Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor  First off, thank you for referring me to Kuttner's response to Nauenberg's article. I read Nauenberg's article a couple of months ago. I wasn't especially impressed then, and I wasn't now either when I reread it.
The main problem with Nauenberg is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that decoherence does not solve the measurement problem beyond FAPP. Instead he boosts it as in fact doing just this (when he talks about irreversible amplifications). From what I've read on decoherence, this is not the case. This fact alone is enough to make us encounter consciousness.
I agree that QE is biased. It's just as biased as all the other perspectives out there on what the heck is going on in QT beyond FAPP. But I do not think it's misleading.
I think Kuttner gives a good enough response to Nauenberg. Readers of Foundation of Physics, that are interested in these issues, should be well aware that decoherence does not solve the measurement problem. And they would have noticed that Nauenberg conveniently jumps over this fact.
As to the quotes and their relevance, I'll just refer to Mermin in his review of QE:
And who says that physics deals the wrong level of organization as it is relevant to consciousness? I would argue exactly the opposite (and have when I wrote about Stapp).
Anyway, I do think that enough empirical evidence (of the type I mentioned before) exists to seriously question the existing paradigm, independent of any theory be it QT or any other. A consideration of the QE just adds to the load. |
So what if decoherence doesn't totally solve the measurement problem! This doesn't imply that consciousness does or has anything to do with resolving the issue. If you view consciousness as this inherently, subjective and ineffable thing then you guarantee no solutions to the measurement problem by definition!
What should impress you about the Nuremberg and Kuttner exchange is how quotes are being used in a misleadingly biased way with regards to the
consciousness issue and how poor the arguments are in this regard. Remember, this QE book is about consciousness and QT. Also, I don't see any good reasons that Stapp provides something worth serious consideration.
The existence of neurology, cognitive science, computer science, psychology, philosophy of mind, etc, tells you that physics is the wrong level of organization. Also, probably most physicists will tell you that physics is the wrong level of organization when dealing with the consciousness issue.
---------------------------