Demystifying Quantum Physics

[PolyHedral]

Specialized knowledge arrived at via thought is unnecessary in order to determine the nature of Reality. In fact, specialized knowledge cannot tell us that.

What I detailed is the (approximate) nature of reality. Everything we experience as humans are approximations of that, and normally very specific approximations to boot.

OK. So tell me how the non-physical can emerge from the physical. This is the current hard question.

The non-physical is what an algorithm looks like from the inside. What's the issue?

 

[godnotgod]

What I detailed is the (approximate) nature of reality. Everything we experience as humans are approximations of that, and normally very specific approximations to boot.

That is a description of reality, not its nature. It is like trying to say that the Chopin Piano Concerto #1 are the notes used to play it.

For example, let's just say, without actually knowing for certain, that the nature of Reality is that the universe is illusory. There's no way of measuring that; of knowing that via logic, analysis, or reason, except that what we know about atoms from science almost points in that direction, and QM even moreso.

The non-physical is what an algorithm looks like from the inside. What's the issue?

That you are using consciousness to tell me that.

 

[godnotgod]

Contrast Chopra with the physicist he cited, Amit Goswami. In one video GNG posted, Goswami was very specific. He said that researchers in Mexico did an experiment. Without bothering with details, suffice it to say that after the experiment, measurements were compared to look for any (telepathic) influence of one human subject on another.

Now that's a theory I can sink my teeth into, so to speak. Either the measurements are correlated to each other beyond what is expected by random chance, or they are not. Call Goswami's theory what you will, but at least it isn't vague nonsense. (Personally I suspect it is wrong.) I have yet to see Chopra say anything about physics which rises to this level.

And yet, they both agree about how consciousness arises and its nature, in relation to the physical world, which is really the point in all this.

There are two ways home: the long road and the short road. Science and Religion are on the long road. Mysticism is already there.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

While Chopra is a medical doctor, he is not a scientist.

Someone should tell Chopra that:

"I think I'm going to have to say [about quantum physics] that science is now in a process of overthrowing ... the superstition of materialism ... that the essential nature of the physical world is not physical. Science also tells us ... that there are gaps between every two "ons" where you find a field of possibilities, a field of pure potentiality ... Science also tells us that there's a field of non-locality, where everything is correlated with everything else. ... Today, science tells us that the essential nature of reality is non-local correlation, everything is connected to everything else ... that there are quantum leaps of creativity; that there is something called the "observer effect", where intention orchestrates spacetime events which we then measure as movement, and motion, and energy, and matter. ... And all you have to do is understand the principles of science, that you have the resources within you to intuitively grasp this mystery."
-Chopra in debate with Harris and Shermer [emphasis added]

"[A physicist and myself have] several published papers, some of them in refereed journals like the Journal of Cosmology."
-Chopra, responding to a Reddit question from a physicist asking where Chopra obtained his knowledge of quantum physics, and how he responds to "the fact that so many members of the physics community feel that your presentation of quantum theory is misleading".

Harris (paraphrasing): "You are not a physicist. I am not a physicist. No one on this stage is qualified to lecture a room full of Caltech physicists on physics."
Chopra, responding to Harris: "I object to what Sam Harris said about my credentials. ... I took physics and biology and chemistry. The fact is, if anyone on this stage is qualified, it's me."
Harris: "We all took physics and biology and chemistry."
Later in that debate, Leonard Mlodinow (actual physicist) tries to explain how Chopra's use of "nonlocal" was incorrect; Chopra interrupts him.

Chopra and Mlodinow, writing about their book War of the Worldviews:
"Cosmos: Leonard describes Einstein's theory of relativity, and quantum theory, and how they are combined to create a scientific theory of how the universe began and evolved. He describes the impressive agreement between the theoretical predictions based on this picture and actual observations of the heavens made by astronomers. Deepak proposes a creative first cause that preceded the infinitesimally brief Planck epoch (10-43 seconds) following the Big Bang. He suggests that since the laws of nature and perhaps space and time emerged after the Planck epoch, any understanding of the pre-created universe remains outside the scope of objective science.
...
Life: We describe the cutting-edge ideas of modern genetics. Leonard argues that physical evolution occurs through random mutations and natural selection. Deepak argues that random mutations are not an adequate explanation for the variety and speed of viable adaptations."

