Hijack from what happens to a particle after it stops being observed

[ACG52]

 

 

Metaphysical analysis...

No such thing.

[PeterJ]

Right. So, let me get this clear.

 

1. There is no such thing as metaphysical analysis.

 

2. Scientists are not allowed to talk about facts if they relate to Buddhism.

 

3. A person is not allowed to make comments here unless it is to give their own opinions.

 

Now I know the rules I can see why there's a problem.

 

Here's my view.

 

1. Metaphysics is analysis. That's what it is. For many people it would be a science.

 

2. A person is a blithering idiot if they think that it is wrong to mention Buddhism on a science forum, and not thoughtful or honest enough to be worth talking to.

 

3. To restrict oneself to giving ones opinions.is a sure recipe for a pointless discussion and lots of unnecessary arguments,.

 

I rarely visit this site unless it is to check a bit of mathematics or.ask a naïve technical question, This is because it is the worst forum for debate of all those that I know. It is awash with people who make discussion impossible, as we see here.

 

Don't mind me then. Let's have a discussion along the lines that seems to be preferred.

 

You're wrong. So there. (Stamps foot petulantly). Consciousness is made of cheese.

 

Your turn.

 

Note. I did not come here to discuss consciousness. I gave up doing that on this forum some years ago. I struggle to see why this prevents me from commenting when someone posts incorrect and profoundly unscientific remarks on a topic. I can refer to facts, and do not need to give an opinion. Or so I thought. It seems that the facts are not important here, and if they concern things of which we don't approve then even mentioning such facts is off-limits.

 

So much for life-long learning. More like life-long bending people's ear on topics that we can't be bothered to learn about. .

How about raising the standard here? Would nobody be up for this?

Edited April 8, 2014 by PeterJ

[Prometheus]

So people were talking about the collapse of a wave function, then someone said this:

...matter existed long before the universe had any concept of life or consciousness.

to which you strongly objected. It seems a reasonable enough suggestion, and people have since alluded to reasons why they think so. You obviously feel strongly otherwise, but will not allude to reasons why you think so. You have been invited (and i invite you again, i'm interested) to open a new thread to present the evidence on both sides. You decline to do so, but then rant at others for not seeking the evidence. You have levelled accusations of foot stamping and lack of dispassion, yet it seems you also display these qualities. I am therefore thoroughly confused about your position.

 

 

2. A person is a blithering idiot if they think that it is wrong to mention Buddhism on a science forum, and not thoughtful or honest enough to be worth talking to.

Whoa there. On a physics forum talking about the collapse of a wave function i don't think its inappropriate for someone to question the validity of buddhism as a credible source. Maybe buddhism can contribute to a discussion on consciousness. But given that buddhism has many branches with different beliefs, with some members believing the Buddha could make himself invisible, or had a golden penis, or that monks can fly, it is not surprising that people take mention of it in a science forum with scepticism. Maybe you should explain why they are wrong. Calling someone a blithering idiot is unlikely to help.

[PeterJ]

Hi Prometheus

 

I suggest you read what I wrote quite carefully. Unless I made a mistake, at no point did I take a stance on consciousness and matter. I took a strong view on people making wild and unsupported statements.

 

Of course we may question the validity of Buddhism as a credible source of ideas. We'd be a damn fool not to question it. But when I say that Buddhist doctrine on the issue at hand is unfalsifiable, I mean that this is a demonstrable fact. If it were just my opinion then I would have said so. I don't think we should not be allowed to state one of Wittgenstein's facts just because the word 'Buddhism' appears in the sentence.

 

When someone states a proposition about mind and matter that would render Buddhist doctrine false they display a certain naivety. They are not doing science but metaphysics, and clearly they do not know much about it. This is fine, it's not of interest to everyone, but you cannot just wade into someone else's specialism and start making statements that would, if they were true, mean that almost all the experts in the field are idiots.

 

Professional metaphysicians are unable to falsify Buddhist metaphysics, and the Mind-Matter problem is well known as being as yet undecided in western philosophy. In this case, we should be cautious when we make statements about this problem, and be careful not to close off research possibilities by confusing our beliefs with what we actually know. Experimental bias and all that. It's a bigger problem in philosophy than in physics. .

[Reaper79]

I think we can all agree that on a scientific forum, one would expect an argument followed by evidence to support that argument, and any opposer to that argument to state their case and present facts to back up their claims, thus the process of discussion and elimination leads us too a point where discussion and no further facts to be presented leaves us to conclude that for the moment, this is the best theory we have on a subject until new evidence can be presented.

 

I don't know.... or care which came first, the chicken or the egg, consciousness or matter, I would expect a reasonable argument for both in relative terms, and when speaking about consciousness, one will obviously have to consider spirituality and religions on varying scales and depths, but considering we cannot, at this time, prove or disprove the existence of God, consciousness without matter, or even which facts should be considered facts and which should be considered opinion or fantasy.

 

It is my opinion"" this discussion has gone "off-topic" and with nothing other than barbs and quick wit to share or contribute to this line of thought, I would like to suggest a return to the original topic, and explore what exactly happens to a particle after it stops being observed, and to be clear we are speaking about the duel slit experiment, where is seems to of been proven that a particle acts differently depending on whether or not it is being observed. Which in my opinion is weird, wonderful and deserving of further discussion.

 

So may we please return to grown up land, and stop trading jabs like children, of course you may continue as you wish, but if your posts do not concern the duel slit experiment, or have something to do with who said what and where and why, I would politely ask you create your own threads, and attempt to keep this one, and others like it on topic and making ground.

 

Thanks for reading, and have a nice day.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Reaper79

[PeterJ]

Quite. Stating that matter is prior to consciousness is not doing science, it's reading tea leaves. Let's stop with the wild statements and stick with the science.

[Strange]

Quite. Stating that matter is prior to consciousness is not doing science, it's reading tea leaves. Let's stop with the wild statements and stick with the science.

 

So you have scientific evidence that consciousness is prior to matter?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Mircea Kitsune - please do not post merely to direct attention to your own thread, even if you think it may be of interest. I have hidden your post as it added nothing to this thread. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

 

[Strange]

But when I say that Buddhist doctrine on the issue at hand is unfalsifiable, I mean that this is a demonstrable fact.

 

If it is unfalsifiable, then it is not science and, as you say, has no place in this discussion.

[PeterJ]

Strange - it is irrelevant what evidence I have. I did not make the claim. I was complaining about lack of rigour.

 

Reaper - I agree completely. To the extent I might be guilty I apologise. I would also like to hear more about the original question.

[MigL]

This is ridiculous.

 

Most of the people you are arguing with, PeterJ, can define a wave function and matter, they can also tell you how they behave under most conditions.

 

Can you do the same for conciousness, or even just define it ?

 

Until you can, your metaphysical, Buddhist claptrap doesn't belong in a physics forum or this specific thread.

 

My apologies if I offend.

[Strange]

Strange - it is irrelevant what evidence I have. I did not make the claim. I was complaining about lack of rigour.

 

The lack of rigor in pointing that you are dragging the thread off topic by talking about non-scientific subjects.

[PeterJ]

I see. So we can say any old thing in this discussion. This approach would seem to render the discussion useless.

 

At no time did I promote any particular view of consciousness, and I had no desire to discuss it. When someone makes an unscientific and untestable claim about the world we should all object to it, even if it is about consciousness. I was amazed that nobody else agreed with me on a science forum.

 

I completely agree about getting back to the OP's interesting question. But let's do it with some precision.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This is was in the QM section, in the physics section. Discussion of consciousness is OT

 

Edit: Split it off, and since it was just sniping, moved to the trash can