Jump to content






Photo

Why I'm Skeptical ...

Posted by Landry , 18 March 2012 · 622 views

... of Materialism.

"The concept of the atom as a miniature solar system and being comprised of discrete objects has been falsified for over 100 years."  What we apprehend as matter is composed of "atoms" which in reality are 99.9999999999 % empty space - the remaining  0.000000001% - isn't matter either! Those are Ivan values in a wave equation - the mathematical probability of observing something,  a mathematical concept - and as such ... absolutely non-material.

In 2007, John A Wheeler put an end to the debate about what causes the collapse of a "particle" / wave function in a state of super-position (being in all possible locations). The experiment was designated *The Delayed Choice Experiment. Any filibustering as to consciousness being the absolute cause of the wave function collapse should now be concluded. So - neither what is being collapsed (the wave funtion) nor what is collapsing it (consciousness) can be said to be material in any real sense - much less as defined by Materialists. The only possible rational interpretation is that there is no such thing as mind independent matter. It's been proven that what we perceive as material cannot exist without the intervention of a mind / consciousness. To make matters worse, the Materialist has no logical recourse to accepting consciousness as primal since he cannot explain how something that does not really exist in the first place (matter) can be responsible for producing the effect (consciousness) to which it must attribute it's existence.
Materialists are the modern eqivalent of Flat Earthers.  Matter, as Materialists must define and describe it does not exist. Philosophical Materialism without the matter that gave rise to it as a philosophy is ontologically bankrupt.
Rather than being perpetually skeptical of a whole class of well established, (as pseudo-skeptics with regard to all metaphysical / transcendent) phenomena - I confidently provide a rationale for my specific skepticism of Materialistic dogmatism. The onus falls on materialists to provide for Materialism's continued existence apart from an "extraordinary claim" status.

*http://en.wikipedia...._quantum_eraser






StarMountainKid
Mar 18 2012 11:07 PM

Quote

It's been proven that what we perceive as material cannot exist without the intervention of a mind / consciousness.
What about all the matter in the universe that our minds do not intervene with? The entire universe doesn't exist except for the infinitesimal fraction we relate with?
  • Report

StarMountainKid, on 18 March 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

What about all the matter in the universe that our minds do not intervene with? The entire universe doesn't exist except for the infinitesimal fraction we relate with?
The point is that what's being called "matter" doesn't exist as what's being defined as "matter". There is no matter - anywhere ... as far as science can show. It's kind of mind blowing and maybe not the easiest concept to wrap your mind around.  I had to shift my philosophical orientation from dualism to monism to accommodate this reality. Don't think that I'm completely unsympathetic.
  • Report
A couple of observations if you please.....
First - I'm not very well educated so I struggle with some of your concepts.  They seem fascinating and open up realms I've never dreamed of so TY.
Second, and please do not be offended, Are you REAL?  I mean if you truly are the young woman in the photo AND as obviously brilliant as you seem to be.... well lets just say it's an embarrassment of riches.  Sorry if I seem silly but when I see this face and read your thoughts there is a disconnect on my part and I feel as though maybe I'm part of a study of some kind.  
Honest query...I'm not some lurker.... :innocent:   perhaps my horizon's haven't been broad enough :lol:
  • Report
Sorry, but where is the implication it's consciousness?
In the results of the experiments.

The delayed choice experiment shows that observing a photon along the travel path affects the photons at the end.  Exactly!!  Different QM interpretations have different explanations.
What's the problem?

http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics



You realise Quantum Mysticism (what you're using) is considered pseudoscience?
What I realize is that defining real-world results as mystical because you can't accept them on ideological grounds is just plain pseudo.
  • Report

StarMountainKid, on 19 March 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

What about all the matter in the universe that our minds do not intervene with? The entire universe doesn't exist except for the infinitesimal fraction we relate with?
Landry has confused interpretation for fact.
... and Rlyeh has confused denial with interpretation.
A geiger counter will still happily detect particles without someone observing it.
Your point???

Einstein likened the idea to the moon popping into existence when we look at the sky.
Niels Bohr's take on Schrödinger's cat rejects consciousness causes collapse.
Immaterial even if true... John A Wheeler proved it.

http://plato.stanfor.../qn-copenhagen/

"Fourth, although Bohr had spoken about "disturbing the phenomena by observation," in some of his earliest papers on complementarity, he never had in mind the observer-induced collapse of the wave packet. Later he always talked about the interaction between the object and the measurement apparatus which was taken to be completely objective. Thus, Schrödinger's Cat did not pose any riddle to Bohr. The cat would be dead or alive long before we open the box to find out. What Bohr claimed was, however, that the state of the object and the state of the instrument are dynamically inseparable during the interaction. Moreover, the atomic object does not posses any state separate from the one it manifests at the end of the interaction because the measuring instrument establishes the necessary conditions under which it makes sense to use the state concept."