I didn't hear Chopra admit "I'm not a scientist" anywhere in there, did you? Notice, friends, that Chopra says according to science there's a field of non-locality, where everything is correlated with everything else. Ask the baseball from the OP about this.

And yet, they both agree about how consciousness arises and its nature, in relation to the physical world, which is really the point in all this.

Right, they both agree. But Chopra is talking nonsense because he has no clue about quantum physics, whereas Goswami is just wrong.

There are two ways home: the long road and the short road. Science and Religion are on the long road. Mysticism is already there.

Yes, mysticism is already there and it was already somewhere else, too. Just look at how mystics ran away with the luminiferous ether, for example, before that was disproved by science.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I mentioned this in another thread but it's worth paraphrasing and discussing here: quantum mechanics does not require "conscious" observers. This is a mistake usually made by those outside physics. When physicists talk about "observers" doing a measurement they use that word for convenience; really, any "classical" object physically interacting with a quantum object can be considered an "observer" doing a "measurement".

So I really feel quite strongly (and most physicists would agree) that quantum mechanics does not need "consciousness" any more than it needs homo sapiens, or Earth, etc. Those things cost extra, so to speak.

I also feel that consciousness doesn't need quantum mechanics in principle, either. Suppose physics had stopped in 1900 and it turned out we lived in a classical world. Consciousness would still be a difficult problem. We could still have exactly the same debate: there would be people on one side arguing it arises from the complex operation of information-processing machinery (such as brains, computers), and there would be those on the other side arguing that there's a "ghost in the machine" directing the machinery, so to speak. This debate has nothing to do, in principle, with whether we are talking about quantum machines or classical machines. For example, the precise behavior of a block of metal is, at the end of the day, "quantum" but we are not tempted to call it conscious; likewise the behavior of an advanced robot or a brain could for all practical purposes be "classical" but we might still be tempted to call it conscious.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

While Chopra is a medical doctor, he is not a scientist.

When did medicine stop being a science? Have medical schools, medical doctors, as well as health-related government offices been informed of this?

His view is not from science, but from that of the mystic. He is interpreting what science says through the mystical view, which is direct experience with Reality.

Everyone who deals with the sciences interprets (from those who by a book on global warming to teachers in schools and universities and incuding scientists). And perfectly capable scientists, from Dawkins to Behe, have worldviews which are clearly influenced by a lot more than scientific evidence and have little or nothing to do with their field.

The question isn't whether one's view is "from science", but how one views/interprets scientific research and evidence. There are some areas in probably any field where there a lots of theories and very little agreement.

What that means is that, it is not Chopra's personal view, as that is transcended in the mystical view, which is a universal view. So what Chopra is telling us comes from the universe itself.

Then he should stop talking about physics.

I tend to trust more what the universe tells us about itself rather than what a conceptual scientific model does.

If the mystical knowledge you refer to is superior to science in understanding scientific theories such as quantum nonlocality, then why is science necessary at all? Why do we need quantum physics or any physics rather than just utilizing the knowledge gained by those who can directly understand what "comes from the universe itself"?

Were it not for those scientific models, neither you nor Chopra would be saying a word about quantum physics. Instead, we'd still think that the Earth revolves around the sun, that health is a matter of things like excess black bile, humors, or that blood-letting is a general cure for a broad range of illnesses.

It's fine to realize that scientific theories are limited by their methods, and if one chooses to think that these methods are either useless or are only useful up to a particular point, I don't usually have any problem with this at all (exceptions would be things teaching creationism in schools or denying children medical care).

However, relying on scientific theories which are then distorted is a different matter altogether. It is to accept what scientific methods can produce while selectively determining when and where they can't for no reason other than that one has, for example, mystical knowledge.

However, the scientific model can supply details which the mystical view cannot.

That's not what's happening here. We aren't talking about adding details not covered or impossible to cover in the models. We are talking about altering the models. And if the mystical view can tell us what details in physics are inaccurate, why can't it tell us all the details?

That is why mystics have a healthy respect for science.

I don't doubt this is true in many cases. The same is true for many people who not mystics but are religious or spiritual. But respect for science would be something like "science is useful for what it can do, but at some point science can't give us the answers and we need God/the divine/the Goddess/Nature/etc. to tell us the rest"

What respect for science is not is to take scientific theories and, rather than add onto them, distort them.

