# Why Scientific Realism might be false?

## Recommended Posts

Finally, why censor different ways of thinking?

Censorship is typical of religious zealots who cannot accept that their religious views are wrong.

Science is based on debate and peer-review. The rejection of nonsense is a logical consequence.

• Replies 309
• Created

#### Popular Posts

One looks to the "experts"... but only find one author. One looks to the html page and finds that the paper has not been published. One looks to the content and one find gems such as:     It is ne

Carl Jung was just as quacky as his teacher Freud.

The only thing close to immortal here, is this thread. I say "close" because somebody refuses to accept that it (the thread) died many pages ago when the initial claims were shown to be lacking in ev

Thank you! Let me add that I think that you would also change "I don't speak likes" by "I don't speak lies".

Oh boy, oh girl, oh me, oh my... now how in the world did I miss that one too? (hee, hee, hee... as though to insinuate that it were strange for me to make such mistakes in my typing and spelling in general) Thanks for the heads up. I find, sadly, that I can no longer edit that post.

Immortal, I am still waiting for your answers, rather than very, very unrelated quotes stuck in a post which says nothing to deny what the quote actually presents. You have some work to do. You will need to go out and bring a bit of hard, cold evidence back and put it on the barrelhead here. I am waiting.

##### Share on other sites

Immortal, I am still waiting for your answers, rather than very, very unrelated quotes stuck in a post which says nothing to deny what the quote actually presents. You have some work to do. You will need to go out and bring a bit of hard, cold evidence back and put it on the barrelhead here. I am waiting.

Yes, immortal also took a quote from mine out of context, ignored any question that I did to him in the message from where he got the quote and used the quote at the start of his new preaching to give the appearance (to outsiders) that he is debating with us. It was all so obvious that I did not even mention this in my above reply.

##### Share on other sites

I am desperate to keep this thread alive? or you are desperate to undermine the sound arguments of Bernard D'Espagnat because of your personal bias? A recent paper was cited blindly believing that it refutes Bernard's position but that didn't worked out, a textbook was cited to undermine Bernard's arguments and that failed and you say I am desperate to keep this thread alive, I thought this thread was kept alive by asking a series of Why?... Why? questions which I have addressed to it every time.

Of course this is a zombie thread because zombies shatter your cornerstone beliefs and that's what this thread is about. It shows physicalism is dead. I have no contempt towards the existence of zombies which is a routine reality in many different cultural corners of the world.

The Zombie from Myth to Reality: Wade Davis, Academic Scandal and the Limits of the Real

Philosophical zombies raise problematic counterexamples for various positions in metaphysics. These zombies are respirating, fully functional persons in every sense except that they lack subjective states (that is, consciousness). They look and act like everyone else, but have no thoughts, feelings or interior life of any kind. [They] are technically alive, but there is a sense in which they 'shouldn't' be: their existence…presents a troubling paradox that threatens to upset our most deeply held convictions about what it means to be alive in the first place. See R Greene and KS Mohammad (eds) The Undead and Philosophy (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2006), at xiv-xv.

Its funny how scientists sit inside their laboratories and laugh at the notion of zombies rather than doing field work which shows what is reality and how nature really is.

The above link shows that what I am saying in that message is that I am using certain formulations of quantum mechanics in my research work. Moreover, I cite therein L. Ballentine textbook, Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development for details about those formulations of quantum mechanics.

As said earlier L.Ballentine makes an assumption that quantum mechanical formalism should only be applied to identically prepared ensemble of systems but it has been shown that the quantum wavefunction applies to indivisible quantum systems like an individual electron.

The particles in particle physics are not billiard balls. Why do you insist again on confounding reality with classical reality?

Then there is no justification in classifying and attributing them as elementary and composite particles of the standard model.

The discussion of the exact definition of myth is irrelevant, the important part is that the author clearly states that QM is perfectly compatible with realism.

here you quote in bold face something said to you before, that in older interpretations of QM it was incorrectly believed that the human observer had some special role. Why do you repeat what was said to you?

The foundational problems in the formulation of quantum mechanics have not been resolved yet and all evidence indicate that working scientists should give up the realistic philosophy or that the empirical reality exists independent of the human mind.

Of course, as the same author correctly concludes, human observers do not play any special role in QM.

No, its not. Zurek the leading theorist of quantum decoherence recognizes that the ultimate solution to the problem of measurement must involve "a model for the conscious observer". This is where science inevitably need to resort into studying religion.

Bernard is so right that his main award is a pseudo-religious prize awarded to nonsensical work.

LoL, Bernard D'Espagnat was always way ahead of everyone and he has once again shown that by accurately establishing the Bell experiments and its implications that when it comes to theoretical physics there can be no one more rigid than Bernard D'Espagnat. He is absolutely right.

STATEMENTS FROM SCIENTISTS ON BERNARD d'ESPAGNAT WINS 2009 TEMPLETON PRIZE

Alain Aspect, Ph.D. – Professor and CNRS Senior Scientist, Ecole Polytechnique and Institut d'Optique, Palaiseau, France

In 1974, at a time when it was not fashionable to work on the foundations of quantum mechanics, I learned from Bernard d'Espagnat many subtleties about the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem, Bell's inequalities, and quantum non-locality. This played a crucial role in my decision to embark on an experimental program to test Bell's inequalities. More generally, his books addressed to physicists as well as to the general public have greatly contributed to focusing attention on quantum weirdness, and have emphasized its importance both for epistemology and for science. Without visionary thinkers like Bernard d'Espagnat, the field of quantum information would certainly not have emerged as it did. I am happy to congratulate him and to have this opportunity to tell how much I owe him.

Nicolas Gisin, Ph.D . – Director of the Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, Switzerland

I have great pleasure in congratulating Bernard d'Espagnat for his well deserved 2009 Templeton prize. His early recognition of the groundbreaking role of "non-local entanglement" for our world view and his contribution to the studies of the foundations of quantum physics have had a profound impact on the entire field. It is fair to say that his leading role triggered the experimental work on Bell's inequality that took place in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in France, Austria and Switzerland. Today's experimental and conceptual worldwide research efforts in exploring quantum nonlocality owe a great deal to d'Espagnat's early contributions.

Brian Greene, Ph.D. – Professor, Mathematics and Physics, Columbia University

Quantum mechanics is the most accurate theory of nature ever devised. There's never been a single experimental result that's contradicted its predictions; indeed, some of these predictions regarding subatomic particles have been confirmed to better than ten decimal places. Such phenomenal success stands in stark contrast to the many mysteries regarding what quantum mechanics tells us about the true nature of the cosmos. Bernard d'Espagnat is among a small coterie of courageous thinkers who over the course of many decades has worked tirelessly to meld scientific and philosophical insights to reveal the full wonder of quantum reality.

Sir Anthony Leggett, D. Phil. – John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor of Physics, University of Illinois; 2003 Nobel Prize in Physics

I would like to congratulate Bernard d'Espagnat on his receipt of the 2009 Templeton Prize. In an era when, as John Bell put it, "the typical physicist feels that (the questions of quantum measurement) have long been answered, and that he will fully understand just how if he can ever spare twenty minutes to think about it," d'Espagnat was one of the small group of physicists to appreciate how flawed were all the standard arguments for that conclusion, and to emphasize the profound philosophical implications of the predictive success of quantum mechanics. He realized from early on the crucial importance of Bell's work, and has for decades labored tirelessly to get its message across both to the physics community, as in his beautiful book Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and his 1979 Scientific American article, and to the general public in a series of other books. When we look back on the early days of what are now recognized as the eminently respectable disciplines of quantum foundations and quantum information, we see how far ahead of his time d'Espagnat has been.

William D. Phillips, Ph.D. – Laser Cooling and Trapping Group, Atomic Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S.A.; 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics

Entanglement is one of the key features of quantum mechanics, one that most sets it apart from classical physics—our pre-twentieth century description of how the universe works. Bernard d'Espagnat was a key figure in providing a mature understanding of both the scientific and philosophical implications of entanglement, a phenomenon so counterintuitive that it continues to intrigue 21st century physicists. D'Espagnat appreciated that entanglement not only changed our view of how physics works, but also our concept of the very nature of reality. At a time when entanglement is increasingly being put to use in the science and technology of quantum information, it is a pleasure to congratulate Bernard d'Espagnat on the occasion of his receiving the Templeton Prize, recognizing his contributions to both physics and philosophy in advancing understanding of this astounding phenomenon.

Anton Zeilinger, Ph.D. – Scientific Director, Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, and Full Professor of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria

In April 1976 I had the privilege to meet for the first time Bernard d'Espagnat at a small meeting, "Thinkshop in Physics" organized by him together with John Bell in Erice, Italy. This meeting brought together theorists, experimentalists and even philosophers interested in the newly emerging field of testing the foundations of quantum physics. D'Espagnat is one of the exceptional kind of physicists who are able to very early realize the significance of emerging fundamental concepts and ideas, in that case of Bell's theorem and entanglement. Subsequently his book, In Search of Reality, became an eye opener for me and was crucial for my interest in entanglement. Little did we know at that time that this work did also lay the foundations of quantum information science.