See Delayed Choice and Quantum Eraser below for refutation.

  • Report
Apparently, What the #$*! Do We Know!? was "a great" brainwashing machine...
Apparently the people from What the #$*!  - could take brainwashing lessons from atheistic materialists!  

Quote

"Most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided"
That is so true.

Even

Quote

David Albert, a philosopher of physics who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics is linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."
Indeed, all this paranormal - quantum mechanics connection is just a big #$*! of faith  


I plan a future blog posting around the topic of the atheist / materialist articles of faith. Alas ... so much to do.  
  • Report
Rlyeh & bmk1245

Please reference the title of this blog posting, "Why I'm Skeptical" ... "of Matrialism" - yes ... I do put forward something of my interpretation of the meaning of the facts with specific regard to pseudo-skepticism via Materialism. Please note, an interpretation goes to the meaning attributed to the facts - the facts themselves are not in question.
I would agree that "quantum mysticism" would be considered pseudo-science ... but quantum physics (what's at issue here) is established science. Trying to poison the well by referencing something as pseudo-science, that you can't agree with on ideological grounds, is a gambit to avoid an honest assessment of the facts and their direct implications. Intellectual honesty is not compulsory and it's at the individuals discretion to police themselves.
"Such statements as, "a geiger counter will happily detect particles without someone observing it" tells me that you really aren't conceptualizing the subject matter at hand - not if you're really serious. I can't make much sense of what you're trying to say about the Delayed Choice experiment. The word choice itself directly invokes conscious involvement on the part of the experimenter. The Quantum Eraser Experiment, and the Delayed Choice Experiment were designed specifically to find if there were factors other than consciousness involved in the collapse of the wave function. The results ... bad news for those who want to confine consciousness to their physical brain.
Bad news for David Albert as well if his true sentiments are to exclude consciousness from current quantum research.

Further considerations for me were asking if the results of current findings of quantum physics are consistent with The First Principles of Logic. Yes.

Are the Delayed Choice Experiment, and the Quantum Eraser Experiment consistent with proven facts already in evidence? i.e. Alain Aspect's proof of non-locality.  Yes.

Is there an internally consistent philosophy that is also consistent with the current findings of quantum physics? Yes. Monistic Idealism ... not  Philosophical Materialism.

Is the current state of quantum physics consistent with the body of documented evidence for  non-ordinary experiences? Yes.
Skeptic, Richard Wiseman, ... "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven ..." He later went on to amend his original meaning of "remote viewing" in the expanded general sense of ESP ... Ganzfeld, etc!

My purpose here is to initiate a thought process independent of prior psychological and cognitive conditioning - it is not my purpose to proselytize.

For the honest inquirer I suggest,  *naive realism as a resource.

http://en.wikipedia....C3%AFve_realism

Thanks very much for commenting.  Posted Image
  • Report

and then, on 18 March 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

A couple of observations if you please.....
First - I'm not very well educated so I struggle with some of your concepts.  They seem fascinating and open up realms I've never dreamed of so TY.
Second, and please do not be offended, Are you REAL?  I mean if you truly are the young woman in the photo AND as obviously brilliant as you seem to be.... well lets just say it's an embarrassment of riches.  Sorry if I seem silly but when I see this face and read your thoughts there is a disconnect on my part and I feel as though maybe I'm part of a study of some kind.  
Honest query...I'm not some lurker.... :innocent:   perhaps my horizon's haven't been broad enough :lol:

Thank you! I am blessed with an embarrassment of riches - my family and friends.  Posted Image
  • Report

Landry, on 20 March 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Rlyeh & bmk1245

Please reference the title of this blog posting, "Why I'm Skeptical" ... "of Matrialism" - yes ... I do put forward something of my interpretation of the meaning of the facts with specific regard to pseudo-skepticism via Materialism. Please note, an interpretation goes to the meaning attributed to the facts - the facts themselves are not in question.
I would agree that "quantum mysticism" would be considered pseudo-science ... but quantum physics (what's at issue here) is established science. Trying to poison the well by referencing something as pseudo-science, that you can't agree with on ideological grounds, is a gambit to avoid an honest assessment of the facts and their direct implications. Intellectual honesty is not compulsory and it's at the individuals discretion to police themselves.
Do you ever ask yourself the same question when knocking down your straw men?
I read your post, you make a lot of assertions and demands of what you *think* materialists claim. You're essentially constructing their arguments, then knocking them down.
For instance you want Materialists to explain why matter doesn't exist, that's your view, not theirs.
I know what Materialism is and I know what they claim. Google it. As for the accusation that I created a straw man - why bother? You objectify what I've asserted. Think. If my arguments weren't contradictory to your materialistic beliefs - why bother with them?!?

