Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[par4dcourse]

The first double-blind study that provides any reproducible results of "brain to brain" contact (or from an etheral being) and I'll take note. Until then, it's still a lounge act.

[Open_Minded]

Addendum: Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality

 

What is the true nature of reality? Let's take a poll.
 

 

 

Seriously. The deep questions raised by quantum theory have so troubled so many thinkers for so long that a trio of physicists decided to settle things Gallup style. At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was
multiple choice.

 

......

 

 

 

... the ... most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.

"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)

You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics.

 

The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. ....

 

 

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. ~ Max Planck

 

The debate within the science community continues. The Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline ... time (and more experimenting) will tell... Don't let anyone tell you physics is boring.....

[Legion]

Wow, OM, I didn't believe you'd ever show again.

 

Yeah, I suspect that quantum physics has the same drawback as much of today's physics has. They believe that mechanisms are sufficient for modeling natural behavior. It's sometimes hard for me to believe with the work now available to them that they still cling to mechanism.

[Open_Minded]

 

Wow, OM, I didn't believe you'd ever show again.

Hello Legion:

 

Thank you so much - it's wonderful to be back, for a short time anyway.

 

Oh ... I check ex_C out every now and again. Mostly just lurk. But when I found the above linked article, I couldn't resist adding it as an Addendum to this thread. I still really follow quantum physics. It's a fascinating subject. Time and experimentation only seems to confirm the enigmas associated with the quantum level of reality.

 

How is everything with you?

 

In Peace - O_M

[Legion]

 

How is everything with you?

 

I've been experiencing some stressful times OM. These past few years have been a challenge. But I try to remember that it's not the good times that make men; it's adversity which makes them.

 

How have YOU been?

[Open_Minded]

 

I've been experiencing some stressful times OM. These past few years have been a challenge.

 I can really appreciate what you're saying Legion. I myself am in the middle of the most stressful period of my life in 20 some years.

 

I think America in general is going through a very stressful period and most of us are feeling it to one degree or another.

 

I think that's why Quantum Physics interests me so much, it helps me keep my own life in focus. In a very real sense "Reality" is not the daily struggles of life. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take seriously the challenges before us. But "reality" is so much more than our daily struggles.

[florduh]

 

I think that's why Quantum Physics interests me so much, it helps me keep my own life in focus. In a very real sense "Reality" is not the daily struggles of life. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take seriously the challenges before us. But "reality" is so much more than our daily struggles. 

 

Sounds very religious to me. Demonstrable, relevant reality, not postulated or theoretical reality, is where you live. Dreaming of a quantum world and putting your hopes in the notion that this reality we actually live in is not the True Reality is a theologian's game.

 

God (pardon the expression) I miss ShyOne.

[Open_Minded]

 

 

I think that's why Quantum Physics interests me so much, it helps me keep my own life in focus. In a very real sense "Reality" is not the daily struggles of life. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take seriously the challenges before us. But "reality" is so much more than our daily struggles. 

 

Sounds very religious to me. Demonstrable, relevant reality, not postulated or theoretical reality, is where you live.

 

On this we agree, demonstrable, relavant reality, not postulated or theorietical reality, is where we all live:

 

From Wikipedia: Quantum nonlocality

 

 

The experimental evidence of quantum nonlocality has resulted in the general rejection of a previous theory known as local hidden variable theory in which distant events were assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local ones.

 

You and I live in a demonstrable and VERY relavant non-local universe. A universe in which experimentation has eliminated the old "hidden variable" approach to non-locality. A universe which is demonstrably ONE interconnected WHOLE. Those are the simple facts. I, like every other human being on the face of this earth, get to interpret those facts. This whole thread was started to show that scientists are not marching lock-step behind the classical Newtonian clockwork interpretation of the universe. I still hold to that. Scientists are debating themsleves what "reality" is ... see my above post...

 

 

... the ... most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

 

So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.

 

"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)

You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that

physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics.

 

AS individuals, we interpret reality all the time. Scientists do as well ... in fact they are the first ones who debate these things. All the rest of us get the information AFTER it has been processed through the lens of the Scientific community. I choose an interpretation along the lines of Max Planck and that interpretation is one thing that allows me to rise out of my own problems, and see that there is so much more to this reality than is visible in my piddly little life.

 

 

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. ~ Max Planck

 If you're not comfortable with this interpretation - what should that be to me??? Or what should my interpretation be to you??? I'm perfectly willing to follow the expermentation where it leads ... and feel quite confident (more so every year - with new experimentation being done) that information is the the "fundamental stuff" of the universe.

 

But hey --- if you're comfortable with the Copenhagen interpretation (or something else - many-worlds - ) have at it.