The scientist deliberately ignores the intuitive, that is, except for some, like Einstein, Planck, and Goswami.

Einstein is perhaps the most ardent critique of quantum physics ever. That nonlocality stuff you reference? He tried for years and years to show it meant QM had to be inaccurate. Why? Because QM is counter-intuitive.

 

[godnotgod]

Right, they both agree. But Chopra is talking nonsense because he has no clue about quantum physics, whereas Goswami is just wrong.

Wrong on both counts.

Yes, mysticism is already there and it was already somewhere else, too. Just look at how mystics ran away with the luminiferous ether, for example, before that was disproved by science.

Cool. I never said 'all mystics are absolutely correct'.

 

[godnotgod]

My position in all of this is that man errs in seeking factual knowledge first to provide an understanding of the nature of the universe and of Reality. Having said that, I am NOT saying factual knowledge is inconsequential. But in order to understand factual knowledge correctly, it must be seen in the proper context, and that context is what the true nature of Reality* is. Since science cannot answer this question via its own methods, a different approach must be made, and that is the intuitive path in order to access and experience Reality directly, without conceptual thought. When this approach is taken, the ordinary world we refer to as 'reality' becomes transformed, not because anything in it has changed, but because our consciousness has.

One might say, however, that this change is to a delusive state, but a delusive state is one which differs from what true Reality actually is, and that is the state which most of mankind is already in, without being aware of it. Our current consciousness is already a highly altered consciousness away from its natural state, and that includes science.

Our natural state of consciousness is unconditioned, ungrown, unborn, deathless, and reflects Reality as it is, rather than how the conditioned, rational mind tells us it is. Of course, we don't notice this conditioning much, simply because we have been socially indoctrinated from the get-go. A quick example in terms of the current discussion is the nature of matter, which, upon further investigation, shows that it is not like our classical conditioning has told us it is. Mystics have, more or less, pointed to the illusory nature of the material world for centuries, although science has not gone so far as to say that.

Regarding QM, therefore, it must be seen and understood in light of Reality, and not the other way around, which is the path that science seems to be taking. The general idea is that, via subjective/objective intellectual study of the individual 'parts', an understanding of the universe and of Reality will be reached someday. This approach, by itself, will result in no understanding, but a sterile and mechanical view of the universe. That is, in fact, already the case.

The mystical view, OTOH, shows us a universe that is alive, creative, and intelligent. As Alan Watts put it, 'you don't understand it as much as it understands you.'

Chopra comments about his video:

"I held that modern science, although a great thing, makes the mistake of separating the observer and the observed. By positing a universe "out there" that can be measured at a safe distance, physics overlooks the obvious fact that we ourselves are part of the universe; in fact, we are an activity that cannot be separated from the total activity of the universe. This is by no means an outrageous claim. The eminent physicist John Wheeler argued passionately for a participatory universe, and the necessary link between observer and observed is part of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics."

*I distinguish here between the ordinary, conditioned view we call 'reality' and true, unconditioned Reality, or 'things as they are'.
*****

The following video is in response to a lecture given by Richard Dawkins, which is also referenced below, should you desire more context.

From the archive: Deepak Chopra


Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism | Video on TED.com

Also, for qualifying comments from Deepak Chopra concerning the video noted above, see here:

https://www.deepakchopra.com/blog/view/1139/ted_relents_but_whose_hash_has_been_settled?_

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Godnotgod,

Legion made a very good point. Einstein believed everything was determined by strictly deterministic laws of physics (as opposed to the statistical/probabilistic laws of QM). This seems incompatible with your ideas about consciousness controlling matter through QM. Do you think in light of this it's a mistake to invoke Einstein in the service of those ideas?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Godnotgod,

It would help instead of always speaking in general, abstract terms to throw in more specific examples that illustrate what you mean. A lot of the time, I really have no idea what you mean. For example, notice how I talked about robots, brains, a hunk of metal, etc. I mentioned those things to try to put my ideas in action and make it more likely that you will understand what I mean. Now, I know you're going to be tempted to accuse me of some sort of closed-mindedness by requesting "concrete" examples when you want to focus on abstract things. But I don't mean it literally has to be "concrete". For example, maybe you could illustrate your points using the optical illusion of the Necker cube, or things of that nature. Anything to help put your ideas "into action" so we can see what you actually mean.

