Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor  I do agree that Stapp could have done a better job in formulating his views. But I do also recognize that it's a work in progress, a first step. Also, a lot of people think perspectives, that take the QM/consciousness link seriously, might be the right way to go. Both well known physicists and other scientists. Check out the reviews of Quantum Enigma for a overview of what some of these people are saying (also includes some skeptics). I do not think I know it all, but I don't think those that scoff at the QM/consciousness connection (or believe that mind/consciousness is an illusion) do either. Most of them are very narrow minded in my opinion.
As to the rest of the arguments, I feel this is more a difference of how we view the world. You can't prove anything and I can't prove anything. It's all a matter of interpretation, as always in science (although I do think I've got more evidence on my side, but you don't accept it so..).
To continue this would just be an exchange of opinions  |
The book "Quantum Enigma" also does not claim that understanding quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer. In fact, the authors (Rosenblum and Kuttner) are explicit that understanding quantum mechanics, for all practical purposes, need
not address the issue of consciousness. They rather note that physics has
encountered consciousness. This is exactly how Fred Kuttner responded to one part of Michael Nauenberg's critique of his book.
Also, I think you're distorting the situation with your remarks about people scoffing at the QM/consciousness connection. No one I've read scoffs at it, they just point out what's presumed, why arguments are fallacious and why it's most likely a step-backwards.
But I guess you think it's all just opinions so you don't take yourself seriously and neither will I.
Happy trails.
-----------