From the "everything list" ....FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
> represents the current state of QM.
>
> Brent Meeker
>
>
>
Jesse Maser wrote:
The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about QM, though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality that gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as these different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any new predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists often discuss them nevertheless.
-----------------------------------------
There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to
know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to
give you the red pill.
Name any collection of QM physicist you like....name any XYZ
interpretation, ABC interpretations....Blah interpretations... So what?
You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not
see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled
'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?" Read
Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is
programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's
some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like
this then I'll get listened to"....
/and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./
This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that
fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a
club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even
plainer with set theory:
<ASPECT 1> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
<ASPECT 2> = { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE,
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}
FACT
<ASPECT 1:> = {Null}
FACT
<ASPECT 2> = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor
do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who
has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}
In other words, scientists have added special laws to <ASPECT 2> that
masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs.
Beliefs about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of
quantum mechanical descriptions. EG: Stapp's "cloud-like" depiction. I
put it to you that reality <ASPECT 1> could have every single particle
in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with just as
exquisitely well defined momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or
physical 'fuzziness'. I quite well defined particle operating in a
dimensionality slightly higher than our own could easily appear
fuzzy.....There is merely /*lack of knowledge*/ and the reality of us as
observers altering those very things when we observe....standard
measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is COMPLETELY
consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons are
'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an <aspect 1> reality
that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To
believe that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths
seems to be consistent with that...utter delusion...
Physics has also added a special law to <ASPECT 2>, a 'law of nature'
which reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set
<ASPECT 1> because, well just because....".
Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible
for everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity
to populate <ASPECT 2>. Abstractions of reality derived through
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal
necessity, and if incorporated in <ASPECT 2> as an explanation of
P-consciousness, become meta-belief...."I belief that this other <aspect
2> law has explained P-consciousness...." when it clearly does not
because NONE of <aspect 2> PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS.
As to 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an <ASPECT 1> reality -
responsible for the faculty that provides all observation, any less
witnessed than anything is <ASPECT 2>? You are implicltly denying
P-cosnciousness ITSELF and positing it as having been already explained
in some way by CONTENTS of P-consciousness (that is literally, in
context, scientific observation). Do you see that?
In this way, solving for consciousness is systemically proscribed, along
with the permanent failure to solve P-consciousness. Every example where
I have discovered anyone attempting to populate <ASPECT 1> or even
positing a mechanism by which that might happen....is systematically
ignored and marginalised.
Actual underlying reality creates P-consciousness. Nothing else. Until
we allow ourselves to populate <aspect 1> we will NEVER explain
anything, let alone P-consciousness. We will only describe. If we
believe we already explained anything then we have installed a
metapelief in the <ASPECT 1> set and we are living it as a religion. If
we believe that <aspect 1> is unapproachable for no other reason than
cultural preference then DITTO.
I hope you get this.
I finished Henry Stapp's book. There's a bunch of stuff about dual
aspect and whitehead, which would be good except....all of it is couched
in terms of ascription of QM as having an ontological role: a universe
made of anstract maths descriptions. So frustrating. There is an
inability to be able to comprehend the difference between maths as
abstracted description of appearances and "literal reality, also
described with further abstractions, by an observer made of it".
/As scientists we haven't even begun to populate <ASPECT 1>. We need to
start. The delusions that are in place in <aspect 2> are far more
bizarre than any sane approach to a characterisation of reality that
involves populating a <aspect 1> that is explanatory of P-consciousness.
/
Or you can take the blue pill.... the status quo... and live a deluded
science model in which a clubbish, fashion ridden maths rapture
rules...something I cannot do.
regards,
Colin Hales
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Oct 12 2008 - 19:42:15 PDT