Online Philosophy Club

From The Mental Universse, Nature, Vol 436,7 July 2005:

Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.

Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. I, (Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow, 1987), p.54:

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.

Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p.145:

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.

Page 70:

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle—and here the emphasis is on the word "accurate"—the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being...belongs to what is described.

Materialism is insufficient to explain the non-local and uncertain behavioral characteristics of quanta. Alain Aspect conclusively proved that unobserved quanta cannot be considered to be discrete material objects, and proved that split photons must be considered to be the same global phenomena regardless of intervening distance since the determining observation of one immediately collapsed the qualities of the other into correspondence.

One of the defining qualities of materialism is that the universe is comprised of discrete objects that have discrete characteristics and are located in a specific place at a specific time; without such objects, or particles, or even physical waves that actually exist in specified locations and as specified things, materialism breaks down into disjoint rationalizations and apologetics.

What does materialism mean when, at the most fundamental level, there is no "material" present? By "material" one must mean an identifiable, locatable, quantifiable thing; but it has been proven that no such "things" actually exist on their own outside of an observational collapse of potential states, have no definite location or characteristics, and can exist as a single global object in different locations.

It seems to me that materialists are clinging via apologetics and denial to a 19th-century Newtonian-era philosophy that simply cannot be supported via modern quantum experimentation.

The question is, with the known results of quantum experiments, why bother calling oneself a "materialist" when the "matter" that justified such a view in the 19th century has, upon closer examination, completely disappeared and has been replaced by informational and consciousness-dependent field theories which bear no significant relationship to the the concept of a "material" universe? Why torture, through twisted apologetics, a continued belief in such a thoroughly discredited ontological view?

Belinda wrote:
However, neither extrapolation is right because both of them are correct. They don't clash with each other, they complement each other, once you have extracted from each definition 'and nothing else'.

The concept of an atom as a miniature solar system comprised of discrete objects has been falsified, so no, both concepts are not correct.

The obections to the empirical disproofs here are nothing more than a form of apologetics seeking to reconcile a faulty concept with the scientific evidence that contradicts it. The interesting question is why the materialist insists on salvaging a theory that is fundamentally rooted in a "material" that has been proved for over 75 years to not exist, and to not behave in a way that can be extrapolated into correlation with that metaphysic.

It seems to me that once science proved that no such mind-independent "material" can be said to exist other than as pure speculation, logical people would simply abandon a philosophy that no long had any empirical support. But, instead of simply moving on, they attempt to justify and rationalize; why?

athena wrote:

But, instead of simply moving on, they attempt to justify and rationalize; why?

It is very frightening to doubt what we believe. Also, I think many of us like to appear to know and understand more, than we do. How about beginning with something a little easier to understand and working on our ability to comprehend atomic and quantum reality? I think we need a better comprehension of the transformation of elements, before we can begin to comprehend matter as an expression of energy built on mathematical principles.

What is the first element, and how did Heavier Elements come about?

But that's the point; there are no independent "elements" outside of observation. There aren't even physical "waves", like one imagines ripples of water. Waves of probability only refer to where the "element" might appear in relation to an observer, not that there is an actual physical "wave". The interference patterns only appear as if there were a wave, but no such wave is "detectable" other than as an interference pattern if one observes a certain way.

"Elements" do not even exist as "energy" unless observation is on the scene, as a reading of the papers offered shows; they simply do not exist other than as informational descriptions when an observer is present; if their history is not even determined until observed, how can they even be said to be actually present or with any characteristics until the observation takes place?

What quantum field theory is showing us is that the fundamental substrate of existence isn't even energy - it's information; and that information is what makes anything appear as anything. It is apparently infinite, omnipresent and timeless. The information exists independent of any medium and in fact generates the appearance and history of whatever it is describing as the medium.

Reality appears to be a information matrix which describes into existence both matter and energy, the description of which seems to rely not on law (which would be the cart before the horse) or on randomness, but on the apparently fundamenatal organizing commodity known as free will. It seems that free will is the actual "mover", and information is what it is moving, and when it does so it describes into existence an experiential world of energy, matter, time, cause and effect, and natural law.

