative but I will show how unlikely it is: Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be influenced by quantum mechanics its mass(M), speed(V) and distance(D) must cohere with Planck's constant.

Stenger wrote:

If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically

Classically as in classical physics. In his book The Unconsious Quantum Stenger computes that the mass of neurotransmitters and their respective acceleration across the synapse is about "two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential."

Or we can do a simple experiment: if you think your thoughts can manipulate the macro then try running through a brick wall and see how far you get. Lemme know the results Wink

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Ah yes - Bernard D'espagnat - he won the Templeton Prize 2008. In Physics and Philosophy, he says

Quote:

that quantum physics--by casting doubts on once hallowed concepts such as space, material objects, and causality-demands serious reconsideration of most of traditional philosophy.

I think that this conversation is heavily influenced by our implicit assumptions regarding the nature of consciousness. If it is felt that 'consciousness is the activity of the human brain' then we are still operating within the subject/object paradigm which is being called into question by these discoveries. If, however, consciousness is understood as a field in its own right, a collective or infinite reality, or as the basis of all that is, then we might arrive at a very different view of the matter. This might also go some way to answering the question 'did the universe exist before humans were around to observe it.'

Now one difficulty with this proposition is that consciousness itself is not an object. It is, one might say, pan-subjective. In any case it is not available for inspection or measurement. But by going down this route we actually find ourselves very much in the area of Indian non-dualism. And this is the one main points of the Capra book, is it not? Now of course it is very difficult to understand this approach, especially because it is quite alien to the metaphysical roots of the worldview of Western science - the 'traditional philosophy' that D'Espagnat refers to. This view was basically Aristotlean in origin, and was very much a common-sense, rational view comprising discrete objects within which find ourselves as subjects. But it really does not stack up against what we are finding out about the nature of things. I really think that it is Aristotlean realism that has had its day. Aristotle knew a lot of things, but he didn't know samadhi. Capra and others are really fishing for a metaphysic - trawling the worlds wisdom traditions for alternative understandings that can accomodate the discoveries of physicists. The only question is - have they found it?

This is an unfolding story and there is an enormous amount still to be discovered. One thing I am absolutely certain of, however, is that it spells the end for the world-picture given us by scientific materialism. That is the paradigm that must perish. No, I can't run through a brick wall. But the basic idea that we are all individual subjects in a universe of discrete and separable objects is gone. It is certainly true to some extent, but it is not a final truth of any type. It is just that not everyone gets this yet.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;78880 wrote:

The device is 'observing' not the scientist. Remember nothing in QM requires human involvement.

)v. , ,
v.tr.1. To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.

Devices have awareness. Now, that is a great leap in the concept of consciousness. Personally, I harbor the possibility, but I see no reason to go that far. I am satisfied at this point to awareness being the domain of humans and not devices. Well, I guess we have to at least give computers the power of observation if we are going to give it to any device.

Quote:

The onus isnt on me to prove a negative. The burden is on the one asserting the positive claim. If you think your thoughts can manipulate not only the micro but the macro then please provide the evidence.

Consciousness has NOTHING to do with QM. [Your quote]

You proposed this assertion so I am asking for proof. If you have no proof then it is up for debate. There is absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other at this point in time. You are ruling out the possibility. Fine. Other scientists and philosophers are investigating the possibility which is their prerogative. If we eliminated all possibilities there would be no room for new ideas, which would be very boring.

Quote:

Classically as in classical physics. In his book The Unconsious Quantum Stenger computes that the mass of neurotransmitters and their respective acceleration across the synapse is about "two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential."

Great. What does the mass of anything have to do with consciousness?

Quote:

Or we can do a simple experiment: if you think your thoughts can manipulate the macro then try running through a brick wall and see how far you get. Lemme know the results

I think nothing of the kind. I am but one individual consciousness that influences but does not dictate the manner of the universe. That would make me God. There are (have been) innumerable conscious bodies out there at all levels. I participate and lend a hand, but I do not define or dictate one outcome for everything.

I do know however that my consciousness has a very substantial effect on my own body and it does incredible things with it such as being able to balance on a bicycle and ride it as well as dancing great Salsa. It can also heal itself when it is sick. Now that is some great stuff!

Rich

---------- Post added 07-22-2009 at 11:29 PM ----------

jeeprs;78897 wrote:

This is an unfolding story and there is an enormous amount still to be discovered. One thing I am absolutely certain of, however, is that it spells the end for the world-picture given us by scientific materialism. That is the paradigm that must perish. No, I can't run through a brick wall. But the basic idea that we are all individual subjects in a universe of discrete and separable objects is gone. It is certainly true to some extent, but it is not a final truth of any type. It is just that not everyone gets this yet.

