Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor  Your right in that I haven't read much of Heisenberg's original work, and if the quote is as you say, it is misleading. I'd have to read "Physics and Philosophy" to comment further on that. |
It's available in paperback and is well worth reading.
Quote:
|
But I have read about the Quantum Zeno effect. The problem here is how one views measurements/observations. As I understand it, in von Neumann's approach the whole universe is threated quantum mechanically, and there is a need for some process to partition the potential continuum of physically described possibilities into a set of empirically recognizable alternative possibilities. This process is called by von Neumann process 1, and and is not equivalent to using photons or electrons to measure something. The process 1 intervention is also nonlocal. This von Neumann approach is what Stapp builds on.
|
Von Neumann's interpretation differs markedly from Heisenberg's and even more so from Bohr's. It is important to realise that there is absolutely no difference in the experimental predictions of these interpretations. There is no experiment that can distinguish between them. It would be foolhardy to hang your hopes on one interpretation because it gives hope to your metaphysical wishes.
Whether von Neumann's process 1 involves photons or electrons is irrelevant to the experimental observations of the Quantum Zeno effect which in fact do involve these sorts of measurements. Some of the papers demonstrate the Quantum Zeno effect with continuous observation and even more simply by including the "apparatus" in the Hamiltonian. The mathematics is identical and all confusion about what a "measurement": entails is removed.
Quote:
From what I have read about decoherence (pro and con), it is not enough to do the job that process 1 is supposed to do. So either one can pretend the measurement problem is solved by decoherence (in other words ignore it), or one can try som alternative approach like introducing process 1.
By all means, I do not think Stapp has the final word in the matter. I find his theory interesting because it tries to solve a fundamental problem in physics (it may be a bit radical compared to some others, but so what?), and is compatible with the empirical evidence for psi that some of us here take seriously.
But in the the end I put my faith in experience and experiment, not theory.
|
There is no experimental evidence for any of these Quantum Mechanical theories of conciousness. It is all just wishful thinking. It is exploiting the ambiguity in what "really happens" in a measurement as a back door to get mind stuff into the picture.
The main problem with any form of dualism is explaining how mind stuff interacts with physical stuff. Quantum mechanics is of no help here.