 

I'm willing to let the science lead where it may.

[Legion]

Open minded, I understand the desire to have options other than reductionism available to us, but I don't believe QM is it. And I'll tell you why.

 

Quantum physics, for all its fanciness, is still a state based concept. I believe along with a growing number of scientists that we also have the option of encoding (observing) natural systems in other ways, without states. Methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment. In these ways, we may still understand mechanisms, but also understand natural systems which are not mechanistic.

[Guest end3]

Open minded, I understand the desire to have options other than reductionism available to us, but I don't believe QM is it. And I'll tell you why.

 

Quantum physics, for all its fanciness, is still a state based concept. I believe along with a growing number of scientists that we also have the option of encoding (observing) natural systems in other ways, without states. Methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment. In these ways, we may still understand mechanisms, but also understand natural systems which are not mechanistic.

I actually believe that L. 

[RankStranger]

Open minded, I understand the desire to have options other than reductionism available to us, but I don't believe QM is it. And I'll tell you why.

Quantum physics, for all its fanciness, is still a state based concept. I believe along with a growing number of scientists that we also have the option of encoding (observing) natural systems in other ways, without states. Methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment. In these ways, we may still understand mechanisms, but also understand natural systems which are not mechanistic.

Whole lotta talk. No clear or useful examples so far.

[Legion]

 

Whole lotta talk. No clear or useful examples so far.

Well, we might have a bit of a dilemma here Rank. The thing is, I'm still learning about these conceptual tools too. I could make efforts to make this more solid for you. I could try to force feed you while you insult me for it the whole time. But why? And it's a shame, a waste really, because I am nearly certain that if you picked these tools up, you could show me things I have not yet seen.

[Legion]

I actually believe that L. 

Thank you for saying so End.

 

I hope you're doing okay man.

[Open_Minded]

Open minded, I understand the desire to have options other than reductionism available to us, but I don't believe QM is it. And I'll tell you why.

 

Quantum physics, for all its fanciness, is still a state based concept. I believe along with a growing number of scientists that we also have the option of encoding (observing) natural systems in other ways, without states. Methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment. In these ways, we may still understand mechanisms, but also understand natural systems which are not mechanistic.

Legion - I did some digging around on the internet for "natural entailment", "encoding", etc... and found some explanation of it .. sort of a rewording of other concepts I've read about.

 

But before commenting ... it would be really helpful if you could expand on your thoughts and maybe provide a few links I could read through.

 

In Peace - O_M

[Legion]

But before commenting ... it would be really helpful if you could expand on your thoughts and maybe provide a few links I could read through.

 

In Peace - O_M

Roger that OM. Link inbound.

 

http://www.panmere.com/

 

That's the site of Tim Gwinn. It's mostly based in Rosen's work (again, sigh). But Rosen was continuing Rashevsky's work, and Louie and others continued Rosen's. It's a relational approach to science. As Rosen said, relational science throws away the matter of an organized natural system, and studies the organization.

 

I don't know of a brief way to expand these thoughts. And I suspect that if I talk too long people will think that I believe myself 'knowledgeable'.

[Open_Minded]

Roger that OM. Link inbound.

 

http://www.panmere.com/

 

That's the site of Tim Gwinn. It's mostly based in Rosen's work (again, sigh). But Rosen was continuing Rashevsky's work, and Louie and others continued Rosen's. It's a relational approach to science. As Rosen said, relational science throws away the matter of an organized natural system, and studies the organization.

 

I don't know of a brief way to expand these thoughts. And I suspect that if I talk too long people will think that I believe myself 'knowledgeable'.

 

Thanks Legion:

 

I'll take some time to read through your link. If there are others, please feel free to share.

 

Also - on a side note - my husband and I are entertaining/watching twin two-year grandchildren for the weekend. So... between the reading and the twins it may be some time before I get back to this conversation. Please bare with me.

[Legion]

 

Thanks Legion:

 

I'll take some time to read through your link. If there are others, please feel free to share.

You're more than welcome OM. I respect your intuition. There are other links, but few have the quality and rigor of Tim Gwinn's site in my opinion.

 

Also - on a side note - my husband and I are entertaining/watching twin two-year grandchildren for the weekend. So... between the reading and the twins it may be some time before I get back to this conversation. Please bare with me.

I hope you'll take all the time you wish OM. I'm not at all persuaded that nature requires our understanding of it. If we happen to have it, then it is for us.

[Open_Minded]

I hope you'll take all the time you wish OM. I'm not at all persuaded that nature requires our understanding of it. If we happen to have it, then it is for us.

Thank you Legion -

 

Only one thought right now.