Hi,

I agree with your comments.

I do not see the world as being defined by one individual consciousness - my own. It is the result of a whole, very long history of individual consciousness (what Easter philosophy would call the souls/Hun) that are all interconnected via the universal consciousness (the spirit, Dao, or Shen).

We are participants in the creation of what is, and it is constantly changing. If we build something solid, out of very dense energy, it is not a simple matter to break through it. However, we have discovered how to reverse the process and turn matter back into energy.

The universe is as it is. However, how it got there is the question. Did matter just materialize with all knowledge through some miraculous one time event called the Big Bang (what preceded this event?)? Or did it evolve from consciousness and energy derived from consciousness and slowly condense into mass over the ages? Who knows?

But I am far more comfortable with the infinite nature of consciousness than I am with the miraculous birth out of nothing of all that is - mass, energy, knowledge, emotions, ideas, senses, etc., in such a way that it all comes together like magic. Rather than embrace this idea based entirely upon faith that something like the universe can arise out of nothing from a Big Bang, I would rather go the God route, which I consider more believable. But for now I am be comfortable with the primacy of consciousness.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;78911 wrote:

So devices now have the power of observation?

Rich, did we not just go over this?

Remember how we used 'observed' in quotes? Its not LITERALLY observing.

Rich wrote:

No evidence is needed at this point. There is absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other at this point in time. You are ruling out the possibility. Fine. Other scientists and philosophers are investigating the possibility which is their prerogative.

Evidence is needed if you are asserting a claim to be true. If not then there is no discussion.

Rich wrote:

Great. What does the mass of anything have to do with consciousness?

Claims were made, not by you personally but by quantum mystics, that QM influences macro structures and has a role in consciousness. This is what Penrose and Hameroff endorse in their microtubles.

Rich wrote:

I do know however that my consciousness has a very substantial effect on my own body and it does incredible things with it such as being able to balance on a bicycle and ride it as well as dancing great Salsa. It can also heal itself when it is sick. Now that is some great stuff!

Rich

The topic isnt about intentionality. Its about whether your thoughts ALONE can manipulate external objects, aka ESP. This may not be what you are advocating but nonetheless it's what the mystics are.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;78918 wrote:

Rich, did we not just go over this?[

Remember how we used 'observed' in quotes? Its not LITERALLY observing.

It sure is observing. Someone is observing. If it is not observing then use another word that you are comfortable with. Because the experiment is happening and the structure of the experiment is affecting the outcome.

Quote:

Evidence is needed if you are asserting a claim to be true. If not then there is no discussion.

Great, so there is no discussion of the subject for you because you are waiting for evidence. I am fine with that. I will discuss it with others who would like to discuss it. However, some things take a long time - maybe centuries, so you may have to wait quite a bit before you can start discussing it again. But your choice.

Quote:

Claims were made, not by you personally but by quantum mystics, that QM influences macro structures and has a role in consciousness. This is what Penrose and Hameroff endorse in their microtubles.

You have your mystics and I have mine. It is a standoff. Quantum mechanics has zero to say on the nature of consciousness or describing the nature of the universe. It is a set of equations that predict outcomes. Everyone involved with quantum physics has their own interpretation of what it all means. Einstein had his ("God does not play with dice."), Bohr had his ("Einstein don't tell God what to do."), d'Espagnat has his, Penrose has his, and you have yours, and I have mine. I'll play with my mystics and you can play with yours as you wish. But please don't assert that your mysticism is any better than mine. You are speculating just like anyone else.

Quote:

The topic isnt about intentionality. Its about whether your thoughts ALONE can manipulate external objects, aka ESP.

That's your topic. You can start another thread if you wish. The topic of this thread is "the mystical Copenhagen Interpretation" i.e. wave collapse.

Quote:

This may not be what you are advocating but nonetheless it's what the mystics are.

There are some who advocate this. But there are some who advocate the notion that devices observe. As for me, I think people observe. So, there are all kinds of fringe interpretations out there. I read them all, digest them, and form my own world views, as a metaphysical philosopher. Others can do what they wish with the same information.

Thanks for your comments.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;78856 wrote:

I am not sure you realize it, but your description of quanta is out of date by at least 80 years. Even Einstein was forced to scrap the notion of determinism and hidden variables in favor of the quantum physics spookiness.
A simple pool ball example does not do justice to any interpretation of quantum physics. It is far, far weirder than that, and continues to confound physicists and philosophers alike.

