Quantum Physics

[SWIM]

After a chat with OpenMinded briefly about "quantum physics", a subject I know extremely little about, I discovered that there is a LOT of mis-understandings out there on this subject.

 

When I google "quantum physics" god oneness, you would not believe the landslide of new-age sites that come up in the results! (well, you might believe it, just try it).

 

So I added the word "skeptic" to the search, and I found this:

 

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

 

What a great read!

 

Quantum Consciousness. The study of the actions of subatomic particles through quantum mechanics produces what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,” where the observation of a particle in one location instantaneously effects a related particle at another location (which could theoretically be in another galaxy), in apparent violation of Einstein’s upper limit of the speed of light. Chopra takes this to mean that the universe is one giant quantum field in which everything (and everyone) is interconnected and can influence one another directly and instantly. Deepak and others also apply quantum mechanics to the study of consciousness to explain how the brain represents the entire tangible world through biochemical signals. Through quantum consciousness “we may find out how the brain might create subtler worlds, the kind traditionally known as heaven. If the secret lies not in brain chemistry but in awareness itself, the afterlife may turn out to be an extension of our present life, not a faraway mystical world.”

 

Many new-agers think the bolded sentence is proof of god, or at the very least, proof of a god-like force (star wars anyone?) But more importantly, they use this COMBINED with other theories as proof of an afterlife, BUT:

 

Okay, back to earth. Here is the reality. It has been estimated that in the last 50,000 years about 106 billion humans were born. Of the 100 billion people born before the six billion living today, every one of them has died and not one has returned to confirm for us beyond a reasonable doubt that there is life after death. This data set does not bode well for promises of immortality and claims for an afterlife. But let’s review them one by one.

 

NDEs (near death experiances) don't count because it is considered the dying minds final hallucination. This is *really* confirmed well, with stories of children returning having met "cartoon characters" they were familiar with on TV coming to their aid.

 

Quantum Consciousness

Deepak Chopra and others will counter that there is, in fact, a perfectly cogent theory of psi, and that is quantum consciousness, which was recently featured in the wildly popular and improbably-named film, What the #@*! Do We Know?! Artfully edited and featuring actress Marlee Matlin as a dreamy-eyed photographer trying to make sense of an apparently senseless universe, the film’s central tenet is that we create our own reality through consciousness and quantum mechanics. I met the producers of the film the weekend it opened when we were both on a Portland, Oregon television show, so I got an early screening. I never imagined that a film on consciousness and quantum mechanics would succeed, but it has grossed millions and a created cult following.

 

The film’s avatars are scientists with strong New Age leanings, whose jargon-laden sound bites amount to little more than what Caltech physicist and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann once described as “quantum flapdoodle.” University of Oregon quantum physicist Amit Goswami, for example, says: “The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience. Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies.” Okay, Amit, I challenge you to leap out of a 20-story building and consciously choose the experience of passing safely through the ground’s tendencies.

 

The work of a Japanese researcher Masura Emoto, author of The Message of Water, is featured to show how thoughts change the structure of ice crystals — beautiful crystals form in a glass of water with the word “love” taped to it, whereas playing Elvis’s “Heartbreak Hotel” causes a crystal to split into two. Would his “Burnin’ Love” boil water?

 

The film’s nadir is an interview with “Ramtha,” a 35,000-year-old spirit channeled by a 58-year-old woman named J. Z. Knight. I wondered where humans spoke English with an Indian accent 35,000 years ago. Many of the films’ producers, writers, and actors are members of Ramtha’s “School of Enlightenment,” where New Age pabulum is dispensed in costly weekend retreats.

 

The attempt to link the weirdness of the quantum world (such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that the more precisely you know a particle’s position, the less precisely you know its speed, and vice versa) to mysteries of the macro world (such as consciousness) is not new. The best candidate to connect the two comes from physicist Roger Penrose and physician Stuart Hameroff, whose theory of quantum consciousness has generated much heat but little light in scientific circles.

