1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does quantum physics prove......

Discussion in 'The Material World' started by Surya Deva, Sep 8, 2012.

  1. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    1) The human mind creates the physical or empirical reality
    2) The one true sun-god exists

    Somebody made these claims, and I am not a quantum physicist, but my major is philosophy of science so my own understanding of quantum physics knows these claims to be NOT true, but I would like to get the expert opinions of actual physicists(or anybody with a background in quantum physics) posting on his board on what the claimant possibly means by these assertions and and how does quantum physics prove these claims?
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2012
  2. Shuddhasattva

    Shuddhasattva New Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    Negative, captain.

    Our current understanding of quantum mechanics does provide some evidence to support a panpsychist, or similar, position, at least in certain interpretations. But not proof - not even compelling evidence.

    As for #2... Pleroma strikes again?
     
  3. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    Lol, so he has a reputation here then!


    From what I understand about quantum mechanics though various interpretations do exist the consciousness measurement collapse of the wavefunction theory is the one that is generally accepted in physics, also known as the copenhagen interpretation which was formulated by scientists like Bohr and Heisenberg. I understand many physicists that were initially associated with the Copenhagen interpretation later disassociated themselves from it because they did not like the obvious implications of it that there is no external reality without a conscious observer.

    The other theories have not been proven to be very successful. Most hidden variable theories have been falsified and multiple world theory seems to be pure theoretical and has no empirical evidence to back it up.

    So this leaves us with the consciousness measurement collapse of the wavefunction theory or Bohm's theories, both of which suggest that consciousness exists as an either an actual substance in the universe or is inseparable with the universe.

    But why is it not considered proven?
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2012
  4. sandandfoam

    sandandfoam Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,158
    If you're interested in quantum theory and consciousness you should probably have a look at Penrose and Hameroff.
     
  5. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    The Penrose and Hameroff model is considered to be pseudo-scientific by the mainstream scientific community.

    It was a desperate attempt to explain awareness using microtubules and orchestered objective reduction mumbo jumbo which is a pseudo-scientific theory and it fails to explain anything. Brain itself is created by a human mind and how can a brain explain the processes of the human mind which is its product.
     
  6. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    Time to go and read how things have changed in the philosophy of science. Your knowledge is out dated.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. sandandfoam

    sandandfoam Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,158
    All I see here is an appeal to authority. I would be surprised if your scientific credentials surpassed either those of Penrose of Hameroff.



    In what sense was it desperate?

    It raises interesting questions


    How do you believe human minds create brain?
     
  8. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    Sir Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist and his arguments are based on Gödel's theorems and its purely mathematical and I only accept his mathematical arguments not his theories on quantum consciousness which has been rubbished by the scientific community and Stuart Hameroff deals with anaesthesia.

    A desperate attempt to explain the hard problem of consciousness of qualia in terms of platonic values embedded at planck scale. Which is complete BS.

    Penrose's works implies only one thing that is strong AI is impossible and that human thought process is not mechanical and the human mind is more than a machine.

    Bernard D'Espagnat - "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind" the neurons of the brain too fall under empiricism and hence that too is creation of the human mind.
     
  9. sandandfoam

    sandandfoam Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,158
    I see the attempt, but I fail to see the desperation





    I can wholly accept reasoned disagreement with any proposal. But I see no justification for this.



    Why is that not interesting?



    If science is no more than the creation of the human mind, why do you attribute value to it?
     
  10. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    A desperate attempt to keep an objective picture of the world while experiments often stressing the fact that nature is fuzzy and we cannot have a concrete model of reality.

    If there is no way to falsify it then its not science.



    I never said its not interesting.



    This doesn't mean that we don't need science. The main point is as Bernard says,

    “The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in.”

    Science is not all there is, there is much to know.
     
  11. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    Can you please stop being so rude seriously. Make your arguments by all means for your case, but stop being so rude and offensive to other people who hold different positions. I have recently received warnings and infractions for very minor jibs, I am surprised how you continuously get away with your rude remarks, like recently calling me "deluded" and now calling my knowledge "outdated". I completed my dissertation in philosophy of science on quantum mechanics in 2010 and I am well versed with the contemporary literature and the competing theories in the field. Now, for somebody who just told me my knowledge is outdated in the field, care to tell me your own credentials in the field of philosophy of science?

    This is basically an adhominem against Penrose and Hameroff. An adhoniem fallacy is when somebodies position is dismissed without engaging with their position/arguments. My philosophy professor once remarked to me and I learned from his reprimand, that my constant attacks on materialism were unproductive, if rather I channeled that energy to disprove materialism by engaging with their arguments then I would make a contribution to philosophy. Likewise, I advance the same advice to you: If you really think Penrose and Hameroff is pseudoscientific, then demonstrate that by engaging with their arguments and disproving their arguments :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
  12. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    I want to repeat this question to people with background in quantum physics, because I still have not received an answer. Why is it not considered proven that consciousness is a fundamental substance of the universe when two of the most successful and accepted theories in quantum physics suggest either consciousness is the very fundamental ground of all physical matter and collapses the wave function(Copenhagen interpretation) or consciousness in an inseparable aspect of the universe(Bohm)

    Also consider this: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

    This article seems to strongly suggest that it is more or less proven or rendered highly likely now that reality does not exist without consciousness. In other words our previous ideas of consciousness arising much later are false, consciousness would have to have been there from the very beginning of the universe.

    I have not seen any refutations of this experiment, and if there are not valid refutations, should we not consider it now more or less proven that reality does not exist without consciousness?
     
  13. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    They will not answer you because the debate itself has gone beyond science and falls in philosophy. Physicists don't talk philosophy, if we don't question the scientific community now then they make their own wrong consensus keeping humanity in ignorance.
     
  14. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,375
    Tell me what you think about this -

    The idea that 'observation changes the outcome" is a simple misunderstanding. What is meant is that the mechanism of observation (the scientific instrument) interferes with the behaviour being observed. In other words, the technology applied to observation has effects at the level we wish to observe.

    That simple fact has been totally misunderstood to mean 'the observer' in a mystical sense not originally intended. The observation referred to is the instrument used by the scientist, not the 'witnessing consciousness' of the scientist.

    Discuss.
     
  15. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    The problem is the pointer position of the measuring device can also be in a super-position of states and this is the reason we need a human mind.
     
  16. apophenia

    apophenia Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,375
    That seems to paraphrase what I said (there is an effect of the instrument), and then add "this is the reason we need a human mind."
     
  17. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    I agree this is what the original Heisenberg uncertainty principle says. Heisenberg of course did not mean a witnessing consciousness, but the instrument of observation itself. However, this is different from the Copenhagen interpretation which does actually say that a conscious observer is required to collapse the wavefunction? Why, because if all matter exists in a superpositioned quantum entangled state originally, then it is logically impossible for matter to self-collapse itself, without there being something existing outside of matter to effect the collapse. Hence consciousness is advanced as the cause of the collapse.

    There have been recently some experiments done on this to show whether consciousness does collapse the wavefunction by modifying Bell's experiment to test for the effects of consciousness on the wave function collapse and the results do indeed corroborate the conclusion that consciousness collapses the wavefunction.

    There are further scientific studies done now on the effects of consciousness on random information systems such as the Princeon project with random number generators and effect of human conscious observation and the results also show that there is a definitely statistically significant effect of human consciousness on the random number generators, in that due to interaction with consciousness the random number generators become less random.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted