463 thoughts on “2. Cosmic Consciousness-the experimental evidence”

1. Rumraket: Yeah. I don’t see the relevance here. 🙂

   I have pessimism bias but that’s got nothing to do with what we’re talking about here.

2. Rumraket: So it is our minds that collapse the wavefunction. But that implies God wasn’t observing them, or it would imply God doesn’t have a mind.

   Perhaps we should investigate superposition in falling sparrows?

3. OMagain,
   You reminded me of this exchange.

   There once was a man who said, ‘God
   Must think it exceedingly odd
   If he finds that this tree
   Continues to be
   When there’s no one about in the Quad.’

   Reply:

   Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd;
   I am always about in the Quad.
   And that’s why the tree
   Will continue to be
   Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.

   [The first verse, at least, is by Ronald Knox.]
   E4link

4. DNA_Jock,

   Yep. It’s all just Berkeley’s idealism, slightly warmed-over and dressed up with a lot of quantum woo. Underneath all that, it’s still Berkeley — the same old view and vulnerable to all of the same problems that Hume and Kant identified hundreds of years ago. Those who forget the history of philosophy are doomed to repeat it.

5. I don’t feel like getting into it here, but I’ll just add that, in addition to getting the science (i.e., physical aspects wrong) as has been pointed out in detail by several posts above, experiments of this type also get intentionality wrong. It’s a fundamental point about the latter that awareness of some object doesn’t DO anything to the object. The whole ‘theory’ is a big pile not only of bad experimental methodology, but confusion.

   Nevertheless, there is this, from FMM:

   For what it’s worth I am convinced that consciousness is necessary to collapse the wavefunction.

   So what the hell is the difference? They want to believe, so they believe. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.

   In a way, that’s the problem with this site generally (and contemporary politics too). Truth isn’t even a little bit of a factor. Interestingly, James’s “Will to Believe” may have been part of the problem here. Russell was right; James wrong. But again–Who will care?

6. Gordon Davisson: (BTW, the results are also consistent with some interpretations, such as the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave interpretation or the transactional interpretation, that don’t involve any real phenomena corresponding to superpositions and collapse.)

   Right.

7. J-Mac: Here is a quote from the paper you linked that contradicts your assumption and actually supports the main point of this OP:

   “With our ideal realization of the delayed-choice entanglement swapping gedanken experiment, we have demonstrated a generalization of Wheeler’s “delayed-choice” tests, going from the wave-particle duality of a single particle to the entanglement-separability duality of two particles41. Whether these two particles are entangled or separable has been decided after they have been measured. If one views the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the seemingly paradoxical situation that future actions appear as having an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events. However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as to be no more than a “catalogue of our knowledge”2. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observer’s events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping. What, however, is important is to relate the lists of Alice, Bob and Victor’s measurement results. On the basis of Victor’s measurement settings and results, Alice and Bob can group their earlier and locally totally random results into subsets which each have a different meaning and interpretation. This formation of subsets is independent of the temporal order of the measurements. According to Wheeler, Bohr said: “No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”7,8 We would like to extend this by saying: “Some registered phenomena do not have a meaning unless they are put in relationship with other registered phenomena.”

   What assumption of Gordon’s are you talking about, and how does this claim contradict it?

   It seems to me that, in fact, the assertion that the paradox of entanglement is resolved by this “catalog of knowledge” picture is really the unsupported assumption here.

   That is, there’s something we can’t explain with traditional mechanics and a variety of theories are propounded that seem to explain it. How is it evidence for one of them to simply say it again? If the catalog theory were coherent–which I don’t think it is–you’d need good experimental support for it (which again as a non-expert) I don’t think you have.

   But one thing is abundantly clear: stating the theory one likes isn’t evidence either for its coherence or the empirical results claimed to be behind it. And it’s not an assumption of anybody’s to give arguments as to why one of the proposed solutions to the paradox is either incoherent or poorly supported by empirical evidence.

8. walto:
   I don’t feel like getting into it here, but I’ll just add that, in addition to getting the science (i.e., physical aspects wrong) as has been pointed out in detail by several posts above, experiments of this type also get intentionality wrong. It’s a fundamental point about the latter that awareness of some object doesn’t DO anything to the object. The whole ‘theory’ is a big pile not only of bad experimental methodology, but confusion.

