Quantum physics says goodbye objective reality? Is 'reality' a shared hallucination?

[Open Mind]

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com

Access : Physicists bid farewell to reality? : Nature News

The above experiment reported in April 2007 is a bit of a blow to the common notion amongst materialists/physicalists that their is a clear cut objective (local) realism.

-------
Old Philosophical Debate ....

Idealist: I feel consciousness and thought could be more fundamental than physical matter.

Materialist: Nonsense, reality is 'mind-independent', thought is purely subjective, the product of objective material processes of the brain

Idealist: No. The term 'objective' can only be meaningfully defined as the product of agreement between our mental subjectivities....therefore it cannot be 'mind-independent'

Materialist: Nonsense, there is an objective reality regardless of whether someone has a conscious subjective understanding of reality or not, material things are always there.

Idealist: Doesn't the Copenhagen Interpretation imply observation or measurement collapses waveforms into physical reality?

Materialist: No, the universe still exists independently of being measured or observed.
-------


Not according to the above experiment. The idealists position seems to have strengthened?

But more than this .... so often materialists and physicalists think it is enough to dismiss psi claims as 'hallucinations' purely because these do not match perfectly physical reality. This experiment also suggests they are jumping the gun, before any such presumption, first they must show how hallucinations and consciousness are generated within the brain.

Challenge to debunkers: Can you prove hallucinations are generated inside brain :-)

[Mizzark]

Ummm, these two might both be true. I mean, even if we know that what we think of as the "material" world is all a hallucination there still has to be something objective generating this hallucination.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Mizzark

Ummm, these two might both be true. I mean, even if we know that what we think of as the "material" world is all a hallucination there still has to be something objective generating this hallucination.

Yes. I only used the diametrically opposed examples of idealism and materialism to make it clearer what the 'old debate' was about.

- Materialism = only matter is fundamental and creates mind
- Idealism = only mind is fundamental and creates matter

But yes in between there are various options such as ...

- Panpsychism = matter contains mind
- Dualism = matter and mind are both fundamental yet distinctly separate
- Interactive dualism where both interact implying ....
- Deep Monism = mind and matter are composed of something more fundamental than either.

None of these above terms are that useful and lack detail but all are challenges to the direction of matter (alone) creates mind.

[Mizzark]

Ya know, the one article said, "Quantum Physics Says Goodbye To Reality." A lot of people have said similar things. Reality and physicality are not necessarily the same thing. I guess the point I am trying to make is that quantum physics may eventually show that physicality is dependent on mind, but that does not prove that there are not other aspects of reality that are set in stone and not dependent on mind. I just think that it is important to keep this distinction between physicality versus reality. Physicality may be only a part of reality.

[David Bailey]

I have always felt that QM is telling us something profound about everyday reality - even without recent experiments. To me, it is too much of a coincidence to believe that the peculiar nature of reality that QM describes, is unrelated to the puzzling fact consciousness does not seem to make sense in a world ruled by conventional reality - if the brain just runs like clockwork, where is the room for free will?

My guess is that conventional QM is not enough, however. In the usual interpretation, consciousness makes 'observations' that then commit the system to whatever random answer got observed. This seems too passive for consciousness (but Stapp would argue otherwise). Likewise, entangled particles do not seem to be an explanation for ESP given standard QM, because they can't be used to transmit information.

I guess I see QM as a limiting case of something even more complicated, that contains an explicit link to the mental.....

David

[Tor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I have always felt that QM is telling us something profound about everyday reality - even without recent experiments. To me, it is too much of a coincidence to believe that the peculiar nature of reality that QM describes, is unrelated to the puzzling fact consciousness does not seem to make sense in a world ruled by conventional reality - if the brain just runs like clockwork, where is the room for free will?

My guess is that conventional QM is not enough, however. In the usual interpretation, consciousness makes 'observations' that then commit the system to whatever random answer got observed. This seems too passive for consciousness (but Stapp would argue otherwise). Likewise, entangled particles do not seem to be an explanation for ESP given standard QM, because they can't be used to transmit information.

I guess I see QM as a limiting case of something even more complicated, that contains an explicit link to the mental.....

David

Yes, I agree. We've probably only scratched the surface of this. I also think we are extremely limited by our current mainstream concepts of how all this is supposed to work. More "out of the box" thinking is needed. But that is what most of us here are doing anyway

[Im a Hedge]

I notice that these stories don't mention the "Many Worlds" interpretation. While not as popular in the field as the Copenhagen Interpretation, I understand that it is considered to be in contention. (If you aren't familiar with it, and are prepared to have your mind blown, go look it up.)