For example, you say: "Regarding QM, therefore, it must be seen and understood in light of Reality, and not the other way around, which is the path that science seems to be taking."

Could you give examples of what you mean here? Maybe you could cite some recently discovered phenomenon and talk about how scientists understand it. You could contrast how the "path" you favor in regard to QM helps to unravel the phenomenon, whereas "the other way around" does not. This way we can see your ideas in action and see how they work under pressure, so to speak.

 

[godnotgod]

Godnotgod,

Legion made a very good point. Einstein believed everything was determined by strictly deterministic laws of physics (as opposed to the statistical/probabilistic laws of QM). This seems incompatible with your ideas about consciousness controlling matter through QM. Do you think in light of this it's a mistake to invoke Einstein in the service of those ideas?

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.”

Albert Einstein

You should poke around here awhile:

Chapter 1 : Einstein

 

[godnotgod]

A lot of the time, I really have no idea what you mean.

For example, you say: "Regarding QM, therefore, it must be seen and understood in light of Reality, and not the other way around, which is the path that science seems to be taking."

Could you give examples of what you mean here?

I then went on to say:

"The general idea [of the scientific approach] is that, via subjective/objective intellectual study of the individual 'parts', an understanding of the universe and of Reality will be reached someday. This approach, by itself, will result in no understanding, but a sterile and mechanical view of the universe. That is, in fact, already the case."

The site I referenced to about Einstein and intuition is a response to this sterile reductionism.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is a response to Legion, from another thread.

The idea that the type of observer matters goes back to Bohr, Heisenberg, and Born. According to Schlosshauer, "The Copenhagen interpretation, on the other hand, appears to emphasize an epistemic nature of the collapse". He also notes "Heisenberg’s radical statement that “the particle trajectory is created by our act of observing it". Born stated in his 1950 lecture on physics and metaphysics that he, Einstein, & Bohr all are part of a generation taught that there exists a world operating according to laws totally independent of observers, an "objective physical world", and goes on to say that it is Einstein who holds on to this view of the "relation between the scientific observer and the subject". The ambiguity has a lot to do with language (as you note), but also a lot to do with what the Copenhagen interpretation deliberately did not say and what remained undefined. Heisenberg's emphasis on the act of observing, on subjective knowledge of what becomes objective reality certainly didn't mean Heisenberg thought that objective reality was created by a conscious observer, but his descriptions (as well as Bohr's) are I think deliberately vague here. For Bohr, a key idea was the more or less meaningless nature of a question like "what is a quantum system before it is measured/observed?", but because both he and (to a lesser extent) Heisenberg avoided talking about the ontological status of quantum states prior to observation, rather than just interaction, the connection between consciousness and how it creates reality had its roots in the discussions leading up to the Copenhagen interpretation.

Heisenberg, in his correspondence with Stapp, was quite explicit that the Copenhagen interpretation was never entended to be a "complete" ontology but emphasized the relationship between observation and the transition from subjective to objective reality which accompanies it.

I do not, of course, mean to imply that Bohr, Heisenberg, von Neumann, etc., ever intended to mean that consciousness constructs reality, or that I believe it does. Rather, by emphasizing the importance of measurement/observation for objective reality, and minimizing or avoiding the relationship between the objective and the epistemic, they opened the door pretty wide. Guys like Bohm and Everett didn't connect consciousness and/or measurement with the construction of an otherwise ontologicallly "vague" reality because they were thinking radically (especially when it comes to Everett, whose dissertation was rather significantly altered from what he intended it to be, and who is connected with the many-worlds interpretation even though he never used the term, and his "relative state" version was not the same as the many-worlds interpretation of Dewitt who coined the term and connected it to Everett).

Bohm, Everett, and even Pauli and Schroedinger (at least later on) all were unsatisfied with the idea that reality at its basis is a mathematical abstraction, and although Bohr et al. certainly didn't think that it was, they treated it as if it were.

