Re: Original Sin

On Dec 13, 4:08 am, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
DianelosGeorgoudis wrote:
[snip]
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.

I don't think there was ever a time where most physicists worried
about the ontological implications of quantum mechanics one way or the
other. You may be right that most of them are not even aware there is
a serious ontological problem implied by quantum mechanics. In any
case the evidence that many physicists do not speak of this problem is
much weaker than the evidence that some physicists do speak of it,
even today.

[snip]

that quantum mechanics appears to imply that physical reality is *not*
observer independent, which is a polite way of saying that physical
reality is not objective.

I don't think quantum mechanics implies any such thing.

Doesn't it bother you that extremely knowledgeable physicists even
today think it does? In this context, how do you explain Wheeler's
delayed choice experiment? (The most concise explanation of that
experiment I know is to be found on the diagram on page 165 of Nick
Herberts "Quantum Reality", which you can read here by clicking on
that page here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385235690/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=delayed+choice
).

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.

Both books I have been mentioning, namely the 1987 "Quantum Reality"
and the 2006 "Quantum Enigma" were written by prominent physicists and
both agree that the problem has not been broadly exposed. To read what
the latter book writes about the "skeleton in the closet" see:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/019517559X/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=skeleton
The former book's most relevant page (page 15) is for some reason not
available for preview, so I copy it bellow:

Physicists Losing Their Grip

"No development of modern science has had a more profound impact on
human thinking than the advent of quantum theory. Wrenched out of
centuries-old thought patterns, physicists of a generation ago found
themselves compelled to embrace a new metaphysics. The distress which
this reorientation caused continues to the present day. Basically
physicists have suffered a severe loss: their hold on reality." Bryce
DeWitt, Neill Graham.

One of the best-kept secrets of science is that physicists have lost
their grip on reality.

News of the reality crisis hardly exists outside the physics
community. What shuts out the public is partly a language barrier -
the mathematical formalism that facilitates communication between
scientists is incomprehensible to outsiders - and partly the human
tendency of physicists to publicize their successes while soft-
pedalling their confusions and uncertainties.

--- end of quote.

1) Only a few of physicists worry about the ontological implications
of quantum mechanics, but these who do worry, including some of the
greatest physicists of the 20th century, found quantum mechanics
deeply paradoxical [1],

Granted, but I'll also note that great physicists who
have thought about this stuff more recently seem to be
more of the opinion that QM is weird and counterintuitive
(which it certainly is) than that it's *paradoxical*.

Can you back this up?

[snip]

3) These paradoxes are contingent on the ontological position of
scientific naturalism [2],

No, sorry, not buying that. You say the paradoxes go away
when you adopt theistic idealism; I think this is just one
of many instances in which you find your view better by
applying lower standards to it.

I am not sure what you mean by that. I think it's a fact that if one
considers that we live within a computer simulation (instead of, as
how scientific realism has it, in the physical universe as described
by science's models) then the quantum paradoxes disappear. Why?
Because a computer's simulation would simply present us with just the
phenomena that quantum theory predicts - no possibility of a paradox
there. In exactly the same way idealistic theism avoids these
paradoxes; the only difference is that now it's God and not some
computer that produces our conscious experiences.

It's rather like an
infamous quotation from William Dembski of the "intelligent
design" movement:

| You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms
| of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my
| Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not
| ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling
| mechanistic stories.

Yes, but my position includes all of science's modeling of physical
phenomena and the corresponding details, so there is no relevant
analogy I can see. I do claim though that idealistic theism can offer
non-mechanical (read psychological) explanations over and beyond
science's mechanical ones.

4) These paradoxes are so deep that, to be precise, they are not
paradoxes implied by quantum theory but by quantum observations (i.e.
by observational facts) and hence these paradoxes will remain even if
it were shown that quantum theory is incomplete or wrong.

Again, I think "paradoxes" is a misleading term here. Not
everything counterintuitive is a paradox.

No, we are talking about cases where one deduces mutually
contradictory propositions about the state of objective reality
billions of years ago depending on where we place a measuring device
today, as if what we do today were affecting objective reality's state
billions of years ago. That's certainly paradoxical. (In the context
of the delayed choice experiment the contradictory propositions are
whether the photon behaved as a particle and passed by the left or
right side of the galaxy or else behaved as a wave and passed through
the galaxy as it were.) And to my understanding that paradox does not
go away, even if one is willing to believe in the many-worlds
interpretation of quantum mechanics, because each of these worlds is
supposed to have a consistent history.

As I have stated before, I believe that the best (and perhaps only)
way to reason about ontology is to compare alternative ontological
worldviews one to one under the same set of criteria.

Let's defer this until you've shown some willingness to be
more explicit about your worldview and your claims, as per

Feel free to ask me anything you like, as long as you are able to
respond to your own question in the context of your own ontological
beliefs (assuming the question does make sense in the context of your
own ontological beliefs).
.

Relevant Pages

  • Interpreting Quantum Mechanics
    ... possible to interpret quantum mechanics. ... appeared in the last 20 years that physicists take seriously? ... Nick Herbert talks about "Quantum Reality": ... servation also dissolves the boundary between observer and observed: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... > inside quantum physics. ... What quantum reality versions (he ... > "Physicists Losing Their Grip ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... > inside quantum physics. ... What quantum reality versions (he ... > "Physicists Losing Their Grip ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... > inside quantum physics. ... What quantum reality versions (he ... > "Physicists Losing Their Grip ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
    ... > inside quantum physics. ... What quantum reality versions (he ... > "Physicists Losing Their Grip ...
    (sci.physics)