Although quantum physics is science, the claims you've made is one interpretation of many. Please don't be disingenuous by pretending otherwise.
Denial of proven scientific fact is not an interpretation - it's denial. This has been covered.

Quote

"Such statements as, "a geiger counter will happily detect particles without someone observing it" tells me that you really aren't conceptualizing the subject matter at hand - not if you're really serious.
A geiger counter causes the wave collapse, it appears you're only picking experiments that you believe agree with your views, while passing off all others as irrelevant.
I guess Wheeler should have conducted his double slit experiments with a geiger counter instead? This really leads me to believe that you're just filibustering.

Quote

I can't make much sense of what you're trying to say about the Delayed Choice experiment. The word choice itself directly invokes conscious involvement on the part of the experimenter. The Quantum Eraser Experiment, and the Delayed Choice Experiment were designed specifically to find if there were factors other than consciousness involved in the collapse of the wave function. The results ... bad news for those who want to confine consciousness to their physical brain.
So you looked at the title and thought "It must be talking about conscious choice". Did you actually read the articles? Nothing about consciousness. In fact in QM, "observer" doesn't mean consciousness.

So ... the observer isn't conscious? Bad form when you're trying to conduct an experiment.


The problem is numerous experiments have refuted the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation.
For instance the observer can be a small device.

The experiments in question were designed to rule out that any thing other than a conscious observer having knowledge or being exempted from having knowledge was causing the wave function to collapse. Already covered.

http://www.scienceda...81237055013.htm
  • Report
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

http://www.scienceda...80227055013.htm

Thanks Posted Image
  • Report
Jeez, Landry, you do realize that "observer" is detector? From the article

Quote

The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human.
And detectors or photons wouldn't care much of experimenters singing cumbaya, nor standing on their heads, nor swearing, nor praying, etc


Rlyeh, did put it very nicely. Furthermore, I'd recommend to you to read actual paper(s) on experiment(s), for example, on realization of Wheeler's gedanken experiment V.Jacques, et al, Science 315 2007).
Or this: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/unreal.html
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/unreal.html
http://www.nature.co...nature05677.pdf
http://quantumenigma.com/


It comes down to this ... what is causing the collapse of the wave function is whether or not the experimenter can have knowledge of which slit it went through - or not.

Edit to add
  • Report
Landry, we aren't denying observation/measurement affects the results. We're questioning whether it *must* be a conscious human as you are asserting.
Again ... I wouldn't be asserting it if it weren't what the experiments prove.
  • Report
Guys ... really ... c'mon!
I've been looking over everything you've brought to me and I can't find a thing that's substantive as regards my original posting or anything I've said since. I've tried to take you seriously - my first reply is evidence of that fact. I've been reluctant to reply to you because I wasn't sure if you were kidding, or just filibustering. Let's talk about the weather in Lithuania or Australia if you want to talk! I won't hit the panic button if you get off topic.
My purpose is to state what I believe and why I believe it - as I've said before it's not my purpose to proselytize. Relax. If you can't accept my thesis at this point in time for whatever reason - I promise that I'm not going to pop a vein.

Anyway thanks for the comments.
  • Report
Filibustering again, I've read everything that you've presented with comprehension - get your information from somewhere other than websites with an ideological bias to promote. Try that.
  • Report

Quote

It comes down to this ... what is causing the collapse of the wave function is whether or not the experimenter can have knowledge of which slit it went through - or not.
:blink:
How do you know that?
Anyway, choice was made by quantum random number generator (i.e. random numbers were generated from the amplified shotnoise of a white lightbeam), and not by experimenters. Photons were detected by two silicon avalanche photodiodes. What experimenters did, they collected raw data (non quantum mechanical). Thats it. Nothing to do with consciousness, nor paranormal. But if you believe that all books are blank, so to speak, and letters appear only when you open book, then thats your choice and I will not try to convince you otherwise.

PS you will probably delete my reply like you did with Rlyeh's, but, hey, thats your blog.
  • Report

Landry, on 21 March 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

Filibustering again, I've read everything that you've presented with comprehension - get your information from somewhere other than websites with an ideological bias to promote. Try that.
You mean like wiki?  No not necessarily Wiki - just whoever it was that gave you the idea that a geiger counter could yield viable results in these type of experiments - and that consciousness is not involved. Try something with some scientific credibility. <<< Exactly - that's what I've been saying!
Oh thats right, they don't accept your paranormal quackery. <<< Now if you can find a website that doesn't promote ideologically motivated denial!

