If I were to believe in LoA ...

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I read that before.

I question your understanding.


What does d'Espagnat believe?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

I question your understanding.

What does d'Espagnat believe?

Okay, I will help you along.

1. Bernard thinks that a good theory ought to do a couple of things:
(a) help you predict outcomes
(b) explain why things work that way.

2. The problem with quantum mechanics is that it is remarkably good at (a) but very bad at (b).

3. In other words, QM theories predict all sorts of bizarre, weird results, and when experimentally tested, these predictions turn out to be right. However, the QM theories don't explain WHY these results occur. Instead reality as described by QM theories is waaaaay different from our conventional notions of reality.

(Sound familiar? A bit like Buddha waving his hand at the surroundings telling all his followers: "Hey, guess what. I'm not kidding you, this is all illusion, you know.")

3. What I referred to as "conventional notions of reality", d'Espagnat refers to as "local realistic theories of nature". He sets out three such theories:

(i) realism - effectively, that things do exist independently of human consciousness
(ii) that inductive inference is valid
(iii) Einstein separability (i.e that nothing can travel faster than light).

4. D'Espagnat suggests that either:

(1) QM theory is right, and at least one of the "local realistic theories" is wrong; or

(2) QM theory is wrong; and the local realistic theories are right.

(QM and the LRTs cannot all be right, because they appear to conflict).

5. Beyond the theories, there are actual experiments. Bernard looks at the actual experimental results, and acknowledges that based on these results, the LRTs look less and less likely to be right, while QM theory looks more and more likely to be right.

(Importantly, Bernard was already saying this in 1979, because the QE experiments were done in 1981 & 1982).

6. In fact, Bernard's exact words in the article, after discussing the experimental results are:

"It follows that the local realistic theories are almost certainly in error."

TO BE CONTINUED

[Acting Like Godot]

Bernard acknowledges that the LRTs are the ones which are in line with what we ordinarily perceive reality to be. He writes:

"The three premises on which those theories are founded are essential to a common-sense interpretation of the world, and most people would give them up only with reluctance; nevertheless it appears that at least one of them will have to be abandoned or modified or in some way constrained."

So which one will have to go?

On pages 177 and 178, he sets out the reasons why (i) and (ii) may not be the ones to go. On page 178, he looks into why (iii) (Einstein separability) might be the one to go. Here he refers to an experiment that, at the time of his article, was not yet done but was being planned to be done by Alain Aspect.

(remember how I told you to look out for the QE experiments done in 1981, 1982, after D'Espagnat's paper? Those are the ones).

Where D'Espagnat left off in this paper may thus be summarised as follows. He already thought that at least one LRT is wrong. He believed that most likely, it would be (iii). He explained that the Alain Aspect experiment would shed a lot of light on that. He insisted that the results would be very, very important:

"A discovery that discredits a basic assumption about the structure of the world, an assumption long held and seldom questioned, is anything but trivial. It is a welcome illumination"

Now that science had developed to the point that scientists actually had the technology to carry out the experiment that Alain Aspect was planning, Bernard wrotet:

"it was possible until a few years ago to believe in an independent, external reality and simultaneously to regard Einstein separability as a completely general law bearing on that reality"

TO BE CONTINUED

[Acting Like Godot]

Still with me?

D'Espagnat's paper was written in 1979. Two years later, the Alain Aspect experiments were done.

Alain Aspect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was the conclusion? Well, let's put it this way. Previously, Einstein had said in effect that QM theory was nonsense. To prove his point, Einstein devised a thought experiment known as the Einstein-Podolsky-&-Rosen paradox.

Einstein showed, through his EPR paradox, that if QM were true, then a particle could instantly affect another particle, regardless of how far apart the two particles were. In other words, distance and time would become superfluous concepts.

This, Einstein said, was ridiculous, and therefore QM theory could not be right.

Well, unfortunately for Einstein, the Alain Aspect theories INDEED demonstrated that one particle can instantaneously affect another particle, and INDEED distance and time were superfluous.

So, suddenly, all the spiritual gurus who always muttered things like "Time is an illusion"; and "we are all connected forever" started sounding less silly.

TO BE CONTINUED

[Acting Like Godot]

Einstein pretty much screwed the 2nd half of his own career, by refusing, for the longest time, to accept QM theories. All his brilliant contributions were actually made in the first half of his career. He spent years of his later career, attempting to refute QM. And he flopped.

Anyway, by now, you might gather at least a few things. Normal perception of reality is .... uhhh .... a big mistake.

Actually, distance is unreal. So is time. So is speed. So is mass. What we normally see as reality is basically an illusion.

Now, where does consciousness enter into all this?

TO BE CONTINUED

[Acting Like Godot]

Hey Joelr, can you take over explaining some stuff to this dude?

My fingers are tired from all this typing.