Thanks for your response. (I'd give you frubals but I'm out.) You are right, historically the people who developed quantum mechanics left the door open to speculation about the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. Today I think physicists are more comfortable with QM because a lot more experimentation has been done. They are comfortable with a lot more nuance, a lot more in-between the idealizations of particle vs. wave, measurement vs. interaction. This isn't because the early physicists were closed-minded (far from it) but because we have a lot more experiments to reassure us and take the burden off our minds (just look at what Nature says instead of trying to imagine it).

I mean you can literally get images of QM in action using a scanning-tunneling microscope (STM), for example. They didn't have this technology before circa 1980. Perhaps you already know about this, but in case you don't, the STM itself measures a quantum effect (tunneling of electrons off a metal surface). Below is an STM image of the density of electrons on a copper surface, with a ring of iron atoms forming a "quantum corral". The atoms were actually picked up and placed into position one-by-one using the STM. It's called a "quantum corral" because the ring of atoms forms a barrier, with surface electrons trapped inside and forced into particular quantum states. This gives rise to visually-striking rings of electron density due to their wave-like nature. If you've ever worked out the standard "particle in a box" homework problem in quantum mechanics, this is essentially what the spatial distribution of the wavefunction looks like (actually the probability distribution, which is essentially the wavefunction squared):

Of course there isn't just one, but many electrons in there. However, we can also see the effects of QM on a single atom placed inside. Here the experimenters put an atom inside the corral at one position (purple spike), but it partially appears (smaller purple spike) in another position also favored by the rules of QM. They gave this the sexy term, "quantum mirage":

Images like these save us a lot of theoretical head-scratching. Does anyone really believe that before a conscious human looked at the computer screen output of the STM, there was some kind of non-real superposition of images onscreen? That assumption doesn't make physical sense, and it is not necessary. Furthermore, did the interaction of the STM with the electrons collapse everything into perfect, neat-and-tidy particles? Not exactly, that's an idealization, real measurements are a little "squishy". But doesn't a superposition of states only become "real" when they collapse into a single state? I dunno .... the superposition looks real to me.

Obviously I'm not saying QM is no longer mysterious. It's very, very mysterious. But in regard to consciousness I think you put it best:

I wish I could find that paper (or book?) in which the author quoted someone saying that the only reason people connect consciousness with quantum physics is because they are both poorly understood. That isn't an exact quote, though, and as I can't recall where I read it I can't use it.

After reading about that survey given at the 2011 conference, I wonder what most people whose specialty is quantum physics, nuclear physics, or even mathematical physics tend to actually believe in terms of the many different theories in there various forms. How many do tend to agree with a many-minds theory? Or in some other connection between consciousness and its role in structuring (or constructing) reality?

I can only say with some confidence that to the extent a substantial number of physicists agree with those interpretations, they are in the minority.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.”

Albert Einstein

You should poke around here awhile:

Chapter 1 : Einstein

But Einstein is talking about the most beautiful experience we can have. That is separate from the question of whether or not everything obeys strictly deterministic laws of physics, and consciousness is a result of that (not a cause). Einstein could believe the latter AND believe the mysterious is a beautiful experience. So again do you think Einstein would likely have agreed that consciousness controls matter (not the other way around) through quantum effects (not strictly deterministic laws)?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.”

Albert Einstein

You should poke around here awhile:

Chapter 1 : Einstein

That quote is from an article in Forum and Century (Oct. 1930) and requires context (emphases to any quoted sections are added): "
Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose.
From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men"

He continues shortly after with:

"I do not believe we can have any freedom at all in the philosophical sense, for we act not only under external compulsion but also by inner necessity...To ponder interminably over the reason for one's own existence or the meaning of life in general seems to me, from an objective point of view, to be sheer folly. And yet everyone holds certain ideals by which he guides his aspiration and his judgment. The ideals which have always shone before me and filled me with the joy of living are goodness, beautry, and truth. To make a goal of comfort and happiness has never appealed to me; a system of ethics built on this bases would be sufficient only for a heard of cattle.
Without the sense of collaborating with like-minded beings in the pursuit of the ever unattainable in art and scientific research, my life would have been empty. "

Einstein continues about what is important for humans and society from a political standpoint. Why? Because among other things it was 1930 and Einstein was a German Jew, hence his statement in this article "I believe that you in the United States hit upon the right idea". He contrasts the US with germany, the "herd mind" behind "senseless violence" of war. To Einstein this violence and war are "a stain on humanity."