   Thank you for pointing that out. I’d put more as follows: it’s not part of the concept of intentional awareness that intentional awareness is a causal power.

   In a way, that’s the problem with this site generally (and contemporary politics too). Truth isn’t even a little bit of a factor. Interestingly, James’s “Will to Believe” may have been part of the problem here. Russell was right; James wrong. But again–Who will care?

   I don’t think that James (or even Nietzsche, for that matter) has had any influence on the death of expertise and the rise of a ‘post-truth’ culture. And I say that even though I also think that James was basically right in that essay, though it’s sloppier than most of his stuff. The contempt for expertise that we see at TSZ, and the general anti-intellectualism behind it, has much more proximal and material causes.

9. Kantian Naturalist: Thank you for pointing that out. I’d put more as follows: it’s not part of the concept of intentional awareness that intentional awareness is a causal power.

   I don’t think that James (or even Nietzsche, for that matter) has had any influence on the death of expertise and the rise of a ‘post-truth’ culture. And I say that even though I also think that James was basically right in that essay, though it’s sloppier than most of his stuff. The contempt for expertise that we see at TSZ, and the general anti-intellectualism behind it, has much more proximal and material causes.

   Well, I agree with you that nobody is reading James on the cuckoo-nut cloud, but not that his picture had no effect on the ethics of belief. Also I disagree with you about him being “basically right.” I’d say he was basically wrong.

10. walto: Well, I agree with you that nobody is reading James on the cuckoo-nut cloud, but not that his picture had no effect on the ethics of belief. Also I disagree with you about him being “basically right.” I’d say he was basically wrong.

    I read James as being much closer to Clifford than the standard reading has it. I read James as effectively saying, “there’s nothing epistemically problematic about having one’s affective disposition cause one to adopt a certain worldview, if you’ve taken the time to make sure that the epistemic criteria don’t by themselves require any specific worldview (or rule any out)”

    I’d also point out that what James means by “the religious hypothesis” is extremely deflationary and thin: by his lights, the religious hypothesis consists of exactly two claims: (1) “the best things are the eternal things” and (2) “we are better off even now to accept (1)”.

    That’s far too thin to satisfy the vast majority of people of faith. But that’s the most James gives them. Even less than Kierkegaard!

11. Kantian Naturalist,

    FWIW, this quote from “Varieties of Religious Experience” is my favorite remark of James’ on religion.

    Let me then propose, as an hypothesis, that whatever it may be on its farther side, the “more” with which in religious experience we feel ourselves connected is on its hither side the subconscious continuation of our conscious life. Starting thus with a recognized psychological fact as our basis, we seem to preserve a contact with “science” which the ordinary theologian lacks. At the same time the theologian’s contention that the religious man is moved by an external power is vindicated, for it is one of the peculiarities of invasions from the [pg 513] subconscious region to take on objective appearances, and to suggest to the Subject an external control. In the religious life the control is felt as “higher”; but since on our hypothesis it is primarily the higher faculties of our own hidden mind which are controlling, the sense of union with the power beyond us is a sense of something, not merely apparently, but literally true.

    That (wonderful) book, the stuff on Fechner in “Pluralistic Worlds” and a few passages from his massive “Psychology” are the only things by James that appeal to me.

12. fifthmonarchyman:
    For what it’s worth I am convinced that consciousness is necessary to collapse the wavefunction.

    However I’m equally convinced that the problem of other minds means that we will never be able to conclusively demonstrate this empirically.

    It’s as if the universe is rigged at it’s core to make us believe that other minds exist but also prohibit us from ever proving it.

    That profound realization is awe inspiring to me. Your mileage will of course vary

    peace

    Ah, as we learn from many theists, the knowability of the universe is evidence of God.

    And now we learn that the unknowability of aspects of the universe is just more of God’s awesomeness.

    It’s ID all over again, anything is evidence for “design” and the Designer (at least if it’s complex, regardless of the fact that (real) design is very obvious in non-complex items), no matter how much it looks like something evolutionary processes with no foresight or peripheral vision actually did it.