Maybe tell him about the Bohm interpretation and what it means when you think and electrical impulses (*movement of subatomic particles known as electrons) occur in your brain.

How, as a matter of the laws of physics, you instantly affect the whole universe faster than the speed of light, when you think .... and all the rest of that, you know?

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hey Joelr, can you take over explaining some stuff to this dude?

You are drifting off track again.

The question was, what did D'Espagnat believe?

The article argues for the unliklihood of Einstein separability.

That's all.

His other writings argue for the existence of a "veiled reality."

Does he argue for the oxymoron "subjective reality?" No. Does he state that the world is merely mental impressions, and nothing outside of perception exists? No.

I'm not interested in a digression into what YOU believe, or how you think that his observation leads to whatever conclusion you like. That's more misdirection.

Because, as with Heisenberg, when it comes to philosophy, D'Espagnat appears to be very tepid stuff. Quantum mysticism is rejected by many physicists - maybe most. Those that are claimed to embrace it, on examination, are not advocating new age doctrines. Those that theorize about the implications of quantum mechanics appear to embrace something like German idealism.

It's the same thing, again and again - like the Harvard article on hyponosis and healing. You ignore the caveats, the words or the article discussing the limitations of the study. You use bits and pieces of information to create a false impression. You know, as well as anyone, that it doesn't lend the slighest support for your view.

Do you have any evidence that D'Espagnat was anything other than a Kantian? What did D'Espagnat say about the Alain Aspect?

And why is it that having a person give me an ipod or sign a deed to a house is a metaphysical event?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

"Subtle."

Tell me, then, exactly, what Bohr, Heisenberg, et al, believed. I thought it was the Copehagen interpretation. If so, are you saying that the Copenhagen interpretation leads you to believe that you can manifest parking spaces?

Let's stay on track. We're not looking for a direct link from particles - parking spots. The original point is about QM having some reasonable and endorsed connections to consciousness.
Bohr and Heisenberg are the founders of the C. Interpretation. It puts consciousness as the creator of matter. Waves DO NOT EXIST in any way that science can recognize as "real". Waves only become particles when observed by consciousness at the subatomic scale. Now that phenomenon has been extended to the small macroscopic realm.

Therefore on these scales consciousness does in fact create matter. This does not prove LOA but gives us a solid connection to science. This is what I originally mentioned.


The C. Interp. came directly out of Young's (and many other repeated/updated) Double Slit Experiment. It's a very easily understood demonstration of how every subatomic thing (matter particles like atoms, plasma-free electrons, energy carriers like photons, spacetime itself and sometimes macroscopic composite objects like a billion atom virus) will behave "like" waves but exist in a literally non-physical, information or potential state until changed to be in a more localized wave state that acts like a "particle". Even then it's still just a ghost-wave with a smaller wavelength. The only reason it interacts with other things is because it still has potential to exist in other locations and it in fact does create copies of itself around it's local area. These are virtual particles and everything interacts through these. All forces are virtual particle exchanges. Except gravity which is unknown. It will eventually be shown to be some type of virtual exchange.

The real point here is that only consciousness caused the collapse from wave to particle. No matter how hard you try to "fool" the wave, if the information exists in consciousness it changes, if not it will not change.


It also has to be asked why would a bunch of particles and energy carriers get together and form a structure (consciousness)that can then create like that? This seems to imply consciousness is non-local to this process. Otherwise it's something like bootstrapping. If we create a billion atom virus by observing it the energy created is greater than spent. Flowing against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics? Which can't be done.
Never mind that, I'm off track.






More recently we have seen the experiment actually reach into the past to change experimental results based on a conscious observer choosing to either create or not-create a particle.
This is the Quantum Erasure Experiment. In effect it is like a mentalist/magic show but without any trickery.

The best non-math explanation I've seen online is on physicist Ross Rhodes site:
The Reality Program

Originally Posted by StAnselm

I'm looking for complete facts, not a vague statement in wikiepdia.

Seems like a sort of mis-direction. You started out brushing off any connection to physics with a few words, implying whatever I write will be dealt with with a few negative phrases - and pretty much asking for real quotes to back up these statements. Then suddenly those are too short and you want encyclopedia length responses. I'm happy to talk on physics but you have the power to do some truth searching for yourself instead of working the room.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Joelr, I am a little surprised you didn't mention David Bohm. You know, the Nobel-prize winning physicist who over a period of 21 years regularly picked the brains of Indian spiritual guru K Krishnamurti, in order to learn more about physical reality.

You can read about Bohm's Implicate and Explicate Order here:

Implicate and Explicate Order according to David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll just give you a little excerpt:




Heheh. So you see, for Bohm, the truest picture of reality (the most "objective", if you like) is that there is no sustainable distinction between reality and thought; and there is no corresponding distinction between observer and observed, in an experiment or in any other situation.