I must emphasize that Bernard has got it right once again its just that scientists have not realized it yet.

You continue showing that you do not know what you are writing.

He is not a mere "proponent of" but one of his originators. Popularity has a historical component because this modern approach was born in the 90s (i.e. six decades after the old Copenhagen interpretation) and is still under development by several experts including the famous Nobel Prize for physics Murray Gell-Mann (the father of the quarks) for application in sophisticated fields such as quantum cosmology. Moreover, the number of quantum cosmologists is very inferior to the number of solid state or molecular physicists. I do mean that not everyone needs to know this modern approach.

That approached was put forward to resolve this problem. Accept there is a problem in physics, don't hide or dodge it.

"measurements and observers cannot be fundamental notions in a theory that seeks to discuss the early universe when neither existed."

- Murray Gell-Mann

All evidence and proved theorems have shown that one cannot just keep aside observers and make any meaningful statements about nature, observers are an integral part of the cosmos.

As is well-known, the consistent histories interpretation is an extension/improvement of the old Copenhagen interpretation advocated by your 'experts'.

Who knows what new kind of misunderstanding is behind your abstract appeal to "no-go theorems"?

It is indeed true that decoherent histories are inconsistent.

Decoherent histories and realism

##### Share on other sites

They don't exist independent of measurements.

Maybe I'm mis-interpreting you, but wouldn't that prove that god would have needed to exist because there existed matter before there was any living things to measure it and god would need to exist to constantly measure particles so that over time they could form living things? That seems like bs to me, particles of course exist independent from measurement, in fact they exist in a specific state called superposition. I don't think particles are "just" particles and most certainly have wave-like characteristics which there is direct evidence for, but they also most certainly have physical manifestation, they would have had to because matter would have had to exist prior to life forming for conditions to be met that formed life, they propagate physical forces that have real measurable effects even when we're not looking which his why we can see light form stars that's thousands of years old.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

I am desperate to keep this thread alive?

Yes.

Its funny how scientists sit inside their laboratories and laugh at the notion of zombies rather than doing field work which shows what is reality and how nature really is.

What you write is really funny.

As said earlier L.Ballentine makes an assumption that quantum mechanical formalism should only be applied to identically prepared ensemble of systems but it has been shown that the quantum wavefunction applies to indivisible quantum systems like an individual electron.

Unrelated to what was said, therefore I will not waste time answering this.

Then there is no justification in classifying and attributing them as elementary and composite particles of the standard model.

Nonsense. Electrons and quarks are elementary particles in the Standard Model.

Zurek the leading theorist of quantum decoherence recognizes that the ultimate solution to the problem of measurement must involve "a model for the conscious observer". This is where science inevitably need to resort into studying religion.

Contrary to what Zurek believed for decades, we knew (and said to him) that decoherence alone does not explain measurement. Excelent if he is now accepting this fact. Now he needs to learn a bit more and understand why conscious observers are not needed in quantum theory.

LoL, Bernard D'Espagnat was always way ahead of everyone and he has once again shown that by accurately establishing the Bell experiments and its implications that when it comes to theoretical physics there can be no one more rigid than Bernard D'Espagnat. He is absolutely right.

STATEMENTS FROM SCIENTISTS ON BERNARD d'ESPAGNAT WINS 2009 TEMPLETON PRIZE

The own foundations claims that the Templeton prize is awarded to a person who "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works". Formerly the Prize was named the "Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion" and the "Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities".

The prize has been criticized: British biologist Richard Dawkins said in his book The God Delusion that the prize was given "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion". Sean M. Carroll criticized his colleagues for taking Templeton research grants when they did not support Templeton's beliefs. Martinus J. G. Veltman, the 1999 Nobel laureate in physics, suggested the prize "bridg[ed] the gap between sense and nonsense".

Bernard did never win any important scientific award, so far as I know he only won the pseudo-religious prize.

"measurements and observers cannot be fundamental notions in a theory that seeks to discuss the early universe when neither existed."

- Murray Gell-Mann

I have emphasized precisely this. Why do you repeat what I say to you?

All evidence and proved theorems have shown that one cannot just keep aside observers and make any meaningful statements about nature, observers are an integral part of the cosmos.

I have emphasized that observers are not anything special but part of nature. Why do you repeat what I say to you?

Who knows what new kind of misunderstanding is behind your abstract appeal to "no-go theorems"?

It is indeed true that decoherent histories are inconsistent.

Decoherent histories and realism

The answer to the above paper is found in Consistent Quantum Realism

A recent claim by Bassi and Ghirardi that the consistent (decoherent) histories approach cannot provide a realistic interpretation of quantum theory is shown to be based upon a misunderstanding of the single-framework rule: they have replaced the correct rule with a principle which directly contradicts it. It is their assumptions, not those of the consistent histories approach, which lead to a logical contradiction.

Try again

Edited by juanrga
##### Share on other sites

Maybe I'm mis-interpreting you, but wouldn't that prove that god would have needed to exist because there existed matter before there was any living things to measure it and god would need to exist to constantly measure particles so that over time they could form living things?

The correct formulation of quantum mechanics based on facts established from experiments doesn't allow you to place the events of Big Bang and the origin of life forms before the origin of observers, the observers came first and then the universe was actualized, particles don't exist out there in the physical world instead they are a reality which manifests based on the choices of our experiments and these experiments produce reality which wasn't there before and therefore it must be emphasized that reality has not been given to us as it is, the ultimate reality is Veiled.

"perhaps an unheard tree falling in the forest makes no sound after all"

- John Clauser, Bell experiments and its implications.

This is the truth of the world. Reality is only a state of mind.

The empirical reality doesn't exist independent of the human mind and this mind is the product of divine God.

That seems like bs to me, particles of course exist independent from measurement, in fact they exist in a specific state called superposition. I don't think particles are "just" particles and most certainly have wave-like characteristics which there is direct evidence for, but they also most certainly have physical manifestation, they would have had to because matter would have had to exist prior to life forming for conditions to be met that formed life, they propagate physical forces that have real measurable effects even when we're not looking which his why we can see light form stars that's thousands of years old.

The quantum states doesn't represent anything physical instead it only represents our state of knowledge or information about all possible experimental situations of the outcomes of a quantum system. The wave isn't real, it isn't out there, we need to abandon all realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. There is no quantum world, there is no absolute reality. This is a limitation of modern science that it says events in nature are completely stochastic without giving a complete description of individual events. Particles cannot have pre-assigned properties and hence they don't exist independent of the context of measurements and on the choice of the experimenter as to what to measure. Its a reality which our mind forms out of something which exists independently of the human mind. (Some say 'out of nothing' but Bernard believes that there is some mysterious underlying reality not embedded in space-time).

##### Share on other sites

The correct formulation of quantum mechanics based on facts established from experiments doesn't allow you to place the events of Big Bang and the origin of life forms before the origin of observers, the observers came first and then the universe was actualized, particles don't exist out there in the physical world instead they are a reality which manifests based on the choices of our experiments and these experiments produce reality which wasn't there before and therefore it must be emphasized that reality has not been given to us as it is, the ultimate reality is Veiled.

This is all a collection of nonsense

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/bigbang.html

http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

##### Share on other sites

I am going to be busy for awhile now here and the particular rubbish (that portion which is such) which is being passed forward by immortal is being done so with an attitude that has presented itself as being unfixable, and I have another thread (or two [at the moment) which I wish to focus my energies and time for SFN on. Over a few more posts, other than correcting for a few errors, I will simply see if I can get responsible, matture answers to some of the questions I had asked along the way here, which were not answered.

I am coming from tradition not from academic scholarly consensus. It seems rubbish to you because you only study the exoteric side of religion rather than focusing on the esoteric side of religion which is the heart of every religion practised very seriously by a privileged few. As said esoteric means intelligible only to those with special knowledge.

The first thing you need to deal with, immortal, is my prime question in my post #232 linked to here which comes under the first quoted section. You need to show that is not groundless and false--which I argue it is.

In the beginning itself, right from your first post you wanted to keep aside the arguments of Bernard D'Espagnat and Kant but as I have shown already my arguments entirely rely on them and I cannot keep them aside and this is the reason why I said you are moving the goal post and going off topic.

Then, there are still outstanding questions from the 7th paragraph (under the 3rd quote) which you have not answered yet on my post #226 linked to here. I am waiting to answers to these, please.

That post was addressed right after in the next post of yours #227. I didn't evaded anything.