I thought i had mentioned that i am perfectly aware of my picture being outdated and simplifying.
Now, if you choose to use my words against myself for making rhetorical points here we go...

richrf;78856 wrote:

There doesn't have to be since this is all metaphysical speculation. As long as it is understood that everyone is just speculating.

I am allowed to remind you that metaphysics is not physics, that actually it is not nature science, and it takes us back in time a bit further than 80 years.

richrf;78856 wrote:

You are likening photons to a particle. Photons are not particles or waves.

I don't know which kind of physics YOU refer to however it must be a different one because all over the world quantum physicists treat particles as particles.
Thank you for telling us about the wave nature, it's definitely not news. You are just trying to make it blury though.
Everyone knows that the effects we observe have a wave and a particle nature. By pointing out the wave nature however you will not make the particle nature less real.

richrf;78856 wrote:

I don't think there is anything logical about quantum physics and I doubt there a many physicists who will claim such.

I am not going to let you get away with this.
The fact that some effects of QM seem to be paradox does not allow to conversely assume that QM is not subject to logics.
No physicist has ever claimed such. The only ones who claim something like it are sects like the Maharishi sect who are actually the directors of this ridiculous Bleep-film.
The basics of Quantum mechanics already being so hard to understand, makes it a perfect tool for any pseudo scientific ideology like the maharishi and any other crab that grows in forgotten fridges.
They pull out these fusty rags like Einsteins words about a so called spookyness as if this would proove there is some kind of spookyness.
These words are rhetorically very efficient and so they are used all over the place.
This opens people to ultimately stupid questions like "When was the last time YOU have been in a superposition?"
In my language this is demagogy.
It's all used to blur things and make it sound like anything is possible.
There is an important difference between Fritjof Capra whose intention is to really make people understand QM (referring to eastern philosophies) and people who say "QM is something that can not be understood" and use it to blur any kind of unlogical theory (which i could accept if they would call it a believe, but the criminal aspect is that they call it scientific).
There is a lot of mad crab already, being justified by abusing QM and even called a scientific theory. And i see a growing amount of it.

Excuse me Rich. It's not like i am saying your idea was crab.
There certainly is some beauty to your idea.
And also to jeeprs i want to give my assurance that i found his thoughts very inspiring.
I am personally still open for the idea that maybe even science itself will one day open a gate to a new understanding of the universe that turns out to be what in former times would have been considered mystical. Really who knows?
But when we talk in scientific terms we have to watch out that we don't loose the ground and that we really use the tools of science (not rhetorics).

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;79078 wrote:

I thought i had mentioned that i am perfectly aware of my picture being outdated and simplifying.
Now, if you choose to use my words against myself for making rhetorical points here we go...

Good. We both agree that your description is not applicable.

Quote:

I am allowed to remind you that metaphysics is not physics, that actually it is not nature science, and it takes us back in time a bit further than 80 years.
Quote:

Yes, metaphysics goes back thousands of years and has done a darn good job of describing life. Personally I find Heraclitus and Daoism most practical and appealing.

Quote:
I don't know which kind of physics YOU refer to however it must be a different one because all over the world quantum physicists treat particles as particles.
Except when it is behaving like a wave e.g. Shrodinger equations. The whole issue is the dual nature of elementary particles.

Introduction to quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

analyzed how an electron would behave if it were assumed to be a wave surrounding a nucleus. Rather than explaining the atom by an analogy to satellites orbiting a planet, he treated electrons as waves with each electron having a unique wavefunction.

Quote:
Thank you for telling us about the wave nature, it's definitely not news. You are just trying to make it blury though.
I didn't realize you have ESP. Nice trick, but you have to work on it a bit. I was merely trying to be accurate and not simplifying things for convenience sake.

Quote:
I think you are trying to ignore issues that do not support your views. Something that seems, unfortunately,
Ditto.

Quote:
Everyone knows that the effects we observe have a wave and a particle nature. By pointing out the wave nature however you will not make the particle nature less real.
I prefer to refer to it as wave/particle nature, since this little elementary particle has a strange nature indeed. Not at all like a billiard ball.

Quote:
The fact that some effects of QM seem to be paradox does not allow to conversely assume that QM is not subject to logics.
You can interpret anything in the way you want. But if you want to call it logical, then you are a bit out on the limb I think. I have yet to read anything on this subject that in any way calls quantum physics logical. In fact, it is spooky, as many have described it.

Quote:
No physicist has ever claimed such. The only ones who claim something like it are sects like the Maharishi sect who are actually the directors of this ridiculous Bleep-film.
Please. Do you want me to pull out my quote bag. Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, ... I've used Bohr's all the time, but I don't mind using it again.

