RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
September 23, 2015 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2015 at 12:19 pm by Captain Scarlet.)
RATIONAL AKD
“no model of realism is compatible with the findings of QM”.
“nice try. but non-local hidden variables were also falsified by violations of the Leggett inequality."
Far from being a nice try, it is a defeater. I think you think you have better position than you do to use terms like "nice try".
Your analysis is just false. I have already shown you an interpretation of QM that is consistent with QM, realism and determinism, ie Bohmian mechanics. The inequalities and Kochen-Specker Theorem you think debunk Bohmian mechanics either do not debunk it or can be argued to support it. The articles are interesting, and of course there is some poetic license to grab attention. But the scientific papers which underlie those articles is where the data is. In those papers (written by the experimental physicists) which you think support your points, infact demonstrate my point. The theoretical physicists who gave their name to those inequalities, back that up as well. The point stands that you are over-interpreting QM. Attached below are relevant points from those papers and a little judicious quote mining on my part from the theoreticians. All this is available on the internet and I am happy to point it out if you need me to.
From the scientific paper on Leggatt inequalities. AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF NON-LOCAL REALISM
“It is clear that other classes of non-local theories, possibly even fully compliant with all QM predictions, might exist that do have this property when re-producing entangled states. Such theories include additional communication or dimensions. A specific case deserving comment is Bohm’s theory. There the non-local correlations are a consequence of the non-local quantum potential, which exerts suitable torque on the particles leading to experimental results compliant with QM”
LEGGATT HIMSELF
“Since the predictions of the Bohmian pilot wave model ... are by construction identical to QM, it presumably cannot reproduce the predictions of that model either”
From a paper critiquing the experiment A CRITICISM OF “AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF NON-LOCAL REALISM
“To summarize, what can one conclude from the violation of Leggett’s inequality? The logical conclusion is that Leggett’s hypothesis is false, i.e., that a theory that contains the hidden variables u and v proposed by Leggett cannot be empirically viable. That doesn’t tell us anything about determinism or any type of philosophical realism. A title like “An experimental test of non-local realism” is severely misleading: it could, for instance, lead some readers into believing that the experiment reported by the article makes a theory like Bohmian Mechanics more implausible while it is exactly the other way around: a prediction of Bohmian Mechanics has been experimentally verified and a class of alternatives to it has been shown not to be viable.”
From the paper on Contextuality in Bohmian Mechanics
“The Kochen—Specker theorem shows that noncontextual hidden variable interpretations of quantum theory are impossible. This does not mean, however, that hidden variable theories are not possible. In fact, the Bohm model is just such a theory. We show by considering an example involving interferometers how the Bohm model is contextual, thus circumventing the Kochen—Specker theorem. We will find that the result of a measurement of an operator in Bohmian mechanics is not just dependent on the context of other measurements that are also being performed at the same time, but also dependent on the way in which a particular measurement is performed.”
From JOHN BELL HIMSELF on The impossibility of the pilot wave (a somewhat ironic title from John Bell)
“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done.It was in the papers of David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be turned into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer’ is eliminated.”
RATIONAL AKD
“since I haven't presented any arguments for 5, I think it's unfair for you to determine it doesn't follow without any knowledge of how I got to it.”
Totally accept that. Which is why I prefaced it with an apology in advance if I was straw-manning you. I was not sure whether you made that argument or not. We can address the god stuff later.
RATIONAL AKD
“why? is your 'self' equivalent to matter? if your mind exists, then why not your self? mind is really what you refer to as self.
so you don't count as 'something'?
well, our minds certainly have temporal existence. but I don't think a mind generally necessitates temporality.
my position is that matter doesn't exist. but a reference of self is not equivalent to a reference of your body.”
The problem here is you are not offering any coherent sketch of your own existence. You are claiming to be an immaterial mind, but offer no sketch of what this is. Lets start by defining terms. What is the immaterial to you? Because I read what you are saying (rightly or wrongly) as only the immaterial really exists.
RATIONAL AKD
“well... you wouldn't be conscious of just your own consciousness. there is an external world, but it comes from a different mind.”
“why do you need specifically external awareness for consciousness? internal awareness isn't an option?”
You seem to be just begging the question here. Internal awareness is an option, but not by itself. To know you are conscious you have to be aware of something outside of yourself, existence if you like so you can know you are conscious and the changes in your state of consciousness are possible and anchored to something in reality. What can you say or know or learn if you are only self aware? If I have never seen anything does the concept of brown have any meaning? If we went further and removed all of our sensory input at birth, what would we know or be conscious of? Are any other animals self aware and do they only exist as minds?
RATIONAL AKD
“consciousness was created apart from evolution of the universe. our consciousness was put at a particular point corresponding to a temporal location in the physical universe. the history we observe is matter behaving materialistically because it is being observed. thus the history didn't exist until the first conscious life form was put in it, then all the billions of years of history materialized at once.”
Well to be fair you have grasped the nettle and perhaps given me the only answer you could. Maybe the best thing to do is simply underline the absurdity that Idealism commits you to.
RATIONAL AKD
"it's not a fantasy world in the sense it's whatever you want it to be. it has a predetermined function determined by predetermined probabilities. and since this world is a mental construct, it can be referred to as a 'true state."
But apparently it is at the whim of a ‘master-mind’. Call it mind A. What is the difference between whim-wishing of mind A and the inability of whim-wishing of the whole set of minds excluding mind A. It is still a fantasy. A fantasy is a fantasy.
RATIONAL AKD
“certainly a valid point that deserves a serious answer. the answer is God is not observing material interactions apart from our observations. God doesn't care for material events, he only observes us. material interactions are only determined by God to the extent that they fulfil his plan, but the position of certain quantum particles would not be a factor.”
