From Fritjof Capra…on the revealings of quantum physics.From his book, The Turning Point 1982.
The apparent similarities between the structure of matter and the structure of mind should not surprise us too much, since HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE PROCESS OF OBSERVATION, AND IN QUANTUM PHYSICS DETERMINES TO A LARGE EXTENT THE PROPERTIES OF THE OBSERVED PHENOMENA.
In atomic physics the OBSERVED phenomena can be understood only as correlations between processes of OBSERVATION and measurement, and at the end of this chain of processes lies ALWAYS IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE HUMAN OBSERVER
THE CRUCIAL FEATURE OF QUANTUM THEORY IS THAT THE OBSERVER IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY…BUT IS NECESSARY TO BRING ABOUT THE PROPERTIES.
THE ELECTRON DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES INDEPENDANT OF THE MIND, WE CAN NEVER SPEAK ABOUT NATURE WITHOUT SPEAKING ABOUT OURSELVES.
Do you agree with the above info?
I’m not a scientist, and was looking to determine the truth of whether mind and matter are linked in a significant manner at the sub-atomic level.
It seems to me that we must always bear in mind the difference between the real, material world, whatever you think that is, and our models of it. The quirkiness of quantum physics is the quirkiness of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. There are other interpretations that don’t contain so much that is so counter-intuitive, such as by David Bohm. The main problem, as I see it, with such other views is that they are not as complete as the Copenhagen so they don’t account for as much and there are loose ends. But then, there has not been nearly the amount of refinement work done on them as on the Copenhagen. After all, that interpretation is outstandingly successful in accounting for experimental outcomes so why look for another?
As a sort of example. One thing that is often pointed to as demonstrating the “reality” of the Copenhagen view is the correspondence of the Schrodinger wave model and the Heisenberg matrix model of quantum mechanics. Both models were derived from different assumptions made originally by Bohr. Mathematics is a formal, logical method of getting from a set of postulates to a conclusion so if Bohr’s set of assumptions was internally consistent and Schrodinger and Heisenberg did their math right, both answers should agree and there is nothing unusual about it.
According to the information on quantum theory in the book Modern Physics For The Engineer, Louis Ridenour, Ed. the Uncertainty Priciple can be viewed as a manifestation of the properties of the Fourier Transform with respect to time and frequency. The Fourier Transorm is a mathematical procedure for determining the frequency spectrum of a mathematical function of time. So it is at least conceivable that if an entirely different mathematical model of the material world were developed that didn’t involve Fourier Transorms, the uncertainty might not be there.
It seems far fetched to me to expect any future formulation of the nano world to be much different from quantum mechanics, but there is a tie between what we expect and what our experiments actually show. I think this is because we originate and develop the models and our experiments are guided by those models. However, we can and do use the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation to do things that have material results, like build atom smashers and big color TV tubes, so it can’t be just our minds in the final outcome.
It seems to me that we must always bear in mind the difference between the real, material world, whatever you think that is, and our models of it. The quirkiness of quantum physics is the quirkiness of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. There are other interpretations that don’t contain so much that is so counter-intuitive, such as by David Bohm. The main problem, as I see it, with such other views is that they are not as complete as the Copenhagen so they don’t account for as much and there are loose ends. But then, there has not been nearly the amount of refinement work done on them as on the Copenhagen. After all, that interpretation is outstandingly successful in accounting for experimental outcomes so why look for another?
As a sort of example. One thing that is often pointed to as demonstrating the “reality” of the Copenhagen view is the correspondence of the Schrodinger wave model and the Heisenberg matrix model of quantum mechanics. Both models were derived from different assumptions made originally by Bohr. Mathematics is a formal, logical method of getting from a set of postulates to a conclusion so if Bohr’s set of assumptions was internally consistent and Schrodinger and Heisenberg did their math right, both answers should agree and there is nothing unusual about it.
According to the information on quantum theory in the book Modern Physics For The Engineer, Louis Ridenour, Ed. the Uncertainty Principle can be viewed as a manifestation of the properties of the Fourier Transform with respect to time and frequency. The Fourier Transorm is a mathematical procedure for determining the frequency spectrum of a mathematical function of time. So it is at least conceivable that if an entirely different mathematical model of the material world were developed that didn’t involve Fourier Transorms, the uncertainty might not be there.
It seems far fetched to me to expect any future formulation of the nano world to be much different from quantum mechanics, but there is a tie between what we expect and what our experiments actually show. I think this is because we originate and develop the models and our experiments are guided by those models. However, we can and do use the predictions of the Copenhagen interpretation to do things that have material results, like build atom smashers and big color TV tubes, so it can’t be just our minds in the final outcome.
Speaking of the Uncertainty Principle … did you know that when you hit “Submit” and get a screen that says something to the effect that “THIS SCREEN IS UNAVAILABLE,” that might not be true? And as a result you double post? GRRRRRR.
Here is the most recent discussion in GQ on this topic. Basically, there is a common problem of conflating an “observation” with an “conscious observer”. This is not a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the quotes you provided, Fritjof Capra is wrong when he appeals to consciousness as being key to observation. It is not. However, “observation” is key to quantum mechanically understanding the world. In some sense “WE CAN NEVER SPEAK ABOUT NATURE WITHOUT SPEAKING ABOUT OURSELVES.” It’s the appeal to the “mind” that’s utter baloney. Quantum Mechanics does not depend on humanity any more than galactic formation depends on humanity.
As Giraffe wrote, JS Princeton as brought us the meat of the matter. An “observation” is an interaction and the quantum physics explanation for the existence of matter would be that the fundamental particles of matter are always interacting with each other, for example in a solid, a gas, or liquid. Human interaction is not in any way needed.
I will admit that i was hoping for a physicist to post saying…“Ohh yes, consciousness and sub-atomic are definately linked”, obviously, that hasn’t happened, LOL.
I feel i should have stressed that i was looking for a metaphysical viewpoint, i understand that science deals with describing the physical world…and essentially you guys have expressed that you don’t consider there to be any metaphysics in it!!
Whilst i’m not objecting that humans all receive the same image to their retinas, i’d like to make a case that what an observer sees is dependant on his past experience, his knowledge and expectations.
IOW, whilst Bohr and Bohm both would have received the same info to their retinas…their expectaions may have been different and thus their metaphysical view should be different.
Now Gents, i have unfortunately run out of time, so i’ll post my examples backing the expectation differences within a few days.
Please note that i’m not doubting your understanding of the data within the scientific framework, i am looking to go “Weird” in a metaphysical way, but strictly rational.
