[quote]Rational AKD
I don't know about bennyboy here, but when I talk about idealistic implications of QM, I don't refer to it's 'spookiness' or our lack of knowledge on the subject. I refer to actual evidence from what we know about QM.[quote]
Which you over-interpret. As I understand it your claim is:
To deny 1. and 2. I only have to point to other interpretations of QM. One interpretation is perfectly consistent with experiment results, the maths and QM. It is fully deterministic and realistic, namely Bohmian Mechanics. I am not saying that Bohmian mechanics is true, just that it is a valid non-local, hidden variables interpretation (which could be true) and that it denies your assertions in 1. and 2. (in that they do not apply to Bohmian Mechanics because it is a contextual, non-local interpretation).
The general point here is that the physics of the very small and the very big are in a wonderful snarl at the moment. Those of us who do not understand the maths well enough are just going to have to let it play out and remain agnostic on the nature of reality and origins of the cosmos. There are other interpretations such as Many Worlds, Information, Qbism etc which have different implications. Both string theory and Quantum Field Theory deny that there are point particles at all (meaning that mechanics do not apply in the sense we understand them and that viewing only through the lens of QM can only lead to an approximation). There is no retreat to Idealism in these interpretations or models.
On point 3. QM applies to the very small. I agree and stated that the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world. But to move from the quantum world is inherently uncertain to therefore the macroscopic world (a bridge) is inherently uncertain is a huge leap. It ignores that quantum effects smooth out as they scale, that we only sense 4-dimensions (and in reality there may be more at quantum scales making it appear uncertain from our perspective), that if emergentism is true scaling in or out will mean that different properties also emerge.
I think there is also a general tendency in your perspective to make the mistake of assuming ‘the observer’ is a conscious agent. The observer effect referred to in QM experiments is non-conscious electrical equipment and a quantum mechanical system in itself. What we are measuring is the effect on the time-evolution of one QM system (normally an EM field) when disturbed by another QM system (a different EM field). Whether that collapses a wave function or not depends on the interpretation of QM.
I am an agnostic on materialism (for reasons stated above). I think there is a tendency to assume that materialists only see the world as’ little ball bearings’. Until I can get my head around a better definition of matter, I do not want to restrict myself to materialism. This does not mean I have to abandon realism nor naturalism.
On point 4. If you assert that matter does not exist and mind does then you have all your work ahead of you. You now owe us a coherent sketch of your existence. All you know is that you are a mind conscious of your own consciousness. This is inherently absurd as consciousness is, consciousness of something. It starts by being aware of things outside of itself to recognise that it is conscious in the first place. You now have to explain how minds exist without a physical substrate?, what is existence without physicality? What is the immaterial? Do minds exist in time and within the confines of the natural world? If you cannot offer this then what is the difference between your position and the claim that you do not exist?
Apart from these philosophical questions there are additional practical problems. When did consciousness arise in evolutionary history? If consciousness arose in evolutionary history then Idealism must be false as there was a real world in which consciousness arose. If consciousness has always existed, then evolution must be false as consciousness has just created the illusion of a movement from simpler seemingly non-conscious flora to conscious creatures like ourselves.
I would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of higher functioning structures in the brain, which are dependant on micro brain structure, compounds, molecules, atoms….all the way back to the QM systems. I would also argue that QM can be understood from a realist perspective and that I am perfectly justified in claiming that I really do exist, in a natural physical realm.
On point 5. You are arguing that the mind behind existence has no reasons for wanting to fool you or deceive you. But under Idealism this is the same mind that has set us up to live in a ‘fantasy world’ rather than in our ‘true state’. Also that this ‘fantasy’ is so persistent and convincing that we can hold to a realist position. That seems at least mildly capricious to me.
The other problem is that this mind is a god with the traditionally ascribed properties then it seems to deny point 1. - 3. above. If this god is conscious, omniscient and omnipresent and if consciousness collapse the wave function. No quantum effects can be observed because all wave functions would be collapsed. But because we can see quantum effects then a god with those properties cannot exist.
