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.
swanne
reply to post by PhotonEffect
There is no subjects - only objects; for all “subjects” are nothing more than complex objects.
I don't think you understand quantum mechanics and I don't think Lanza does either. Here's a quote by a scientist who DOES understand quantum mechanics from the video I posted on page 1 that directly contradicts that claim about a conscious observer:
neoholographic
The question I have for you is how can the universe come into being if it didn't know that we would be here to observe it? Experiment after experiment shows that particles behave like a wave or particle based on whether a conscious observer will know which path information and this could occur in what we experience as the future and the past.
Going down utterly bogus roads is not science, any claims by Lanza to the contrary notwithstanding. So I agree this is not a science topic but it's metaphysics.
(observation) is "a little bad way to put it because 'observation' makes it sound like the existence of a conscious observer is somehow important to quantum mechanics and it's completely not.
That's an utterly bogus road to go down.
What an observation is, is simply bringing one system into contact with another."
Arbitrageur
I don't think you understand quantum mechanics and I don't think Lanza does either. Here's a quote by a scientist who DOES understand quantum mechanics from the video I posted on page 1 that directly contradicts that claim about a conscious observer:
Going down utterly bogus roads is not science, any claims by Lanza to the contrary notwithstanding. So I agree this is not a science topic but it's metaphysics.
In a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011, 6% of the respondents indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)".
Arbitrageur
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Sean Carroll does try to differentiate between what is established consensus science, and what is not established science but his personal opinion, and he admits his personal opinion about QM interpretation is just that, and not consensus science.
If you took a poll of quantum physicists and asked them if Sean Carrol is right about a conscious observer not being necessary to make a quantum mechanical "observation" as physicists define "observation" in that sense, I think you'd get agreement.
Edit: Actually I found a reference to such a poll:
Consciousness
In a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011, 6% of the respondents indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)".
Hopefully we can all agree that 6% is not a consensus view.edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
...., nearly 90 years after [quantum] theory's development, there is still no consensus in the
scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory's foundational building blocks. Our poll is an urgent reminder of this peculiar situation.
very few adhere to the notion that the observer plays a distinguished
physical role (for example, through a consciousness-induced collapse of the wave function).
Given the relatively strong (42%) support for the Copenhagen interpretation (see Question 12), this finding shows that support of the Copenhagen interpretation does not necessarily imply a belief in a fundamental role for consciousness. (Popular accounts have sometimes suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation attributes such a role to consciousness. In our view, this is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation.)
So physicists agree to a large extent that consciousness doesn't cause the wave function to collapse.
PhotonEffect
But if I'm to understand what you are implying, do you believe that there is no subjective experience then? If so how would you reconcile (using the scientific method) that when I stubbed my toe I experienced a pain and not an itch. Or to what degree, or that I even experienced anything at all? How would you reconcile your experience of the color orange?
neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
The particle is linked to what the conscious observer will or will not know and Sean Carroll or anyone else can't put their heads in the sand and ignore what experiment after experiment is telling us.
You really need to reverse that question. Double slit experiments can be performed in a location where no conscious observers are present, and the wave function still collapses when the observation is made by a device which lacks consciousness.
neoholographic
Why is there such an effort to try and kill consciousness and a desperate need to try to separate consciousness from the universe?
The anthropic principle is kind of a silly tautology which as the wiki says can be summarized as an elaborate way of saying
...Lanza is trying to spin this logical fallacy into a theory of everything which he calls biocentrism. This is really just a repackaging of the anthropic principle (so it’s not even original BS). So-called weak anthropic principles states that the universe must have the properties necessary for intelligent life because we exist – in any universe where there is an entity capable of asking the question, the physical laws must be compatible with such an entity. This is ultimately an unremarkable circular argument – and that’s kind of the point. The fact that the laws of the universe allow for our existence is necessary and unremarkable....
Lanza combines the lottery fallacy of the strong anthropic principle with the quantum woo of Chopra – grossly misinterpreting quantum physics in the typical way that we have encountered numerous times before. Evolution does not need an observer – there is nothing in the process of evolution, and no observation of nature that requires it. Bohr it talking about a quantum phenomenon of the collapse of the probability wave. But this does not require a literal observer, just interaction with the surrounding environment. Other particles, in other words, can serve as the “observer” – the universe can observe itself just fine without us, and we are back to the laws of nature unfolding on their own without the need of intelligent observation of guidance....
In the end Lanza’s biocentrism is a laughable mess of confusion, poor logic, misinterpretation of quantum mechanics and cosmology, and rampant egocentrism. It is egocentric in two ways – in the very concept that we humans create reality around us, and in his presumption that he has come up with a theory of everything.
en.wikipedia.org...
"if things were different, they would be different,"
which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.
The philosophers of cosmology John Earman, Ernan McMullin, and Jesús Mosterín contend that "in its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation".
Arbitrageur
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Edit to add: I noticed the paper says philosophers are also included. In my experience philosophers are liable to say anything, and if they are in the sample they could account for the 6% in which case no physicists in the poll think consciousness collapses the wave function. Unfortunately the raw data isn't provided so there's no way to confirm this
The "strong" version, ONE THAT SKIRTS THE EDGES OF PHILOSOPHY even more closely but clearly supports biocentrism, says that the universe must have those properties that allow life to develop within it because it was "obviously" designed with a goal of generating and sustaining observers. BUT WITHOUT BIOCENTRISM, THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE HAS NO MECHANISM FOR EXPLAING WHY THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE LIFE SUSTAINING PROPERTIES.
I think that the argument against free will from reductionism is just a mistake. It's a fundamental mistake. It's the idea that all explanation must be in terms of microscopic things. There's no philosophical argument in favor of that that I'm aware of. It's just an assumption. It has historical roots in how science centuries ago escaped from the clutches of the supernatural. And as I said earlier, certainly I'm opposed to any kind of modes of explanation in terms of immaterial things, in terms of abstractions, that contradict physics, but the idea that all such explanations by their very nature contradict physics is simply false….
We have to accept the physical world as we find it. We have to find the best explanations that explain it, rather than impose, by dogma, a criterion that explanations have to meet other than that they explain reality.
"Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion"
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. 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.
“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but
nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”