This is an old article but it blew my mind

[airmax14]

I am a firm believer of science but this article has really shaken my philosophical belief in Life, nature, outside world and everything. Worth a read.

I don't really believe in afterlife but this is shaking my belief.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-isn-t-the-end

Your thoughts?

[Strange]

Pseudoscientific hogwash. With a large side order of Quantum Woo. 

[airmax14]

How can you say it's pseudoscientific?

It is referring to real peer reviewed experiments.

They are making an hypothesis but that hypothesis perfectly fills in the gap left by these experiments.

[koti]

57 minutes ago, airmax14 said:

How can you say it's pseudoscientific?

It is referring to real peer reviewed experiments.

They are making an hypothesis but that hypothesis perfectly fills in the gap left by these experiments.

Hi airmax14 and welcome to the forum.

Lets see, the article states:
"Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you don't watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple, reality is a process that involves your consciousness"

How would you imagine the two-slit experiment outcome when there were no consciousness present on earth say 2 billion years ago? Would you say that the laws of physics were different than due to the lack of any consciousness or would you rather lean towards that this is like Strange said pseudoscientific crap ?
 
 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, airmax14 said:

It is referring to real peer reviewed experiments.

But it is totally misrepresenting them. It is like saying "astronomy shows that the planets move. Therefore astrology is correct."

For example:

Quote

Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you don't watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple, reality is a process that involves your consciousness.

Is just nonsense. The behaviour has nothing to do with consciousness.And he has the description of the experiment almost totally backwards. It is not the act of watching that changes the behaviour, but constraining the photon to go through just one slit: this changes the result of the experiment to what you would get if the photon went through one slit (not surprisingly). If you allow the photon to go through both slits, then you get a result consistent with it going through both.

The rest is just more of the same misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Edit: cross-posted with koi. Interesting we both picked the same paragraph. I was initially going to pick the drivel about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Presumably I changed my mind because koti "observed" the article at the same time!

Edited March 8, 2018 by Strange

[Area54]

I thought the articles argument similar to that used by creationists who think that if they present evidence against evolution this provides confirmation of supernatural creation. In this instance even if events were influenced by the conscious act of observation, it does not necessarily follow that consciousness must extend beyond death.

[Gees]

Airmax14;

Welcome to the Philosophy section of the Science forum.

 

2 hours ago, airmax14 said:

I am a firm believer of science but this article has really shaken my philosophical belief in Life, nature, outside world and everything. Worth a read.

I don't really believe in afterlife but this is shaking my belief.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-isn-t-the-end

Your thoughts?

I am a philosopher, not a scientist, and I study consciousness. I can not answer the questions regarding Science, but it looks as though Strange and Koti can, so they can help you understand. I can, however, talk about the Philosophy that is in that article.

First, let me state that any "theory of everything" is very unlikely to be valid. I would go further in stating that it may be impossible for it to be valid except as a "belief". Why? Because once you study it and track down the particulars of the "theory" a "theory of everything" ends up denying perspective and subjectivity. It denies the individual perspective and subjectivity that comes with each of our bodies. The only way to avoid this is to purport that we are a bunch of "souls" floating in our own reality waiting for a body to inhabit -- which is Religion's belief. But even most Religions do not see us as "floating souls" and expect that "souls" are created -- by "God". So be very skeptical when anyone says, "theory of everything".

Also consider that if death is just an illusion, then life is also an illusion -- or nothing is real. This is NOT a new idea. Various illusion theories go back as far as Plato's time and have been considered off an on through the ages. You can look up "solipsism" in Wiki, which will give you a general idea of some of these "theories".

Remember that Science is not a belief; it is a working, growing study of reality, so as it learns it changes. This means that sometimes a new concept will be discovered, like the double-slit experiment, and will generate a great deal of hypotheses and even speculation attached to the idea. It often takes some time before Science truly understands it. You noted that the article was old, so I suspect that it was written at a time when we knew about the double-slit experiment, but did not fully understand it yet. 

I am not sure that anything actually ends -- it just changes.

Gee

[koti]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Edit: cross-posted with koi. Interesting we both picked the same paragraph. I was initially going to pick the drivel about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Presumably I changed my mind because koti "observed" the article at the same time!

Its even more bizzare...I initially wanted to pick the Heisenberg drivel too but decided to target the double slit faulty example presented in the article. I’m not sure why, maybe because I thought its closest to sanity. Article quantum superposition right back at ya  

4 minutes ago, Gees said:

Airmax14;

Welcome to the Philosophy section of the Science forum.