    Glen Davidson

13. walto: They want to believe, so they believe. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.

    They want to disbelieve, so they disbelieve. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.

14. GlenDavidson: Ah, as we learn from many theists, the knowability of the universe is evidence of God.

    The knowability of anything at all is evidence of God, just as the existence of anything at all is evidence of God.

    And I certainly wouldn’t go to atheists to find out about God.

15. Mung: They want to disbelieve, so they disbelieve. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.

    Except there is a obvious difference. One side let’s actual scientists decide what is good science and the other substitutes it’s own judgments oe depends on authorities that the community of science laughs at. Why should we care about that difference? Because both sides depend on the accomplishments of the real scientists to get through everyday of their lives. They only turn away from the acknowledge experts when it suits them.

    That’s the difference, mung.

16. Mung: The knowability of anything at all is evidence of God, just as the existence of anything at all is evidence of G

    And I certainly wouldn’t go to atheists to find out about God.

    You just go to them when your thermostat breaks. When it comes to ghostly creatures, you figure you know best. There is an actual scientific method: if you want to use it only when it suits you, you should expect to be ridiculed: you deserve just that treatment.

17. I wouldn’t go to theists to find out about God, any more than I’d go to ancient alien “theorists” to learn about extraterrestrial life. Or to atheists, for that matter.

    If one were serious about learning about God, one would go to the evidence, or come to recognize the lack thereof. That’s not the principle exactly driving ID and other apologetics, however.

    Glen Davidson

18. walto,

    Because both sides depend on the accomplishments of the real scientists to get through everyday of their lives. They only turn away from the acknowledge experts when it suits them.

    Who are the “real scientists”?

    Who are the “experts”?

    What do you do when “experts” disagree with the results as in the QM experiments we are discussing?

    Do you claim that the “real scientists” and “experts” have their own bias they are dealing with? 4 years ago I did not realize the intense bias that exists in the scientific community.

    Where do you think you fit against a bias meter where 0 is completely objective and 10 is your head buried in the sand?

19. colewd: 4 years ago I did not realize the intense bias that exists in the scientific community.

    And now you do, because, instead of carefully learning the empirical nature of science and sound judgment, you listened to people with an axe to grind, and biases to share with you.

    That’s such an eye-opener.

    Glen Davidson

20. J-Mac,
    

    Here is a presentation at Google that is a bridge between the quantum eraser experiments and Tegmark’s work. The interesting assumption is that measurement and entanglement are the same.

21. Mung: The knowability of anything at all is evidence of God, just as the existence of anything at all is evidence of God.

    Sorry, but both the epistemological and metaphysical claims here are false. The intelligibility of objects neither presupposes God nor entails God, and adding God to the epistemological analysis doesn’t give us anything that we can’t get from phenomenology (taken liberally to include ordinary language philosophy) and the cognitive sciences. Likewise we don’t get any deeper understanding in metaphysics by adding “and therefore God” to any speculation.

22. Kantian Naturalist,

    Likewise we don’t get any deeper understanding in metaphysics by adding “and therefore God” to any speculation.

    This is not his argument.

    Evidence of God is different then therefore God.

23. colewd:
    walto,

    Who are the “real scientists”?

    Those who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Those who send rockets to Mars. Those who teach in top research institutions.

    Who are the “experts”?

    Same answer. Now you answer those.

    What do you do when “experts” disagree with the results as in the QM experiments we are discussing?

    Well, if there is no consensus and there are two equally expert groups giving different answers–which is certainly not the case in the stuff being discussed on this thread–where you have consensual science on one side and cranksville on the other–I withhold my judgment. What would you do?

    Do you claim that the “real scientists” and “experts” have their own bias they are dealing with?4 years ago I did not realize the intense bias that exists in the scientific community.

    Everybody has biases. That’s why it’s important to utilize things like double blind review and depend on the abstract methodologies used in sciences that have actually produced things like rockets to Mars, cures of diseases, weather forecasting, etc. Biases will always sneak in, but science (unlike cranks) do their best to keep them out. You fall on the crank side every time.

    Where do you think you fit against a bias meter where 0 is completely objective and 10 is your head buried in the sand?