Keep pissing in the wind. I'm done with you.  

Okay  Posted Image
  • Report

bmk1245, on 21 March 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

:blink:
How do you know that?  <<<  Because I don't expect  to find reality buried under someone's vulnerable ideology - I look for an un-biased source.
  
"What is the difference? It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is not whether electrons were run through an electron detector at the slits. It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is whether the analysis of the results at the back wall is conducted when information about the electrons' positions at the slits is available, or not."  <<< see below for more clarity.

Anyway, choice was made by quantum random number generator (i.e. random numbers were generated from the amplified shotnoise of a white lightbeam), and not by experimenters. Photons were detected by two silicon avalanche photodiodes. What experimenters did, they collected raw data (non quantum mechanical). Thats it. Nothing to do with consciousness, nor paranormal. But if you believe that all books are blank, so to speak, and letters appear only when you open book, then thats your choice and I will not try to convince you otherwise. <<< I believe that a conscious observer having knowledge at a particular point in the experiment decides whether the wave probability is collapsed - as science has demonstrated. Old news.

See Below.

"John Archibald Wheeler is one of those thinkers who takes the ideas of quantum mechanics seriously. After studying the Copenhagen explanation of the double slit experiment – with its emphasis on what the observer knows and when it is known – Wheeler realized that the observer's choice might control those variables in a test.

"If what you say is true," he said (in effect), "then I may choose to know a property after the event should already have taken place."   Wheeler realized that in such a situation, the observer's choice would determine the outcome of the experiment – regardless of whether the outcome should logically have been determined long ago.

"Nonsense," said the reductionists. "Rubbish," said the materialists. "Completely absurd," said the naïve realists.  "Yup," said the mathematicians.

And so Wheeler's thought experiment and the predictions of quantum mechanics were brought to the laboratory for testing."

----

"In summary, we have chosen whether to know which slit the particle went through, by choosing to use the telescopes or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which slit the particle went through. We have delayed this choice until a time after the particles "have gone through one slit or the other slit or both slits," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines whether the particle passed through one slit or the other slit or both slits, so to speak. If you want to think of it this way (I don't recommend it), the particle exhibited after-the-fact wave-like behavior at the slits if you chose the screen; and it exhibited after-the-fact particle-like behavior at the slits if you chose the telescopes. Therefore, our delayed choice of how to measure the particle determines how the particle actually behaved at an earlier time."

http://www.bottomlay...ayed_choice.htm

http://www.bottomlay...-scully-web.htm





PS you will probably delete my reply like you did with Rlyeh's, but, hey, thats your blog.
   After about the third time it was getting monotonous - I wasn't going to reply to it again.
  • Report
Bottom line - you even didn't tried to find the paper I linked to (yes, you can find version experimenters sent to Science, with more details, just google it, and see for yourself) on experimental realization of Wheeler's thought experiment. I'm not bringing my interpretations, I'm posting what experimenters put in their paper in 2007. Experimenters only assembled equipment and recorded data, thats it. "Observers" were photodetectors, and choice was made by completely random process -  no consciousness during experiment needed whatsoever. Yes, you can substitute QRNG with switch, which can be put in position '1' or '2', in this case human being will be affecting experiment (but again, you can put Minkey the Beggar in charge of the switch) by switching states of the EOM with his finger, but experiment would fail if experimenters would try to alter experiment with their thoughts only, without switching switch with finger (or foot, or whatever body appendages they would prefer).
And I'd prefer read actual papers from actual researchers, not written by some philosopher, but I would be glad to see R.Rhodes reproducing results of experiment by his thoughts only, without any kind of "material" interaction.

New bottom line. You're completely missing the whole point of the experiment (because ideologically you have no choice).  "The difference is whether we know. The difference is whether we choose to have the information available." If you're more comfortable as a naive realist then that's your choice. Posted Image  Have fun.
  • Report
This conversation has run it's course it seems. If it's boring for me it's probably boring for anyone reading it. Covering the same material again and again when it was never in doubt is tedious and time consuming.
http://www.unexplain...0
Going in circles is going nowhere - unless the circle is a really an upward leading spiral.
  • Report

White Crane Feather
Mar 25 2012 09:11 PM
Landry, I have had the same experience with quite nearly the same group of people. You are doing a great job. Im done chasing that particular cats tail. It is always circular just as you say. I find it very odd that materialist fundamentalists claiming empiricism can never point to anything specific to back up their comments. Instead it's a desperate search for inconsistencies and non existent logical fallacies. You are brilliant carry on.
  • Report

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Tags

    Categories