However, even if one does not or cannot fully understand the new quantum reality as shown by modern physics, they can at least understand it enough to realize that materialism no longer has any evidence to support it.

wanabe wrote: They adopt this view because it is practical. It is the antithesis of 'arm-chair' philosophy. Materialism is practical, it brought us the internet. I think all reasonable materialists realize that the view is flawed by now, but they continue to use it because; for better or worse that is our experience.

Yes, but what if it is one's experience only because those are the kind of observational experiments one conducts in their daily life?

If we had the ability to experience the quantum level biologically I would completely agree with you.

That is precisely the point. If matter behaves in correlation to the nature of the observer, then perhaps the ablity to have an experience that does not behave according to the "material" paradigm lies in the observer and their perspective.

wanabe wrote:There is no "what if". The only thing we can OBSERVE is the material world.

Well, I don't know about you, but the only thing I can observe is my experience. I might interpret that experience to mean there is a material world, or I might not. I don't.

We can only conceive of(think about) the quantum world(or indirectly observe it). As of yet we can't do anything with the information but theorize with it. We should continue to do so until something can be done with it.

I agree that you cannot. However, I have been doing quite a bit with it myself.

Matter doesn't just behave in correlation to observers there is more to it i promise you.

Your promises are of far less value than my actual experiences, which indicates otherwise.

If things were solely up to observation, things could be the same, and would not change; because it is more simple to perceive and observe them as such.

I fail to see any logic whatsoever in that claim.

There are certainly instances in our mind that behave contrary to the material paradigm. That however is due to internal doings, not actually affecting the physical world. Though with enough practice, exceptions can be made; one can consciously affect the physical world (or if you prefer the quantum world) with the mind, but those are extremely rare cases.

Perhaps it is only rare because there are far fewer free will entities in existence than there are automatons.

wanabe wrote:If your just going to be insulting and pretend you have some superiority because of your opinion; I guess you have no real argument, we can leave it at that.

You have apparently misinterpreted me. I meant no insult and I don't see how agreeing to the conditions you have claimed for yourself is an insult, nor do I see how excluding myself from those conditions and making statements about my experience is expressing any "superiority".

If you claim you have no capacity for utilizing that which quantum theory describes, I accept that you do not. However, even though you used the term "we", I don't have that same lack of capacity. I've been using quantum intention observational/free will techniques to rearrange my experience for years now. It's not a big secret technique/system or anything - tens of thousands if not millions of people use the same or variant intention techniques, popularized in several movies like "the Secret" and "What the *bleep* do We Know".

Similarly, you "promising" me that the so-called objective world is "more" than something correlating to the nature of my consciousness doesn't mean that my experience supports that promise. It does not.

Belinda wrote:

The concept of an atom as a miniature solar system comprised of discrete objects has been falsified, so no, both concepts are not correct.

That, Meleagar is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the point that I make in my post that precedes.
My point is that

either

the solar system is a material, physical fact

or

the solar system is a concept

or both.

Or none of the above, as the above words might certainly lack the definitional capacity to significantly capture the nature of what is actually going on.

Belinda wrote:All right Meleagar.

My computer is an actual, physical fact

or

My computer is my concept

or

both(inclusive 'or' )

Repeating the terms ("physical fact", "concept") and applying them to something else doesn't avoid the point that they might not have the definitional capacity to capture what is actually going on, any more than saying that a photon is a wave or a particle or both necessarily presents a valid representation of what a photon "is".

However, what current science in no uncertain terms has shown is that without the observer, no "computer" exists. Thus, in the normative, unapologetic sense of the phrase "physical fact", the computer cannot be described as a physical fact.

It is an experiential fact. It is also a concept. It cannot be said via science to be a physical fact in the unapologetic sense of the term.

James S Saint wrote:No part of Science at any time has ever even begun to dispute determinism and certainly has never had any experiment disproving it. Every Science experiment presumes determinism inherently and if it every disproved determinism, then it would disprove all of Science including the said experiment.

The "double slit" experiment has just become a mind game for those who prefer to believe in magic. For those who understand it, there is nothing mystical or even strange about it and it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality being affected by observation. It's just a trick of words for the common masses and has nothing whatsoever to do with materialism either way.

