Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak  Everything Stapp adds to the quantum formalism to deal with the measurement problem is pure speculation on his part. |
Pure speculation? He uses the orthodox von Neumann quantum framework as his foundation. The speculation part must be the introduction of the process 0 (that has to do with our free will), which I think is a necessary step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak Furthermore, note that he is taking the least favored interpretation of quantum theory, which is not derived from quantum theory, and embedding it within a speculative philosophical framework, Whiteheads process philosophy. One problem this helps him avoid with his initial interpretation of quantum theory is its anthropocentric nature, but this then leads to back again to a situation where he looses the conscious self which the initial interpretation started with. Around in a circle we go! |
No interpretation is
derived from quantum theory. The interpretations exists because we don't understand what the heck is going on when we look at the mathematical theory by itself and compare it with experiments. Everything is fine for all practical purposes, but beyond that we're lost. As I said before, I think Stapp's view of things is a step in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak By the way, process 3 is the the non-locality process, process 2 is the wave function, process 1 is the orthonormal basis which is the effect of something else. Process 0 is that something else. Also, this breaking things up into these process from the usual two (process 2, 1 and 3 together) is something that is also interpretation dependent. |
No.
Process 1 is the
probing action that acts upon process 2 to
select the basis vectors. Or to put it another way, it partitions process 2 into a countable set of discrete (and orthogonal) components.
Process 3 is
nature's statistically specified choice of the outcome of the action selected by the prior process 1 probing (nature's response to our probing).
Process 0 is what Stapp thinks decides when a Process 1 action occurs. It is what he thinks is closely connected to our free choices.
Process 1 is the one that Stapp describes as non-local.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak Lastly, I see no reason to think that consciousness is fundamental. This is most likely false.
------------- |
Here we just disagree (or maybe not?). I believe consciousness is more fundamental than what is the mainstream thought today. I don't know what lies at the bottom of the universe. But I wouldn't be surprised if most of the phenomena we know of are emergent properties of this bottom/medium or whatever we should call it. Maybe something that has mind like and matter like properties embedded in it, maybe something that can't be compared to such categories at all.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure matter isn't the fundamental "substance".