According to the most successful theory of physics – quantum mechanics – nothing really happens in the physical world unless a conscious mind observes it.
A reality independent of observation doesn’t exist.
Particles don’t exist (they are waves) unless someone conscious looks at them or takes a measurement of them.
If Cosmic Consciousness is responsible for the nature of reality then all the materialistic theories, like the origins of life, mindless evolution etc. should be scrapped, shouldn’t they? Unless materialistic, unfounded belief system supersedes scientific facts…
Please.
Kantian Naturalist,
Per Wiki
And you think it follows from this that there’s a ‘cosmic consciousness? Gotta learn that logic thing.
walto,
This is what I was specifically addressing with KN.
Do you understand J Mac’s claim? Do you understand what he means by cosmic consciousness?
I don’t think that anyone understands what the phrase “cosmic consciousness” means, and that includes you and J-Mac. It’s just two words that make you feel special inside when you put them together. It doesn’t mean anything at all, so there’s nothing there to be understood.
Kantian Naturalist,
Didn’t make me feel special inside. Darn it:-(
A definition would at least help me understand the op better.
I doubt it.
Here’s one: “cosmic consciousness (defined as “synoptic vision of the world as a whole”)”
https://tinyurl.com/ycal6y3e
Actually, I think even that’s somewhat off from what is meant in the op (which is a sort of “god,” I suspect), but either way a definition is going to be made up of a combination of terms that lack much meaning separately (that is, as used by the believers), and have none in combination.
Glen Davidson
Bill’s a born synoptimist. Sees the glass filled 200%.
That’s my hunch, too.
It doesn’t matter to me what cosmic consciousness means exactly…
All I know, as well as the majority of experts in the field know it as well, that behind consciousness there is always a mind…
Cosmic Consciousness = Cosmic Mind
The great majority of scientists in the field of quantum physics and consciousness who realize this very fact have a very hard time acknowledging it because of the preconceived ideas enforced and bullied by materialists…
Hah! They all know it, they just won’t acknowledge it publicly! Sneaky bastids those physicists.
My brother Paul is one, I’m gonna out him!
Yeah, if they were just as open-minded and intellectually honest as creationists, their intellectual output would be as impressive as that of creationists.
Makes you think…
Glen Davidson
Hah! They all know it, they just won’t acknowledge it publicly! Sneaky bastids those physicists.
My brother Paul is one, I’m gonna out him!
I know, right? I mean he did OK
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Horn_(computer_scientist)
But think if I’d just outed him sooner! He might have had as many OPs here as J-Mac and Byers combined.
Anyhow, this doesn’t really surprise me about him. He always was a sneaky bastid and was probably a closet creationist the whole freaking time! X>{
Seems you got experts in the field mixed up with
I’d advise you read my comment again…
This is not necessary for GD…lol
What did you mean to say?
Sorry, but you’ve been sold a load of hogwash by some silly video made by someone who doesn’t understand what measurement is.
To say it one more time: the collapse of a wave function only requires that a measurement be taken. It doesn’t require consciousness or mind or anything like that. If the measurements were taken by robots that had no thought, awareness, or intentionality, the wave function would still collapse.
Or making quantum computers would be much easier than it actually is.
Glen Davidson
KN said:
You’re a pretty smart fella, KN. Surely you can recognize the problem with the above statements, both functionally and philosophically? Surely you realize that “measurement” cannot exist, functionally, semantically or philosophically, without the involvement of consciousness?
KN said:
Isn’t “meaning” individual? Isn’t “understanding” also individual? Are you saying it doesn’t mean anything to you, so you don’t understand the term? Surely you’re not claiming the term doesn’t mean anything to J-Mac?
Of course it can. There only needs to be a machine that quantifies over a range of intensive or extensive magnitudes. The fact that the machine itself needs to be built by some intelligent being (so far as we know) doesn’t change the underlying fact that if the measurement of the particle’s position were being taken by a machine, then under the Copenhagen Interpretation, it would be the machine that’s causing the wave-function to collapse.
The point here is that under the Copenhagen Interpretation itself, there’s nothing special about consciousness. J-Mac insists that consciousness is special under the Copenhagen Interpretation, but he’s just wrong. That’s not what the view is. The view is that what’s special is measurement, with the distinction drawn between the system that’s being measured and the system that’s doing the measuring. But the line between those two is essentially arbitrary. It could be drawn anywhere: between the particles and the equipment, between the equipment and the technician, between the technician and the physicist, between the physicist’s eye and the physicist’s brain.