“no model of realism is compatible with the findings of QM”.
“nice try. but non-local hidden variables were also falsified by violations of the Leggett inequality."
Far from being a nice try, it is a defeater. I think you think you have better position than you do to use terms like "nice try".
Your analysis is just false. I have already shown you an interpretation of QM that is consistent with QM, realism and determinism, ie Bohmian mechanics. The inequalities and Kochen-Specker Theorem you think debunk Bohmian mechanics either do not debunk it or can be argued to support it. The articles are interesting, and of course there is some poetic license to grab attention. But the scientific papers which underlie those articles is where the data is. In those papers (written by the experimental physicists) which you think support your points, infact demonstrate my point. The theoretical physicists who gave their name to those inequalities, back that up as well. The point stands that you are over-interpreting QM. Attached below are relevant points from those papers and a little judicious quote mining on my part from the theoreticians. All this is available on the internet and I am happy to point it out if you need me to.
From the scientific paper on Leggatt inequalities. AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF NON-LOCAL REALISM
“It is clear that other classes of non-local theories, possibly even fully compliant with all QM predictions, might exist that do have this property when re-producing entangled states. Such theories include additional communication or dimensions. A specific case deserving comment is Bohm’s theory. There the non-local correlations are a consequence of the non-local quantum potential, which exerts suitable torque on the particles leading to experimental results compliant with QM”
LEGGATT HIMSELF
“Since the predictions of the Bohmian pilot wave model ... are by construction identical to QM, it presumably cannot reproduce the predictions of that model either”
From a paper critiquing the experiment A CRITICISM OF “AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF NON-LOCAL REALISM
“To summarize, what can one conclude from the violation of Leggett’s inequality? The logical conclusion is that Leggett’s hypothesis is false, i.e., that a theory that contains the hidden variables u and v proposed by Leggett cannot be empirically viable. That doesn’t tell us anything about determinism or any type of philosophical realism. A title like “An experimental test of non-local realism” is severely misleading: it could, for instance, lead some readers into believing that the experiment reported by the article makes a theory like Bohmian Mechanics more implausible while it is exactly the other way around: a prediction of Bohmian Mechanics has been experimentally verified and a class of alternatives to it has been shown not to be viable.”
From the paper on Contextuality in Bohmian Mechanics
“The Kochen—Specker theorem shows that noncontextual hidden variable interpretations of quantum theory are impossible. This does not mean, however, that hidden variable theories are not possible. In fact, the Bohm model is just such a theory. We show by considering an example involving interferometers how the Bohm model is contextual, thus circumventing the Kochen—Specker theorem. We will find that the result of a measurement of an operator in Bohmian mechanics is not just dependent on the context of other measurements that are also being performed at the same time, but also dependent on the way in which a particular measurement is performed.”
From JOHN BELL HIMSELF on The impossibility of the pilot wave (a somewhat ironic title from John Bell)
“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done.It was in the papers of David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be turned into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer’ is eliminated.”
RATIONAL AKD
“since I haven't presented any arguments for 5, I think it's unfair for you to determine it doesn't follow without any knowledge of how I got to it.”
Totally accept that. Which is why I prefaced it with an apology in advance if I was straw-manning you. I was not sure whether you made that argument or not. We can address the god stuff later.
RATIONAL AKD
“why? is your 'self' equivalent to matter? if your mind exists, then why not your self? mind is really what you refer to as self.
so you don't count as 'something'?
well, our minds certainly have temporal existence. but I don't think a mind generally necessitates temporality.
my position is that matter doesn't exist. but a reference of self is not equivalent to a reference of your body.”
The problem here is you are not offering any coherent sketch of your own existence. You are claiming to be an immaterial mind, but offer no sketch of what this is. Lets start by defining terms. What is the immaterial to you? Because I read what you are saying (rightly or wrongly) as only the immaterial really exists.
RATIONAL AKD
“well... you wouldn't be conscious of just your own consciousness. there is an external world, but it comes from a different mind.”
“why do you need specifically external awareness for consciousness? internal awareness isn't an option?”
You seem to be just begging the question here. Internal awareness is an option, but not by itself. To know you are conscious you have to be aware of something outside of yourself, existence if you like so you can know you are conscious and the changes in your state of consciousness are possible and anchored to something in reality. What can you say or know or learn if you are only self aware? If I have never seen anything does the concept of brown have any meaning? If we went further and removed all of our sensory input at birth, what would we know or be conscious of? Are any other animals self aware and do they only exist as minds?
RATIONAL AKD
“consciousness was created apart from evolution of the universe. our consciousness was put at a particular point corresponding to a temporal location in the physical universe. the history we observe is matter behaving materialistically because it is being observed. thus the history didn't exist until the first conscious life form was put in it, then all the billions of years of history materialized at once.”
Well to be fair you have grasped the nettle and perhaps given me the only answer you could. Maybe the best thing to do is simply underline the absurdity that Idealism commits you to.
RATIONAL AKD
"it's not a fantasy world in the sense it's whatever you want it to be. it has a predetermined function determined by predetermined probabilities. and since this world is a mental construct, it can be referred to as a 'true state."
But apparently it is at the whim of a ‘master-mind’. Call it mind A. What is the difference between whim-wishing of mind A and the inability of whim-wishing of the whole set of minds excluding mind A. It is still a fantasy. A fantasy is a fantasy.
RATIONAL AKD
“certainly a valid point that deserves a serious answer. the answer is God is not observing material interactions apart from our observations. God doesn't care for material events, he only observes us. material interactions are only determined by God to the extent that they fulfil his plan, but the position of certain quantum particles would not be a factor.”
- The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing conscious being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
- Conscious observation collapses quantum superpositions.
- An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
- We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
- Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
