Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

Bring me more than a claim and we'll talk.

Some things cannot be explained via facts. Bring me more than mere facts and we'll talk.

You see? I'm far more demanding than you!

Science explains why we do that. We know exactly why we breath while asleep. Its because our "consciousness" is based on a neural network. You should find a better analogy.

There is: our neural network is based on consciousness. The nn makes no sense without it.

I know exactly what you mean when you say mystical.

No you don't! You've already demonstrated that you don't, so cut it out!

I still don't see anything other than claims upon claims in your post.

A million people watched, but no one saw a single thing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You're not listening. What did he say? He said that the nature of things is that they are empty. If they are empty, they cannot contain beliefs or doctrines either. He is not espousing beliefs and then overlaying them onto science; he is talking about how we see the world, and his vision is singular, neither spiritual nor materialist. He is using his vision to demonstrate how science sees the world, and why the scientific view by itself is an erroneous one. This does not require facts, but illumination, and that is what he does. Creationists use facts erroneously to support their erroneously pre-determined premises, but so do scientists, in the name of Reason and Logic. This is exactly what Wallace is trying to reveal: that there is a basic flaw in our approach, especially when we use facts to support a narrow view of Reality. I am not saying facts are untrue: I am saying that facts, in and of themselves, are not Reality. There is more to an enlightened view than mere facts.

Wallace's credibility can be found in the veracity of his statements, which can be understood if you really listen, but again, there is more to our makeup than the discriminating mind.

I wasn't listening because I didn't watch the videos. I knew exactly where you were going with this and I know more or less what he was going to say. Now I'm going to watch the video and tell you my response.

Firstly from my own research he is a Buddhist first and then he went into the field of science. He has then made drastic claims against other parts of science that he is not associated with and continues to make the same claims almost verbatim as you about how "the physical" is just a metaphysical concept when he doens't provide anything more than just suave pretty words spoken to obviously sell his book to a certain type of audience.

Also anyone who uses the term "mainstream science" is usually full of ****. Why? Because there isn't anything that can be called "mainstream science". There is just "science" and "controversial stuff". The only time people even use this term is when they are standing on a pile of unsupported claims and then try to undermine the real science behind what they oppose.

Even controversial or unpopular scientific viewpoints don't use the term "mainstream science". Its called the "traditional" or "popular" theory. For example the aquatic ape theory for human evolution is considered and unpopular or even out there theory. However its still based on evidence and reasoning. They aren't out of the reach of science. They simply are not the majority.

I also love how he goes through and says "yes everything we know about the universe is from this metaphysical idea of how the universe works". You are damn right it is. He just threw out everything humans have ever worked on for hundreds of thousands of years of advancement as if it was nothing. It is everything that we have in terms of science. His assumptions beyond the physical are unsupported and can be a hypothesis but not an established theory.

He then goes on to talk about our experiences. Yes he is correct when we don't use subjective experience as "fact". Because it isn't. Science has shown this over and over and over again. We can't trust subjective experience to be fact. It is nothing more than data. Facts arise from careful study of data. This seems to indicate a sever ignorance either intentional, feigned or astonishing, about how the world of science works.

His accusation of "appeal to authority" is nothing more than bullcrap. Plain and simple. By "authority" we mean measurable fact. He even has the gall to say that Galileo (whose scientific work is based on exactly what we do today in terms of scientific experimentation) was as he is. When he uses unsupported claims such as what the church made. He has it reversed.



Overall he is not making any scientific claims here. Not even close.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Some things cannot be explained via facts. Bring me more than mere facts and we'll talk.

You see? I'm far more demanding than you!

Demanding or gullible I'm not sure.

There is: our neural network is based on consciousness. The nn makes no sense without it.

Reverse that. Our consciousness is a emergent property of our neural network. Not the other way around. It is through our "consciousness" (which is part of our neural network) that we are able to create cognitive thought. That much is very simple. You must provide a reason why you think it is 'beyond the physical" to be conscious. Or at least provide a reason why you think consciousness is not of our physical.

