It seems to me that the weird and wonderful world of quantum mechanics has been telling us something very profound about ourselves and the universe we live in, and that is, materialism is wrong and ‘mind’ or ‘spirituality’ is what drives the universe. I can say this based on the many experiments that have been done which contradicts positivism and supports an observer-based perspective that places observers at the center of reality, not matter. Without intelligent observers the universe, as we know it today, would simply not exist since all the scientific/mathematical models of it would not exist. Notice I used the word ‘created’ (and this is an important point) because it is via an act of ‘creation’ on our part that the gooey, fuzzy, indeterministic waves of probabilities take on focused forms such as electrons, protons, positrons and all the rest of such entities in the sub-atomic ‘zoo.’ It’s as if we cast a net of a certain mesh with which to gather information and get back whatever ‘fits’ the size of mesh while using another mesh will produce different data that, again, is a suitable fit for the size of mesh. So, it is the act of measurement (or observation) that is driving our picture of reality, not a pre-existing fixed set of conditions, awaiting us to stumble across it and it’s consciousness, or ‘mind’ that drives it all. Whatever we ‘observe’ is disturbed and changed and this process has been going on for as far back as people have been asking question about the world about us and has increased apace since the scientific method was formalized, but now the quantum world has clearly shown us it is us, not the material world, that drives reality since the material world is only an insubstantial ‘fuzzy’ set of probality waves which, without our participation, would have no objective meaning.
And the debate is…?
Rebuttal: nope.
Our description of it would not exist, but that could be said of anything that humans wrote.
The universe would exist, because ‘observers’ don’t need to be intelligent to collapse a quantum state. A particle colliding with another particle ‘observes’ it in the process.
Interesting articles but they did not seem to want to address the paradoxical results of the many experiments which have been performed which clearly show that a positivist interpretation of quantum mechanical behavior is impossible.
Why? Well, we are told that quantum objects exist as ‘probability waves.’ Now, probability waves are not ‘real’ waves at all but are really mathematical constructions with which to predict behavior. So, the question then is where do such mathematical devices originate from? The inescapable answer is: from the human mind, or put another way, consciousness. So, what is being said is that particles exist as probability waves, which are just mathematical concepts and not physical entities at all! When measured, a probability wave will ‘collapse’ to a ‘physical entity’ so here we have a situation where a mathematical idea (i.e. probability waves) becomes something we call ‘real’ and ‘physical.’ Put briefly, our ideas generate the ‘real’ world.
In variations of the double-slit experiment an experimenter is able to manipulate the experiment to cause a particle/wave to alter its state to one or other depending on what happens in its future, so here we have a retroactive effect which seems to defy common-sense. The role of the observer is always considered irrelevant because traditionally, science has taken the view that things are ‘separate’ and do not effect one another, leading to an ‘objective’ view of the world and the problem is this kind of approach has been carried over to the study of sub-atomic particles, etc. but has been shown to be innapropiate and completely wrong. An attempt to cling on to the positivist view of the world fuels the kinds of critical articles you have cited but the problem is such attitudes never provide solutions to experimental results science has garnered over many years because many people are simply unable to give up their classical model of how reality works. For example, there are still scientists who continue to look for ‘hidden variables’ in trying to account for the strange behavior of entangled particles, yet such explanations have been shown to be impossible because the idea of ‘locality’ itself is an illusion, as proved by John Bell through statistical analysis in the 1960’s.
To say that quantum behavior is simply part of the natural world (as many people do) doesn’t help because it seems to be trying to ‘sweep the problem under carpet’ by accepting it yet simultaneously not really understanding it. And simply attaching labels to quantum phenomena and pretending to understand is is equally futile and avoids asking the really interesting questions.
The problem is what you are describing are in themselves human concepts which simply would not have been about before intelligent observers. So how could a particle make an ‘observation?’
Correct.
The opening post is a demonstration of how easy it is to completely misunderstand things such as the Heisenberg principle, and why it’s tragically idiotic,that the common way quantum mechanics is described is so insanely stupid.
