Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?
- From: Alpha <omegazero2003@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
On Aug 30, 4:12 pm, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alpha <omegazero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Sat, 30 Aug 2008:
On Aug 29, 2:27 pm, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your suggested book, Quantum Enigma, makes the elementary error (from a
modern QM perspective) of talking about wave function "collapse".
The many-worlds *interpretation* that you posit is the one we should be
going with is *only* one of many interpretations, and one that makes little
practical sense to boot. It is an ooutlier interpretation.
Its popularity is but a weak comment on its truth.
Ther is no "truth" to it because it has not been verified
experimentally; it is still pie in the sky theorizing.
You might do well to learn a little more about QM interpretations, for
example:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/many-worlds-one.html
You might do well to engage in some criticcal thinking now and then!
The (historically popular) "wavefunction collapse" (so-called) theory is
_riddled_ with holes and confusions and contradictions to other known laws
and theories of science (such as Special Relativity, or cognitive science).
It is these (illusionary) contradictions, which make for such entertaining
reading, as in your suggested Quantum Enigma book. It obviously wouldn't be
nearly as entertaining a book, if it began by saying "all the paradoxes rely
on this -- unproven! -- interpretation of 'wavefunction collapse', and they
all disappear using the better-supported interpretation of 'many worlds'
instead."
Except for the historical bias, if the "collapse" interpretation and the
"many worlds" interpretation were presented side-by-side to a neutral judge,
many worlds would win the debate by a _landslide_.
You are incorrect.
I believe the answers are connected with the fact that, ultimately, the
experimenter cannot be disassociated from the experiment.
That is not true either. That claim is yet another stale legacy from the
erroneous interpretations that were popular in the early decades of QM..
And many physicists still adhere to the non-many-worlds interpretation;
your outdated POV nothwithstanding.
Let's at least leave it at this: the extremely well-tested theory of quantum
mechanics in NO WAY requires that "the experimenter cannot be disassociated
from the experiment".
That is not what the majority of AM physicist thorughout the last
century have said or thought. Leave it at that!
Yes, one historically-popular _interpretation_ of QM requires a special place
for (conscious?) observers, but the equations themselves do not mention
observers at all.
And the equations of neurons "computing" (see, for example, C. Koch's
work) do NOT mention our phenomenal experience either!!!
And there are other, also popular, QM interpretations that
do NOT require any special role for consciousness or observers.
That ain't what physicist Paul Davies has found in his review of QM
interpretations! Pardon me if I take his (and other physicists) word
for it instead of yours.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ; d...@xxxxxxxxxx
It is well known, that among the blind the one-eyed man is king.
-- Erasmus (c1465-1536)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?
- Next by Date: Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?
- Previous by thread: Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?
- Next by thread: Re: Consciousness: what's the problem?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