 

Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. The conjecture (and that’s all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave function collapse that leads to the quantum coherence of atoms, causing neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons and thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern, thereby creating thought and consciousness. Since a wave function collapse can only come about when an atom is “observed” (i.e., affected in any way by something else), neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggests that “mind” may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms….

 

In reality, the gap between sub-atomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum, the University of Colorado particle physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum mechanically the system’s typical mass m, speed v, and distance d must be on the order of Planck’s constant h. “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it. So what the #$*! is going on here?

 

Physics envy. The history of science is littered with the failed pipedreams of ever-alluring reductionist schemes to explain the inner workings of the mind — schemes increasingly set forth in the ambitious wake of Descartes’ own famous attempt, some four centuries years ago, to reduce all mental functioning to the actions of swirling vortices of atoms, supposedly dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.

 

OK, these quotes came from that page, the bolding and enlarging are mine.

 

I really am a somewhat "primitive" person, I lack science knowledge, especially when talking "quantum physics". I *have* observed people "trying" to understand it, and the internet is choke FULL of people using it to "claim" this religion or that religion is true.

 

Lets debate it, xtians and ex-xtians alike.

 

I don't think *I* will be able to debate this much, as I humbly submit my ignorance on this topic. However, there are some science savy people around here.

 

Calling Legion Regulus! You seem to be interested in science, you had a thread here that discussed the science behind the origins of life, I would like to hear your thoughts on all this.

 

Open Minded, you as well, seem knowledgeable to a degree on this, though some of what you have told me as "proven fact" is really just theory, but hey that's cool, no problem, it's easy to do that reading science.

 

This is not an arena call for those two by any means, I am *hoping* we have scientifically minded people here from either camp that can break down this stuff so we *laymen* can understand it.

 

I hope this thread is not going to be DOA, I know *I* will have a hard time participating in it, as will others, but maybe we can all learn a bit if a discussion is triggered.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Michael:

 

1st - please do not link me in with all the "new agers". I've been a fan of science for years and my fascination with science is not "proof" of my beliefs. You mentioned in another thread that you didn't believe in the "ONEness of all that is". I pulled out quantum physics to point to the inter-relatedness (on a quantum level) of all that is.

 

Now - having established that - we're going into a major holiday here and I don't have time to do the research I'd like. But, physics at a quantum level is very different from physics at a macro level. And yes, it has been proven beyond doubt that correlated electrons can impact each other in ways that defy classical physics.

 

You may want to do some research on Bell's Theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

This theorem proves that hidden variables cannot account for the instantaneous transmission of signals from one correlated quantum object to another correlated quantum object.

 

This theorem turns the world of classical physics upside down - because - at a quantum level - the idea of "cause and effect" is not necessary.

 

In essence Bell's theorem states:

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

 

Michael - please understand - if you really want to learn about quantum physics leave the new age crap out of it. As I told you in the other thread - quantum physics PROVES ONE THING. It proves the inter-relatedness of all that is AT a QUANTUM LEVEL. It does not prove (or disprove) any particular set of beliefs. I'd be happy to participate in this discussion - as long as the new age crap is left out of it.

[SWIM]

Michael - please understand - if you really want to learn about quantum physics leave the new age crap out of it. As I told you in the other thread - quantum physics PROVES ONE THING. It proves the inter-relatedness of all that is AT a QUANTUM LEVEL. It does not prove (or disprove) any particular set of beliefs. I'd be happy to participate in this discussion - as long as the new age crap is left out of it.

 

 

Yeah, I pretty much established this is not an attack of you, I *really* want a discussion in here to get started on this as I think it is a fascinating topic.

 

As far as the new age crap, I don't care if folks want to include some, doesn't mean either you or I need agree with it, but it might add some flavor to the soup.

 

Open Minded, you as well, seem knowledgeable to a degree on this, though some of what you have told me as "proven fact" is really just theory, but hey that's cool, no problem, it's easy to do that reading science.

 

BTW I apologize for that statement, yes I see that one part there that is proven, sorry bout that.

 

Also, as a non-scientist, my participation will likely be minimal.

[Open_Minded]

Yeah, I pretty much established this is not an attack of you, I *really* want a discussion in here to get started on this as I think it is a fascinating topic.

