“Physical stuff” can’t do this and that - a false Dichotomy

“Objective physical realism” simply means that the physical properties has deterministic value independent of observation.

Non-physical-realism means that the physical properties are undetermined until observation. 

It’s as simply as that.

His mistake is to go further, and conclude that physical goings-on can’t possibly be conscious goings-on. Many make the same mistake today — the Very Large Mistake (as Winnie-the-Pooh might put it) of thinking that we know enough about the nature of physical stuff to know that conscious experience can’t be physical. We don’t. We don’t know the intrinsic nature of physical stuff, except — Russell again — insofar as we know it simply through having a conscious experience.

We find this idea extremely difficult because we’re so very deeply committed to the belief that we know more about the physical than we do, and (in particular) know enough to know that consciousness can’t be physical. We don’t see that the hard problem is not what consciousness is, it’s what matter is — what the physical is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opini...atter.html

“Objective physical realism” simply means that the physical properties has deterministic value independent of observation.

Non-physical-realism means that the physical properties are undetermined until observation. 

It’s as simply as that.

It's not nearly as simple as you presume. Your logic is rather lacking in this regard, and it is rather frustrating because you have demonstrated that you have the intelligence to understand complex subjects.

To reiterate, not a single thing about any physical thing has had its values made independently of observation. Everything we know about physical things has their origin in many subjective observations and subsequent inter-subjective agreement ~ there can be nothing we know that is independent of those observations, by the very nature of the knowing, which requires observation.

If we have not observed it or experienced it, it does not exist for us ~ though it may for others, if they have experienced it. Such a thing need not be physical, either.

His mistake is to go further, and conclude that physical goings-on can’t possibly be conscious goings-on. Many make the same mistake today — the Very Large Mistake (as Winnie-the-Pooh might put it) of thinking that we know enough about the nature of physical stuff to know that conscious experience can’t be physical. We don’t. We don’t know the intrinsic nature of physical stuff, except — Russell again — insofar as we know it simply through having a conscious experience.

We find this idea extremely difficult because we’re so very deeply committed to the belief that we know more about the physical than we do, and (in particular) know enough to know that consciousness can’t be physical. We don’t see that the hard problem is not what consciousness is, it’s what matter is — what the physical is.

We don't have to know exactly what matter is to know that it is not the origin of consciousness or mind. It is intuitive enough that no purely physical thing has any observable mental qualities, that no purely mental thing ~ thoughts, emotions, beliefs ~ has any observable physical qualities. There is a strong appearance of Dualism here, in this observed physical reality we share.

There is no logical reason to think that minds are composed of anything within conscious experience ~ minds must logically exist outside of what is within conscious experience. That is, it must be of a higher order, something more, something beyond, whatever the nature of this ultimately is.

Really, it is the Physicalist who smugly believes that we know everything about the physical ~ except when they admit that we don't. The Physicalist thinks that we know enough that consciousness must be "physical", despite the logical flaws in this assertion. The Physicalist, if they wish to abuse the authority of science, must also adhere to the limits of science if they are to be consistent ~ they must demonstrate experimental evidence that minds are genuinely the result of the workings of matter and physics, and nothing more.

It's not nearly as simple as you presume. Your logic is rather lacking in this regard, and it is rather frustrating because you have demonstrated that you have the intelligence to understand complex subjects.

You misunderstand the subject of this thread! 

If we measure the spin of an electron that is in a superposition of spin states along a certain axis (for example, along the z-axis), we will find that 50% of the time, we measure it as +1/2, and the other 50% of the time, we measure it as -1/2.

However, if the electron is already polarized (meaning its spin is aligned) along that axis, we will always measure the same value (either +1/2 or -1/2), depending on its initial polarization.

Now, here's the philosophical question (and this is something no one can definitively answer):

Is there an unknown property of the electron—let's call it 'my_unknown_spin_property'—that predetermines the outcome of our measurement (whether we get +1/2 or -1/2)? Or is the outcome of the measurement genuinely random and only determined at the moment we measure it?

This is the central question we're discussing here. While nobody knows the answer, the implications are profound: depending on the answer, we live in a universe where reality is fundamentally different from what we might otherwise imagine.

You misunderstand the subject of this thread! 

If we measure the spin of an electron that is in a superposition of spin states along a certain axis (for example, along the z-axis), we will find that 50% of the time, we measure it as +1/2, and the other 50% of the time, we measure it as -1/2.

However, if the electron is already polarized (meaning its spin is aligned) along that axis, we will always measure the same value (either +1/2 or -1/2), depending on its initial polarization.

Now, here's the philosophical question (and this is something no one can definitively answer):

Is there an unknown property of the electron—let's call it 'my_unknown_spin_property'—that predetermines the outcome of our measurement (whether we get +1/2 or -1/2)? Or is the outcome of the measurement genuinely random and only determined at the moment we measure it?

This is the central question we're discussing here. While nobody knows the answer, the implications are profound: depending on the answer, we live in a universe where reality is fundamentally different from what we might otherwise imagine.

Given that what we think of as "randomness" is, in reality, just our not understanding the nature of how a system produces results, it would strongly suggest the former... however, this also feels like a false dichotomy ~ how can you be so certain that these are the only possibilities?

We should not presume to know how a system actually functions without having all of the relevant details. In the case of the electron ~ we do not understand how superposition collapses work, only that they are correlated with observation by conscious entities, directly or otherwise.

So, given this limited understanding, we cannot draw much out of it ~ the nature of the universe doesn't fundamentally change depending on how we define things. It is merely our perception that changes, and nothing more.

And besides... knowing about the quantum would not give us knowledge about what lies beyond, about the deeper metaphysical truths ~ perhaps the spiritual realities, whose nature is a complete mystery, even to those most attuned to it.

So... in conclusion, reality does not change in any fundamental way, whether we have knowledge of the quantum or not ~ only our perception can change. Phenomenally, it can seem different, but the thing-in-itself remains as it is. The archetypal can take on infinite manifestations, but the archetypal itself doesn't change.

We should not presume to know how a system actually functions without having all of the relevant details. In the case of the electron ~ we do not understand how superposition collapses work, only that they are correlated with observation by conscious entities, directly or otherwise.

So, given this limited understanding, we cannot draw much out of it ~ the nature of the universe doesn't fundamentally change depending on how we define things. It is merely our perception that changes, and nothing more.

not true. The nature of the universe changes fundamentally depending on the answer to the question I have provided. If 'my_unknown_spin_property' exists there is in fact no superposition, no collapse, no special role for consciousness in this entire matter.

That's why this question is big.

not true. The nature of the universe changes fundamentally depending on the answer to the question I have provided. If 'my_unknown_spin_property' exists there is in fact no superposition, no collapse, no special role for consciousness in this entire matter.

That's why this question is big.

Just because something is a superposition doesn't make it necessarily random ~ we just don't understand the nature of how the quantum behaves according to the influences of consciousness.

Which is precisely why your options are a false dichotomy ~ you think they are the only possibilities, when in fact, because we do not understand what the quantum is, or why it behaves the way it does, we do not know the actual range of possibilities.

You also seem to think that "my_unknown_spin_property" must mean that there is no superposition or collapse ~ when you cannot know this to be the case. One does not necessarily exclude the other.

All we know for certain is that conscious observation, direct or indirect, plays a role in collapsing the indeterministic quantum into something momentarily measurable. We do not have to know why or how to witness it happening.

All we know for certain is that conscious observation, direct or indirect, plays a role in collapsing the indeterministic quantum into something momentarily measurable. We do not have to know why or how to witness it happening.

No we don’t know this at all. You simply don’t understand the subject of QM.