 

I am a philosopher, not a scientist, and I study consciousness. I can not answer the questions regarding Science, but it looks as though Strange and Koti can, so they can help you understand. I can, however, talk about the Philosophy that is in that article.

First, let me state that any "theory of everything" is very unlikely to be valid. I would go further in stating that it may be impossible for it to be valid except as a "belief". Why? Because once you study it and track down the particulars of the "theory" a "theory of everything" ends up denying perspective and subjectivity. It denies the individual perspective and subjectivity that comes with each of our bodies. The only way to avoid this is to purport that we are a bunch of "souls" floating in our own reality waiting for a body to inhabit -- which is Religion's belief. But even most Religions do not see us as "floating souls" and expect that "souls" are created -- by "God". So be very skeptical when anyone says, "theory of everything".

Also consider that if death is just an illusion, then life is also an illusion -- or nothing is real. This is NOT a new idea. Various illusion theories go back as far as Plato's time and have been considered off an on through the ages. You can look up "solipsism" in Wiki, which will give you a general idea of some of these "theories".

Remember that Science is not a belief; it is a working, growing study of reality, so as it learns it changes. This means that sometimes a new concept will be discovered, like the double-slit experiment, and will generate a great deal of hypotheses and even speculation attached to the idea. It often takes some time before Science truly understands it. You noted that the article was old, so I suspect that it was written at a time when we knew about the double-slit experiment, but did not fully understand it yet. 

I am not sure that anything actually ends -- it just changes.

Gee

I think it was Richard Feynman, one of the most renowned phycisists who expressed a duality in thinking about nature. He was equally comfortable with an ultimate model of reality and one that reveals endless layers uppon layers of things to discover. For me it is comfortable to think in these terms and not try to predetermine anything. 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I think it was Richard Feynman, one of the most renowned phycisists who expressed a duality in thinking about nature. He was equally comfortable with an ultimate model of reality and one that reveals endless layers uppon layers of things to discover. For me it is comfortable to think in these terms and not try to predetermine anything. 

Einstein famously remarked " The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible."

In this regard I view Einstein as an optimist. I cannot think of any plausible reason why homo sapiens should (yet) be sufficiently intelligent, or to have gathered sufficient data, to properly determine the "true" nature of reality. As they say,  just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

[Eise]

9 hours ago, airmax14 said:

Your thoughts?

It is rubbish. Others already mentioned how the author has his science wrong on quantum mechanics. I can only second these arguments

This of course is a nonsense argument:

Quote

 

After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said "Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us ... know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

New evidence continues to suggest that Einstein was right, death is an illusion.

 

Where did Einstein say that death is an illusion? There is a huge argumentative gap between 'the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion' and 'death is an illusion'.

Quote

Death doesn't exist in a timeless, spaceless world. Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time, but resides outside of time altogether.

The world is not exactly timeless and spaceless. It is only that space and time are intertwined in an exact defined way according to Einstein's special relativity, and therefore is called 'spacetime'. But spacetime is another way at looking at events. It does not mean that events are illusions. And because death is an event, it is no illusion either.

The whole article is New Age woo, worth nothing from a scientific viewpoint, worth nothing from a philosophical viewpoint.

[Area54]

33 minutes ago, Eise said:

The whole article is New Age woo, worth nothing from a scientific viewpoint, worth nothing from a philosophical viewpoint.

It has value as material for a critical thinking exercise.  Arguably, all things have value, even if it is not the value their creators intended.

[Scotty99]

If there is an afterlife it would have to be a whole different thing. No memories to compare/contrast etc, it just couldnt work that way.

[Lasse]

On 2018. 03. 09. at 1:57 AM, koti said:

Its even more bizzare...I initially wanted to pick the Heisenberg drivel too but decided to target the double slit faulty example presented in the article. I’m not sure why, maybe because I thought its closest to sanity. Article quantum superposition right back at ya  

I think it was Richard Feynman, one of the most renowned phycisists who expressed a duality in thinking about nature. He was equally comfortable with an ultimate model of reality and one that reveals endless layers uppon layers of things to discover. For me it is comfortable to think in these terms and not try to predetermine anything. 

It is good that you base your thinking on reality.

Everything seems to be predetermined until the current moment.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Everything seems to be predetermined until the current moment

You seem to be ignoring the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, which suggests things are not predetermined.

[Lasse]

Death is an energetic change in reality.

Every matter, every atom is there for the function, just not the Enegy One is.

We know from thermodynamics that energy can not get lost just be the subject of change.