Then, please do take note of the better understanding, and higher in accuracy and correctness (as well as the matter of the more correct and original standard English usage of the noun form 'God') as presented below.

There is a plural noun form of God in Greek called Pleroma, there is a plural noun form of God in Hebrew called Elohim, there is a plural noun form of God called Agnisoma Mandala. English language need to adopt these words into it or one must invent a new word.

This is what you had said in your post #233. I responded to that with the following:

What I have pointed out is that the descriptive terms in the Vedanata texts of Brahman, or the systems of gods it gives, does not match that of the ancient Jewish system. This is a fact. You came back with a twisted response, as seen below:

The first thing is the matter of the source of what you had written--
since obviously it had not be you, yourself
. For the second, see below.

The Kabbala, or Cabbal tradition is far more post 11th century by any means of understanding. That some textual fragments of mysticism can only slightly likely can be said to be found by second century Jewish writers (non-Talmud and non-Mishna) in no way at all makes the largely Spanish developed theosophy ancient and exactly Jewish.(1) It is quite clear that the system was a revolt in some Jewish quarters of Medival Europe against Maimonides. That thought-up name, En Soph, is nowhere to be found in any single known ancient Hebrew scroll or fragment or manuscript extant; and neither do we find any alluding to it. It was not even a sideline sect in Second Temple Judaism. The name of the god which the ancient Jewish system published is YHWH. (I'll go into textual detail on the thread The Word God linked to here as time goes on) All the descriptrive material of that god in no way allows a match between it and the model of Brahman, or any other model. The is the fact of the matter!

As I said I am coming from tradition and tradition says something different and the fact is that traditions existed and will continue to exist to preserve the knowledge and wisdom of God.

According to traditional belief, early kabbalistic knowledge was transmitted orally by the Patriarchs, prophets, and sages (hakhamim in Hebrew), eventually to be "interwoven" into Jewish religious writings and culture. According to this view, early kabbalah was, in around the 10th century BC, an open knowledge practiced by over a million people in ancient Israel.[9] Foreign conquests drove the Jewish spiritual leadership of the time (the Sanhedrin) to hide the knowledge and make it secret, fearing that it might be misused if it fell into the wrong hands.[10] The Sanhedrin leaders were also concerned that the practice of kabbalah by Jews of the Jewish diaspora, unsupervised and unguided by the masters, might lead them into wrong practice and forbidden ways. As a result, the kabbalah became secretive, forbidden and esoteric to Judaism (Torat Ha’Sod תורת הסוד) for two and a half millennia.

According to the traditional understanding, Kabbalah dates from Eden.[15] It came down from a remote past as a revelation to elect Tzadikim (righteous people), and, for the most part, was preserved only by a privileged few. Talmudic Judaism records its view of the proper protocol for teaching this wisdom, as well as many of its concepts, in the Talmud, Tractate Hagigah, Ch.2.

Originally, Kabbalistic knowledge was believed to be an integral part of the Judaism's oral law (see also Aggadah), given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai around 13th century BCE, though there is a view that Kabbalah began with Adam.

The henotheism and the emanations of God are quite similar to other models of religion and there is nothing special about Judaism, like I said I see what you don't see.

"The universe is filled with the might and power of our God.… He formed you and infused into you the breath of life. He stretched forth the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth. His voice blows out flames of fire, rends mountains asunder, and shatters rocks. His bow is fire and His arrows flames. His spear is a torch, His shield the clouds, and His sword the lightning. He fashioned mountains and hills and covered them with grass. He makes the rains and dew to descend, and causes the vegetation to sprout. He also forms the embryo in the mother's womb and enables it to issue forth as a living being."

- Wisdom of the Talmud

The emanations of the one true God are explicitly stated in Sephirot.

Sephirot

Ein Sof

Elohim

Additionally, it is a very secure understanding that what you had presented there is not true. In light of that being the case, the author of such nonsense is either lying, or is hopelessly misled into a certain blindness towards what is securely known and understood--otherwise gross error. For one to verbatim assert that with the exact following words, "I don't speak likes," one can be expressly asserting that they do not orally communicate that a matter is such as A, while being fully and consciously aware that the matter is actually B--in other words, they do not SPEAK lies. That assertion could be held to be true while written communication would not be participating in the asserted statement. A person would not be lying (asserting a known truth to not be so) if (s)he were to assert that they did not SPEAK lies, all the while communicating lies in written form. (Because writing is not speaking) The wording, "I do not tell lies," would be a different thing, however.

Nevertheless, if a person passes along in whatever form of communication, an assertion or claim which quite fully contradicts a substantially known-to-be-so truth, it can be said that they are either a) telling lies, or lying, or, b) presenting gross error. If you were to look carefully at my wording, you will notice that I am talking about the specific statement. What I said is true. It is additionally a fact that you wrote those words into your post--whether directly typed in, or pasted from a copy--and to that degree a fact that you said such was so. In that the statement itself is either a lie, or gross error (in the form of blanket statment), it is necessary to discover the originator of such statement if it were not you, immortal, yourself. The source is either lying, or making gross error in the form of blanket statements. Which is it? I know, that it is not you. I know that that idea is from around the 13 century, or so, and is essentially Spanish Jewish in origin, and is false. The other things you have written are of course not true at all ! I know that, immortal, and will deal (as I have said above) with parts of them elsewhere; in time.

I am awaiting your very carefully researched, mature and rationally thought out answer to the questions which you still have not responded with answers towards, or to.

The truth is that the traditional view of religion is right and you are not arguing from the point of view of tradition, traditions existed and this is how they viewed their religion and this is the truth of religion. I don't speak lies.

##### Share on other sites

It is not a collection of nonsense.

Yes, all evidence is pointing to an observer-participatory universe, the choice of the experimenter determines what reality manifests out into existence which wasn't out there before, we not only don't have free will but also nature seem to know what choice the experimenter had made and accordingly it provides a reality for us. Its a self-excited circuit. These are facts established from experiments and its time to take Bernard's work seriously and there by take investigation on religion seriously.

##### Share on other sites

Yes, all evidence is pointing to an observer-participatory universe, the choice of the experimenter determines what reality manifests out into existence which wasn't out there before, we not only don't have free will but also nature seem to know what choice the experimenter had made and accordingly it provides a reality for us. Its a self-excited circuit. These are facts established from experiments and its time to take Bernard's work seriously and there by take investigation on religion seriously.

Untrue.

##### Share on other sites

The quantum states doesn't represent anything physical instead it only represents our state of knowledge or information about all possible experimental situations of the outcomes of a quantum system.

So if quantum mechanics only represents our limited knowledge, and does not represent reality, then how do know there is no realism? Because we certainly don't have enough knowledge to determine that it doesn't exist in quantum mechanics, and furthermore if it only represents knowledge, why aren't you basing only knowledge off of it instead of assuming the state of reality?

Yes, all evidence is pointing to an observer-participatory universe,

But there's scientific evidence, or actual proof that there was the existence of physicality or physical matter before any life could have been around to measure it.

the choice of the experimenter determines what reality manifests out into existence which wasn't out there before,

But if quantum mechanics shows us anything, it's that no one determines anything, it's completely random, literally, there's no hidden variables that detirmine any of the results, not even Einstein could find them.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

So if quantum mechanics only represents our limited knowledge, and does not represent reality, then how do know there is no realism? Because we certainly don't have enough knowledge to determine that it doesn't exist in quantum mechanics, and furthermore if it only represents knowledge, why aren't you basing only knowledge off of it instead of assuming the state of reality?

We know there is no realism because there are experiments which have tested reality and realism has failed and it is realism which is at stake here. Nature has violated Bell's inequality and has confirmed the results of Kochen-specker theorem owing to the belief that in the absence of any measurements a quantum system doesn't exist out there in the physical world.

But there's scientific evidence, or actual proof that there was the existence of physicality or physical matter before any life could have been around to measure it.

Cosmologists don't hold on to such naive realism now and its wrong to interpret the results in too realistic a way without giving up or abandoning realism.

"You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it," he says. "That's the same Schrödinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago."

- Andre linde

But if quantum mechanics shows us anything, it's that no one determines anything, it's completely random, literally, there's no hidden variables that detirmine any of the results, not even Einstein could find them.

Of course no one determines the values that a quantum object can have but which part of the quantum system manifests as reality for us solely depends on the choice of the experimenter.

Now depending on where you place the first detector will determine whether you will get an interference pattern or not.

1. If you place the first detector on the focal plane which destroys all the path information that the two entangled photons had shared and there by gives a sharp momentum eigen state for both the photons, now the position or the path information is completely lost then an interference pattern is observed for photon 2.

2. If you place the first detector on the imaging plane so that one can access the path information of photon 1 and there by the path of photon 2 has a sharp value, then the interference pattern is completely lost.

