Quantum woo

[Buket]

Is the connection between quantum physics and conciousness quantum woo?

[swansont]

Thus far, yes.

[Buket]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:09 PM, swansont said:

Thus far, yes.

Yes but some founders of QM don't think so..how come?

[elfmotat]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:35 PM, Buket said:

Yes but some founders of QM don't think so..how come?

 

 

For example? Usually this comes down to misunderstanding what is meant by "observer." I don't think consciousness has ever seriously been considered as relevant to QM.

[Buket]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:38 PM, elfmotat said:

 

 

For example? Usually this comes down to misunderstanding what is meant by "observer." I don't think consciousness has ever seriously been considered as relevant to QM.

Erwin Schrödinger, Max Plank..

[StringJunky]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:38 PM, elfmotat said:

 

 

For example? Usually this comes down to misunderstanding what is meant by "observer." I don't think consciousness has ever seriously been considered as relevant to QM.

Consciousness is an emergent property of countless molecules i.e big or macro stuff. Quantum is about nano-sized stuff, is it not? I don't think quantum at that scale with stuff as big as a brain, does it.

Edited August 24, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:44 PM, Buket said:

Erwin Schrödinger, Max Plank..

 

 

What exactly did they say?

[swansont]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:35 PM, Buket said:

Yes but some founders of QM don't think so..how come?

Which ones, and what is their disagreement?

[Buket]

  On 8/24/2016 at 10:22 PM, Strange said:

 

 

What exactly did they say?

Max planck: I regard conciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative from conciousness.

[Strange]

  On 8/24/2016 at 10:40 PM, Buket said:

Max planck: I regard conciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative from conciousness.

 

 

As you are too lazy to provide a reference, I'll do it for you: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

 

That appears to be a general philosophical position which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quantum theory. This is a very old idea, known as idealism, that has been supported by many people. For example, Bishop Berkeley:

  Quote

 

 

whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers, and as a result cannot exist without being perceived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

 

In other words, long before quantum theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Edited August 24, 2016 by Strange

[Buket]

  On 8/24/2016 at 11:01 PM, Strange said:

 

 

As you are too lazy to provide a reference, I'll do it for you: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

 

That appears to be a general philosophical position which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quantum theory. This is a very old idea, known as idealism, that has been supported by many people. For example, Bishop Berkeley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

 

In other words, long before quantum theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Then these scientists do not support this idea with science, right?

[Strange]

  On 8/24/2016 at 11:05 PM, Buket said:

Then these scientists do not support this idea with science, right?

 

 

That's right. It is purely philosophy.

[pzkpfw]

From: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96731-shaping-reality/

 

  On 7/27/2016 at 11:25 PM, Strange said:

It doesn't matter how often you ask the same question, the answer is still no.

(Of course in this thread the question is reversed.)

Edited August 25, 2016 by pzkpfw

[elfmotat]

  On 8/24/2016 at 9:55 PM, StringJunky said:

Consciousness is an emergent property of countless molecules i.e big or macro stuff. Quantum is about nano-sized stuff, is it not? I don't think quantum at that scale with stuff as big as a brain, does it.

 

It's pretty hard to argue at this point that consciousness is anything other than some emergent property of information processing in the brain. And I agree, quantum phenomena is only relevant at scales much smaller than that of neurons.

[StringJunky]

  On 8/25/2016 at 12:24 AM, elfmotat said:

 

It's pretty hard to argue at this point that consciousness is anything other than some emergent property of information processing in the brain. And I agree, quantum phenomena is only relevant at scales much smaller than that of neurons.

Cheers.

[Buket]

Why do you think founders of QM are very öuch into conciousness issue?

[Strange]

  On 8/25/2016 at 11:42 AM, Buket said:

Why do you think founders of QM are very öuch into conciousness issue?

 

Perhaps because they were German and idealism was a hot topic in Germany at the time.

[swansont]

  On 8/25/2016 at 11:42 AM, Buket said:

Why do you think founders of QM are very öuch into conciousness issue?

Why is this in the present tense? The founders of QM are dead.

[Strange]

  On 8/25/2016 at 12:06 PM, swansont said:

Why is this in the present tense? The founders of QM are dead.

 

Or are they ...

[Delta1212]

  On 8/25/2016 at 12:23 PM, Strange said:

 

Or are they ...

[swansont]

  On 8/25/2016 at 12:23 PM, Strange said:

Or are they ...

I looked.

[Strange]

  On 8/25/2016 at 1:44 PM, swansont said:

I looked.

 

Murderer!

[Buket]

  On 8/25/2016 at 12:06 PM, swansont said:

Why is this in the present tense? The founders of QM are dead.

Good catch

[swansont]

  On 8/25/2016 at 2:12 PM, Strange said:

Murderer!

Technically no. I only frightened them half to death.

[Delta1212]

  On 8/25/2016 at 3:14 PM, swansont said:

Technically no. I only frightened them half to death.

So they're simultaneously half-dead and radioactive?