Pseudoskeptism and acceptable versus unacceptable science [split from "infant consciousness"]

My own view about all this is that if we had a totally deterministic theory of physics, there would be no room for consciousness - it is the fact that QM theory produces a probability distribution (rather than a precise answer) that is a strong hint that QM and consciousness are intimately connected - I agree with Jack Boyd (see the link to Skeptiko) that this is just a hint, not a proof.

Do you mean if physics was deterministic you would be a materialist?

Because I don't think the rejection of materialism should be based on indeterminism, these seem like separate concerns that could be connected but are not necessarily so.

Even if consciousness was the definitive cause of [wave] function collapse it seems to me this could, conceivably, take place in a fully deterministic system.

(Caveat being I don't think one can have a genuine determinism, though I would base this on logical grounds.)

[Ninshub]

Hey David,

It wasn't me who split the thread unless I did that in a hypnotic state. Possibly Laird?

As Jack Boyd noted, QM predicts a sort of instantaneous action at a distance known as entanglement, it comes with a peculiar twist to it, which is that you can never transmit information through an entanglement channel. Obviously PK may or may not contain the same twist, but if it does it would be a strong hint that QM and consciousness are indeed very closely related, and if it does not, it might suggest that if there is a link to QM, the theory underlying QM might allow information to be transferred over an entanglement channel. I guess all that is needed is to focus some meditators on some part of a deep space probe attempting to force some change to take place (Remember that Psi forces are not supposed to diminish with difference. Note also that entanglement effects are also supposed not to decay with distance!

I also thought that information could not be transferred but since the Nobel prize was won for work on this very aspect (sorry - pun - one of the prize winners was Alain Aspect) of QM.

Anton Zeilinger - a co-winner of the prize, seems to be saying that information can be transferred. Perhaps that's why they were awarded the prize?

“It is not like in the Star Trek films or whatever, transporting something — certainly not a person — over some distance,” Zeilinger said by phone during the Nobel announcement. “The point is, using entanglement, you can transfer all the information that is carried by an object over to another place, where the object is, so to speak, reconstituted.”

Do you mean if physics was deterministic you would be a materialist?

It is utterly hypothetical, but I suppose I would!

I mean think of an alternative without QM (actually I increasingly think that isn't possible) - so you have a kinetic theory of gasses and liquids, so for example you have Brownian motion - which is obviously random.

The trouble is, it is only random in the sense that the details of what is going on are too complicated to think about or even compute.

That doesn't seem like something you can base consciousness on.

David

I also thought that information could not be transferred but since the Nobel prize was won for work on this very aspect (sorry - pun - one of the prize winners was Alain Aspect) of QM.

Anton Zeilinger - a co-winner of the prize, seems to be saying that information can be transferred. Perhaps that's why they were awarded the prize?

Do you have a link?

David

Do you mean if physics was deterministic you would be a materialist?

Because I don't think the rejection of materialism should be based on indeterminism, these seem like separate concerns that could be connected but are not necessarily so.

Even if consciousness was the definitive cause of [wave] function collapse it seems to me this could, conceivably, take place in a fully deterministic system.

(Caveat being I don't think one can have a genuine determinism, though I would base this on logical grounds.)

"Do you mean if physics was deterministic you would be a materialist?"
I would simply assume that at any given point in history our knowledge of science is incomplete, and not a decisive factor in my outlook.

What matters for me personally is things I've experienced. Even without being any sort of ground-breaking mystic, instead just an ordinary person, I've noticed - and been shocked, puzzled, disturbed by - an irregular parade of incidents during my life which don't fit in any version of science with which I'm familiar.

Though I appreciate and value science, it isn't the only measuring-stick for existence.

As a little more explanation, things which initially I found puzzling or disturbing gradually became more of a dependable and trusted resource. That's one of the unfortunate things about marginalising or discarding these parts of human experience which don't fit, it is wasteful and a form or environmental destruction, except that it is our inner environment which is at stake.

It is utterly hypothetical, but I suppose I would!

I mean think of an alternative without QM (actually I increasingly think that isn't possible) - so you have a kinetic theory of gasses and liquids, so for example you have Brownian motion - which is obviously random.

The trouble is, it is only random in the sense that the details of what is going on are too complicated to think about or even compute.

That doesn't seem like something you can base consciousness on.

David

This seems to me to be putting theory ahead of direct conscious experience, when considering paranormal phenomena like veridical NDE OBEs for instance. I think empirical evidence always trumps theory.

Sbu,

I think there is some confusion here between our views. First you wrote:

[/b]

Then you wrote:


I think the part of your first statement that I have bolded is a contradiction to the second statement - which I believe is correct - it is the degenerate states that make MWI so hard because they imply a continuum of different realities!

My QM may be pretty rusty, but I think it would be nice to clarify this point.

David

For a degenerate eigenvalue, there are multiple possible eigenstates the system could collapse into upon measurement. However, this doesn't imply a continuum of realities; it simply means there are multiple distinct possible outcomes. It's the superposition of states, not their degeneracy, that leads to multiple potential outcomes in a quantum measurement.

According to MWI, whenever a quantum event has multiple possible outcomes, the universe "splits" into multiple branches. Each branch represents one of the possible outcomes, and every outcome is realized in its own separate "world" or "universe." These branches do not interact or communicate with each other after the split.

Since 'Hidden Variables' have been ruled out (I think) any underlying layer will not restore common sense, but will presumably make QM even more obscure!

David

According to Bell's theorem, if the predictions of quantum mechanics are accurate, then local hidden variable theories cannot account for the observed phenomena, implying that the world is non-local in some fundamental sense. This supports the reality of quantum entanglement, where particles exhibit a 'spooky' connection regardless of the distance separating them. Delving into this area is where quantum mechanics becomes particularly advanced, and I must admit I don't fully grasp the proof behind Bell's theorem. There's also Bohmian mechanics, an alternative interpretation, but that's another area I'm not deeply familiar with.

This seems to me to be putting theory ahead of direct conscious experience, when considering paranormal phenomena like veridical NDE OBEs for instance. I think empirical evidence always trumps theory.

Well don't forget the question was completely hypothetical. Without QM the world would be utterly different and chemistry would not be possible. One thing that QM gives us is distinct chemicals with well-defined properties. Without QM an electron in a molecule might acquire a bit more energy and the properties of the molecule would change! Every molecule would be a bit different.

From another POV, the ultraviolet collapse would happen and atoms would not exist - just clumps of nuclear matter and electrons!

David