3. If you place the first detector in between the two extreme positions then one will get a partial fringe visibility.

4. If you chose to not to measure photon 1 even then no interference pattern is observed for photon 2 because the two entangled photons share a joint path information irrespective of whether an observer chose to access it or not.

Therefore the main criterion for observing an interference pattern is that there shouldn't be any path information with in a quantum system, if there is path information then the interference pattern is destroyed.

Its the very choice of the experimenter on where to place the detector determines the part of the quantum system which manifests as reality for us, this is the Bohr's complementarity principle, there is no quantum world, no absolute reality, the only thing that we know are detector clicks that we observe through the naked eye and that's the reality which nature gives us for us and this reality doesn't exist independent of observations and therefore we cannot say how nature really is, it remains forever unknown to science.

##### Share on other sites

We know there is no realism because there are experiments which have tested reality and realism has failed and it is realism which is at stake here. Nature has violated Bell's inequality and has confirmed the results of Kochen-specker theorem owing to the belief that in the absence of any measurements a quantum system doesn't exist out there in the physical world.

But if when something's not measured means it can't exist, which isn't accurate, then how did the circumstances occur for life to form before life was created? There's no scientific evidence to support that any living thing could have been alive at the moments of the creation of the universe, so...

"You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it," he says. "That's the same Schrödinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago."

Schrodinger's cat was not meant in any way to predict what actually happens in the macroscopic realm, it was meant precisely to illustrate the problem of intuitively thinking that the rules of quantum physics apply the same to the macroscopic realm.

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. "

-Erwin Schrodinger-

Of course no one determines the values that a quantum object can have but which part of the quantum system manifests as reality for us solely depends on the choice of the experimenter.

But measurement and "which part physically manifests" is the same thing, observers don't determine anything, the specific point that they see is random, and the reason we see matter is because there happens to be enough probability of a point showing up within specific volumes of space.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

But if when something's not measured means it can't exist, which isn't accurate, then how did the circumstances occur for life to form before life was created? There's no scientific evidence to support that any living thing could have been alive at the moments of the creation of the universe, so...

You seem to be confusing the reality as it exists out there with the reality as it has been given to us. In the Block Universe concept which is a logical consequence of relativity all times are real and all times exist whether it is the moment of creation or inflation, so this notion of first there was a moment of creation and then life forms appeared is a delusion caused by the psychological arrow of time, past, present and future all exist at once.

Physicists working towards quantum gravity no longer treat space-time as primary concepts, instead they say it is constructed just as Kant said that even space and time are categories and are constructs of the human mind, therefore the reality which exists independent of the human mind is quite different from the empirical reality which has been given to us. Without observers and their minds there is no one to construct space-time and observe events at specific positions and at specific times.

Schrodinger's cat was not meant in any way to predict what actually happens in the macroscopic realm, it was meant precisely to illustrate the problem of intuitively thinking that the rules of quantum physics apply the same to the macroscopic realm.

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. "

-Erwin Schrodinger-

Yes, we are living in a quantum world and there is no distinctions of classical and quantum reality. The same Schrodinger's cat problem was modified into Wigner's friend problem to indicate that substance dualism is true and that there is indeed a mind different from brain.

But measurement and "which part physically manifests" is the same thing, observers don't determine anything, the specific point that they see is random, and the reason we see matter is because there happens to be enough probability of a point showing up within specific volumes of space.

As said earlier the quantum states doesn't represent anything physical, it just represent states of our knowledge or information which is called the psi-epistemic view of the quantum wave-function. Observers don't quantitatively influence a quantum object instead they influence qualitatively, observers are not in control of the values that an attribute can have instead they decide which attributes of a quantum object manifests as reality.

1. Observers of course decide or determine whether a pair of photons are put in an entangled state or in a state of separability.

2. Observers decide or determine whether a photon displays interference pattern or not by placing the detectors according to their choice.

3. Observers by choosing to measure the spin of a particle in a particular direction defines a reality which did not existed previously to the other entangled pair placed kms apart from it. The value might be parallel or anti-parallel to the direction of measurement and no observers can control it.

The choice of the experimenter does determine which part of the quantum system manifests as reality for us.

##### Share on other sites

We know there is no realism because there are experiments which have tested reality and realism has failed and it is realism which is at stake here. Nature has violated Bell's inequality and has confirmed the results of Kochen-specker theorem owing to the belief that in the absence of any measurements a quantum system doesn't exist out there in the physical world.

This is nonsense. The ordinary theory of measurement (which is used to interpret such experiments) is as follow (I will discuss here the simplified model, the generalization is tedious but does not change the main results)

Suppose we wish to measure the observable R of the quantum object I, for which there must be a complete set of eigenvectors

$R |I;r\rangle = r |I;r\rangle$

Denote a set of states for the measurement apparatus II by $|II;\alpha\rangle$, where the eigenvalue $\alpha$ is the appropiate pointer of the apparatus.

Of course, the quantum system exists before the measurement is made. If the initial state of the system + measurement apparatus is $|I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle$ then the measurement changes this to the final state

$|I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle = \Lambda |I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle$

where $\Lambda$ is the time-development operator for the duration of the interaction between system and apparatus.

Its the very choice of the experimenter on where to place the detector determines the part of the quantum system which manifests as reality for us, this is the Bohr's complementarity principle, there is no quantum world, no absolute reality, the only thing that we know are detector clicks that we observe through the naked eye and that's the reality which nature gives us for us and this reality doesn't exist independent of observations and therefore we cannot say how nature really is, it remains forever unknown to science.

More nonsense. Fortunately as noted by Klein the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years.

Edited by juanrga
##### Share on other sites

You seem to be confusing the reality as it exists out there with the reality as it has been given to us. In the Block Universe concept which is a logical consequence of relativity all times are real and all times exist whether it is the moment of creation or inflation, so this notion of first there was a moment of creation and then life forms appeared is a delusion caused by the psychological arrow of time, past, present and future all exist at once.

Just because it's probably that something in the future happens doesn't mean it's happening, time symmetry is not an observed phenomana at all. And the arrow of time has nothing to do with it, if you put time on a graph the axis goes on indefinitely, it's that we look at evidence that the observable universe use to be smaller based on current trajectories.

Physicists working towards quantum gravity no longer treat space-time as primary concepts, instead they say it is constructed just as Kant said that even space and time are categories and are constructs of the human mind, therefore the reality which exists independent of the human mind is quite different from the empirical reality which has been given to us. Without observers and their minds there is no one to construct space-time and observe events at specific positions and at specific times.

How could see how what your saying could metaphorically be true, but that's not physically true, there's empirical evidence that not only animals effect wave functions with the same statics (and they have to be mathematically there is no reason for them not to) in the same way but that matter existed before any animals were even created.

Yes, we are living in a quantum world and there is no distinctions of classical and quantum reality. The same Schrodinger's cat problem was modified into Wigner's friend problem to indicate that substance dualism is true and that there is indeed a mind different from brain.

Except Schrodinger's Cat would never happen because the cat can measure the system. And your making too many extrapolations of superposition. Sure, a particle exists in all possible states, but it's probably still dies down to almost 0 after just a few nano-meters.

1. Observers of course decide or determine whether a pair of photons are put in an entangled state or in a state of separability.

So how come simple machines and even rocks determine quantum states when they have no evidence of being conscious or being able to decide anything in any way?

2. Observers decide or determine whether a photon displays interference pattern or not by placing the detectors according to their choice.

Observers aren't the only things that determine results, almost everything can in some way, that's why entanglement experiments are some of the most isolated in the world.

The choice of the experimenter does determine which part of the quantum system manifests as reality for us.

I'm looking at my computer screen right now, but if it was my choice on how it existed it would be bigger with higher resolution.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

This is nonsense. The ordinary theory of measurement (which is used to interpret such experiments) is as follow (I will discuss here the simplified model, the generalization is tedious but does not change the main results)

Suppose we wish to measure the observable R of the quantum object I, for which there must be a complete set of eigenvectors

$R |I;r\rangle = r |I;r\rangle$

Denote a set of states for the measurement apparatus II by $|II;\alpha\rangle$, where the eigenvalue $\alpha$ is the appropiate pointer of the apparatus.

Of course, the quantum system exists before the measurement is made. If the initial state of the system + measurement apparatus is $|I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle$ then the measurement changes this to the final state

$|I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle = \Lambda |I;r\rangle |II;0\rangle$ where $\Lambda$ is the time-development operator for the duration of the interaction between system and apparatus.

In practical situations the observable of a quantum object, say for example spin can be prepared such that the quantum object exists in a superposition of states. The observable R of a quantum object I assuming that the observable for this case is spin will be $| u + d\rangle$ where u represents the spin Up state and d represents the spin Down state respectively.