That, at any rate, is a criticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation as developed by David Albert. I’m afraid I’m more inclined to trust a leading philosophers of physics than someone who made a YouTube video with some cute graphics.
I don’t think that meaning or understanding are individual. I think that language is a social process and understanding is a social achievement. I think that understanding comes in degrees, and the highest point of understanding is the ability to teach someone else. I think that if you can’t explain to someone else what you claim to understand, then you don’t really understand it.
What KN doesn’t get, or chooses not to, is what causes the collapse is knowledge. And knowledge requires a knower. Plain and simple.
Obviously many materialists and physicists try to deny this fact and the philosophical conclusion that it leads to because of metaphysical prejudice. But their stubborn denial and prejudice doesn’t make the facts wrong.
You can believe that if you want, but that is not what the physics says. “Knowledge” is not a term that appears in the equations of quantum mechanics. It’s a metaphysical gloss that you’re insisting on putting on the science. You can do that if you want, but “following the evidence wherever it leads” is precisely what you are not doing.
If that were the case, then there would an experimental confirmation that the Copenhagen Interpretation is right and Bohmian mechanics is wrong. But there isn’t. We don’t have (at least not yet) an experiment showing that Bohmian mechanics is false. My understanding is that it’s still an open question whether Bohmian mechanics is compatible with violations of Legget’s inequality.
He’d first need to understand the evidence, science.
Glen Davidson
Probably somebody has provided this link already, but just in case, here’s a quick discussion of what contemporary physicists and philosophers of physics think of this “consciousness solution”–and why they have that attitude.
http://bigthink.com/videos/the-physics-of-thought
Unless you are going to make a case that measuring machine can be produced without any conscious involvement, then you are not responding to my question. I said said “involvement”, not “cause”. You claimed that the collapse doesn’t “require” consciousness; perhaps it does not in terms of the proximate cause, but I don’t think there’s any way to establish that consciousness as a distal cause is “not required”.
And that’s without even getting into the issues that non-locality and entanglement bring up in terms of proximate causation.
The line is only arbitrary if you ignore the obvious distal cause; no machine measurement would be taking place at all, nor would any concept of measurement exist, without the involvement of a consciousness.
Or, you could dispense with “trusting” what others say and think it through in a civil discussion for yourself.
So, is it the consciousness of the measuring that causes the collapse or the consciousness involved in the construction of the measuring device, perhaps decade ago? Are you saying that either does the trick?
walto,
Why does this matter?
“Physics” does not say anything. What says things about physics are scientists and others who have interpreted the data according to various paradigms. Surely you recognize this. There are all sorts of ways to interpret data, some of which are non-materialistic.
Perhaps J-Mac is “following the evidence” via a different interpretive framework. If one interprets the data from one perspective, the evidence may lead to one set of conclusions; from another perspective, it may lead to another conclusion. Physics provides no one with instructions on how to interpret; those instructions are written in the consciousness of the observer in line with their particular paradigms.
“Follow the evidence,” ultimately, can only mean “Interpret the evidence from a perspective.”
William J. Murray,
TSZ is addicted to the ad populum fallacy.
Well, when considering the known effects we call “quantum entanglement,” I’m not sure any distance in time and space matters wrt the idea of collapse due to consciousness. Certainly, there’s no way (that we know of now) to assert that consciousness “is not required,” at least in terms of distal cause, which KN seemed to do.
But in that sense consciousness is a “distal cause” of all science, so there’s nothing special about quantum mechanics.
Wouldn’t actually have to be any measurement then, would there?
Right. Or measurement either.
Well if you don’t care why you’re mistaken (and you obviously don’t), it doesn’t. So carry on!
Then, since I have no idea what you mean by the above, does that mean you don’t really understand what you are talking about? Obviously, you mean that based on a few short sentences about a term or subject, without asking that person to further explain what they mean, you can make that determination, since that is what you did with J-Mac’s statements above. Correct?
It was pointed out to you some time ago that appealing to the considered views of the relevant experts is not an ad populum fallacy. It would seem that the ad populum fallacy is not something you understand.
Ad populum fallacy: “Most voters believe that trickle-down economics works, therefore it does work.”
Not ad populum fallacy: “Most economists believe that trickle-down economics works, therefore it is reasonable to believe that it does work.”