I don't know about bennyboy here, but when I talk about idealistic implications of QM, I don't refer to it's 'spookiness' or our lack of knowledge on the subject. I refer to actual evidence from what we know about QM.[quote]
Which you over-interpret. As I understand it your claim is:
- Certain inequalities (you mention Leggatt-Garg but you might as well add Bell inequalities in as well) reject the implications of realism but are compatible with idealism
- Kochen-specker theorem has the same implications as 1.
- Macroscopic world exists as a wavefunction which is collapsed by the observation of conscious observers
- We are in a simulation, underneath it minds exist, matter does not
- We could stop here, but you would also presumably argue that this has implications for theism.
To deny 1. and 2. I only have to point to other interpretations of QM. One interpretation is perfectly consistent with experiment results, the maths and QM. It is fully deterministic and realistic, namely Bohmian Mechanics. I am not saying that Bohmian mechanics is true, just that it is a valid non-local, hidden variables interpretation (which could be true) and that it denies your assertions in 1. and 2. (in that they do not apply to Bohmian Mechanics because it is a contextual, non-local interpretation).
The general point here is that the physics of the very small and the very big are in a wonderful snarl at the moment. Those of us who do not understand the maths well enough are just going to have to let it play out and remain agnostic on the nature of reality and origins of the cosmos. There are other interpretations such as Many Worlds, Information, Qbism etc which have different implications. Both string theory and Quantum Field Theory deny that there are point particles at all (meaning that mechanics do not apply in the sense we understand them and that viewing only through the lens of QM can only lead to an approximation). There is no retreat to Idealism in these interpretations or models.
On point 3. QM applies to the very small. I agree and stated that the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world. But to move from the quantum world is inherently uncertain to therefore the macroscopic world (a bridge) is inherently uncertain is a huge leap. It ignores that quantum effects smooth out as they scale, that we only sense 4-dimensions (and in reality there may be more at quantum scales making it appear uncertain from our perspective), that if emergentism is true scaling in or out will mean that different properties also emerge.
I think there is also a general tendency in your perspective to make the mistake of assuming ‘the observer’ is a conscious agent. The observer effect referred to in QM experiments is non-conscious electrical equipment and a quantum mechanical system in itself. What we are measuring is the effect on the time-evolution of one QM system (normally an EM field) when disturbed by another QM system (a different EM field). Whether that collapses a wave function or not depends on the interpretation of QM.
I am an agnostic on materialism (for reasons stated above). I think there is a tendency to assume that materialists only see the world as’ little ball bearings’. Until I can get my head around a better definition of matter, I do not want to restrict myself to materialism. This does not mean I have to abandon realism nor naturalism.
On point 4. If you assert that matter does not exist and mind does then you have all your work ahead of you. You now owe us a coherent sketch of your existence. All you know is that you are a mind conscious of your own consciousness. This is inherently absurd as consciousness is, consciousness of something. It starts by being aware of things outside of itself to recognise that it is conscious in the first place. You now have to explain how minds exist without a physical substrate?, what is existence without physicality? What is the immaterial? Do minds exist in time and within the confines of the natural world? If you cannot offer this then what is the difference between your position and the claim that you do not exist?
Apart from these philosophical questions there are additional practical problems. When did consciousness arise in evolutionary history? If consciousness arose in evolutionary history then Idealism must be false as there was a real world in which consciousness arose. If consciousness has always existed, then evolution must be false as consciousness has just created the illusion of a movement from simpler seemingly non-conscious flora to conscious creatures like ourselves.
I would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of higher functioning structures in the brain, which are dependant on micro brain structure, compounds, molecules, atoms….all the way back to the QM systems. I would also argue that QM can be understood from a realist perspective and that I am perfectly justified in claiming that I really do exist, in a natural physical realm.
On point 5. You are arguing that the mind behind existence has no reasons for wanting to fool you or deceive you. But under Idealism this is the same mind that has set us up to live in a ‘fantasy world’ rather than in our ‘true state’. Also that this ‘fantasy’ is so persistent and convincing that we can hold to a realist position. That seems at least mildly capricious to me.
The other problem is that this mind is a god with the traditionally ascribed properties then it seems to deny point 1. - 3. above. If this god is conscious, omniscient and omnipresent and if consciousness collapse the wave function. No quantum effects can be observed because all wave functions would be collapsed. But because we can see quantum effects then a god with those properties cannot exist.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