Now during the measurement process the final state of the quantum system + measurement apparatus is given by

$| u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle \rightarrow \Lambda (t_I , t_F) [| u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle] = | F u + d \overline\alpha\rangle = 1/\sqrt 2 [|F u \overline\alpha\rangle + |F d \overline\alpha\rangle]$

Which means that the final state or the pointer position of the measurement apparatus is neither pointing to the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-up state nor the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-down state and also not in any of the other states, therefore even the macroscopic measuring apparatus doesn't exist in a definite macroscopic configuration and the dynamics of the linear Schrödinger equation or the time-development operator will be distorted when an act of measurement which is an irreversible process is made by an observer and a particular value pops up into existence.

This is the measurement problem of quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics doesn't allow one to pre-assign any attributes or observables to a quantum system prior to the measurements and if one cannot assign the attributes which make up a quantum system then there is no sense in assuming that the quantum system exists in the absence of any measurements. This is how entanglement works, the sub-systems or photon pairs cannot be treated as existing separate systems, they should be treated as a single holistic system and its only abstract because it shares information and no speculation is made about the ontology of this information or the underlying reality. As Bohr said Physics doesn't deal with the reality itself instead it deals with what we can say about nature.

More nonsense. Fortunately as noted by Klein the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years.

Bohr's complementarity principle is an inherent fundamental principle of quantum mechanics and it will continue to be taught in the future. The complementarity arises due to the fact that one cannot simultaneously observe both the interference pattern as well access the path information of a quantum object. If we access the path information then the interference pattern is completely lost and if the path information is completely erased from the quantum system then one observes the interference pattern. The same is with the complementary entangled(non-separable) and separable states of a pair of photons. Complementarity is inherent in quantum mechanics. These are facts based on experiments.

##### Share on other sites

Just because it's probably that something in the future happens doesn't mean it's happening, time symmetry is not an observed phenomana at all. And the arrow of time has nothing to do with it, if you put time on a graph the axis goes on indefinitely, it's that we look at evidence that the observable universe use to be smaller based on current trajectories.

No, the Andromeda Paradox put forward by Roger Penrose shows that the future is fixed and what ever has to happen it will happen, its inevitable. All of space-time is laid out in one go, the aim of science is to understand reality that exists independent of us and not just to understand as it appears to us. The point is that the observable universe i.e. the flow of time doesn't exist out there in the physical world, it is just a state of mind.

How could see how what your saying could metaphorically be true, but that's not physically true, there's empirical evidence that not only animals effect wave functions with the same statics (and they have to be mathematically there is no reason for them not to) in the same way but that matter existed before any animals were even created.

Its not just a metaphor but a fact that Physics is wrong and the universe is working in a very different way than anyone can imagine.

Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

"One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered."

Except Schrodinger's Cat would never happen because the cat can measure the system. And your making too many extrapolations of superposition. Sure, a particle exists in all possible states, but it's probably still dies down to almost 0 after just a few nano-meters.

The problem is even states of brain are relative and not absolute as Bernard says.

The potential implications of consciousness in quantum physics are complicated and still widely discussed today. For the sake of brevity, we shall only summarize d’Espagnat’s argument here. He asks us to imagine two observers participating in a quantum measurement: Peter who is conducting the measurement, and Paul who is looking at an instrument pointer and registering what information he reads on the dial. When Paul observes the dial, this induces a specific and seemingly “absolute” state of consciousness in him: either the pointer is at place A or not. But for Peter, Paul’s state of consciousness is unknown and undefined. For him, the system is in a state of quantum superposition because it is not yet measured: it is both in the state “at place A” and in the state “not at place A.” Not being measured, the system is in a potentially predictive state. Consequently, Paul’s state of consciousness is also in such a superposed state for Peter, and it will become definite for Peter only after interaction of some kind with Paul. If Paul’s observation creates in his own mind a definite state of consciousness, this is not the case from Peter’s angle so that states of consciousness involved in quantum measurements cannot be considered absolute. See: d’Espagnat, op.cit., 420-21.

"In Mind and Matter and in My View of the World, Schroedinger had raised the problem of the existence of a plurality of conscious minds, which he refers to as the arithmetical paradox : how to explain the existence of a plurality of conscious minds while the world described by science is only one?"

The answer to that question is that each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and this empirical reality is only a state of mind and this is the doctrine of the Upanishads. This is the truth of the world.

So how come simple machines and even rocks determine quantum states when they have no evidence of being conscious or being able to decide anything in any way?

Even simple machines and even rocks are subjected to the same rules of a quantum system and the whole observable universe can be treated as a quantum system and therefore a mind is albeit necessary for the existence of this empirical reality.

Observers aren't the only things that determine results, almost everything can in some way, that's why entanglement experiments are some of the most isolated in the world.

I'm looking at my computer screen right now, but if it was my choice on how it existed it would be bigger with higher resolution.

In delayed choice experiments it is an experimental fact that even the choices of the observers are part of the complete quantum system and it includes the quantum object, the measurement apparatus and the choices of the observers and one needs to take all these into account in order to describe individual events of the quantum object and it doesn't make sense without observers. It doesn't show that we are in control of nature instead it is nature which is in control of our choices, we don't have free will.

Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

We don't have free will and nature knows it.

##### Share on other sites

No, the Andromeda Paradox put forward by Roger Penrose shows that the future is fixed and what ever has to happen it will happen, its inevitable.

Statistically QM says that determinism is impossible because there is no observed mechanism for why the specific results show up the way they do, and matter and energy are quantized which means eventually there can't be a smaller particle to determine what particles like electrons do because their unquantized amounts of energy would cause destructive interference through their own oscillations and cause them to not exist.

ll of space-time is laid out in one go, the aim of science is to understand reality that exists independent of us and not just to understand as it appears to us. The point is that the observable universe i.e. the flow of time doesn't exist out there in the physical world, it is just a state of mind.

And I'm well aware of that philosophy, which is why I don't think it's accurate. There's no scientific evidence that consciousness can be formed without physical formations matter, which means it's impossible for minds to have existed without matter previously existing because it has to form the physical formations that can create consciousness.

Its not just a metaphor but a fact that Physics is wrong and the universe is working in a very different way than anyone can imagine.

Physics isn't wrong because physics describes what we observe, and it is a fact that the current physical laws hold true for current observations.

So if all of physics can be wrong, why can't he be wrong too? And, if the only thing you can base reality on is observations, yet you can't observe his theories, how can he determine that the state of reality is that it doesn't exist dependent from the mind?

"One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered."

You keep mentioning "the human brain", but scientifically, there's no different types of consciousness, just like there's no different types of gravity or different types of the strong force. Animals effect probabilistic results with the same exact statistical randomness because mathematically (and math isn't reality) the randomness of where a point shows up does not depend on what observes it, there's no math for it.

The problem is even states of brain are relative and not absolute as Bernard says.

So if everything is determined by our brain, and there's different brains that determine different results, how can two people point at the same thing and definitively know that the other one is talking about the same thing?

"In Mind and Matter and in My View of the World, Schroedinger had raised the problem of the existence of a plurality of conscious minds, which he refers to as the arithmetical paradox : how to explain the existence of a plurality of conscious minds while the world described by science is only one?"

Science is the culmination of conscious contributors.

The answer to that question is that each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and this empirical reality is only a state of mind and this is the doctrine of the Upanishads. This is the truth of the world.

But if that can't be observed, you have no evidence for it, which means you could easily be completely wrong.

Even simple machines and even rocks are subjected to the same rules of a quantum system and the whole observable universe can be treated as a quantum system and therefore a mind is albeit necessary for the existence of this empirical reality.

So why does the phrase "the human mind" come up? Why not just "the observer"?

In delayed choice experiments it is an experimental fact that even the choices of the observers are part of the complete quantum system and it includes the quantum object, the measurement apparatus and the choices of the observers and one needs to take all these into account in order to describe individual events of the quantum object and it doesn't make sense without observers. It doesn't show that we are in control of nature instead it is nature which is in control of our choices, we don't have free will.

Physics is the same to all frames of reference, there are certain restrictions to what we can control, but that doesn't mean we can't control anything, it simply means we are limited and what and how we can control. You don't choose the results of individual little particles popping up, what does consciousness have to do with that? There's not even any concise or scientific explanation on what consciousness even is.

But in order for that statement to be true, you would have to show that any conscious decision is directly related to the exact locations of particles, and I think you'd have a problem with that since it would require scientific experimentation.

If everything is deterministic then how can we know we are deterministic? It doesn't make sense. How do you know your not in another location? Because you can that other location from a different perspective, so we know that minds aren't deterministic because a mind can view determinism from a third-person view, and if we were in that location, we wouldn't be able to see it.

Edited by EquisDeXD
##### Share on other sites

In practical situations the observable of a quantum object, say for example spin can be prepared

No. Observables are not "prepared". Systems are.