No you don't! You've already demonstrated that you don't, so cut it out!

Again. I understand painfully so what you are trying to say and what you mean by "mystic". And you have only said and done things exactly as I have assumed from about 10 pages back. You have not demonstrated anything to the contrary of my assumptions. In fact it has been overwhelmingly in the side of support.

A million people watched, but no one saw a single thing.

You fall back onto mystical sounding nonsense. Very typical. What you inadequately meant to say is that you have presented the claim and that you feel somehow that the claim is inherently true if we so choose to see it that way.

However I don't. And its not. Your claims do not stand on their own no matter how much you say you don't need to support them.

 

[godnotgod]

Demanding or gullible I'm not sure.

Anyone can present 'facts', but what is the context against which you determine them to be facts or not-facts?

You fall back onto mystical sounding nonsense. Very typical.

You continue to paint a picture of the mystical as weird and nonsensical as a means of making the rational mind appear more credible. Very typical. However, my comment was not intended as a mystical one in any way.

What you inadequately meant to say is that you have presented the claim and that you feel somehow that the claim is inherently true if we so choose to see it that way.

No, I meant to say that we can't see things the way they actually are because we have been indoctrinated to see them in a prescribed way, and that prescribed way is via Reason, Logic, and Analysis.

 

[YmirGF]

One is entitled to their opinions but not their own facts... and that's a fact.

 

[godnotgod]

Reverse that. Our consciousness is a emergent property of our neural network. Not the other way around. It is through our "consciousness" (which is part of our neural network) that we are able to create cognitive thought. That much is very simple. You must provide a reason why you think it is 'beyond the physical" to be conscious. Or at least provide a reason why you think consciousness is not of our physical.

Well, why would anyone think it to be of our physical in the first place?

(I previously asked you if you meant that the scientific view of consciousness was emergent theory, and you said 'no'; now you say that it is.)

Again. I understand painfully so what you are trying to say and what you mean by "mystic".

I see. So what mystical experiences have you had?

 

[godnotgod]

His accusation of "appeal to authority" is nothing more than bullcrap. Plain and simple. By "authority" we mean measurable fact.

Yeah? What does QM have to say about your so-called 'measurable fact'?

('measurable fact? is that even a valid notion? LOL)

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]gMoMJyjyI3M[/youtube]
The Riddle of Consciousness | SAGES & SCIENTISTS: Menas Kafatos - Part 1 - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

And people who believe that [real] happiness is caused by anything at all are deluded.

Again with the claims without support.

If you possessed the 'cause' of happiness, it would be happiness itself. There exists relative joy and relative suffering, both of which are temporal, and both of which are aspects of human life. But Absolute Joy, to which there is no opposite, is already in place. It is unborn, uncaused. There is nothing in the temporal world that can bring it about, because it already is the case. That is why mystics talk about spiritual awakening; you awaken into what already is. But in spite of it being the miraculous, it is, at the same time, the ordinary.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Anyone can present 'facts', but what is the context against which you determine them to be facts or not-facts?

Again I have already argued against this several times and you simply fall back on the same old thing every time. Why do you assume sentience is something beyond the physical?

You continue to paint a picture of the mystical as weird and nonsensical as a means of making the rational mind appear more credible. Very typical. However, my comment was not intended as a mystical one in any way.

I say mystical as in something beyond our normal perception. Something that is unproven, unprovable and is nonesense. I'm not simply stating that to undermine mysticism. I'm simply calling it as I see it.

No, I meant to say that we can't see things the way they actually are because we have been indoctrinated to see them in a prescribed way, and that prescribed way is via Reason, Logic, and Analysis.

Indeed. Mainly because that works so well and that we have no other means to "see" the world that has yielded such wonderful results. For example I would blindfold myself and attempt to smell my way across the street.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, why would anyone think it to be of our physical in the first place?

(I previously asked you if you meant that the scientific view of consciousness was emergent theory, and you said 'no'; now you say that it is.)