What's interesting, however, is why he thinks it exists still: propaganda. It is only because "common sense" has "been systematically corrupted" through propaganda "for business and political reasons."
The very next line after "reasons" is the start of your quote. However, your version is misquoting Einstein a bit:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radient beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of devoutly religious men.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of the body, although feeble souls harber such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature."


He certainly talks about the mysterious and the difficulty comprehending reality with our meager mental faculties. But mystery and mysticism are not the same. For Einstein, not only is it folly to think about the meaning of life (as for him the point, inasmuch as any exists, is about one's fellow humans), his sense of religious experience is the awe he receives using science to try to understand the mysteries of the universe. That's where his religious experience ends. "It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life" not "It is my goal to understand these mysteries by going beyond science."

If Einstein is your go-to scientific hero when it comes to those who aren't afraid to use intuition, to really think outside the box, and to realize that understanding the mysterious of the universe requires something more than logic and reaon, you picked the wrong guy.

And if you think that quantum physics is important because of things like nonlocality, you picked the guy who spent a great portion of his career trying to show this was absurd.

 

[godnotgod]

"To ponder interminably over the reason for one's own existence or the meaning of life in general seems to me, from an objective point of view, to be sheer folly."

Purpose and meaning for one's existence are religious concerns, not mystical. If anything, his comments support the mystical view.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radient beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.

It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature.[/B]"

...all of which points to the intuitive mind, which is, as he says, the 'source of all true art and science'. Basicaly, he is saying that, without this view, art and science would be meaningless. Nature is intelligent because it is conscious. To 'reflect' is to contemplate; to meditate. It is an intuitive experience.

... his sense of religious experience is the awe he receives using science to try to understand the mysteries of the universe. That's where his religious experience ends.

That's backwards. He is not saying that, but exactly the opposite, and I don't see that he is having a 'religious' experience, but a mystical insight. Contemplation is a kind of meditation. It is primarily intuitive.


Definition of CONTEMPLATION

1 : concentration on spiritual things as a form of private devotion
2 : a state of mystical awareness of God's being
3: an act of considering with attention

Mirriam-Webster

 

[godnotgod]

But Einstein is talking about the most beautiful experience we can have. That is separate from the question of whether or not everything obeys strictly deterministic laws of physics, and consciousness is a result of that (not a cause). Einstein could believe the latter AND believe the mysterious is a beautiful experience. So again do you think Einstein would likely have agreed that consciousness controls matter (not the other way around) through quantum effects (not strictly deterministic laws)?

Consciousness does not 'control' matter; it is the source of matter. In fact, as Max Planck tells us, 'there is no matter as such', because "I regard matter as derivative from consciousness".

Einstein says that the experience of the awe of the mystery of the universe is the source for all true art and science, not the other way around, and that without including this view, one is dead, and if one is dead, so is art and science. I will use Legion's source for the quote in question:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. This insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists...."

..which is to say that it is impenetrable via the rational mind, which includes science, but exists nonetheless. That is intuition at work, not logic, analysis, and reason. Did you go to the following site yet?

re: Einstein and Intuition: see more here: Chapter 1 : Einstein

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I mean you can literally get images of QM in action using a scanning-tunneling microscope (STM), for example. They didn't have this technology before circa 1980.

Mark P. Silverman starts out Quantum Superposition (Springer, 2008) in a very similar way. In his preface he writes "I do not regard quantum mechanics as a ‘mystery’. Rather, it is a highly developed and well-understood physical theory, perhaps the most carefully scrutinized and best understood of all physical theories. The glib assertions by many scientists and science popularizers that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’ – another Feynman idiom – is balderdash."

He then begins his first chapter with his experience Hitachi Advanced Research Lab in the 80s. To help his students grasp QM, he wanted create a video recording of inteference in the classic 2-slit experiment using a field-emission microscope. Although his request was denied they apparently later saw the light and made the video (adding color and narration). FEM was already pretty old then, and now we have SEM, STEM (do they use that in biophysics for mass measurements or am I thinking of something else?), STM, QIT, and other methods in quantum optics and atomic manipulation (most of which I know little to nothing about).