The observable R of a quantum object I assuming that the observable for this case is spin will be $| u + d\rangle$

Your the-observable R-will-be-a-state-vector is nonsense, because observables are not state vectors. Moreover, $| u + d\rangle$ is not a spin eigenvector.

Now during the measurement process the final state of the quantum system + measurement apparatus is given by

$| u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle \rightarrow \Lambda (t_I , t_F) [| u + d\rangle \bigotimes | II_0 ; \overline\alpha\rangle] = | F u + d \overline\alpha\rangle = 1/\sqrt 2 [|F u \overline\alpha\rangle + |F d \overline\alpha\rangle]$

Which means that the final state or the pointer position of the measurement apparatus is neither pointing to the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-up state nor the states where it shows that the observed quantum system is in a spin-down state and also not in any of the other states, therefore even the macroscopic measuring apparatus doesn't exist in a definite macroscopic configuration

Wrong. The final state after the measurement is not a superposition state but the state written before $|I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle$, where $|I;r\rangle$ is a system eigenvector of the measured value for the observable R (spin, energy, position, or otherwise).

and the dynamics of the linear Schrödinger equation or the time-development operator will be distorted when an act of measurement which is an irreversible process is made by an observer and a particular value pops up into existence.

The irreversible process is described by $\Lambda$, which is not $U$. The requirement of an observer is nonsense. $\Lambda$ does not require any observer and, evidently, there is none in the theory.

quantum mechanics doesn't allow one to pre-assign any attributes or observables to a quantum system prior to the measurements

Wrong. A simple counterexample is a system prepared in an eigenvector of the measured observable. This example was discussed before, but you do not read.

and if one cannot assign the attributes which make up a quantum system then there is no sense in assuming that the quantum system exists in the absence of any measurements.

Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector $|\Psi\rangle$ or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices).

This is how entanglement works, the sub-systems or photon pairs cannot be treated as existing separate systems, they should be treated as a single holistic system

Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory.

Bohr's complementarity principle is an inherent fundamental principle of quantum mechanics and it will continue to be taught in the future.

Wrong. It plays no role in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based in a number of postulates, none of which is a "Bohr's complementarity principle". Klein reports how the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. In one or two decades it will be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises).

No, the Andromeda Paradox put forward by Roger Penrose shows that the future is fixed and what ever has to happen it will happen, its inevitable.

Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given".

All of space-time is laid out in one go

Wrong. Spacetime is emergent as quantum gravity and other modern research shows.

Its not just a metaphor but a fact that Physics is wrong and the universe is working in a very different way than anyone can imagine.

Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics

Another interview where Penrose shows his well-known misunderstandings.

"In Mind and Matter and in My View of the World, Schroedinger had raised the problem of the existence of a plurality of conscious minds, which he refers to as the arithmetical paradox : how to explain the existence of a plurality of conscious minds while the world described by science is only one?"

Ironically, Schrödinger was notorious by his serious misunderstandings of the same theory that he helped to develop. E.g. Schrödinger never understood the physical meaning of the wavefunction. The correct physical interpretation was given by Bohm.

Even simple machines and even rocks are subjected to the same rules of a quantum system and the whole observable universe can be treated as a quantum system and therefore a mind is albeit necessary for the existence of this empirical reality.

Minds and brains are part of the observable universe.

In delayed choice experiments it is an experimental fact that even the choices of the observers are part of the complete quantum system and it includes the quantum object, the measurement apparatus and the choices of the observers and one needs to take all these into account in order to describe individual events of the quantum object and it doesn't make sense without observers. It doesn't show that we are in control of nature instead it is nature which is in control of our choices, we don't have free will.

Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

We don't have free will and nature knows it.

Wrong. Delayed choice experiments are explained by quantum mechanics without observers. Human free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of the universe. Nature is not deterministic.

Edited by juanrga
##### Share on other sites

Statistically QM says that determinism is impossible because there is no observed mechanism for why the specific results show up the way they do, and matter and energy are quantized which means eventually there can't be a smaller particle to determine what particles like electrons do because their unquantized amounts of energy would cause destructive interference through their own oscillations and cause them to not exist.

That's a limitation of modern science or current science that it doesn't fully describe individual events and says that the outcomes of nature are probabilistic but it doesn't mean that a different model from different philosophical systems provide a complete model of the world.

Special relativity is completely deterministic and the evolution of the Schroedinger equation is also completely deterministic and the stochastic nature only appears in the act of measurement which we don't completely understand and hence call it the measurement problem. Recently Roger Penrose has called the measurement problem as the "elephant in the room" and I don't think physicists will ever be able to solve this problem because at the heart of this problem is the human mind and this mind is the product of a divine God and it solely belongs to religion and the numinous.

Foreword to A Computable Universe Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation - Roger Penrose

Human understanding and mathematical insight is completely different than a machine and a machine will never be able to achieve strong AI because human understanding involves non-computable processes and these processes don't take place inside the brain instead they take place inside the human mind and mathematical truths exist in platonic realms and the human mind could not have evolved through natural selection. All religions of the world knew that mind is separate from the brain and that intellect exists in platonic realms and religion holds the key for the final puzzle in understanding how nature works and its going to change the way we see the world and our notions about reality.

And I'm well aware of that philosophy, which is why I don't think it's accurate. There's no scientific evidence that consciousness can be formed without physical formations matter, which means it's impossible for minds to have existed without matter previously existing because it has to form the physical formations that can create consciousness.

Consciousness doesn't require a life form nor does it require a brain. First came the observers and their minds and consciousness or awareness is just a state of mind like dream and sleep states.

This hypothesis was put forward way back in 1975 itself by Ernest Lester Smith and all scientific evidence is growing in favour of this hypothesis when you accept the fact that information is the basic stuff of this universe and hence intelligence came first and it is an accepted fact when you see the amount of evidence in quantum information science and bio-informatics.

Intelligence Came First, Edited by E. Lester Smith

'A Fellow of the Royal Society rebuffs orthodox scientific conclusions.'

I am not attacking science instead I am attacking the scientific consensus.

Physics isn't wrong because physics describes what we observe, and it is a fact that the current physical laws hold true for current observations.

Just making predictive models is not an understanding of how nature works, these models should make sense and it should give added explanations and in that sense physicists have no complete model of the world and they have no clue has to what the nature of reality really is and they should concentrate about the mess in their fields rather than making baseless comments about other disciplines like Philosophy and Religion when they themselves have no idea as to what the nature of reality is. I think sooner or later philosophers will take over as true physicists.

So if all of physics can be wrong, why can't he be wrong too? And, if the only thing you can base reality on is observations, yet you can't observe his theories, how can he determine that the state of reality is that it doesn't exist dependent from the mind?

QM has already shattered the belief of working scientists that this empirical reality exists independent of the human mind and facts will always be facts. Its the very notion of scientific method itself is what is saying that scientific realism is false.

You keep mentioning "the human brain", but scientifically, there's no different types of consciousness, just like there's no different types of gravity or different types of the strong force.

I didn't mentioned "the human brain" instead I mentioned "the human mind" which is different from the brain and yes there are no different types of minds.

Animals effect probabilistic results with the same exact statistical randomness because mathematically (and math isn't reality) the randomness of where a point shows up does not depend on what observes it, there's no math for it.

Math exists in platonic realms.

So if everything is determined by our brain, and there's different brains that determine different results, how can two people point at the same thing and definitively know that the other one is talking about the same thing?

Science is the culmination of conscious contributors.

Again you are confounding the human mind with the human brain they are two different things and the only real thing is the human mind not the human brain which is only a state of mind and different observers agree with each other about the results in empirical reality because each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and hence is responsible for the retorspective construction of this empirical rality.

But if that can't be observed, you have no evidence for it, which means you could easily be completely wrong.

It has testable consequences and can be falsifed.

So why does the phrase "the human mind" come up? Why not just "the observer"?

We need both, the human mind as well as the observer and the observer exists independent of the human mind and this is based on a completely different epistemology.

Physics is the same to all frames of reference, there are certain restrictions to what we can control, but that doesn't mean we can't control anything, it simply means we are limited and what and how we can control. You don't choose the results of individual little particles popping up, what does consciousness have to do with that?

Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of experiments in quantum mechanics and the delayed choice experiments is an example of that and its an experimental fact.

There's not even any concise or scientific explanation on what consciousness even is.

That's why I don't use the word consciousness instead I use the word "the human mind" and consciousness or awareness is just a state of mind like dream and sleep states. Just because scientists don't understand what consciousness doesn't mean that eastern philosophical systems also don't understand it. They know about the nature of reality than these fellow scientists.

But in order for that statement to be true, you would have to show that any conscious decision is directly related to the exact locations of particles, and I think you'd have a problem with that since it would require scientific experimentation.