Why think it to be physical? Maybe because that is where 100% of the evidence points? Why not think it comes from god? or magic unicorn? Because there is no evidence that supports those notions.

I think it was in the context that you asked me perhaps I misunderstood. Conciousness or sentience itself may not be. For example the emergence of what we call "conciousness" is in root based upon the ability for matter to observe one another. That can be a form of sentience.

I see. So what mystical experiences have you had?

Irrelevant to the question. How many science courses have you taken on QM?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah? What does QM have to say about your so-called 'measurable fact'?

('measurable fact? is that even a valid notion? LOL)

Are you trolling me right now? I feel like I'm being trolled.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Our consciousness is a emergent property of our neural network. Not the other way around. It is through our "consciousness" (which is part of our neural network) that we are able to create cognitive thought. That much is very simple. You must provide a reason why you think it is 'beyond the physical" to be conscious. Or at least provide a reason why you think consciousness is not of our physical.

Minor trivial issue I can't restrain from noting: we do not have a neural network. Network models are used to in computational neurosciences to model neural circuitry, certain kinds of "learning" processes, and for similar purposes. To the extent it is accurate to describe the brain as possessing (or consisting of) such networks, we have many and not all of them are in the brain. The entire PNS is "a" neural network which can be broken down into various "neural networks" without mention of the CNS, let alone the brain. Additionally, "emergence" as an explanation for consciousness is, in this case, to say that if we assume consciousness is a causal feature of the brain, then consciousness emerges from neural activity (and this is coming from a supporter of emergence models of consciousness). To say that consciousness is an emergent (functional) property of the brain is to rely on certain assumptions:

There is an enormous amount of evidence in favor of the view that consciousness is indeed generated by electrochemical reactions, but in fairness the "hard problem" remains:
"That the brain does give rise to consciousness is a key assumption of modern neuroscience and we will take it as a given, otherwise we would be compelled to seek these answers in the realm of religion or metaphysics." p. 4 of the intro paper to the edited volume The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (Springer; 2006).

It is taken as a given because, while there is a great deal of evidence for it, the view the physiological properties of the brain alone enable consciousness has not been shown to be true, and some strength of the evidence relies on the utter lack of any competing scientific theory.

I'm perfectly happy to assume that the evidence in favor of consciousness emerging from neuronal processes and the complete lack of any metaphysical, dualistic, or otherwise non-physical explanations for consciousness are powerful reasons to support the assumption that we need not seek for whatever possible alternatives we can dream up. Quantum theories of consciousness are exotic enough without positing spiritual causes that there is no evidence for and plenty against.

 

[godnotgod]

Why think it to be physical? Maybe because that is where 100% of the evidence points? Why not think it comes from god? or magic unicorn? Because there is no evidence that supports those notions.

I think it was in the context that you asked me perhaps I misunderstood. Conciousness or sentience itself may not be. For example the emergence of what we call "conciousness" is in root based upon the ability for matter to observe one another. That can be a form of sentience.

Science does not bother to look into the question of the existence of a god because that question is beyond the scope of science. The same is true of consciousness: it is an untestable condition, consciousness belonging to the realm of the invisible, the silent, the tasteless, the formless. It is, in fact, the source for all that is the visible universe, because the universe cannot be understood as such without the background of the formless and the invisible against which it is seen.

It is, but you haven't shown how emergence occurs. At this point it's just a hypothesis, an idea you first refuted when asked about it.

It is your assumption that forms of matter are observing one another. They're not; it's consciousness observing form. It's the universe observing itself through the eyes of its myriad forms. You think that it's a local phenomenon of your brain because you have formed a false concept of a self, an individual ego called "I", that is doing the observing, an agent of observation, if you will, when, in fact, the very consciousness you use to do so is non-local. Bottom line is that the mind is a self-created principle.

An ocean wave is not a local phenomenon, because it is something the whole ocean is doing. It is made of the same stuff of the universal ocean: water. You are made of the same stuff of the universe: universal consciousness. You came out of it and will return to it. In fact, you never left, because there is no 'you' to have done so in the first place. You are not an existence apart from the universe in any way.