 

As far as the new age crap, I don't care if folks want to include some, doesn't mean either you or I need agree with it, but it might add some flavor to the soup.

Whew ... That eases my mind - t hank you. I was concerned that this was going to be another thread where I had to defend the "Christian" label.

 

And your point about adding "some flavor to the soup" is well taken.

 

Open Minded, you as well, seem knowledgeable to a degree on this, though some of what you have told me as "proven fact" is really just theory, but hey that's cool, no problem, it's easy to do that reading science.

 

BTW I apologize for that statement, yes I see that one part there that is proven, sorry bout that.

 

Also, as a non-scientist, my participation will likely be minimal.

 

No - problem - my participation will be minimal for the next several days as well - as my husband and I will be doing a lot of entertaining. thanks for starting the discussion, quantum physics has been a strong interest of mine for years. I look forward to reading what others bring to the thread.

[Ouroboros]

All the quarks in the universe could very well be interconnected, but it doesn't prove a god of any kind.

 

Since consciousness is an effect of the universe and how it functions (in a naturalistic view) it means the Universe with everything how it works, must contain all the necessary parts and functions to produce consciousness and have to have had it already at the Big Bing. Let me rephrase it, consciousness as an ultimate effect is a part of the structure of the universe, but not necessarily that it is conscious in itself, or that concsiousness has to exist outside of it.

[Open_Minded]

All the quarks in the universe could very well be interconnected, but it doesn't prove a god of any kind.

 

Since consciousness is an effect of the universe and how it functions (in a naturalistic view) it means the Universe with everything how it works, must contain all the necessary parts and functions to produce consciousness and have to have had it already at the Big Bing. Let me rephrase it, consciousness as an ultimate effect is a part of the structure of the universe, but not necessarily that it is conscious in itself, or that concsiousness has to exist outside of it.

 

Hello Hans:

 

Well.... if this thread is going to take on the dimensions of "Philosophy of Quantum Physics" instead of "facts of Quantum Physics" I'm going to throw out a starting point.

 

I'm sure you're well aware that physics uses math as a language. Mathematically physicists can show 8 different possible "deep realities". And the math used to show these 8 different possible "deep realities" can accurately be used to make predictions about the outcome of physics experiments.

 

You should pick up a book titled: Quantum Reality if you're interested in the philosophy of quantum physics. The author of this book states that "deep reality" will probably encompass some aspect of many of these 8 different possibilities. The different possibilities include:

 

• Deep reality can not be known - therefore (for the human) there is no deep reality. The Copenhagen interpretation
  
• The Copenhage interpretation - part II says that what humans experience is "real" but that (at a quantum level) what we "see" and "experience" is not really there until we are aware of it. (In other words - when the tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it - there is no sound).
  
• Deep reality is Undivided Wholeness - one of my personal favorites.
  
• Reality consists of an increasing number of Parallel Universes (This - as well as every other interpretation I'm writing here - can be shown mathematically).
  
• Quantum Logic: The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning. (Another favorite)
  
• Neorealism: Ordinary objects posses innate attributes of their own - beyond the awareness of the observer.
  
• Consciousness creates reality - by Consciousness the author means non-local consciousness, as in not confined to individuals. This is also one of my favorites.
  
• Reality is two fold - consisting of pure potentialities and actualities at the same time: another one of my favorites
  

 

Hans the reason I bring these points up, is because the philosophies are a result of math formulas used to accurately predict the outcome of quantum experiments. In other words - the math that is used within quantum physics also reveals something of the underlying reality - does that make any sense?

 

Anyway - what the math reveals is the above possibilities. There is no way to prove any of those possibilities and that is why any discussion of those possibilities moves into philosophy of quantum physics rather than, "just the facts, sir".

[Mythra]

I have nothing whatsoever to add to this discussion.

 

I just want it acknowledged that I had the courage to open the thread.

 

[Ouroboros]

OM,

 

I like your input, and I will look into that book. (My problem is that I get books and they collect dust instead of being read, so I have to be somewhat selective now when my room got books stacked all over the place. )

 

At the moment I have to fix some things for work, then I will fill in with some more thoughts.