    I have no idea, and it’s inappropriate to ask ME that question. That’s exactly the point. That’s what you’re missing–and miss on every single thread at TSZ.

24. Mung: The knowability of anything at all is evidence of God, just as the existence of anything at all is evidence of God.

    Which God?

25. colewd: This is not his argument.

    Evidence of God is different then therefore God.

    Actually, Mung didn’t offer any argument at all. He offered an assertion with no argument to back it up. An assertion made without argument can be dismissed without argument.

26. walto,

    Well, if there is no consensus and there are two equally expert groups giving different answers–which is certainly not the case in the stuff being discussed on this thread–where you have consensual science on one side and cranksville on the other–I withhold my judgment. What would you do?

    So Max Tegmark and John Wheeler are cranks ville. It seems you don’t understand the arguments that are going on. Your superficial methodology is keeping you in the dark.

    Biases will always sneak in, but science (unlike cranks) do their best to keep them out. You fall on the crank side every time.

    Philosophical and methodological naturalism designs a clear bias into science.

    It fortunately does not surface until you hit roadblocks that are hard to explain solely with materialist explanations like DNA and the behavior of photons.

    In every day science like semiconductor research and cancer research this problem does not exist and the scientific method works well.

    You fall on the crank side every time.

    To you I am sure I seem like a crank. To me you seem to be highly biased based on you worldview but thats what makes a market. Your stick about listening to experts appears to be about your desire to indoctrinate others into your worldview. I know that you said you don’t care about others worldview so I will take this at face value but your arguments seem inconsistent.

    I have no idea, and it’s inappropriate to ask ME that question. .

    Fair enough.

27. colewd: So Max Tegmark and John Wheeler are cranks ville.

    No I don’t think they are cranks. But Ron Garret is, apparently.

    And, if you didn’t know, Wheeler is famous for laughing at parapsychology and its advocates.

28. walto,

    And, if you didn’t know, Wheeler is famous for laughing at parapsychology and its advocates.

    I see lots of laughing and mocking but little detailed criticism of the experiment J-Mac posted.

29. colewd:
    walto,

    I see lots of laughing and mocking but little detailed criticism of the experiment J-Mac posted.

    You just told me I should like Wheeler. Now it turns out you don’t, whenever he disagrees with you, anyhow. Furthermore, you’ve completely ignored every criticism made of those “experiments.”

    That’s what I’m talking about. It’s what you always do. You’re like intensified bias baked into a person.

30. colewd: I see lots of laughing and mocking but little detailed criticism of the experiment J-Mac posted.

    Atoms are designed.

31. walto,

    You just told me I should like Wheeler. Now it turns out you don’t, whenever he disagrees with you, anyhow. Furthermore, you’ve completely ignored every criticism made of those “experiments.”

    I think Wheeler is top notch. I attended many classes in a building named after him.
    He died 10 years ago so I think he is not around to critique the experiment that J-Mac referenced.

    So your conclusion is Wheeler laughed at parapsychology so we should ignore all experimental findings in this area going forward.

    Furthermore, you’ve completely ignored every criticism made of those “experiments

    How did you come up with this conclusion?

    Let me be clear. I think you’re “relying on the experts” comments as evidence for something we cannot experimentally verify is extremely misguided.

    Especially when the evidence is forced into the same box (materialism) that failed to verify the findings in the first place.

32. colewd:
    walto,

    I think Wheeler is top notch.I attended many classes in a building named after him.
    He died 10 years ago so I think he is not around to critique the experiment that J-Mac referenced.

    So your conclusion is Wheeler laughed at parapsychology so we should ignore all experimental findings in this area going forward.

    How did you come up with this conclusion?

    Let me be clear.I think you’re “relying on the experts” comments as evidence for something we cannot experimentally verify is extremely misguided.

    Especially when the evidence is forced into the same box (materialism) that failed to verify the findings in the first place.

    I love that you think that you are the unbiased party here. It’s classic. Have you responded to the criticisms in this thread, other than to make ad hominem attacks on the partiality of the critics? You have not. Not a single word. Wheeler is a distinguished physicist. You are not in a position to cherrypick his stuff. But, again, that’s just what you do. Little else.

33. Kantian Naturalist: Sorry, but both the epistemological and metaphysical claims here are false.

    True and false are evidence for God.