The point is that the two photons of Alice and Bob know what choice victor is going to make in prior and behave according to it and therefore free will is a stubborn illusion.

If everything is deterministic then how can we know we are deterministic? It doesn't make sense. How do you know your not in another location? Because you can that other location from a different perspective, so we know that minds aren't deterministic because a mind can view determinism from a third-person view, and if we were in that location, we wouldn't be able to see it.

Minds are non-computable and deterministic and they don't work according to the laws of current physics.

##### Share on other sites

That's a limitation of modern science or current science that it doesn't fully describe individual events

No knowledge system "fully describes" anything because we always work with approximations. This is explained in science 101, the first days.

and says that the outcomes of nature are probabilistic but it doesn't mean that a different model from different philosophical systems provide a complete model of the world.

Wrong. First the stochastic nature of universe is intrinsic, not the result of ignorance. Second, philosophical systems do not work and that is the reason for which were substituted by science... several centuries ago.

Special relativity is completely deterministic and the evolution of the Schroedinger equation is also completely deterministic and the stochastic nature only appears in the act of measurement which we don't completely understand and hence call it the measurement problem.

Wrong. Special relativity is completely deterministic because is a classical theory developed before quantum theory and chaos theory. Quantum field theory includes special relativity and provides a non-deterministic relativistic description. The stochastic nature of phenomena appears beyond measurements. Measurements are not acts, are processes. We understand measurements rather well and the measurement problem has been basically solved in recent years.

Recently Roger Penrose has called the measurement problem as the "elephant in the room" and I don't think physicists will ever be able to solve this problem because at the heart of this problem is the human mind and this mind is the product of a divine God and it solely belongs to religion and the numinous.

Nonsense.

Human understanding and mathematical insight is completely different than a machine and a machine will never be able to achieve strong AI

We are complex biochemical molecular-based machines.

because human understanding involves non-computable processes and these processes don't take place inside the brain

Nonsense. Mental processes take place at the brain.

the human mind could not have evolved through natural selection.

Nonsense, the human mind is a consequence of natural selection.

All religions of the world knew that mind is separate from the brain and that intellect exists in platonic realms and religion holds the key for the final puzzle in understanding how nature works and its going to change the way we see the world and our notions about reality.

Nonsense. Religion does not provide systematic/testable knowledge. History shows that all the religions have falsified regarding the objective nature of our universe.

First came the observers and their minds

Nonsense. Observers appeared in universe only recently. Universe is much older than observers.

This hypothesis was put forward way back in 1975 itself by Ernest Lester Smith and all scientific evidence is growing in favour of this hypothesis when you accept the fact that information is the basic stuff of this universe and hence intelligence came first and it is an accepted fact when you see the amount of evidence in quantum information science and bio-informatics.

Nonsense. All scientific evidence says the contrary. Information requires a material substratum (hard disk, piece of paper, rock...). Human intelligence appeared in the universe only recently, as everyone knowns.

I am not attacking science instead I am attacking the scientific consensus.

You are attacking both.

Just making predictive models is not an understanding of how nature works, these models should make sense and it should give added explanations and in that sense physicists have no complete model of the world and they have no clue has to what the nature of reality really is and they should concentrate about the mess in their fields rather than making baseless comments about other disciplines like Philosophy and Religion when they themselves have no idea as to what the nature of reality is. I think sooner or later philosophers will take over as true physicists.

Nonsense. Unlike some religious zealots and crazy philosophers who still talk about the "Truth", physicists know the limits of science and of current theories. The lack of a final scientific theory does not open the door to introduce any nonsense from religion/philosophy. Philosophers will continue doing philosophy not science.

QM has already shattered the belief of working scientists that this empirical reality exists independent of the human mind and facts will always be facts. Its the very notion of scientific method itself is what is saying that scientific realism is false.

Nonsense. QM is perfectly compatible with empirical reality, does not require humans, and was developed (and is currently tested) using the scientific method.

the only real thing is the human mind not the human brain which is only a state of mind and different observers agree with each other about the results in empirical reality because each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and hence is responsible for the retorspective construction of this empirical rality.

Nonsense. Human brains are real. A brain is not a state of a mind, mind is the 'software' and the brain the 'hardware'. Reality exists without minds.

Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of experiments in quantum mechanics

Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of any experiment. This is why experiments are carefully designed, but this is again well-known.

The point is that the two photons of Alice and Bob know what choice victor is going to make in prior and behave according to it and therefore free will is a stubborn illusion.

Nonsense. Photons do not "know". Neither any signal is sent from Alice or Bob to them. Free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of our universe.

Edited by juanrga
##### Share on other sites

That's a limitation of modern science or current science that it doesn't fully describe individual events and says that the outcomes of nature are probabilistic but it doesn't mean that a different model from different philosophical systems provide a complete model of the world.

Special relativity is completely deterministic and the evolution of the Schroedinger equation is also completely deterministic and the stochastic nature only appears in the act of measurement which we don't completely understand and hence call it the measurement problem. Recently Roger Penrose has called the measurement problem as the "elephant in the room" and I don't think physicists will ever be able to solve this problem because at the heart of this problem is the human mind and this mind is the product of a divine God and it solely belongs to religion and the numinous.

Foreword to A Computable Universe Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation - Roger Penrose

Human understanding and mathematical insight is completely different than a machine and a machine will never be able to achieve strong AI because human understanding involves non-computable processes and these processes don't take place inside the brain instead they take place inside the human mind and mathematical truths exist in platonic realms and the human mind could not have evolved through natural selection. All religions of the world knew that mind is separate from the brain and that intellect exists in platonic realms and religion holds the key for the final puzzle in understanding how nature works and its going to change the way we see the world and our notions about reality.

Consciousness doesn't require a life form nor does it require a brain. First came the observers and their minds and consciousness or awareness is just a state of mind like dream and sleep states.

This hypothesis was put forward way back in 1975 itself by Ernest Lester Smith and all scientific evidence is growing in favour of this hypothesis when you accept the fact that information is the basic stuff of this universe and hence intelligence came first and it is an accepted fact when you see the amount of evidence in quantum information science and bio-informatics.

Intelligence Came First, Edited by E. Lester Smith

'A Fellow of the Royal Society rebuffs orthodox scientific conclusions.'

I am not attacking science instead I am attacking the scientific consensus.

Just making predictive models is not an understanding of how nature works, these models should make sense and it should give added explanations and in that sense physicists have no complete model of the world and they have no clue has to what the nature of reality really is and they should concentrate about the mess in their fields rather than making baseless comments about other disciplines like Philosophy and Religion when they themselves have no idea as to what the nature of reality is. I think sooner or later philosophers will take over as true physicists.

QM has already shattered the belief of working scientists that this empirical reality exists independent of the human mind and facts will always be facts. Its the very notion of scientific method itself is what is saying that scientific realism is false.

[/font][/font]

I didn't mentioned "the human brain" instead I mentioned "the human mind" which is different from the brain and yes there are no different types of minds.

Math exists in platonic realms.

Again you are confounding the human mind with the human brain they are two different things and the only real thing is the human mind not the human brain which is only a state of mind and different observers agree with each other about the results in empirical reality because each one of us have our own metaphysical mind and hence is responsible for the retorspective construction of this empirical rality.

It has testable consequences and can be falsifed.

We need both, the human mind as well as the observer and the observer exists independent of the human mind and this is based on a completely different epistemology.

Our choice of the measuring device and where we place it does affect the outcome of experiments in quantum mechanics and the delayed choice experiments is an example of that and its an experimental fact.

That's why I don't use the word consciousness instead I use the word "the human mind" and consciousness or awareness is just a state of mind like dream and sleep states. Just because scientists don't understand what consciousness doesn't mean that eastern philosophical systems also don't understand it. They know about the nature of reality than these fellow scientists.

The point is that the two photons of Alice and Bob know what choice victor is going to make in prior and behave according to it and therefore free will is a stubborn illusion.

Minds are non-computable and deterministic and they don't work according to the laws of current physics.

##### Share on other sites

No. Observables are not "prepared". Systems are.

That's what I said a quantum system can be prepared in a superposition of states with its properties undefined or unknown.

Your the-observable R-will-be-a-state-vector is nonsense, because observables are not state vectors. Moreover, $| u + d\rangle$ is not a spin eigenvector.

Wrong. The final state after the measurement is not a superposition state but the state written before $|I;r\rangle |II;\alpha_r\rangle$, where $|I;r\rangle$ is a system eigenvector of the measured value for the observable R (spin, energy, position, or otherwise).

The final state after the measurement is indeed a superposition of states for the measuring apparatus and people working on the foundations of quantum mechanics know that this leads to contradiction to the linear evolution of the Schroedinger equation when an irreversible outcome appears when an observation is made and the measurement problem can only be solved by either finding a sound interpretation or by changing the theory itself.