 

-edit-

 

The math that I suspect can describe the universe best is found (IMO) in chaos theory. I believe the universe is a very complex chaotic structure, and it looks random and chaotic on the level we exists, but it has this "deep reality" that is given and non-random. We are the essence of the universe and God. We are it. So in the end, we are the observers that create the universe by observing it, but we're also the result or outcome of the universe that is observing itself. In that sense, God exists, but not separate from us - good or evil - all is one. Jesus, Buddha, OM, Hans, my dogs... we're all part of it.

[par4dcourse]

Quantum quirks are one of my hobbies, but I see nothing religious in any of them. Things just behave differently at a sub-atomic level, and science is still busy figuring out how and why. Odd behaviour does not a god make. That may have been deep. You can quote me.

[PandaPirate]

Michael,

 

Do a google on "non-locality" and you'll find well established scientific research on the phenomenon.

[SWIM]

Michael,

 

Do a google on "non-locality" and you'll find well established scientific research on the phenomenon.

 

Oh I've found a ton of stuff, interesting stuff too, but pretty complex. I hope a good discussion on it gets going in here though too, sounds like Hans might have a bit -o- insight into this as well.

 

Ideas about time and space have always interested me, and it's been my theory for a while that in an infinite environment, like a truly endless universe, existing once is a strong indicator that you will exist again, and again, and again endlessly. The evidence is your existence once. In a fixed environment you need at least two to make a statistic, but in infinity, you only need one. Even if it takes eons to *re-exist* in some remote earth out there, you would not be aware of the time passage, since you would not exist, it would appear to be instantaneous. It is an interesting afterlife "theory" (or better said, *idea*) that requires no god at all.

 

Another no-god after life theory I have, (I hate to be redundantly redundant.. I have posted these theories before in detail) but, there is the idea of *time*. If time travel is *possible* that may mean backward in our timeline we still exist, and there is the remote possibility that at death, we *snap* back to our infant self, looking once again through your window of consciousness. Since you ceased to exist in your original timeline, you would naturally, not remember it. Quantum physics might explain, somehow, I don't know how, the feeling of deja-vue, as a latent timeline memory.

 

These are not *beliefs* but rather, speculation, I find them intriguing because no god is required for either theory.

[Dhampir]

Ideas about time and space have always interested me, and it's been my theory for a while that in an infinite environment, like a truly endless universe, existing once is a strong indicator that you will exist again, and again, and again endlessly. The evidence is your existence once. In a fixed environment you need at least two to make a statistic, but in infinity, you only need one. Even if it takes eons to *re-exist* in some remote earth out there, you would not be aware of the time passage, since you would not exist, it would appear to be instantaneous. It is an interesting afterlife "theory" (or better said, *idea*) that requires no god at all.

Like I said, Non-transcendental Reincarnation. I haven't been able to turn up much on the subject in google searches, but that's the name it was given the first time I saw it. I had considered the possibility before I saw it online, but nowadays, I find myself wondering if it's really possible. Then again, there is no way anyone could ever observe it in progress, so I guess it's not that big a deal.

[PandaPirate]

Michael,

 

Do a google on "non-locality" and you'll find well established scientific research on the phenomenon.

 

Oh I've found a ton of stuff, interesting stuff too, but pretty complex. I hope a good discussion on it gets going in here though too, sounds like Hans might have a bit -o- insight into this as well.

 

Ideas about time and space have always interested me, and it's been my theory for a while that in an infinite environment, like a truly endless universe, existing once is a strong indicator that you will exist again, and again, and again endlessly. The evidence is your existence once. In a fixed environment you need at least two to make a statistic, but in infinity, you only need one. Even if it takes eons to *re-exist* in some remote earth out there, you would not be aware of the time passage, since you would not exist, it would appear to be instantaneous. It is an interesting afterlife "theory" (or better said, *idea*) that requires no god at all.

