I just picked up a book by him called The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and The Meaning of Life. Guess he was a physicist, seems like in the Bohr tradition. I picked the book up because it looked like something I'd find worthwhile but I have no idea what to expect from it really. First chapter seemed pretty good but I have to wait and see (one chapter is called "Quantum Miracles"). He also says in it "...flaws in the materialistic paradigm of science have appeared in recent years. These flaws have grown to a gaping rent, torn across the whole fabric of the materialistic conception of reality. Strained by the conflicts between Einstein and Bohr over the ultimate meaning of quantum mechanics... subjected to further stress in Bell's theorem, and finally ripped through in recent tests by Aspect in France, the whole cloth of the materialistic picture of reality must now be rejected." I've come across a number of writers now who seem equally dismissive of traditional (read: ancient) concepts of God as they are hostile to materialism/physicalism. Why the hell should quantum mechanics, even if it does imply something like an observer-created Universe to some extent, discredit materialism in any way? Just a thought. Anyone familiar with his work? Have any thoughts/comments about him?

It seems to me that Walker has a very different definition of "materialism" than we do, no?

(February 24, 2014 at 5:04 am)Alex K Wrote: It seems to me that Walker has a very different definition of "materialism" than we do, no?

It's possible, not sure, I'm about to get into chapter 2 right now. As a side note, another writer I admire on this subject named Robert Anton Wilson, also takes some devastating shots at the Abrahamic Gods but is equally unforgiving to "Dogmatic Atheists," as he calls them, and seems to offer something like "Quantum Miracles" in his book Quantum Psychology. Is materialism really that difficult to grasp? Are "quantum miracles," if such things really exist, contrary to materialism? I don't see why they must be.

(February 24, 2014 at 5:08 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 5:04 am)Alex K Wrote: It seems to me that Walker has a very different definition of "materialism" than we do, no?

It's possible, not sure, I'm about to get into chapter 2 right now. As a side note, another writer I admire on this subject named Robert Anton Wilson, also takes some devastating shots at the Abrahamic Gods but is equally unforgiving to "Dogmatic Atheists," as he calls them,

Yeah, those are the worst. Alas, I don't think I've ever met one. (*)

Quote: and seems to offer something like "Quantum Miracles" in his book Quantum Psychology.

Depends, eh? From what you can tell, what does he mean by quantum miracles. Violation of bell inequalities, or more like appearances of the virtual particle virgin mary?

Quote:Is materialism really that difficult to grasp? Are "quantum miracles," if such things really exist, contrary to materialism? I don't see why they must be.

(*) Well, you could call me a dogmatic atheist to the extend that I reject Gods whose concept is logically inconsistent, with 100% certainty. But usually the accusation of dogmatism is levered against outspoken atheists who dare to highlight the true absurdity and implausibility of common religious claims, and come from
milque toast accomodationists who don't want to offend.

(February 24, 2014 at 5:24 am)Alex K Wrote: Depends, eh? From what you can tell, what does he mean by quantum miracles. Violation of bell inequalities, or more like appearances of the virtual particle virgin mary?

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downlo...hology.pdf

Here's an online copy of his book. Take a look at the chapters beginning on pages 120 and 132. I'll try to explain what I think he's saying but you'll be better served by reading his own words. As far as EHW, I'll let you know what he says when I come to that section of the book. The RAW book has fairly small pages so it's a pretty quick read. In short, he's talking about "psychosomatic synergy," that is, our way of viewing the world has effects on our biological and immunological systems, thus explaining how a person given a placebo actually cures themselves. He's not talking about "miracles" in the sense that invokes some kind of magical deity, but rather "miracles" that occur via observer-created realities..I think? lol.

(February 24, 2014 at 6:18 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: In short, he's talking about "psychosomatic synergy," that is, our way of viewing the world has effects on our biological and immunological systems, thus explaining how a person given a placebo actually cures themselves.

Ok, get it, just another person abusing (or completely failing to understand) rigorous science to peddle bullshit. I can tolerate babbling about applications of the heisenberg uncertainty principle to everyday life when Ian Malcolm does it in Jurrasic Park (I thought that was really cool when I read it when I was 16 or so), but as an actual argument? Get out of here. I view people who do this as parasites feeding off actual science.

(February 24, 2014 at 6:22 am)Alex K Wrote:

(February 24, 2014 at 6:18 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: In short, he's talking about "psychosomatic synergy," that is, our way of viewing the world has effects on our biological and immunological systems, thus explaining how a person given a placebo actually cures themselves.

Ok, get it, just another person abusing (or completely failing to understand) rigorous science to peddle bullshit. I can tolerate babbling about applications of the heisenberg uncertainty principle to everyday life when Ian Malcolm does it in Jurrasic Park (I thought that was really cool when I read it when I was 16 or so), but as an actual argument? Get out of here. I view people who do this as parasites feeding off actual science.

Just curious, where do these types go wrong exactly? If the brain is a measuring instrument of quantum phenomena, wouldn't it collapse particle/waves into the observed state so that some of us might read one thing from the data while others read something else? Could consciousness relate to quantum mechanics in some way?

Anyone have any comments on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgYz_BU...D6EA909A57


Also, how exactly does non-locality fit in with general relativity and the overall paradigm of materialism? Does it suggest that something is going on within/outside space-time that we don't understand yet, or is space-time merely the layer of the onion we are able to observe?

Sorry I don't have much time to respond to anything right now since I'm travelling. The easiest framework where you can see how this can work out is in quantum field theory which unites quantum mechanics with *special* relativity. Here, one finds that even though things look nonlocal at the level of wave functions mathematically, all physical observables you can calculate turn out to be limited by light speed. Indeed, virtual particles and antiparticles conspire to make information transfer with faster than light impossible. Now, if you have quantized spacetime, I would say things become seriously messy, but if you still use the copenhagen approach to quantum theory, it may be that although the maths may look nonlocal, also there locality arises in the end dynamically.
As far as locality in holographic theories is concerned, interesting question, don't know at this moment!

(February 27, 2014 at 11:26 am)Alex K Wrote: Sorry I don't have much time to respond to anything right now since I'm travelling. The easiest framework where you can see how this can work out is in quantum field theory which unites quantum mechanics with *special* relativity. Here, one finds that even though things look nonlocal at the level of wave functions mathematically, all physical observables you can calculate turn out to be limited by light speed. Indeed, virtual particles and antiparticles conspire to make information transfer with faster than light impossible. Now, if you have quantized spacetime, I would say things become seriously messy, but if you still use the copenhagen approach to quantum theory, it may be that although the maths may look nonlocal, also there locality arises in the end dynamically.
As far as locality in holographic theories is concerned, interesting question, don't know at this moment!

Do you have any book recommendations on the topic, specifically as it relates to this debate among physicists, that a layman such as myself could get into? Does it merely come down to one's preference for eastern philosophy (no objective world beyond observation) versus western philosophy (objective world beyond observation)?