The Collective Placebo Effect? Collective Belief & Disbelief?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tor

I don't think he thinks it is complete (which it isn't, I totally agree there), just much better than the classical explanations that seem to reduce us all to a sophisticated and highly organized pile of mindless particles.

Exactly how do you think Stapp's proposals eliminate this "problem"?

n the end his process zero, which is connected with our choices, is a postulate. But some postulate is needed anyway, and I think it is worth exploring.

How does process 0 help?

Are you sure your pleasure with his proposal doesn't arise solely from an emotional reaction?

~~ Paul

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Exactly how do you think Stapp's proposals eliminate this "problem"?

Well, first of the picture QT paints of how the universe works seems to me to be much more "mind-like" than "matter-like". This is to me independent of Stapp's theory. Further, my opinion on the whole consciousness topic has much in common with David. Assuming that mindless particles and forces give rise to my experiences and consciousness only leads to paradoxes. In Stapp's theory (and already hinted at in the orthodox QT) the universe is psychophysical, meaning that it has both physical and experiential qualities on a fundamental level.

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

How does process 0 help?

Are you sure your pleasure with his proposal doesn't arise solely from an emotional reaction?

~~ Paul

Process Zero is the aspect of the universe that has the experiential quality, and the process that is associated with our feeling of free choice, intention, attention, awareness etc. In his current theory I understand it as something fundamental. Process Zero is needed to control the timing and frequency of process 1, wich again is needed to solve the measurement problem.

You asked if objects can't do this, and the answer seems to be no. Decoherence, which is this interaction with other objects, does not solve the measurement problem beyond FAPP. That is why all these strange interpretations of QT exists. Some try to ignore the problem, some try to postulate infinite many worlds, some try to make the future influence the present etc. But only two current theories I know of take consciousness seriously as something real in itself. That is Stapp's theory and Penrose's theory. Stapp postulates process zero, Penrose postulates that some proposed fundamental spacetime self collapse-process of the universe, having to do with quantum gravity, is connected to consciousness.

Like David I think there is something to psi. If we want a theory of the universe that can include such phenomena, I think something like what Penrose and Stapp proposes is needed. From how I understand these two theories I think Stapp has come closest.

Does my interest in those theories arise solely from an emotional reaction? No, but I'll be the first to admit that I have emotions and that they probably factor in. But such is the case for everyone else also, even you . When something so seriously violates my intuition of my basic being as current mainstream "theories" of consciousness do, along with the fact that many common and empirically investigated phenomena do not fit in either (like psi), I look for something better.

I'm not that a big fan of theories. Theories are always replaced at a later stage, but can give rise to new perspectives, predictions to be falsified and ideas for new experiments. Experimental results are theory independent, but of course subject to interpretation.

I think I'll jump out of the debate now. Have fun

[David Bailey]

To amplify something Tor said,

Emotions come into all science. I can still (dimly) remember the emotions I had when I got my first chemistry set and read "Teach yourself chemistry". I can also remember the sense of power that I felt when I read a little book on calculus, whose title I have long forgotten. I remember the excitement at the idea of artificial intelligence, and then the dawning realisation that maybe the truth was stranger than that .....

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Tor

Decoherence, which is this interaction with other objects, does not solve the measurement problem beyond FAPP.

What is FAPP? Many materialists that I have communicated with on the jref forums insist that decoherence does solve the measurement problem.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

What is FAPP? Many materialists that I have communicated with on the jref forums insist that decoherence does solve the measurement problem.

FAPP is short for "For All Practical Purposes".

On the measurement problem I'll just quote Stapp's book again;

It is indeed sometimes claimed that the interaction of a system with its environment effectively solves the “measurement” problem (which is essentially the problem of how to connect the physically/mathematically described aspects of quantum theory to human experience.). However, the principal investigators of the effects of this interaction (e.g., E. Joos, 1996; D. Zeh, 1996; W. Zurek, 2002) make no such strong claim. Joos (p.3) emphasizes that even when the interaction with the environment is included one is left with not one single classical world but with a host of possible classical worlds “thus leaving the measurement problem essentially unsolved (unless one is willing to accept some variant of the Everett interpretation)”.