 

Another no-god after life theory I have, (I hate to be redundantly redundant.. I have posted these theories before in detail) but, there is the idea of *time*. If time travel is *possible* that may mean backward in our timeline we still exist, and there is the remote possibility that at death, we *snap* back to our infant self, looking once again through your window of consciousness. Since you ceased to exist in your original timeline, you would naturally, not remember it. Quantum physics might explain, somehow, I don't know how, the feeling of deja-vue, as a latent timeline memory.

 

These are not *beliefs* but rather, speculation, I find them intriguing because no god is required for either theory.

 

Ok, I am having a "whoa" moment.

 

For the past six months or so, I've been having this strange idea lately that our consciensness never dies, that we reemerge in another version of ourselves in a parallel universe. I know- it's a strange idea...but I like it.

[Astreja]

I don't yet know enough about quantum physics to form an opinion on what it is or is not... That's why I'm going back to school, to bring my math and physics up to speed so I can examine the data myself.

 

It does disturb me to see scientific terms borrowed for use as buzzwords.

[Guest Inch]

Ok, I am having a "whoa" moment.

 

For the past six months or so, I've been having this strange idea lately that our consciensness never dies, that we reemerge in another version of ourselves in a parallel universe. I know- it's a strange idea...but I like it.

 

I had been thinking along those lines not long ago. Read up on quantum immortality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality . I won't believe it until I survive an accident against 1 to a trillion odds.

[Guest WarrantedPVC]

Oh no, there's nothing supernatural about quantum physics!! It is quite weird and nobody knows what makes it what it is, but Quantum Mechanics is to be "done", not "interpreted"... we can't come up with theories, no matter how pretty they are, unless we have sufficient experimental evidence to support them. I get really mad (well, as mad as I can get, which is not very much LOL) when people learn about a phenomenon in science and make up random stories using it to fit their religious views... One of my friends once came up with the idea that Jesus was travelling at nearly the speed of light in space, and that's why he hasn't come back yet - that was because she learned in relativity that things which travel closer to the speed of light have their time running slower relative to us. So obviously, for Jesus no people in his "generation" have died yet, and he didn't lie. Duh, it's so obvious.

 

As for consciousness, that's another thing we don't really know much about. There are many theories and one of them is that quantum phenomena might be involved. But then again, without experimental evidence we can't do much... what we have today is mostly just speculation, albeit the people speculating are way too confident that they have the answers.

 

PVC

[Deva]

Another no-god after life theory I have, (I hate to be redundantly redundant.. I have posted these theories before in detail) but, there is the idea of *time*. If time travel is *possible* that may mean backward in our timeline we still exist, and there is the remote possibility that at death, we *snap* back to our infant self, looking once again through your window of consciousness. Since you ceased to exist in your original timeline, you would naturally, not remember it. Quantum physics might explain, somehow, I don't know how, the feeling of deja-vue, as a latent timeline memory.

 

These are not *beliefs* but rather, speculation, I find them intriguing because no god is required for either theory.

 

I like this. I have thought along the same lines myself, just as a speculation. Is there such a thing as an individual entity? When an individual dies, consciousness obviously still goes on in other entities, both human and animal (maybe other things too). I have also thought that given an infinite amount of time, why would it not be possible for "me" to somehow be reassembled in a different timeline, on another planet in another galaxy? Maybe there are even other universes. I don't think we know what consciousness is.

 

Without thought, does time even exist? At death, when the brain ceases all function, time would stop so the transfer of "my" consciousness would be instantaneous and there could not possibly be any memory of the past "life". In "reality" does life and death exist at all?

 

I also dislike when new age people and liberal christians use the quantum theory as a basis for their pure speculative theories. I don't know much about quantum theory myself, but when I have heard it used in sermons it always seems to me that it is obvious that the person talking doesn't know anything either and is assuming the audience is ignorant.

[RedPillAddict]

I never payed much attention to it until I saw the movie "What the Bleep do we know?". I was fascinated the first time I saw it, but when I watched it again a few months ago I found it to be full of too many assumptions...and actually, pretty damn cheesy.

 

I was told later that three of the directors were from "Ramtha's School of Enlightenment" .

 

I am still blown away by Quantum Physics, but I don't think it should be combined with any sort of spirituality.