Well, if you say so, then John Wheeler, Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize Winner) and Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize Winner) must certainly be wrong.

Keith Russell wrote:Well, it wouldn't be the first time a physcist turned out to have been mistaken...

...and, using their names (as if these "esteemed gentleman" could't possibly have been wrong) is just another version of the argument from authority.

It's only a logical fallacy if the authorities in question are not actually authorities (experts) on the subject being argued.

Given the choice between you and Santini, or three of the most renowned experts on the subject - two being Nobel Prize winners - I'll place my bet with the guys that actually know what they're talking about.

wanabe wrote:Meleagar,
You can observe Part of your experience, the part you can observe with your eyes is material.

Well, if you say so, then John Wheeler, Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize Winner) and Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize Winner) must certainly be wrong.

Or since you are citing movies, are you talking about positive affirmations?

Yes, that's the main way I theoretically enact my free will intentions upon the quantum field; I focus on a positive personal narrative and symbolically intentionalize beneficial/enjoyable experiences for myself and those I care about.

James S Saint wrote:They didn't "say so". You did. You very erroneously a freely interpret (twist) what they say into your own preferred perspective and then claim their respectability as your own (name dropping). If you cannot defend the perspective on your own, you have nothing to say other than proselytizing.

Doesn't determinism rely upon the existence of actual material objects interacting in cause-and-effect temporal sequences - matter with specific locations, trajectories, characteristics in and of themselves?

Perhaps you'd care to argue how determinism can be true, if materialism - especially temporal-sequence materialism - is false? The aforementioned esteemed scientists have said that materialism is false - it has been shown via repeated objective experiments.

How does a determinism that rests upon materialism survive if there is no material?

wanabe wrote:So is that your generic response now, so you don't have to think anymore?

No, that's my response to unsupported counter-assertions.

Your eyes see light reflecting off of matter, not off of quantum particles Meleagar.

I'm sorry, you seemed to have missed the point: the greats of physics have proven over the past 75 years that there is no such thing as "matter". If not from science, where do you derive your perspective that "matter" exists? Do you just ignore the science that conflicts with your ideology?

Something exists, but apparently it is not matter.

Positive affirmations are just self brain washing, you are not affecting the quantum world with positive affirmations. But If believing otherwise makes you feel better, go for it.

Whether or not it actually works is irrelevant; all that matters is that it appears to be working. It appears to be working very well.

James S Saint wrote:NO! It doesn't. I have pointed that out to you before. Materialism has nothing to do with determinism. Determinism includes the existence of non-material entities such as a perfect circle, socialism, virtuous women, and good men.

In any event, even if one is going to argue for a non-material determinism, such determinism has been disproven independently by other scientific experimentation which I covered in my other thread.

Keith Russell wrote:No, it's a logcial fallacy in any case.

No, it's not.

Those guys weren't right (or wrong) because they were named Bohr, Heisenberg, or Wheeler. If they were right, they were right because they discovered evidence to support their positions.

That's the evidence I referred to. I'm not making the case that because they say so materialism has been proven, but rather that quantum experimentation has disproven materialism, and supplied their quotes as evidence that I am not misapprehending the results of that work.

wanabe wrote:You are taking things completely out of context ....

Not according to the quotes from the heavy hitters of quantum physics I've provided.

...to support your beliefs.

What beliefs are you referring to? Also, since I don't base my beliefs on evidence, why would I try to support them via evidence?

wanabe wrote:

Meleagar wrote:Also, since I don't base my beliefs on evidence, why would I try to support them via evidence?

Ok, as long as you admit your opinions are completely baseless Meleagar, then I have no problem with what you say.

I said that I don't base my beliefs on evidence. My arguments are always based on evidence.

wanabe wrote:Positive affirmations are just self brain washing, you are not affecting the quantum world with positive affirmations.

How do you know this? Can you support the assertion that I have bolded?

Keith Russell wrote:

Meleagar wrote:Also, since I don't base my beliefs on evidence--

Wow. It's been a while since someone admitted to me (in no uncertain terms) that they were irrational; I always enjoy such admissions, but I certainly wasn't expecting it.

I haven't made any such admission, in uncertain terms or otherwise.

wanabe,

I'll take that to mean that you cannot support your assertion.