I do not know you can call it life (most likely) but for sure that some level of conscious existence after experiencing death supposed to be...

How could anything become energy, matter, information, space (time) free Noting...

49 minutes ago, Strange said:

You seem to be ignoring the probabilistic nature of quantum theory, which suggests things are not predetermined.

So you think there is a possibility(probability) that at the next moment of existance I am not me, what Nature ment me to be, but I could be anything and become a pink unicorn somehow? 

The freedom of choice impacting reality in the present moment seems to be true.

You can not change the atomic structure without a lot of work. You can impact it's course in space

Matter (the atoms you are) is impacted by energy i.e you still have to think to move.

For me is seems to be a fundamentally predetermined system with some level of freedom...

Edited April 16, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, Lasse said:

So you think there is a possibility(probability) that at the next moment of existance I am not me, what Nature ment me to be, but I could be anything and become a pink unicorn somehow? 

Of course not. What a ridiculous thing to say.

The fact that outcomes are probabilistic doesn't mean they are random.

55 minutes ago, Lasse said:

The freedom of choice impacting reality in the present moment seems to be true.

If we had freedom of choice, that would contradict your claim that everything is predetermined.

56 minutes ago, Lasse said:

For me is seems to be a fundamentally predetermined system with some level of freedom...

So it is predetermined except when it isn't. Very useful.

[Lasse]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

If we had freedom of choice, that would contradict your claim that everything is predetermined

Why? Our freedom of choice will be as well always relative. It will be always effected by past social and cultural impacts, genetics, learned knowledge, experience, physical circumstances...

Absolute "freedom" (separation) from the system can not be.

Some level of individual integrity is detectable. 

If a theory does not describe the macro aspects of reality, than the theory is incomplete.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Why?

Because if things are predetermined then the outcome is fixed in advance, therefore you can't have a free choice. 

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

If a theory does not describe the macro aspects of reality, than the theory is incomplete.

Not sure how that is relevant, but all theories are incomplete. The theory of evolution doesn't tell us about gravity and the theory of relativity doesn't explain how plants are ablate photosynthesise. 

[Lasse]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because if things are predetermined then the outcome is fixed in advance, therefore you can't have a free choice. 

So if I have a banana I can not decide that I eat it ot not.

Everything is predetermined but I still have a free choice. It is some level of freedom. This freedom obviously can not be absolutely independent from everything else.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Lasse said:

So if I have a banana I can not decide that I eat it ot not.

If it is predetermined that you will eat it then you cannot choose not to eat it.

If it is predetermined that you will not eat it then you cannot choose to eat it.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand. I think you need to take an introductory logic course. (I have had the same problem with religious people claiming that both an omniscient god and free will can be true at the same time.)

[Lasse]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it is predetermined that you will eat it then you cannot choose not to eat it.

If it is predetermined that you will not eat it then you cannot choose to eat it.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand. I think you need to take an introductory logic course. (I have had the same problem with religious people claiming that both an omniscient god and free will can be true at the same time.)

This is true.

Sooner or later if I am hungry I would eat it. Still I would have a level of integrity to change the course of action (i.e determin when I eat it)

[Raider5678]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't know why that is so hard to understand. I think you need to take an introductory logic course. (I have had the same problem with religious people claiming that both an omniscient god and free will can be true at the same time.)

 

They are. It's cause and effect.

Let's assume the future is already determined.

Your free-will is what determined the future, the future didn't determine your free-will.

[Strange]

Just now, Lasse said:

Still I would have a level of integrity to change the course of action (i.e determin when I eat it)

Not if it is predetermined. 

If it is predetermined that you will eat it at 15:03 then that is when you will eat it. That is what "predetermined" means. 

Just now, Raider5678 said:

They are. It's cause and effect.

Let's assume the future is already determined.

Your free-will is what determined the future, the future didn't determine your free-will.

Good answer!

So you get one shot at "free will" then, after that, the future is predetermined and so you can't change your mind?

Or, you have changed the meaning of "predetermined" to mean "not determined at all; the future can change at any time"?

[Lasse]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Not if it is predetermined. 

If it is predetermined that you will eat it at 15:03 then that is when you will eat it. That is what "predetermined" means. 

Absolutely predetermined can not be.

Predetermined in the past until the present moment.

In the present i can have impact on the course of action.

[Strange]

Just now, Lasse said:

Absolutely predetermined can not be.

So you have changed your mind?

Just now, Lasse said:

Predetermined in the past until the present moment.

That is not predetermination which, by definition, is about the future.

So all you are saying is that the past is fixed and can't be changed. Wow. Insightful.