We reconsider a well known problem of quantum theory, i.e. the so called measurement (or macro-objectification) problem, and we rederive the fact that it gives rise to serious problems of interpretation. The novelty of our approach derives from the fact that the relevant conclusion is obtained in a completely general way, in particular, without resorting to any of the assumptions of ideality which are usually done for the measurement process. The generality and unescapability of our assumptions (we take into account possible malfunctionings of the apparatus, its unavoidable entanglement with the environmment, its high but not absolute reliability, its fundamentally uncontrollable features) allow to draw the conclusion that the very possibility of performing measurements on a microsystem combined with the assumed general validity of the linear nature of quantum evolution leads to a fundamental contradiction.

- Angelo Bassi and Ghirardi

Of course, there will be many such decompositions, for a given $\psi$ , depending on the choice of basis that is supposed to be determined by the choice of "measuring device". Indeed, we must allow that this measuring device is also part of the entire system under consideration, and so should have a quantum state that becomes entangled with the quantum system under examination. Nevertheless there is still taken to be a "jump" in the system as a whole as soon as the measurement is considered to have been made, where the different "pointer states" of the device are entangled with the different possible $\psi_r s$ that can result. It is obvious that this "jumping" from the state of the system (consisting of both the measuring device and system under examination, together with the entire relevant surrounding environment), from before measurement to after measurement, is normally not even continuous, let alone a solution of the Schroedinger equation: so R blatantly violates U (in almost all circumstances).

Why do physicists not normally consider this to be a contradiction in quantum mechanics? There are many responses, usually involving some subtle issue of "interpretation", according to which physicists try to circumvent this (seeming?) contradiction.

- Roger Penrose

Penrose, Bernard and a wide range of experts know that there is a contradiction and the measurement problem still persists and trying to avoid only leads to reductio ad absurdum and physicists have no ideas has to what the nature of reality really is.

The irreversible process is described by $\Lambda$, which is not $U$. The requirement of an observer is nonsense. $\Lambda$ does not require any observer and, evidently, there is none in the theory.

The reason the measurement problem persists up until now is because physicists don't have a model for the conscious observer and the theory demands it.

Wrong. A simple counterexample is a system prepared in an eigenvector of the measured observable. This example was discussed before, but you do not read.

Nonsense. A quantum system exists before any measurement (the theory of measurements is firmly rooted in this), the system state is in some pre-measurement state (e.g. in a state given by a state vector $|\Psi\rangle$ or otherwise) and its "attributes" are well defined (e.g, as matrices).

Nonsense. Subsystems are quantum systems described by quantum theory. Their observables are defined and computed in a analogue way to the treatment of subsystems in classical theory.

"All information is only encoded in joint properties. Thus, an entangled state is a representation of the relations between two possible measurements on the two members of the entangled pair. In the most simple case, the state $| \psi^- \rangle$ is a representation of the prediction that in any basis whatsoever, the two photons will be found to have orthogonal states with none of the photons having any well-defined state before measurement."

- Anton Zeilinger

In the absence of any measurements the sub systems doesn't exist and what only exists is encoded information holding joint properties of the sub-system and therefore information is far more superior than matter, mass, spin, position, energy, momentum are not physical properties instead they are just bits of information and they are abstract.

Wrong. It plays no role in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based in a number of postulates, none of which is a "Bohr's complementarity principle". Klein reports how the rate of appearance of for Bohr's notion of complementarity in scientific works has been decreasing in recent years. In one or two decades it will be eliminated from basic textbooks as well (it is already eliminated in many advanced treatises).

Perhaps it will be eliminated in your dreams.

QUANTUM COMPLEMENTARITY

The observation that particle path and interference pattern mutually exclude each other is one specific manifestation of the general concept of complementary in quantum physics. Other examples are position and linear momentum as highlighted in Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, or the different components of angular momentum.

- Anton Zeilinger, Experiments and foundations of quantum mechanics

Bohr's complementarity principle is the very foundation of quantum mechanics and it will be taught to students of the future and it will not go away. Don't post your biased wrong views here.

Wrong. Universe is stochastic and as stated by Nobel laureate Prigogine "future is not given".

All evidence is showing that future is fixed and it already exists.

Wrong. Spacetime is emergent as quantum gravity and other modern research shows.

I know and I myself stated that physicists working on quantum gravity do not treat space-time as primary concepts but that doesn't mean that the information to construct the block universe doesn't exist independent of the human mind.

Another interview where Penrose shows his well-known misunderstandings.

He is not misunderstood, he is speaking the truth and he knows there is a problem in physics which you don't want to honestly accept it, that's why I call you intellectually dishonest.

Ironically, Schrödinger was notorious by his serious misunderstandings of the same theory that he helped to develop. E.g. Schrödinger never understood the physical meaning of the wavefunction. The correct physical interpretation was given by Bohm.

Max Born or Bohm? Any ways Schroedinger initially insisted that the wave is real wave but during his later years he did thought about the implications of quantum mechanics and got into the arithmetic paradox of many minds and said that the authors of the Upanishads knew the truth and provided a solution to the arithmetic paradox of many minds and a single empirical reality described by science. This is the truth of the world.

Minds and brains are part of the observable universe.

Brains are part of the observable universe but minds are always part of the realm of numinous.

Wrong. Delayed choice experiments are explained by quantum mechanics without observers. Human free will is a consequence of the stochastic character of the universe. Nature is not deterministic.

Its a fact that photons separated over large distances instantaneously influence each other and there is evidence that a future choice does affect the results of the past measurements and if the ordering of the events is taken to consideration then the future choice indeed seems to have been fixed or pre-determined of course there is no physical signal in communication with these photons and it has been already ruled out non-local influences too cannot account for these results and it is realism which is at stake here and people like Leggett himself is considering that it is realism which is false about the nature of reality of this world and hence physicists have no idea about the nature of reality and how the universe is working and other models of reality should be considered.

How about this: Math exists in platonic realms and shows that human understanding and conscious thought are not algorithmic proving that the pantheon of the Sun-god(Savitur) exists.

“A majority of contemporary mathematicians (a typical, though disputed, estimate is about two-thirds) believe in a kind of heaven – not a heaven of angels and saints, but one inhabited by the perfect and timeless objects they study: n-dimensional spheres, infinite numbers, the square root of -1, and the like. Moreover, they believe that they commune with this realm of timeless entities through a sort of extra-sensory perception.”

“And today’s mathematical Platonists agree. Among the most distinguished of them is Alain Connes, holder of the Chair of Analysis and Geometry at the College de France, who has averred that “there exists, independently of the human mind, a raw and immutable mathematical reality.”… Platomism is understandably seductive to mathematicians. It means that the entities they study are no mere artifacts of the human mind: these entities are discovered, not invented… Many physicists also feel the allure of Plato’s vision.”

In IAST:

Om bhur bhuvah suvahtat savitur vareṇyaṃ bhargo devasya dhīmahidhiyo yó naḥ pracodayāt

A literal translation of the Gayatri verse proper can be given as:

"May we attain that excellent glory of Savitar the god:

So may he stimulate our prayers."

—The Hymns of the Rigveda (1896), Ralph T. H. Griffith[12]

A free translation by Swami Vivekananda:

"We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds."[15]

1."We meditate on the effulgent glory of the divine Light; may he inspire our understanding."[16]

2."We meditate on the adorable glory of the radiant sun; may he inspire our intelligence."[17]

The Arya Samaj interpretation:

"O God ! Giver of life, Remover of all pain and sorrows, Bestower of happiness, the Creator of the Universe, Thou art most luminous, adorable and destroyer of sins. We meditate upon thee. May thou inspire, enlighten and guide our intellect in the right direction."[18]

The Brahmo Samaj interpretation:

"We meditate on the worshipable power and glory of Him who has created the earth, the nether world and the heavens (i.e. the universe), and who directs our understanding."[19]

The Robert Fox interpretation:

"O Effulgent Light of creation! Let the Sun of Truth illuminate my divinity. And meditation allow my thoughts to be inspired by Thee."

Interpretation by William Quan Judge in his commentary on the Gayatri Mantra:

"Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole duty on our journey to thy sacred seat."[20]

a paraphrase by Sir William Jones:

"Let us adore the supremacy of that divine sun, the god-head who illuminates all, who recreates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright in our progress toward his holy seat."[21]

Common man's prayer:

"Whoever produced me and the one recites this mantra, let Him save both of us from sinning against each other."

The pleroma of God or the holistic Sun-god, a god as Carl Jung says which humanity forgot over time, "This is a god whom ye knew not, for mankind forgot it. We name it by its name Abraxas." should be taught in schools because these are the basic facts of the world which everyone on this planet should know and there in lies the goodness of mankind.

## Create an account

Register a new account