Re: Original Sin
- From: Richard Dudley <abraxalito@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:19:48 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 13, 10:08 am, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
...If it really claims that "the only possible implication of
quantum mechanics is that consciousness creates reality"
then, sorry, it's obviously wrong.
In the same sort of way as it would be obviously wrong to say
"the only possible implication of Newtonian mechanics is that
every person has a guardian angel" or "the only possible
implication of Darwinian evolution is that the Riemann hypothesis
is false".
These are not good analogies, because it's a fact that many of those
who thought about the implications of quantum mechanics for objective
reality felt that consciousness plays a fundamental role.
In the early days of QM, yes. Now that physicists have had
longer to think about it, I think that's very much a minority
view.
Is there an implication here that because its a minority view, its
more likely to be an erroneous view? If so, what are you offering in
support of this?
Of course this is a very uncomfortable
conclusion, one that contradicts the ontological worldview of
virtually all people - theist and atheist alike - and perhaps that's
why people prefer to keep that skeleton in the closet, to use another
phrase from this book.
Another possible explanation would be that QM doesn't in fact
have the implications you say it does. But I can see why you
might prefer an explanation that allows you to cast aspersions
on the motives and sincerity of those who disagree with you.
Alas. (I'd thought better of you.)
Oh, that's interesting - there's nothing here to 'see' at all. No
evidence of Dianelos 'casting aspersions' on anyone's motives. To say
people find the world view uncomfortable says nothing about anyone's
motives. To say that people would prefer to keep uncomfortable things
out of the way slurs nobody's sincerity, its just how people are. So
you are, in fact, doing what you erroneously claim Dianelos is doing -
slurring his character for 'preferring' something you've falsely
claimed for him. And no, I hadn't thought 'better' of you - its not
the first time you've committed a philosophical foul like this, and
I'm fairly sure it won't be the last (though do feel free to prove me
wrong).
Richard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Original Sin
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Original Sin
- References:
- Re: Original Sin
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Original Sin
- From: Richard Dudley
- Re: Original Sin
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Original Sin
- From: Dianelos Georgoudis
- Re: Original Sin
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Original Sin
- Prev by Date: Re: Teddy bears and prophets
- Next by Date: Re: AFK - Virgin Media (NTL) down
- Previous by thread: Re: Original Sin
- Next by thread: Re: Original Sin
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|