[Open_Minded]

Oh no, there's nothing supernatural about quantum physics!! It is quite weird and nobody knows what makes it what it is, but Quantum Mechanics is to be "done", not "interpreted"... we can't come up with theories, no matter how pretty they are, unless we have sufficient experimental evidence to support them. I get really mad (well, as mad as I can get, which is not very much LOL) when people learn about a phenomenon in science and make up random stories using it to fit their religious views... One of my friends once came up with the idea that Jesus was travelling at nearly the speed of light in space, and that's why he hasn't come back yet - that was because she learned in relativity that things which travel closer to the speed of light have their time running slower relative to us. So obviously, for Jesus no people in his "generation" have died yet, and he didn't lie. Duh, it's so obvious.

 

As for consciousness, that's another thing we don't really know much about. There are many theories and one of them is that quantum phenomena might be involved. But then again, without experimental evidence we can't do much... what we have today is mostly just speculation, albeit the people speculating are way too confident that they have the answers.

 

PVC

 

Hello PVC .... I agree with you - we can't come up with theories (a scientific concept) without sufficient experimental evidence to support them.

 

But... there is philosophical discussion surrounding quantum physics. That is why I posted the different philosophical "possibilities" that the math around quantum physics points to.

 

Like you - I get very upset when people start taking scientific concepts and using them as "proof" of their belief systems. It amazes me how many adults forget the basic concepts of scientific method that they learned in 8th grade. This is where you get the "new age" stuff and it's also where you get "ID".

 

But, scientists have philosophical debates all the time about quantum physics. That is what the book Quantum Reality is all about. I highly recommend it - it's a good read. The author starts out by pointing out how quantum physics has impacted the scientific world. At the very start of the book he discusses how the math used in Quantum Physics also reveals something of "deep reality". He's clear to point out the ONLY thing that can be said with any certainty about "deep reality" is that (because of Bell's Theorem) deep reality MUST be non-local. Beyond that the 8 points I listed in my earlier post are things that may be INFERRED about deep reality (NOT PROVEN). These things are INFERRED through the language of math that is regularly used in experimental quantum mechanics.

 

My brother (who is a scientist and extremely well versed in quantum physics) and I were having a discussion somewhat similar to this. These types of discussions have to be held within pretty tight boundaries as people can easily move from the facts of science into philosophy and belief with no proof of either. So, it is very necessary from the start to determine what it is exactly that we are discussing. That is why I posted from the get-go that I didn't want my earlier discussion with Michael to be interpreted as "proof" of anything. And that

 

Michael - please understand - if you really want to learn about quantum physics leave the new age crap out of it. As I told you in the other thread - quantum physics PROVES ONE THING. It proves the inter-relatedness of all that is AT a QUANTUM LEVEL. It does not prove (or disprove) any particular set of beliefs. I'd be happy to participate in this discussion - as long as the new age crap is left out of it.

 

But, once it seemed this discussion was moving in the direction of philosophy (instead of science) I came back with the information from Quantum Reality. If we're going to have a philosophical discussion about the possibilities of deep reality than it aught to at least be based on the same things the scientists are debating

[SWIM]

I think the reason why new-agers and religious people *use* quantum physics, is because it *is* complicated and hard to wrap your head around.

 

All the ignorant heads nodding in affirmation... sigh... Easy to *not argue* with that which you don't understand. On the web you will see astrologers, wiccans, and all sorts, even xtians, using QP for "proof" of this or that. In fact, the ratio of truth to bullshit on the web is pretty high in favor of bullshit.

 

It's like this in lots of cases:

 

"If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".

 

lol

[par4dcourse]

It's strange stuff, but eventually science will catch up. It always does.

[Guest WarrantedPVC]

Hi Open Minded,

 

Hello PVC .... I agree with you - we can't come up with theories (a scientific concept) without sufficient experimental evidence to support them.

 

But... there is philosophical discussion surrounding quantum physics. That is why I posted the different philosophical "possibilities" that the math around quantum physics points to.