Thanks. I've read some of his stuff way back. One that searched comparisons between his holographic universe model, an Indian mystic and Seth. I'm planning on checking out the Bohm interviews at some point.
I don't mention him as a starting place for meta/physics, he's too heavy.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by joelr

We're not looking for a direct link from particles - parking spots.

Let's stay on track. Yes, we are looking for a link from particles to parking spots.

I've raised this point several times: most descriptions of the law of attraction deal with social realities, not physical realities - who owns what.

If that is true, then no amount of peering into the atom will do any good. LOA is a purely mental phenonemon. If consciousness is only affecting other consciousnesses, then there isn't any reason to debate whether consciousness affects matter.

The scale of the quantum experiments in fact does as much to invalidate LOA as to prove it. Let's say that Tiller is right: thought can slightly change the ph balance in water. The mere fact that we are looking at such small changes militates against the conclusion that we can effect large changes.

The Copenhagen interpretation is discussed here:

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

All quantum roads lead to Kant:

First of all, earlier generations of philosophers and scientists have often accused Bohr's interpretation of being positivistic or subjectivistic. Today philosophers have almost reached a consensus that it is neither. There are, as many have noticed, both typically realist as well as antirealist elements involved in it, and it has affinities with Kant or neo-Kantianism.

Waves only become particles when observed by consciousness at the subatomic scale.

Offhand, I think that's inaccurate. The wavefunction, as I understand it, is a mathematical construct, a bundle of probabilities. It isn't a physical wave. The act of observation resolves the probabilities.

Seems like a sort of mis-direction. You started out brushing off any connection to physics with a few words, implying whatever I write will be dealt with with a few negative phrases - and pretty much asking for real quotes to back up these statements. Then suddenly those are too short and you want encyclopedia length responses. I'm happy to talk on physics but you have the power to do some truth searching for yourself instead of working the room.

Here's what I see. First, LOA generally has nothing to do with changing physical reality. I cannot fathom why we are not talking about purely mental events, instead of being sidetracked on physical events. Second, the idea that consciousness is creating matter in wavefunction collapse is, I believe, widely regarded as bunk. I can find links. Third, it appears that the only conclusion that any scientist has drawn from this data is something along the lines of German idealism, an old idea - so it that's what we are talking about, then we shoudl cut to the chase on that. Fourth, none of this supports LOA. EVEN IF, on a quantum scale, consciousness created or affected matter, that has virtually no connection to me dreaming of a special baseball card, and then getting it in my uncle's will.

There are so many logical leaps, that I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could argue science supports LOA in any sort of remote good faith.

[Acting Like Godot]

No, there is a lot you don't know.

It's not your fault. You're new to all this.

As it is, every time you ask a question, people are throwing up material which was obviously previously unknown to you.

For example, a few posts ago, you were asserting that physicists never really had anything with any of it, except maybe one Tiller person.

LOL.

If you keep asking questions, you will learn more. It is the nature of the LOA. The very act of asking will attract the answers to you.

Of course, as you will learn more, you will understand more about the significance of your underlying mindset .... when you ask your questions.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Second, the idea that consciousness is creating matter in wavefunction collapse is, I believe, widely regarded as bunk.

In a survey among physicists conducted in the 1990s, most of them did in fact prefer Hugh Everitt's Many Worlds theory. They believe that there are many alternate realities. When I say alternate realities, I mean full alternate realities - ie StAnselm literally exists in many different worlds.

The Many Worlds theory is consistent with the LOA as explained by Seth. Ahh, one of my favourite LOA gurus.

Oh, wait .... Are you now going to ask me to type out dozens of pages of text to explain Many Worlds theory to you? Or to tell you what Seth explained about the LOA?

Please, don't be so lazy.

Go do some research on your own, if you're genuinely interested.

And if you're not .... Why waste your time here?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by AnselmofCanterbury

To take D'Espagnat as an example, he specifically criticises the positivists for limiting knowledge to perception, and he refers to a veiled reality.

Wrong. Go read again.

D'Espagnat refers to the LRTs. He points out three of them (I had listed them as (i), (ii) or (iii).

He said that one or MORE of them most certainly had to be wrong.

He ALREADY knew that the technology existed to carry out the Alain Aspect experiment (which would occur shortly). Because of this particular experiment, he felt that (iii) would be most likely to be shown to be wrong.

I reiterate however that D'Espagnat said that one or MORE of the LRTs was wrong. In other words, D'Espagnat was open to ALL these possibilities

(i) being wrong
(ii) being wrong
(iii) being wrong
(i) and (ii) both being wrong
(ii) and (iii) both being wrong
(i) and (iii) both being wrong
(i), (ii) and (iii) ALL being wrong

D'Espagnat's so-called "criticism" of the positivists was that their view makes our normal understanding of reality look totally strange.

