It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Philosophers and mystics say a lot of things, you need to be more specific. When you say that QM invalidates materialism what that means to me is that reality isn't simply made up of little billiard balls which move in predictable ways, because particles such as the electron or photon can behave like a wave with abstract mathematical properties.
In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.
QM also says that reality is non-local, meaning you can get instantaneous interactions over any distance via entanglement, which also implies that reality is capable of producing truly random events, meaning things can happen without a cause, making the universe non-deterministic.
originally posted by: neoholographic
Its no different than saying God is one or there's one consciousness under the illusion of separation.
Now to Einstein’s essential question: How are those solutions to the Schrodinger equation which do not belong to class K (for example, macro-objects) to be interpreted in physical terms? Here Einstein’s reasoning is as follows: A. When one ‘looks at’ a macro-body, it has a quasi-sharply-defined position, and it is not reasonable to invent a causal mechanism to which the ‘looking’ fixes the position.Comment:...I am still in agreement, because in this case I do not consider the appearance of the definite position or, what amounts to the same thing, its appearance as a result of the observation, can be deduced by natural laws. Einstein’s reasoning continues: B. Therefore a macro-body must always have a quasi-sharply defined position in the ‘objective description of reality’. As those ψ-functions which do not belong to class K◦cannot in principle be ‘thrown away’, and must also be in accordance with nature, the general ψ-function can only be interpreted as an ensemble description. If one wants to assert that the description of a physical system by a ψ-function is complete, one has to rely on the fact that in principle the natural laws only refer to the ensemble-description, which Einstein does not believe. What I do not agree is Einstein’s reasoning B (please note that the concept of determinism does not occur at all!)...[T]he statement ‘the particle is there’ is [to be] regarded as a ‘creation’ outside the laws of nature, even though it cannot be influenced by the observer. The natural laws only say something about the statistics of these acts of observation.
To Western thought this doctrine ‘has little appeal’, it is unpalatable, it is dubbedfantastic, unscientific. Well, so it is because our science—Greek science—is basedon objectivation, whereby it has cut itself off from an adequate understanding of theSubject of Cognizance, of the mind. But I do believe that this is precisely the pointwhere our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of blood transfusion from Eastern thought....[t]he observer is never entirely replaced by instruments; for if he were, he could obviously obtain no knowledge whatsoever.... Many helpful devices can facilitate this work ...But they must be read! The observer’s senses have to step in eventually. The most careful record, when not inspected, tells us nothing.
originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Bedlam
The fact that "this sort of thing" exists at all is, in itself, enough to provide validity. The scale size is irrelevant.
originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Bedlam
The fact that "this sort of thing" exists at all is, in itself, enough to provide validity. The scale size is irrelevant.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: neoholographic
So like I said, the mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been right all along. It's amazing that people like Plato and Parmenides could grasp these things without the scientific knowledge we have today.
But not for macroscale objects, so if this is your "Therefore, magic" moment, I hate to break it to you...this sort of thing only applies to very very small scales.
It's also sort of cognitively dissonant to be saying that scientific reality is no more, when what you're basing it on is at the bleeding edge of science. Sort of a liar's paradox, wouldn't you say?
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur
LOL, nope.
Here's from the link you quoted from.
1
: mystical 1a
2
: of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites : occult
3
: of or relating to mysticism or mystics
4
a : mysterious
b : obscure, enigmatic
c : inducing a feeling of awe or wonder
d : having magical properties
Like many words, it can mean different things. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with quantum woo or wanting magic to exist. I can say a card trick has magical properties that doesn't mean I want magic to exist as you said.
I want magic to exist.
This is what you said. Get your head out of the James Randi book of nonsense.
originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: neoholographic
True scientist know they don't know it all and look for that elusive evidence with excitement. And then there are pseudo-scientists...
originally posted by: solargeddon
I would imagine this is how the classical and quantum could be married together, just because we cannot see the interaction doesn't mean its not there, it just might not be provable, I know this is ill-sitting with our science loving friends, but I guess that's why it's called faith.
originally posted by: neoholographic
I remember just a few years ago, some were saying that biology was to wet and warm and it was impossible for quantum effects to have any meaning on a macroscopic scale. Now we're looking at things like DNA, sense of smell, bird navigation, quantum mind and more as it relates to Quantum Biology.
So what this means is what we call "reality" doesn't have any objective existence outside of the wave function until a measurement occurs. Like Schrodinger said, it's just probabilities and it only becomes real in the environment when a measurement occurs.
A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Elsevier’s Physics of Life Reviews (open access) claims that consciousness derives from deeper-level, finer-scale activities inside brain neurons.
The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.
So in the spring of 2007 when the New York Times reported that green sulphur-breathing bacteria were performing quantum computations during photosynthesis, my colleagues and I laughed. We thought it was the most crackpot idea we had heard in a long time. Closer examination of the paper, published in Nature, however, showed that something decidedly non-crackpot was going on.
Photosynthesis converts light from the Sun into chemically useful energy inside cells. In photosynthesis, particles of light called photons are absorbed by light-sensitive molecules called chromophores (“light carriers” in ancient Greek), which are arranged in a tightly bound structure called an antenna photocomplex. When a photon is absorbed, a quantum particle of energy called an exciton is generated. (An exciton isn’t a particle in the traditional sense, but it acts enough like a particle that physicists find it useful to treat it as one. Such mathematical likenesses are called “quasi-particles.”) The exciton hops from chromophore to chromophore inside the photocomplex until it arrives at the reaction center, an agglomeration of molecules that take in the exciton and transform its energy into a form that the living system can put to use to perform cellular metabolism, grow, and reproduce. The great majority of the energy used by living systems once came from photosynthesis: Every calorie that you consume came originally from excitons that hopped through the antenna photocomplex of a photosynthetic organism.
How could tiny bacteria be performing the kind of sophisticated quantum manipulations that it takes human beings a room full of equipment to perform? Natural selection is a powerful force.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam
This makes zero sense. You said:
Not some macroscale indeterminacy wherein you can think something into being the way you'd like it, which seems to be what you're dancing around.
Utter rubbish. This has zero to do with what I'm talking about. First off, there is evidence that supports a quantum mind. There was a recent discovery of vibrations in microtubules as predicted by Hameroff and Penrose.
Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness
The problem for materialist is when you open the door for Quantum Biology you can't say in the next breath that it has nothing to do with consciousness. In fact, a quantum mind would give a species a huge advantage in terms of evolution.
The fact is, there's zero evidence that supports macroealism. It's just a fantasy and I'm just glad more Scientist are looking into these things instead of burying their heads in the sand like ignorant James Randi clones. It goes onto say...
Again it isn't magic, it's simply saying, OUR REALITY IS PART OF A WHOLE AND THIS WHOLE MAY CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT STATES CAN BE PERCEIVED.
The fact is, you guys haven't refuted anything that I have said.
You use meaningless buzzwords like the Secret, quantum woo or magic. This is because you can't refute anything that's being said and scientific realism has quickly become a bigger fantasy than The Lord of the Rings.