Quote:
The basics of Quantum mechanics already being so hard to understand, makes it a perfect tool for any pseudo scientific ideology like the maharishi and any other crab that grows in forgotten fridges.
Rather than tell me how much crap is around, why don't you give me an accurate picture of the meaning of quantum physics. Especially since everyone is doing such a poor job of it.

Quote:
This opens people to ultimately stupid questions like "When was the last time YOU have been in a superposition?"
Maybe all the time, if one embraces Wheeler's interpretation.

Quote:
In my language this is demagogy.
You sound upset. Are you? Personally, I think that is what is happening all the time among scientists who claim that quantum physics is as simple as a billiard ball - a notion that is very, very outdated.

Quote:
It's all used to blur things and make it sound like anything is possible.

Please unblur things. I would like to hear your explanation what quantum physics is describing.

Quote:
There is an important difference between Fritjof Capra whose intention is to really make people understand QM (referring to eastern philosophies) and people who say "QM is something that can not be understood" and use it to blur any kind of unlogical theory (which i could accept if they would call it a believe, but the criminal aspect is that they call it scientific).
There are many interpretations. Do you want to choose one or do you have your own? Anyone of these interpretations can be right on the mark or totally wrong. No one knows. Quantum physics equations are predictive, not descriptive. Anyone can discuss any interpretation they wish. It is totally up in the air.

Quote:
There is a lot of mad crab already, being justified by abusing QM and even called a scientific theory. And i see a growing amount of it.
Judged by .,... you? Then I suppose you know what isn't crap. I am interested in hearing it.

Quote:
But when we talk in scientific terms we have to watch out that we don't loose the ground and that we really use the tools of science (not rhetorics).
No one says they are talking in scientific terms. Once you enter the realm of interpreting what Quantum Mechanics means (describes) you are in the realm of metaphysics. Quantum Physics and its equations are predictive (and darn good at it), but it says nothing about the underlying meaning. However, all interpretations do befuddle the average observer.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;78921 wrote:

Because the experiment is happening and the structure of the experiment is affecting the outcome.

Thats the point rich, "in order to 'see' (remember those are quotes) objects in the quantum world scientists have to bombard the quantum domain with electrons, photons, and other minute particles. So, obviously, this would disturb the quantum superposition." Remember this? Thats why the experiment is affecting the outcome, NOT OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.

Rich wrote:

Great, so there is no discussion of the subject for you because you are waiting for evidence. I am fine with that. I will discuss it with others who would like to discuss it. However, some things take a long time - maybe centuries, so you may have to wait quite a bit before you can start discussing it again. But your choice.

If you want to discuss wild fantasy then go for it, but when the discussion tries to go from fantasy to actuality then evidence is needed. That's why we have the burden of proof and we dont waste our time with nonsense. Think Russel's Teapot.

Rich wrote:

But please don't assert that your mysticism is any better than mine. You are speculating just like anyone else.

My mysticism? Im curious, what is my mysticism that I am promoting? The scientists arent speculating about this issue its the quantum mystics that are, lets get the story straight. There is no evidence that consciousness has any role whatsoever in QM.

Rich wrote:

That's your topic. You can start another thread if you wish. The topic of this thread is "the mystical Copenhagen Interpretation" i.e. wave collapse.

I'm beginning to think you have the worst memory:

Rich wrote:

I do know however that my consciousness has a very substantial effect on my own body...

You started the topic of intentionality. Probably not on purpose but you were comparing apples to organes and I had to distinguish it for you. The topic isnt about intentionality which is why I said that in my relpy to you in post #52. Bodily motion isnt the issue; its whether your thoughts ALONE can manipulate the external world -aka ESP. That's what the quantum mysticism promotes.

Rich wrote:

There are some who advocate this. But there are some who advocate the notion that devices observe. As for me, I think people observe.

And this is why the Copenhagen Interpretation has sparked this new age mysticism BS because some people actually think scientists are LITERALLY observing the quantum world and thereby making the claim that consciousness has something to do with the wavecollapse. However, as we have seen this couldnt be farther from the truth.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;79138 wrote:

Thats the point rich, "in order to 'see' (remember those are quotes) objects in the quantum world scientists have to bombard the quantum domain with electrons, photons, and other minute particles. So, obviously, this would disturb the quantum superposition." Remember this? Thats why the experiment is affecting the outcome, NOT OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.

Yes, there is no disagreement on this. The question posed by quantum physics is that nature of the entanglement between the object and the subject (the observer)? To simply say that the instrument is observing seems to me to be ... difficult to swallow, though I know some scientists propose this just to get away from bringing in mind and consciousness. This I believe is untenable.