34. walto: I love that you think that you are the unbiased party here.

    It pains me to see that you cannot tell how just how unbiased I am. 🙂

35. OMagain: Atoms are designed.

    That’s the spirit!

36. Kantian Naturalist: Actually, Mung didn’t offer any argument at all.

    🙂

    He offered an assertion with no argument to back it up.

    I was mimicking walto, in case you failed to notice.

    An assertion made without argument can be dismissed without argument.

    Any assertion can be dismissed without argument.

    An assertion made without argument can be dismissed without argument.

    Say you, making an assertion without any supporting argument. I say you are mistaken. I say that to make an assertion is to make an argument.

37. walto,

    Have you responded to the criticisms in this thread, other than to make ad hominem attacks on the partiality of the critics? You have not. Not a single word.

    I am trying to understand the experiments and I am reading all comments not just J-Macs. There has been very little critique

    When the critics make high level ad hominem attacks, I do ignore them. So should you, as you are a trained philosopher.

    I do not consider pointing out bias ad hominem but correct me if I am wrong about this.

    So far the only technical answer I have seen is from Gordon and he did not have any detail to his answer on the parapsychology experiment.

38. colewd: There has been very little critique

    That’s just not true. At least three posters have provided significant critiques. All there has been in response is proud ear-plugging by J-Mac and bias sniffing by you.

39. colewd: I do not consider pointing out bias ad hominem but correct me if I am wrong about this.

    You are wrong about this. Dismissing arguments on the basis that the person who makes them is biased, rather than on the virtue of the arguments themselves, is an ad hominem attack.

40. FMM,
    I’m sure both myself and the Vatican physicists would love to hear how the trinity explains quantum collapse phenomena. Perhaps you could even start an OP on it.

41. Rumraket: Cool story bro.

    I think so.
    😉
    peace

42. walto: So what the hell is the difference? They want to believe, so they believe. They don’t care what makes sense or good science.

    Actually I care deeply what makes good sense. I also am a fan of good science. I want what I believe to correspond to good sense and good science. because I believe God is Truth.

43. walto: One side let’s actual scientists decide what is good science and the other substitutes it’s own judgments oe depends on authorities that the community of science laughs at.

    And of course “actual” scientists are the folks who agree with folks like walto.

    GlenDavidson: If one were serious about learning about God, one would go to the evidence, or come to recognize the lack thereof.

    How do we decide what counts as evidence?

    peace

44. OMagain: I’m sure both myself and the Vatican physicists would love to hear how the trinity explains quantum collapse phenomena. Perhaps you could even start an OP on it.

    I’m a little busy with another project right now having to do with patterns and weather forecasts.

    But the gist is that if the quantum collapse exists the Trinity explains it because the Trinity explains existence in general. 😉

    peace

45. walto: At least three posters have provided significant critiques.

    I have no doubt this is the case.

    What has been the response of the “scientific community” to these critiques? Have they changed their position on the wave collapse and observers?

    peace

46. fifthmonarchyman: Actually I care deeply what makes good sense. I also am a fan of good science. I want what I believe to correspond to good sense and good science. because I believe God is Truth.

    “God is truth” makes as much sense as “boogers are happiness”, but at least boogers exist

47. dazz: “God is truth” makes as much sense as “boogers are happiness”, but at least boogers exist

    I find our different perspectives on what makes “good sense” to be fascinating.

    I think that “God is Truth” makes perfect sense and “boogers are happiness” to be adolescent and nonsensical.

    What specifically makes your understanding more valid than mine?

    More importantly how can people with such radically different understandings on the nature of reality coexist and perhaps cooperate from time to time?

    peace

48. fifthmonarchyman: What specifically makes your understanding more valid than mine?

    The hilarious fact that you “support” that shit with bible quotes

49. dazz: The hilarious fact that you “support” that shit with bible quotes

    What is wrong with quoting the word of God?

    God’s word should have extra added weight when discussing God’s nature don’t you agree?

    I would certainly take your words in to account when discussing your nature.

    peace

50. fifthmonarchyman: And of course “actual” scientists are the folks who agree with folks like walto.

    No. I’ve already responded to that.