 

Nature may not require our understanding, but me thinks nature requires the search - or we humans would never have evolved to ask, "why"?

[Antlerman]

Nature may not require our understanding, but me thinks nature requires the search - or we humans would never have evolved to ask, "why"?

That's something I can get behind. See beyond what simply appears through our sciences, through our culture, through our language. Keep going, keep looking, then stop and simply see what just is and has always been.

 

Hi OM! In all my years around ExC, now just popping in now and then as my processing from this perspective has been fulfilled, there are a few who rise to the very top in importance for my own path. You're in that few.  Hoping Peace for you.

[Open_Minded]

 

Nature may not require our understanding, but me thinks nature requires the search - or we humans would never have evolved to ask, "why"?

That's something I can get behind.

 Thanks Antlerman. What a wonder it is, to simply be capable of asking, "why"?

 

 

Hi OM! In all my years around ExC, now just popping in now and then as my processing from this perspective has been fulfilled, there are a few who rise to the very top in importance for my own path. You're in that few.  Hoping Peace for you.

WOW - such high praise, I'm humbled indeed. For you, yourself, are held in such high esteem by so many people on this board (including myself).

[Open_Minded]

Open minded, I understand the desire to have options other than reductionism available to us, but I don't believe QM is it. And I'll tell you why.

 

Quantum physics, for all its fanciness, is still a state based concept. I believe along with a growing number of scientists that we also have the option of encoding (observing) natural systems in other ways, without states. Methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment. In these ways, we may still understand mechanisms, but also understand natural systems which are not mechanistic.

 

Hello Legion:

 

Thank you for providing the link. I've had a chance to give it a VERY preliminary review. The most succinct Rosen quote I could find, regarding his approach to Relational Biology and Entailment is the following:

 

 

 

The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, "throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.”

 

Relational Biology is very new to me, and I don't want to make assumptions here. So I figure we can take this in "baby steps".

 

If Rosen's approach is to throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization, then part of the "organization" is at the quantum level. On the surface, I would agree completely with the above quote, "throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization".

 

Is your position that "methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment" divorces itself from the use of quantum physics in the study of organization through "natural entailment"? ....

 

Also - what do you mean when you use the term "natural entailment"? I've read much in the last few days, and everything I've read is obtuse, or requires much more time than I have to dig into it.

 

Legion - I look forward to your thoughts on the above.

 

In Peace - OM

[Legion]

 

Nature may not require our understanding, but me thinks nature requires the search - or we humans would never have evolved to ask, "why"?

I'm under fewer illusions every day. As an acquaintance of mine once said, "Life is soft and ruthless, as always."

 

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

[Legion]

Hello Legion:

 

Thank you for providing the link. I've had a chance to give it a VERY preliminary review.

Then you are among few. And you're welcome OM. I'm tired of being clever. I appreciate you. I could tell you why, but that would be clever.

 

The most succinct Rosen quote I could find, regarding his approach to Relational Biology and Entailment is the following:

 

 

 

 

The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, "throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.”

 

Relational Biology is very new to me, and I don't want to make assumptions here. So I figure we can take this in "baby steps".

Sounds right to me. I've been baby stepping through it for about 8 years now.

 

If Rosen's approach is to throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization, then part of the "organization" is at the quantum level. On the surface, I would agree completely with the above quote, "throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization".

 

Is your position that "methods based on the way phenomena are organized through natural entailment" divorces itself from the use of quantum physics in the study of organization through "natural entailment"? ....

Uh, well, I think QM could be understood in relational terms. My view has become that relational science is a more general form of natural inquiry than reductionism. It doesn't exclude reductionist findings of the past. It includes them and expands.

 

Also - what do you mean when you use the term "natural entailment"? I've read much in the last few days, and everything I've read is obtuse, or requires much more time than I have to dig into it.

It's what we may know of causality. It's associated with Aristotle (and even Buddha). And you alluded to it above. When we ask "why?" about some natural thing then we fully expect natural answers to exist. We may find several answers in the form of "because...". This pairing of "why" and "because" is natural entailment.

 

Legion - I look forward to your thoughts on the above.

 

In Peace - OM

I hope I did okay. I'm still learning too.

[Onyx]

I'm not contributing anything to this thread except to say hi and welcome back Open Minded! Good to have you back again.

[Antlerman]

Apparently, a living natural system (an organism) must be an anticipatory system. This means, among other things, that its current behavior is shaped by predicted events. Those who correctly anticipate on their own behalf, survive.

Ah, but how does the human organism correctly anticipate in such a manner? In other words is this something we've lost, or have become quite out of touch with to the point we orchestrate our own destruction both individually and globally?