Irrelevant to the question. How many science courses have you taken on QM?

Irrelevant to the question: you are the one making the claim in the first place that you know perfectly what I'm talking about when pointing to the mystical experience.

While science can tell us what it knows about Quantum behavior, it still doesn't know what it is.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you trolling me right now? I feel like I'm being trolled.

Perhaps you're having one of those weird, mystical experiences you know all about, LOL. According to you, it's all in your brain.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Minor trivial issue I can't restrain from noting: we do not have a neural network. Network models are used to in computational neurosciences to model neural circuitry, certain kinds of "learning" processes, and for similar purposes. To the extent it is accurate to describe the brain as possessing (or consisting of) such networks, we have many and not all of them are in the brain. The entire PNS is "a" neural network which can be broken down into various "neural networks" without mention of the CNS, let alone the brain. Additionally, "emergence" as an explanation for consciousness is, in this case, to say that if we assume consciousness is a causal feature of the brain, then consciousness emerges from neural activity (and this is coming from a supporter of emergence models of consciousness). To say that consciousness is an emergent (functional) property of the brain is to rely on certain assumptions:


I'm perfectly happy to assume that the evidence in favor of consciousness emerging from neuronal processes and the complete lack of any metaphysical, dualistic, or otherwise non-physical explanations for consciousness are powerful reasons to support the assumption that we need not seek for whatever possible alternatives we can dream up. Quantum theories of consciousness are exotic enough without positing spiritual causes that there is no evidence for and plenty against.

What is the evidence in favor of consciousness emerging? Science can only theorize as to what consciousness even is, or what they deem as being "evidence". Has science found the answers as to what life and consciousness is, or do they only theorize about it? If it is truly only scientific theory, then It is not proven to be fact. There is no one who can justly say that the alternate theory of consciousnes being everywhere is false. It is simply another theory. The notion that consciousness can exist outside of a brain does not need to be a "mystical" or even "spiritual" one. It may be perfectly natural for consciousness to exist everywhere. It is my opinion and my belief that consciousness is that very same animating force that causes energy forms to have chemical reactions to begin with... Consciousness, In my opinion, is the Animating Factor of the Universe.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is the evidence in favor of consciousness emerging?

Emergence has a technical meaning that differs from what we connote or denote by "emerging".

Science can only theorize as to what consciousness even is

Scientists can do what scientists do: take a word that describes a phenomenon and model the phenomenon.

Has science found the answers as to what life and consciousness is, or do they only theorize about it?

It's meaningless to ask whether scientists have found the answers to questions that are trivially answerable. Life is defined as that which lives. The word "consciousness" is precisely what consciousness is. What we do is try to determine what dynamics, properties, physics, etc., are involved in that which we denote by consciousness.

If it is truly only scientific theory

As opposed to? Scientific speculation? Scientists use the word "theory" to (among other things) refer to an explanatory model and/or framework that tells us e.g., how something works.

then It is not proven to be fact

Proof is a word used in mathematics (including logic). It involves the derivation of formal statements according to predetermined rules of some formal language (like predicate calculus). To "prove" anything requires a system in which any arbitrary string of symbols that represent either variables or operators are defined within that system and exist only within that system. We do not "prove" things about how systems in "real life" work, we develop explanatory frameworks (theories and/or models) that inform us as to how these systems work.

There is no one who can justly say that the alternate theory of consciousnes being everywhere is false.

Everyone can. It's false by definition.

It may be perfectly natural for consciousness to exist everywhere.

No, just utterly meaningless. It's like saying that empathy exists everywhere or hatred exists everywhere. It ascribes to systems things that are defined such that they cannot be properties of such systems nor attributed universally. Consciousness is necessarily singular. It denotes that awareness of "I/me" (agency, self-awareness, etc.) and allows us to speak of conscious entities as those capable not merely of subjective experience but as a singular, metacognitive property of a system irreducibly aware of such experience.