Notice that even if that were true, then just because one can find a few economist do believe it doesn’t work doens’t mean that it’s reasonable for non-economists to believe that it doesn’t work.
At stake here is the question, “under what conditions is it reasonable for non-experts to accept the views of the consensus of experts?”
If the answer is “never”, it is never reasonable to appeal to the consensus of experts as a reason for one’s belief, then one is effectively denying that there’s any epistemic authority to expertise.
The position that immediately follows is anti-intellectualism: the anti-intellectual is the person who says that my ignorance is equal to your knowledge.
walto,
Not sure what I am mistaken about. But your bald assertion is duly noted:-)
I think we’d have to unpack what you mean by that question a bit more. It seems like you’re asking me, “Is the presence of consciousness, unfocused on any particular subatomic state in terms of measuring it directly or indirectly (through a machine), enough to collapse that particular quantum potential into a defined location/state? Is that correct?
Kantian Naturalist,
As a piece of an argument I agree with you. Never is not what I am talking about. But to point to experts and not understand the content of the discussion is worse then having no opinion at all.
You would have to determine that the (majority) experts are without bias which is impossible if you don’t understand the content. Philosophical materialism carries with it a heavy bias when interpreting data. .
I am not sure J-Mac is right but I am grateful for his ideas.
I am also grateful to you challenging his ideas.
Kantian Naturalist,
The problem, KN, is that history is stacked high with consensus views of experts that have been demonstrated erroneous or significantly incomplete. Besides the various “expert consensus” views we currently have, literally every prior expert consensus has been demonstrated either entirely wrong or incomplete. There’s really not much reason to hold that our current views will not either be considered wrong or incomplete at some future date.
Let me ask you this: are all your views entirely framed within the consensus views of established experts?
Sure ok,. Really any rational interpretatIon of it is fine with me.
So let’s hear it!
Crackpots have an even worse record.
Let me ask you why you think studying a field for many years is irrelevant to knowing something about it? What is the crank substitute for peer review–just knowing you’re always right?
Expertise–and the dangers implicit in thinking it doesn’t matter:
https://m.barnesandnoble.com/p/the-death-of-expertise-tom-nichols/1122713126/2679732236735?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_New+Marketplace+Shopping+Textbooks_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP164989&gclid=Cj0KCQjw5qrXBRC3ARIsAJq3bwoeOxssJHrHApkz6cjir3DtpGHnTnms_Sur9eWpFs2qhOfKAmCn9CAaAiruEALw_wcB
Yes they do, but there are quite a few examples of people called “crackpots” by the mainstream consensus at the time whose views later became the consensus. All I’m pointing out that dismissing someone else’s views and interpretation by referring to consensus, expert interpretations in discussions like these does nothing to advance the discussion; IMO it only serves as a means to stop the discussion.
If KN is trusting what he thinks the consensus view is in lieu of spending the mental energy to think it out for himself or engage in a discussion about it, then what’s the point of having a discussion? Just to say, “Ha, experts say you’re wrong, I’m right, so there!” ?
Geocentrism was erroneous. Yet it was way better than flat earthism.
We have science because much of it is significantly incomplete.
Mostly it hasn’t been entirely wrong, and backs of giants and all that.
We can hope.
Glen Davidson
Oh please, colewd erroneously played the Galileo card, by confusing argumentum ad populam with argumentum ad verecundiam, and KN simply noted the value of experts.
Courts depend on them, science depends on them. And they can be wrong. But if you’re going to argue with the experts, at least you should understand the issues very well. Which is rare when people start in with the same stupid “experts can be wrong” tripe that crops up over and over again.
Glen Davidson
Depends on what the “something” is, and what the claimed “knowledge” about that something is, and also how that knowledge is framed. In terms of this discussion, there appears to be (in my readings) no consensus on what consciousness is or how it is produced, much less what relationship it may have with the physical world, so the blanket assertion that consciousness “is not required” for the collapse of the wave function even though consciousness appears to be at least a distal necessity makes that claim, even by consensus experts, highly suspect.
If challenging that view makes me a crank or a crackpot, so be it. I’ve been called far worse than that. I don’t see the harm in having the discussion, though.
GlenDavidson,
I don’t think a thorough understanding of the science is necessary to identify errors of reasoning or logic in the interpretation of the data, any more than one requires a thorough understanding of the science to identify procedural errors in the research methodology or find an error in the math.