• 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!

OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT OF THINGS

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, you are imputing what is not actually claimed in the OP. The question is on uncritical acceptance of Realism.

Please read the OP again. What do you understand of Henry’s saying that observations should not be conceptualised as things.
From my viewpoint observation is only a type of interaction. The interaction event connects the properties of the two objects emerging out of the event such that an impression of object 2 can be obtained within the properties of object 1. Then object 1 has observed object 2.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What you are imputing was not claimed. The post was about Realism versus Idealism. The post tried to show that contrary to popular view, there are serious questions about Realism.

I did not also raise any point on Buddhism versus Vedanta. I did not talk of consciousness either.

So.


I think the papers show that the duality between realism and idealism is false.

Quantum mechanics is not a realist description of the physical world. But it is also not idealist. It *is* physicalist. As @sayak83 pointed out, it is interactionist: things are defined by their interactions.

It certainly does NOT support idealism.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
"....... OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT OF THINGS": RICHARD CONN HENRY

This is a return to my pet subject Realism-Materialism versus Idealism. The common perception is that science supports the former worldview. This is a wrong perception. And this has great significance for understanding advaita too.

But Physicalists-materialists-philosophical naturalists hold that objective reality, often shortened to 'Reality', is the world external to the self. This external world is called nature or the realm of the physical sciences. Things and beings that exist as such in nature are supposed to be real.

Quantum Mechanics has now shown us that so-called measurements/observations are all contextual. I cite below five papers published in Nature, with links to full papers, that indicate that the so-called realism is not tenable.

a) The mental Universe : The Mental Universe

The author says "The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things."

In other words, the author points to the fact that the universe is our observation, but we forget the observation part and ascribe primacy to the 'observed'.

b) An experimental test of non-local realism | Nature : An experimental test of non-local realism | Nature

The authors conclude that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.

In other words, the authors indicate that 'locality' and 'realism', the two axioms of Physicalsitic worldview, are untenable in light of results of their experiments.

c) Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system | Nature : Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system | Nature

The authors conclude "Our results illustrate a deep incompatibility between quantum mechanics and classical physics that cannot in any way result from entanglement.

Physicalists usually explain away the startling results of quantum mechanics by resorting to entanglement. This paper indicates that no non-contextual theory can be tenable -- there can be no a priori truth apart from the observation. All quantum theories are contextual and we surely constitute the most important context.

d) https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3343.pdf?proof=true : Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom

Manning et al., conclude "Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place."

Wheeler’s supposition that a choice affects the ‘past history’ (of the photon) has been shown to be correct in past experiments using photon paths. In this paper, authors re-demonstrate with slow-moving massive helium atom what was already known for massless fast-moving photons that a future event (the method of detection) causes the photon (or the helium atom) to decide its past.

e) Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice : Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice

The paper recommends abandoning the ‘Realism’ worldview altogether, as no realistic picture is compatible with its results which hinge causally on disconnected choice.
...

So, it seems that science does not unequivocally endorse the philosophical stand that there is an objective reality 'out there'.
...

Intuitively, what could be more real than the awareness within which all objective reality is experienced? If we assume that all that we know is mediated by the electrochemical mechanism in brain, then we can never know the actual world out there. There is something out there and the brain shows you some pixelated 3D model. How do we ever know what is out there?
...
Kinda like walk by faith not by sight.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So, it seems that science does not unequivocally endorse the philosophical stand that there is an objective reality 'out there'.
Intuitively, what could be more real than the awareness within which all objective reality is experienced?
There has to be an 'objective reality' to produce 'subjective reality'. Only that we do not understand it clearly at the moment. Perhaps someday we will understand it.
Our awareness is a electro-chemical phenomenon of brain which dies with us.
Science does not go with intuition unless it is confirmed by experiments.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
It's clear from the last paragraph of your OP that you're promoting an Advaita view, and also clear that, as usual, you're trying to validate it with "science", while simultaneously rejecting the scientific viewpoint.
He is promoting / explaining his kind of advaita, that there is a universal consciousness / awareness beyond a person's life time. Quite popular around here and with gurus. My advaita is different from his.
He goes by "Prajnanam Brahma".
I reject that to say "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma".
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I think the papers show that the duality between realism and idealism is false.

Quantum mechanics is not a realist description of the physical world. But it is also not idealist. It *is* physicalist. As @sayak83 pointed out, it is interactionist: things are defined by their interactions.

It certainly does NOT support idealism.

@atanu I'm quoting Polymath here because this is what I came here to say.

Additionally I'll throw out the term instrumentalist: most interpretations of the wave function and QM in general aren't realist and most of the time, the physicists themselves know this (not always, looking at Bohm and once upon a time Wheeler). Some like Roland Omnés and Bernard d'Espagnat have argued that decoherence interpretations are a path to realism but there really isn't one that's going to keep both locality and realism. As Poly said, that is not the same as idealism being true.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think the papers show that the duality between realism and idealism is false.

Quantum mechanics is not a realist description of the physical world. But it is also not idealist. It *is* physicalist. As @sayak83 pointed out, it is interactionist: things are defined by their interactions.