On the other hand, this increase in our ability to bypass (that's not the word I want to use but I can't think of the one I do) the uncertainty principle has shown the "fuzzy" boundaries of the quantum realm. Or, at least fuzzy relative to the days when the goal was to isolate quantum systems the way one did with classical systems. The difference between the idealized isolation and actual isolation in classical physics isn't usuallly an issue. It is in QM.

I'm not sure I would be quite as optimistic and certain as Silverman seems to be. In a certain context, he's absolutely correct. Providing we treat quantum systems as irreducibly statistical systems, everything is great. But to have at the heart of physics not a theory of matter but one of math...I'm hoping that the increases in our ability to understand coherence/decoherence conditions will do what it has so far only more so.

If you've ever worked out the standard "particle in a box" homework problem in quantum mechanics, this is essentially what the spatial distribution of the wavefunction looks like (actually the probability distribution, which is essentially the wavefunction squared)

It wasn't enough that I had to get used to an entirely new notation scheme (bras and kets) for essentially the same mathematical space, but physicists decided calculating probabilities was beneath them, so amplitudes (the mod square of some complex number) become probabilities.

They gave this the sexy term, "quantum mirage":

I don't think I've ever actually looked (even when it was right their on the page) of these images. It's pretty amazing.

Images like these save us a lot of theoretical head-scratching. Does anyone really believe that before a conscious human looked at the computer screen output of the STM, there was some kind of non-real superposition of images onscreen?

Before there were humans, matter was just smeared all over the universe. Then Adam and Eve arrived and tidied up. I'm not seeing the issue.

Furthermore, did the interaction of the STM with the electrons collapse everything into perfect, neat-and-tidy particles? Not exactly, that's an idealization, real measurements are a little "squishy".

Also, if it did perfectly contain an electron "particle", we'd have something of a problem, given that the uncertainty principle (and physicists' insistance on using amplitudes with some made-up excuse about it being fundamental to QM) is rather a core part of quantum physics.

But doesn't a superposition of states only become "real" when they collapse into a single state? I dunno .... the superposition looks real to me.

I think the rejoinder you'd get from those who promote a relative state interpretation is that the images you are seeing are just better versions of capturing photons hitting some sort of film. In other words, although the resolution, time scales, and the actual physics of something like tunnel current-induced manipulation or STM in general (e.g., the physics of electronic excitations via ion resonances) is vastly superior, we're a large step away from the kind of measurements possible in classical physics. We still have that circularity which the relative state interpretations sought to overcome.

Or maybe it would be some other objection. I don't know enough about nanotechnology (where a lot of the cutting edge optics and manipulation takes place) to know what someone who subscribes to a theory I don't find convincing (the many-minds type theories) would use to defend their position.

I can only say with some confidence that to the extent a substantial number of physicists agree with those interpretations, they are in the minority.

That is good to know. I don't get to interact a whole lot with physicists as for some strange reason they don't show up in large numbers as conferences that don't really have a lot to do with physics. So I'm glad to hear from someone who does get to mingle at APS conferences and other forums that it's a minority position at the very least. So thank you!

 

[godnotgod]

A little offering to assist the over-cranially-oriented:

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

Have a nice cup of tea!

 

[godnotgod]

Godnotgod,

It would help instead of always speaking in general, abstract terms to throw in more specific examples that illustrate what you mean. A lot of the time, I really have no idea what you mean. For example, notice how I talked about robots, brains, a hunk of metal, etc. I mentioned those things to try to put my ideas in action and make it more likely that you will understand what I mean. Now, I know you're going to be tempted to accuse me of some sort of closed-mindedness by requesting "concrete" examples when you want to focus on abstract things. But I don't mean it literally has to be "concrete". For example, maybe you could illustrate your points using the optical illusion of the Necker cube, or things of that nature. Anything to help put your ideas "into action" so we can see what you actually mean.

For example, you say: "Regarding QM, therefore, it must be seen and understood in light of Reality, and not the other way around, which is the path that science seems to be taking."

Could you give examples of what you mean here? Maybe you could cite some recently discovered phenomenon and talk about how scientists understand it. You could contrast how the "path" you favor in regard to QM helps to unravel the phenomenon, whereas "the other way around" does not. This way we can see your ideas in action and see how they work under pressure, so to speak.

Did you watch the last video I posted yet? Here:

From the archive: Deepak Chopra