Quote:

If you want to discuss wild fantasy then go for it, but when the discussion tries to go from fantasy to actuality then evidence is needed. That's why we have the burden of proof and we dont waste our time with nonsense. Think Russel's Teapot.

There is evidence for all interpretations, which is basically quantum experiments as they are being observed as well as thought experiments that are in the process of being tested (e.g. Wheeler's Gedanken Delayed-Choice). So everyone is observing the the same stuff. It is the interpretation of what it is describing that is at issue, and everyone has their own take on it. You seem to like your take. Fine. Your view is just one and their are some pretty savvy physicists and philosophers who have quite a different take. It's too bad that their interpretations upset you so much that you have to call it fantasy, but that is the nature of human beings. When they don't like something they dismiss as ... foolish! Been like that for thousands of years. Copernicus ... foolish. Galileo... foolish. Einstein .. .foolish. etc, etc, etc. Humans haven't changed one bit.

Quote:

My mysticism? Im curious, what is my mysticism that I am promoting? The scientists arent speculating about this issue its the quantum mystics that are, lets get the story straight. There is no evidence that consciousness has any role whatsoever in QM.

There are attempts (interpretations) to explain quantum phenomonen. EVeryone is looking at it differently. Your way is one way. There is zero proof for your interpretation. The evidence that you are using is the same as the evidence everyone else is using to come up with their interpretations. BTW, I would be very surprised if consciousness is not involved since consciousness is involved with everything - including your writing that it is not involved. It is curious why your consciousness is denying itself. I wonder why? Ah .. human consciousness. It is so funny and amusing at times.

Quote:

its whether your thoughts ALONE can manipulate the external world -aka ESP. That's what the quantum mysticism promotes.

Well there those who take the extreme point of view that one individual consciousness alone determines everything, ignoring all of the other ones out there that may have a say in the matter. But then there is the other side of extremism, such as yours, which says consciousness has nothing to do with it. So we have two extreme views going at each other. which not surprising.

My view is that the extremists are enjoying arguing with each other, while those who understand the entanglement between mind/energy/matter each being a more dense form of the other, will move ahead with their exploration with life. The others, on the extremes, are stuck with their own religious type beliefs.

Rich

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

a very good discussion in my view. At the end of the day there is a great deal that remains to be understood in all of this. I agree that this 'quantum mysticism' movement is open to a lot of chicanery. (Interesting thesis topic: role of 'You Are As You Think' mentality in genesis of the 2008 Financial Crisis). However I also wouldn't be too confident that scientific realism is not under threat as well. Let's not forget that Einstein himself was never able to come up with a model that explained the phenomenon of non-locality. We still haven't found the Higgs boson, and the very idea of calling it 'the God particle' seems to me to indicate some very deep confusion. It's all a work in progress in my view.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;79148 wrote:

Yes, there is no disagreement on this.

Good.

Rich wrote:

So everyone is observing the the same stuff. It is the interpretation of what it is describing that is at issue, and everyone has their own take on it.

True, but this is where we apply ockham's razor. If we did an experiment where we hit one billiard ball against another BB and the result was that the first BB stopped while the second BB kept moving, we could interpret this many different ways correct? One person could interpret why the second BB moved and say that microscopic billiard men are pushing the balls; or someone has telekinesis; or whatever interpretation we want. Are they all justified? No, and that's why it is fantasy because the assumptions of interpreting quantum experiments as being involved with consciousness are astronomical. Just because they are using the same data doesnt give credence to any interpretation.

Rich wrote:

There are attempts (interpretations) to explain quantum phenomonen. EVeryone is looking at it differently. Your way is one way. There is zero proof for your interpretation. The evidence that you are using is the same as the evidence everyone else is using to come up with their interpretations.

See above.

Rich wrote:

BTW, I would be very surprised if consciousness is not involved since consciousness is involved with everything - including your writing that it is not involved. It is curious why your consciousness is denying itself. I wonder why? Ah .. human consciousness. It is so funny and amusing at times.

What? This line of reasoning doesnt follow.

Rich wrote:

But then there is the other side of extremism, such as yours, which says consciousness has nothing to do with it. So we have two extreme views going at each other. which not surprising.

Explain how rejecting the claim that consciousness is interconnected with QM is extreme.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;79106 wrote:

Please. Do you want me to pull out my quote bag. Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, ... I've used Bohr's all the time, but I don't mind using it again.

Is this a menace?
Please go ahead, pull it out.

0 Replies

The mystical Copenhagen Interpretation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know