In other words, his "criticism" is the same as yours. Your criticism of the LOA essentially is that it is totally strange and doesn't accord with your normal understanding of reality.

Who doesn't know that? We all know that.

But whether a thing is strange is different from whether a thing is true.

Incidentally, he also referred to Bohr's defence of QM, from the criticisms of the likes of Einstein.

Do check out what scientists think about the Bohr-Einstein debates (they are all extensively documented). The general view is that Bohr was right, and Einstein was right.

In other words, sorry folks, you may all prefer to a safe, sensible, easy-to-understand reality, but the truth is that reality is weird, wild and woolly, and your mind has something to do with all of that.

[ellie]

I don't get why StAnselm was banned. I thought the conversation in here was really interesting, the back and forth banter and I was learning a lot. I really hope it's not because he's arguing a different point of view, to the norm in here.

[Acting Like Godot]

Obviously you did not read my posts very well.

Originally Posted by AnselmofCanterbury

Kant reasoned that perception isn't entirely subjective, however. Perception is structured by the mind itself, which orders visual input to be perceived in three dimensions, etc. Kant also reasoned that there is knowledge that is not emprical, but exists independently of experience, which would include logical reasoning and possibly spiritual intuitions.

I had said that whatever you know, understand, perceive, sense, interpret etc of reality is merely your own knowledge, understanding, perception, sensing and interpretation of reality - and that all of these are subjective states.

OBVIOUSLY this includes your own "logical reasoning" and "spiritual intuitions". Eg if I logically reason that X or Y or Z is true, THAT too is my mental process and therefore a subjective creation.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by ellie

I don't get why StAnselm was banned.

Daffy Duck had explained this in another thread. Once upon a time, someone in this forum got banned for making personal attacks. This person then created a new identity and returned as "St Anselm". The moderators just found out, and therefore banned him again.

[ellie]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Daffy Duck had explained this in another thread. Once upon a time, someone in this forum got banned for making personal attacks. This person then created a new identity and returned as "St Anselm". The moderators just found out, and therefore banned him again.

oh ok. Shame because it sure was interesting.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by ellie

oh ok. Shame because it sure was interesting.

No worries, Ellie. From what I've seen in my relatively short time here, LoA scoffers breed like flies

[Daffy Duck]

As ALG pointed out, Anselm was banned again because he was already banned as another user who made personal attacks.

If people were banned for arguing a different point of view, then I would have been banned a long time ago, and certainly not appointed to be a moderator! I started off my posting here by disagreeing with LoA.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If people were banned for arguing a different point of view, then I would have been banned a long time ago, and certainly not appointed to be a moderator! I started off my posting here by disagreeing with LoA.

Taking my cue from the old safety belt PSAs, the usual brand of skeptical poster could learn a lot from a duck!

[Arboretor]

I like this quote from D’Espagnat:

On the subject of the mind’s ability to perceive deeper realities, d’Espagnat said “the possibility that the things we observe may be tentatively interpreted as signs providing us with some perhaps not entirely misleading glimpses of a higher reality and, therefore, that higher forms of spirituality are fully compatible with what seems to emerge from contemporary physics.”

(French Physicist And Philosopher Wins 2009 Templeton Prize)

[joelr]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Let's stay on track. Yes, we are looking for a link from particles to parking spots.

I've raised this point several times: most descriptions of the law of attraction deal with social realities, not physical realities - who owns what.

If that is true, then no amount of peering into the atom will do any good. LOA is a purely mental phenonemon. If consciousness is only affecting other consciousnesses, then there isn't any reason to debate whether consciousness affects matter.

The scale of the quantum experiments in fact does as much to invalidate LOA as to prove it. Let's say that Tiller is right: thought can slightly change the ph balance in water. The mere fact that we are looking at such small changes militates against the conclusion that we can effect large changes.

The Copenhagen interpretation is discussed here:

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

All quantum roads lead to Kant:






Offhand, I think that's inaccurate. The wavefunction, as I understand it, is a mathematical construct, a bundle of probabilities. It isn't a physical wave. The act of observation resolves the probabilities.



Here's what I see. First, LOA generally has nothing to do with changing physical reality. I cannot fathom why we are not talking about purely mental events, instead of being sidetracked on physical events. Second, the idea that consciousness is creating matter in wavefunction collapse is, I believe, widely regarded as bunk. I can find links. Third, it appears that the only conclusion that any scientist has drawn from this data is something along the lines of German idealism, an old idea - so it that's what we are talking about, then we shoudl cut to the chase on that. Fourth, none of this supports LOA. EVEN IF, on a quantum scale, consciousness created or affected matter, that has virtually no connection to me dreaming of a special baseball card, and then getting it in my uncle's will.

There are so many logical leaps, that I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone could argue science supports LOA in any sort of remote good faith.

Too late now but at least ALG dealt with some of these silly notions.