------

Later on (p. 20-21) he (Zurek) returns to this problem:

”

So it's clear from the principal investigators on decoherence that it is not by itself sufficient to solve this problem beyond FAPP.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tor

Well, first of the picture QT paints of how the universe works seems to me to be much more "mind-like" than "matter-like". This is to me independent of Stapp's theory. Further, my opinion on the whole consciousness topic has much in common with David. Assuming that mindless particles and forces give rise to my experiences and consciousness only leads to paradoxes. In Stapp's theory (and already hinted at in the orthodox QT) the universe is psychophysical, meaning that it has both physical and experiential qualities on a fundamental level.

Bah, I think this is all emotion and wishful thinking. QT only seems more mind-like because everyone loads up the interpretations with mental baggage. But, I suppose I could be wrong.

Watch your step at the wishing well. Once the quantum mechanical mechanisms of consciousness are elucidated (if QM is required), all the fun is going to go out of it. You'll be left with just another mechanical description.

Again, I recommend Thomas Clark's "Fear of Mechanism."

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Tor

So it's clear from the principal investigators on decoherence that it is not by itself sufficient to solve this problem beyond FAPP.

What does "... beyond for all practical purposes" mean again?

~~ Paul

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Tor

OK.. Let me quote some quotes. They are from Stapp's recent book, but I know of many of them from before. Few textbooks even talk about what QT really means. The one I used didn't either, but there are those that do. Anyway, the founders of QT talked about these things:



Human consciousness was the only thing they considered to be relevant in this regard. But I guess it was because they couldn't ask animals if they were conscious.

Btw Paul, I think the link you posted (http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/WallaceComments.doc) was very informing when it comes to the deeper issues of Stapp's theory. Wallace seems like the right guy to pair Stapp up with.

David, I'd recommend you read the Wallace comments.

It's ironic that you quote somebody quoting Heisenberg but seem to have forgotten to read Heisenberg himself.

Read "Physics and Philosophy" by Heisenberg. He actually goes to great lengths to dispel the misunderstandings that arose from the Copenhagen interpretation.

You quote Stapp quoting Heisenberg.

...the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function?takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change in our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function.

I wonder who is responsible the ellipsis in the quotation because the words immediately before the ellipsis are "it is not connected" and directly contradict the woo assertion that the conciousness by itself alters reality.

The full quote is

Therefore, the transition from the "possible" to "actual" takes place during the act of observation. If we want to describe what happens in an atomic event, we have to realize that the word "happens" can apply only to the state of affairs between two observations. It applies to the physical, and not the psychical act of observation, and we may say that the transition from the "possible" to the "actual" takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with the measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the wrold, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function?takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change in our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function.

Also note other quotations from the same book.

Certainly quantum theory does not contain genuine subjective features, it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as a part of the atomic event.

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being;...

In all of Heisenberg's examples the "measurement" involves an interaction between a measurement apparatus and the object in question. His main example is using a photon to detect the position of an electron. The measurement is not some purely subjective mind field reaching out to obsevre nature.

If you read the actual scientifc papers on the Quantum Zeno effect you will see that the "observations" in this case are the same. They typically involve a rapid train of light pulses. It is not some kind of mind stuff that is observing the atoms. In all of Stapp's smoke and mirrors verbiage the one question that remains is how does the mind stuff interact with the physical world. the Quantum Zeno effect does not help. You need something like photons to make the observations not mind stuff

[Chris Noble]

Chris,

You don't really want to argue about the foundations of QM with Heisenberg, Wigner, and Bohr, do you?

David

What the bleep do you know?

Before you start telling me that Heisenberg disagrees with me it would be a good idea to actually read something more than isolated quotations with suspicious ellipses.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Watch your step at the wishing well. Once the quantum mechanical mechanisms of consciousness are elucidated (if QM is required), all the fun is going to go out of it. You'll be left with just another mechanical description.

Ortherwise known as the "you can't have your woo and eat it too" principle.