 

Like you - I get very upset when people start taking scientific concepts and using them as "proof" of their belief systems. It amazes me how many adults forget the basic concepts of scientific method that they learned in 8th grade. This is where you get the "new age" stuff and it's also where you get "ID".

 

But, scientists have philosophical debates all the time about quantum physics.

Yes but as a budding scientist myself, I don't agree with their approach. Science can't go further than describing how the Universe works. If we find that, say, the "XY equation" predicts 100% of the phenomena we observe, then we can only say that it predicts everything that we observe. It may be that we can then mathematically derive that IF there were infinitely many universes then XY equation would hold, or whether we decide to define an "observation" as something that can be only done by a conscious thing (and therefore every interacting thing is conscious), etc etc, these will not deliver any more reliable information about the deeper structure of the Universe. Personally, I consider "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics to be as valid as a theory that in fact it's invisible little devils pushing the photons through the slits in weird ways in the Double Slit experiment. This may sound harsh, but I think philosophizing about a scientific theory is mental masturbation... It's very good for you, but it's not really going to help get closer to understanding reality.

 

That said, I'm not saying "we can't know", or anything like that. My point is that you can't say infinitely many universes exist just because you can prove that if it were so then we'd see what we see. In order to show that infinitely many universes exist, you need to come up with an observation that the current equations cannot explain, which you can only explain if you introduce the idea that infinitely many universes exist.

 

That is what the book Quantum Reality is all about. I highly recommend it - it's a good read. The author starts out by pointing out how quantum physics has impacted the scientific world. At the very start of the book he discusses how the math used in Quantum Physics also reveals something of "deep reality".

I have not read the book, but this logic sounds very dodgy to me. We base our mathematical model on observations. The only things that reveal extra information about the nature of reality are the experimental observations - not the math! The math is just used to describe the observations, and make predictions - aiming to be the most generally applicable and the simplest. But we can never guarantee the math to be correct... only the observations are correct.

 

To say an exaggerated example to illustrate the point, in Newton's time, "F = ma" was the perfect scientific model - simple, and seemed to work all the time. If people then set out to philosophize about the nature of reality on the basis of that mathematics, they would have been able to draw very powerful conclusions about the nature of reality. Trouble is, all those conclusions would have been wrong - observations proved the very model wrong!! In other words, it is philosophically wrong to use a model to attempt to extract further information about the nature of reality than what the observations the model itself is based on already tell. The same must apply to Quantum Mechanics too - there is no guarantee that our mathematical models are correct, and we shouldn't get ourselves into circular logic.

 

He's clear to point out the ONLY thing that can be said with any certainty about "deep reality" is that (because of Bell's Theorem) deep reality MUST be non-local. Beyond that the 8 points I listed in my earlier post are things that may be INFERRED about deep reality (NOT PROVEN). These things are INFERRED through the language of math that is regularly used in experimental quantum mechanics.

Bell's theorem is very valuable and powerful, because it is based only on actual observations - it is not derived from any other models or theories. But as you say, those 8 things are inferred from the mathematical models only, so as I explained above, it seems to me they cannot by nature give us more information than the math they are based on.

 

But, once it seemed this discussion was moving in the direction of philosophy (instead of science) I came back with the information from Quantum Reality. If we're going to have a philosophical discussion about the possibilities of deep reality than it aught to at least be based on the same things the scientists are debating

I think I understand what you are saying - this is a very controversial topic indeed but I'm one of those to whom it appears only the "null interpretation" can be the correct one: shut up and calculate!

 

PVC

[Open_Minded]

He's clear to point out the ONLY thing that can be said with any certainty about "deep reality" is that (because of Bell's Theorem) deep reality MUST be non-local. Beyond that the 8 points I listed in my earlier post are things that may be INFERRED about deep reality (NOT PROVEN). These things are INFERRED through the language of math that is regularly used in experimental quantum mechanics.

Bell's theorem is very valuable and powerful, because it is based only on actual observations - it is not derived from any other models or theories. But as you say, those 8 things are inferred from the mathematical models only, so as I explained above, it seems to me they cannot by nature give us more information than the math they are based on.

We agree completely - they are inferred. To go further is mere conjecture.