I don't know enough about this particular 'news' to be sure, but it doesn't sound like it presents much trouble for either of these interpretations. I would urge caution in over-interpreting the results of quantum physics experiments. It's a lot of really far-out stuff, but it may not be telling us much about our day-to-day experience of the macro world. I think Brian Greene has a good section in "The Fabric of the Cosmos" where he discusses the problems with trying to apply quantum understanding to our experience. These are very esoteric, highly-controlled experiments in highly-contrived situations. It's a lot of fun thinking about the implications, but it seems to be a stretch to say any of the experimental data helps us understand what consciousness is, or how it interacts with matter (if it does).

There is good evidence from neuroscience that what we think is either caused by, or at least mediated by, the activity of our neurons. Even at the scale of a single neural synapse, the peculiarities of the quantum world do not seem to manifest.


I am a Hedge

[David Bailey]

The Many Worlds interpretation seems to me to be a mathematical absurdity. For every quantum transition anywhere in the universe, this interpretation says that the entire universe splits into two (almost) duplicates! This process is supposed to have been going on since the big bang!

As regards the question as to whether specifically quantum phenomena can be involved in consciousness, there is (as always) considerable controversy. There is the idea that microtubules (small components of cells) may be involved in some quantum-coherent processes.

We can only talk hunches at this stage, but my hunch would be that consciousness and the strange properties of QM are related in some deep way (i.e. not just for the obvious reason that QM gives us chemistry etc.). Read Roger Penrose's "Shadows of the Mind" for a very interesting take on this from a well respected theoretical physicist.

David

[Im a Hedge]

The wonderful thing about quantum physics is that all of the interpretations seem absurd. I am admittedly not an expert, but the Copenhagen Interpretation seems as absurd as Many Worlds to me. I think it's in the realm of possibility that there is something to be learned about consciousness from all of this, but I don't know what it is. I also don't know that we're at that point in our understanding yet. (I'm certainly not at that point in my understanding, but someone in the field may be). I haven't read the Penrose book, but you're comments on it (here and elsewhere) have me intrigued. Unfortunately, I have very little time for leisure reading these days (yes, that does seem like the kind of thing I would consider 'leisure reading'). I do have a lot of time for listening, so I do a lot of audiobooks and podcasts (I have a long commute). I don't see that the Penrose book is available in audio.

Both Copenhagen and Many Worlds may have implications for our understanding of consciousness and our concept of self, but they seem to be quite different implications. Both interpretations seem to be equally at odds with our everyday understanding of the world.

(By the way David, I'm not ignoring your other message, I just haven't framed my thoughts quite right yet.)

I am a Hedge

[Open Mind]

Hedge,

I think wild speculation is unavoidable, the experimental results in quantum physics are so delightfully shocking that all the main interpretations have problems in their present form. So I agree these are all absurd, delightfully absurd

Can one keep the issue of 'consciousness' out of these various interpretations?
Not in my opinion because it often seems that the main motive of those alternate interpretations or modifications of the Copenhagen intepretation is to try to construct a theory where the observer becomes a passive disconnected witness or is an attempt to reinstate a classical (superceded) model .....

Many Worlds Interpretation is very popular with materialists as it avoids confronting the extraordinary luckiness of our universe's mathematical constants, life emerging etc. by adding infinity of other failed universes. The theory is perhaps an excuse for suggesting anything but consciousness (or design) ... the theory voilates occams razor to such a degree it is more supernatural than paranormal, almost like nature is secretly hallucinating every possible outcome?

Transactional Interpretation, is generally liked by materialists and determinists. Here the hint of consciousness is avoided by proposing interacting waves travelling backwards in time. Events are fixed forward and backwards in time. The big problem here for materialists is that such a theory probably cannot explain the evolution of free will, if materialists are going to argue consciousness emerged from matter to improve choice making, this theory struggles to accomodate any materialistic model of free will. So if anything the problem of consciousness from matter increases.

There is good evidence from neuroscience that what we think is either caused by, or at least mediated by, the activity of our neurons. Even at the scale of a single neural synapse, the peculiarities of the quantum world do not seem to manifest.

I am not so sure about that, I think I read somewhere around 2005 organic complex molecules were successfully entangled?