Physicists need to STOP declaring that the observation of a wave particle “causes” the quantum field to collapse into one state or another. It’s that kind of semantics that leads to nonsense like this thread.
Human concepts about the universe are descriptive, not prescriptive. Otherwise, we’d have had trouble keeping things on the ground before Newton and his apple.
How can you be certain about that?
Witnessing, one presumes.
This does not seem to address any of my points while simply dismissing them all.
A reasoned argument would have been better.
Sorry, it could be me, but this is a bit vague.
<Kicks a stone>
I refute it thus.
It’s you.
And what calculations lead you to this conclusion?
If you can’t do calculations with quantum mechanics, then you can’t do anything with quantum mechanics. Yes, I know that this is frustrating. Most of physics really can be understood intuitively, and with a sufficiently-developed intuition, one can come up with useful results, at least qualitatively, without calculation. And it’s understandable that this lures people to think they can do the same with quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, we can’t. Nobody, not even Nobel-winning physicists who did their greatest work in quantum mechanics, has an intuitive understanding of it, and hence any attempt at intuitive work in quantum mechanics is doomed to failure.
Here are a few quotes from some of the leading physicists of the 20th century:
Max Planck, Nobel Prize for Physics, and the inventor of Quantum Mechanics:
*“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”*
Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Prize for Physics:
*“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”
“The observing mind is not a physical system.”
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”*
Max Born, Nobel Prize for Physics:
“There are metaphysical problems which cannot be disposed of by declaring them meaningless. For, as I have repeatedly said, they are ‘beyond physics’ indeed and demand an act of faith. We have to accept this fact to be honest. There are two objectionable types of believers: those who believe the incredible and those who believe that ‘belief’ must be discarded and replaced by ‘the scientific method.’”
Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize for Physics:
“I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won’t get us very far.”
John von Neumann, leading mathematician and physicist, with major contributions in dozens of different scientific fields:
“There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn’t.”
I’m not quoting all these scientists to present an ‘argument from authority’, but to show that some serious people who made important contributions to our scientific knowledge did not subscribe to materialism.
We describe the universe because it exists, not the other way around.
Without question or doubt, experts in their field. Not a single one, however, an expert in modern neurology.
…and your point is?
If modern neurologists have any explanation for consciousness that would be quite some news.
The empty brain
By Dr Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology in California, and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
***Your brain does not process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your brain is not a computer ***
Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?
Philosophers and scientists have been at war for decades over the question of what makes human beings more than complex robots
The more we look at the brain, the less it looks like a device for creating consciousness. Perhaps philosophers will never be able to solve the mystery.
I was taught quantum on the Copenhagen Interpretation, and it was specifically stated that this interpretation puts the observer on a pedestal of sorts.
I’ve since learned that there are more than one ways of viewing quantum. Some of these have been discussed in other threads of the OP’s. Many worlds and pilot wave were mentioned a few days ago, but Abashed has oped a lot of threads lately, so I can’t remember which. (Aside: It is nice to see Abashed post here- s/he has lots of questions, which is only natural when first exploring these ideas. I sense that these questions are posed in good faith, based on Abashed’s responses.)
I saw a nice discussion by Penrose, where he lays bare the problems of taking Copenhagen too far and requiring consciousness to make quantum work at all. I’ll try to reproduce it as best I can.
There are exoplanets, and presumably there are some with atmosphere, but no life (or at least no sufficiently conscious life). If we were to visit that planet, we might find patterns of weather. (actually, this has already happened for us , at least on Mars and Titan, and could be said to apply to any feature we have seen on any moon or planet we have looked at.) These large structures a presumably affected in some way by the numerous quantum ‘decisions’ at play, especially weather, which is a chaotic system, very sensitive to tiny changes.
This is all happening without any conscious observers. Or you must imagine that the planet is a blank slate, waiting for an observer before it can have any weather patterns or features. While quantum is weird, that one is a heavy lift, and the many worlds interpretation becomes a bit less heavy after contemplating that.