 

But, once it seemed this discussion was moving in the direction of philosophy (instead of science) I came back with the information from Quantum Reality. If we're going to have a philosophical discussion about the possibilities of deep reality than it aught to at least be based on the same things the scientists are debating

I think I understand what you are saying - this is a very controversial topic indeed but I'm one of those to whom it appears only the "null interpretation" can be the correct one: shut up and calculate!

And I understand what you are saying... until it can be concretely observed and agreed upon by all parties - it is nothing more than belief.

 

But... we also at least note that for experimental science to "catch up" it will have to transcend physics as we know it today. Bell's Theorem says that "deep reality" must be non-local. That means experimental "proof" of anything at a "deep reality" level must transcend relativity. How that can ever happen - is beyond me. The chances of science ever "catching up" are slim-to-none.

 

So... very conceivably... humanity may have reached a point (with quantum physics) where science will have taken us as far as it can go. I could be wrong on that - I'm not a scientist. But experimentally proving one of the 8 possibilities listed in my earlier post may be out of the realm of human capability. We may be left with philosophy and at that point we are most productive if we confine our philosophical mussing to possibilities shown in the language of math. It's far more productive than allowing the human imagination to go wild.

[Guest WarrantedPVC]

So... very conceivably... humanity may have reached a point (with quantum physics) where science will have taken us as far as it can go.

Indeed so. Personally, I consider theories which by nature lack predictions verifiable by experiment (and those predictions shouldn't already be predictions of other existing theories!) to be non-scientific, and apart from their use as mental exercise, we shouldn't bother spending too much time on them as there could be infinitely many of them and we can never know which one is true.

 

In any case, our best chance of finding the answer to the mysteries of the Universe lies in rigorous models based on rigorous experiments, and not in philosophy or religion.

 

But experimentally proving one of the 8 possibilities listed in my earlier post may be out of the realm of human capability. We may be left with philosophy and at that point we are most productive if we confine our philosophical mussing to possibilities shown in the language of math. It's far more productive than allowing the human imagination to go wild.

But we can never confirm those philosophical models.

 

I am confident that there are theoretical physicists who are incredibly smart, have lots of amazing ideas to simplify things and do their science ingeniously and based on experimental evidence - but there is a lot of fraud and pseudo-science out there, too.

 

But if a scientist (or scientist-to-be) gets to the point of feeling this particular subject may have reached its limits, I'd say the best use of their energy is probably not to endlessly philosophize about it but... to specialize in biochemistry instead!

 

It's a kind of sad I have to say this, as I have been fascinated by quantum physics all my life and dreamed of being a physicist working on the most fundamental laws of nature. Then I got to university and learned some more about it and I'm totally disillusioned with physics. It's not that I'm scared of the math - I am not scared at all, in fact I thrive on it... it's the physics that I have a problem with. I'll have to make a choice this spring between two waters to jump into: one is my previous dream, the well-cut, well-defined, rigorous channel of theoretical physics that now seems stagnated and completely useless even if developed; the other is the total mess, the disorganized, seemingly endless ocean of biology, any developments in which seem extremely useful...

 

At the beginning of my science education I never imagined I'd end up as a biochemist. But then again, changing my mind radically has become commonplace for me in recent years...

 

PVC

[Legion]

I'll have to make a choice this spring between two waters to jump into: one is my previous dream, the well-cut, well-defined, rigorous channel of theoretical physics that now seems stagnated and completely useless even if developed; the other is the total mess, the disorganized, seemingly endless ocean of biology, any developments in which seem extremely useful...

PVC I know that the decision resides with you, but I would still encourage you to take the biological path. I think you’re right. Physics has become stagnant. It had its day in the 20th century, while biology will be the star of the 21st and beyond in my estimation. Sure it’s now a mess and the Newton of biology has yet to be revealed. This indicates to me an opportunity.

 

And since you are not intimidated by math, I would further encourage you to pick up a copy of Life Itself by the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen. He argues there that rather than physics being the general and biology the special, it is biology that has the greater scope of generality.

 

I am excited for you PVC. And no matter which path you choose, I wish you the best.