It certainly does NOT support idealism.

I did not say that the papers support idealism. Please read again.

I do not understand Physicalism — since it seems that there is a ‘promissory’ element there.

I understand philosophical naturalism. Quantum mechanics does not support it, in my opinion.

 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I did not say that the papers support idealism. Please read again.

I do not understand Physicalism — since it seems that there is a ‘promissory’ element there.

I understand philosophical naturalism. Quantum mechanics does not support it, in my opinion.



What do you think that philosophical naturalism says? There seem to be several different viewpoints with the same name.

Physicalism: everything that exists supervenes on the physical.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We agree here. One step nearer.

But I know your variety of ‘Monism’, and the fundamental difference remains.


What variety of monism do you think I subscribe to?

I do NOT think there is only one fundamental substance. At this point, the fundamental particles include 6 varieties of quarks (not counting their anti-particles), three varieties of leptons, three varieties of neutrinos, 8 types of gluons, photons, W and Z particles, the Higg' boson, and gravitons.

That is certainly more than one type of fundamental substance.

What I *do* believe is that consciousness is a property of certain assemblages of physical things like brains.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
God-of-the-Gaps is necessary to propose in any explanation of mind as no naturalist philosophy can possibly explain the Quantum mechanics of mind. Quantum mechanics has no natural explanation. The idea that mind is physical seems to assume that consciousness has an end. A God would need to be posited in order to discover the science of tomorrow.

I have seen evidence of a universal consciousness a number of times and I have tried to communicate it to others but to little or no avail with the exception of a few. I have also seen God appear right before my flicken eyes (in the form of a beautiful intricate transparent hologram within my material surroundings)! I have known this for years.

Information equates to mind, which equates to reality. <- high.
 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
The first is not a paper but an opinion piece.
The problem is that all of this is actually more compatible with the Buddhist worldview where all things are emergent from the interconnected and conditioned interactions between them and one simply cannot say an object A has a property P. The more correct description is there is an interaction process in which objects A and B emerge with a set of properties P1 and P2. In all the papers you quoted you do not need observations, only interactions. Thus quantum mechanics suggests that it is interactions that are the ontological primitives and objects, object-properties etc. are derived from and emergent out of the ontologically primitive interaction-types.

The entire universe is an emergent construct that begins from its state.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
God-of-the-Gaps is necessary to propose in any explanation of mind as no naturalist philosophy can possibly explain the Quantum mechanics of mind. Quantum mechanics has no natural explanation. The idea that mind is physical seems to assume that consciousness has an end. A God would need to be posited in order to discover the science of tomorrow.

There is no quantum mechanics of the mind beyond chemistry.

And quantum mechanics *is* the natural explanation. it is the *physical* theory about what happens at the subatomic level (and occasionally the macroscopic level).

I have seen evidence of a universal consciousness a number of times and I have tried to communicate it to others but to little or no avail with the exception of a few. I have also seen God appear right before my flicken eyes (in the form of a beautiful intricate transparent hologram within my material surroundings)! I have known this for years.

I've no doubt you had the experiences you describe. What I doubt is your interpretation of those experiences. We *know* how the brain can process certain types of information incorrectly (optical illusions just being the simplest case). So, to go from your experience to an actual belief that God did, in fact, appear, is the leap I doubt.

Information equates to mind, which equates to reality. <- high.

Information is a simple result of any causal event: the 'effect' is information about the 'cause'. No minds are required.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
What variety of monism do you think I subscribe to?

I do NOT think there is only one fundamental substance. At this point, the fundamental particles include 6 varieties of quarks (not counting their anti-particles), three varieties of leptons, three varieties of neutrinos, 8 types of gluons, photons, W and Z particles, the Higg' boson, and gravitons.

That is certainly more than one type of fundamental substance.

What I *do* believe is that consciousness is a property of certain assemblages of physical things like brains.


Aww. Then we differ on more points.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
From my viewpoint observation is only a type of interaction. The interaction event connects the properties of the two objects emerging out of the event such that an impression of object 2 can be obtained within the properties of object 1. Then object 1 has observed object 2.

And what about observations of object 1 and object 2?

Is there an object 3 that observes objects 1 and 2 …… and so on?

(In my opinion, no one here has understood the simple point of Conn Henry).
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I think the papers show that the duality between realism and idealism is false.

Quantum mechanics is not a realist description of the physical world. But it is also not idealist. It *is* physicalist. As @sayak83 pointed out, it is interactionist: things are defined by their interactions.

It certainly does NOT support idealism.

@atanu I'm quoting Polymath here because this is what I came here to say.

Additionally I'll throw out the term instrumentalist: most interpretations of the wave function and QM in general aren't realist and most of the time, the physicists themselves know this (not always, looking at Bohm and once upon a time Wheeler). Some like Roland Omnés and Bernard d'Espagnat have argued that decoherence interpretations are a path to realism but there really isn't one that's going to keep both locality and realism. As Poly said, that is not the same as idealism being true.

What do you think that philosophical naturalism says? There seem to be several different viewpoints with the same name.

Physicalism: everything that exists supervenes on the physical.


What is physical?
 
Top