It is my opinion and my belief that consciousness is that very same animating force that causes energy forms to have chemical reactions to begin with

So not only is you opinion that consciousness is something that has no relation to what the word means, you also use "energy" and "chemical reactions" in ways that have nothing to do with chemistry or physics. Got it.

Consciousness, In my opinion, is the Animating Factor of the Universe.

Then you aren't conscious. And as you argue that you are not conscious, then you have no experience of what you are communicating nor any ability to assert anything you are aware of. Alternatively, you can do all of this because your are conscious, which means you are simply incorrectly using the term.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Emergence has a technical meaning that differs from what we connote or denote by "emerging".




Scientists can do what scientists do: take a word that describes a phenomenon and model the phenomenon.



It's meaningless to ask whether scientists have found the answers to questions that are trivially answerable. Life is defined as that which lives. The word "consciousness" is precisely what consciousness is. What we do is try to determine what dynamics, properties, physics, etc., are involved in that which we denote by consciousness.


As opposed to? Scientific speculation? Scientists use the word "theory" to (among other things) refer to an explanatory model and/or framework that tells us e.g., how something works.


Proof is a word used in mathematics (including logic). It involves the derivation of formal statements according to predetermined rules of some formal language (like predicate calculus). To "prove" anything requires a system in which any arbitrary string of symbols that represent either variables or operators are defined within that system and exist only within that system. We do not "prove" things about how systems in "real life" work, we develop explanatory frameworks (theories and/or models) that inform us as to how these systems work.


Everyone can. It's false by definition.


No, just utterly meaningless. It's like saying that empathy exists everywhere or hatred exists everywhere. It ascribes to systems things that are defined such that they cannot be properties of such systems nor attributed universally. Consciousness is necessarily singular. It denotes that awareness of "I/me" (agency, self-awareness, etc.) and allows us to speak of conscious entities as those capable not merely of subjective experience but as a singular, metacognitive property of a system irreducibly aware of such experience.

So not only is you opinion that consciousness is something that has no relation to what the word means, you also use "energy" and "chemical reactions" in ways that have nothing to do with chemistry or physics. Got it.


Then you aren't conscious. And as you argue that you are not conscious, then you have no experience of what you are communicating nor any ability to assert anything you are aware of. Alternatively, you can do all of this because your are conscious, which means you are simply incorrectly using the term.

Meh...

Whether you think I am right or wrong, there are many who would agree with me...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/156820-my-take-quantum-animism.html

---

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Meh...

Whether you think I am right or wrong, there are many who would agree with me...

Completely irrelevant. What you asserted isn't something that is inaccurate because of a particular worldview, because of scientific research, because of any brand of skepticism, etc., it simply wrong by definition. It's akin to the assertion that 2+1 = Claymation. In other words, it's not just wrong because there is no evidence to support it, no reason to believe it, no logic behind it, etc., it's wrong because it is using words incorrectly to express notions of concepts that cannot by definition be true.

If you are into quantum mysticism or universal consciousness or any number of new age ideas, ok. I disagree, but I cannot even so much as ask for explanations or express why I disagree when you say things that are by definition false.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/156820-my-take-quantum-animism.html

---

Ok, so you don't understand physics at even a basic level. How does that help me evaluate what you are trying to express? The fact that your descriptions of energy alone are nonsensical, let alone the fundamental inaccuracies in your discussions of QM, do not enable constructive dialogue. You are using terms from physics, but you use them incorrectly. In fact, you use them incorrectly inconsistently, so that it hard to determine how you are incorrectly using any given instance of a term.

 

[godnotgod]

Why think it to be physical? Maybe because that is where 100% of the evidence points?

How does the non-material come from the material? How does that which is in space-time create that which is not in space-time? How does material form create the formless?

We have a Big Bang event that began in some kind of pre-existing context, but since space-time, according to theory, was created when the BB occurred, space-time did not exist prior to the BB, or at the moment of inception. So what kind of pre-existing context could it be that was not in space-time, within which the BB occurred?