Quantum Physics Proves Death Is An Illusion. Who Knew?

[RogueScholar]

 

Pawn, I am not a quantum physics researcher in any field; however, I do use some of the concepts that you are discussing. For example, superposition is a very important part of chemistry as we can put atomic orbitals of atoms into superposition. In fact, the backbone for understanding organic chemistry involves the superposition of what are called s and p atomic orbitals in Carbon atoms and how these superposition states also called hybrid orbitals can interact with the orbitals of other atoms to form the chemical bonding that is so important to the field of chemistry.

 

I see some possible problems with your stance and perhaps I do not understand your stance. What do you mean by "observation" when you use the word. For example, I can "observe" a Hydrogen atom with its electron in its ground state with my eyes using say 700 nm light (red light). Observing an atom in this way is not really going to do much to perturb the quantum state of the atom in this configuration. However, if I used detectors or fire high-energy photons or electrons the Hydrogen atom, then it is quite possible to perturb it and likely ionise the atom in the process. With that said, the term "observe" has a very different meaning between these cases.

 

This is one of the problems that we face in science. You need to really understand what is meant by "observation" and how a certain experiment is set up and “observing” in the context of the experiment means under what conditions this “observation” is taking place and what is actually done to make an observation. Many questions do exist and quantum mechanics is philosophically challenging, but I must aggressively counter articles like this that simply do not talk about the field with honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, this is difficult because quantum mechanics is such a non-intuitive field and the work needed to actually use quantum mechanics to solve problems is beyond most people in the lay public, so even good articles often loos some of the finer points because they are forced to distill non-intuitive concepts into a more coherent picture for the lay public. This opens the floodgates for people to use this as a way to confuse people and even use said confusion for gain, typically monetary gain.

[Cousin Ricky]

What this guy is arguing is essentially that our perceptions create reality. To borrow the words of Jeremy Bentham, this is “nonsense upon stilts!”

 

I propose instead that since all scientific evidence indicates that perceptions arise from our biological brains, and biological brains cannot exist without a preexisting reality, one must first have reality before we can have perceptions. Biocentrism makes no sense at all.

 

He's not talking about an afterlife. He's saying death is an illusion. Which is really not all that profound, considering that almost everything we perceive is an illusion of sorts.

You guys mentioned "afterlife" and "individuality" which are also both illusions. As midnite rider says, life is also an illusion in the sense the article uses.

Consciousness and existence are inseparable, it's impossible to have one without the other.

 

It is impossible to have consciousness without existence. Hence, we cannot perceive our own death. However, it is certainly possible to have existence without consciousness. The coffeemug on my table exists without consciousness.

 

It is only our conscious existence that cannot exist without consciousness, but that is a tautology.

 

Lanza is using pretty language to make himself feel better, but he is not describing reality; rather, he is sidestepping it.

[pawn]

Many questions do exist and quantum mechanics is philosophically challenging, but I must aggressively counter articles like this that simply do not talk about the field with honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, this is difficult because quantum mechanics is such a non-intuitive field and the work needed to actually use quantum mechanics to solve problems is beyond most people in the lay public, so even good articles often loos some of the finer points because they are forced to distill non-intuitive concepts into a more coherent picture for the lay public.

Agreed.

 

As I said above, I apologize for agreeing with such disingenuous and misleading article. I was more in a philosophical mode when I responded, ( Descartes' cognito ergo sum ) and didn't really read much of the article at first. It Is crap.

[pawn]

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing? If you are not conscious of the coffee mug, then you are only assuming it exists. To assume it exists requires consciousness also.

 

Consciousness is indeed the only connection we have to reality itself.

[RogueScholar]

 

Many questions do exist and quantum mechanics is philosophically challenging, but I must aggressively counter articles like this that simply do not talk about the field with honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, this is difficult because quantum mechanics is such a non-intuitive field and the work needed to actually use quantum mechanics to solve problems is beyond most people in the lay public, so even good articles often loos some of the finer points because they are forced to distill non-intuitive concepts into a more coherent picture for the lay public.

Agreed.

 

As I said above, I apologize for agreeing with such disingenuous and misleading article. I was more in a philosophical mode when I responded, ( Descartes' cognito ergo sum ) and didn't really read much of the article at first. It Is crap.

That's cool. You are probably right that there is a whole philosophical side to quantum mechanics. I'm likely not qualified to really comment on that, but my suspicion is we will have more answers as we continue to develop quantum mechanics. Interestingly, quantum mechanics is less than 120 years old and less than 70 years old in its more contemporary form. Being that classical mechanics had reigned for about 220 years before the initial ideas that led to quantum mechanics were conceived, quantum mechanics is still somewhat of a newbie.

[Cousin Ricky]

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

[midniterider]

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing? If you are not conscious of the coffee mug, then you are only assuming it exists. To assume it exists requires consciousness also.

 

Consciousness is indeed the only connection we have to reality itself.

 

There you have it, Pawn.

 

I'd like an example of something that exists without a person's observation (or instrument detection that a person can observe) of it.

[midniterider]

 

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

 

 

Is anyone here besides me a solipsist? haha

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What if I am just a brain floating in a vat and all of you are figments of my imagination?

This!  This is the question that I ultimately go to whenever the conversation turns to "existence" and "reality".  The ultimate truth, as I see it, is that cogito ergo sum is still just an assumption.

[pawn]

 

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

 

 

 

The irony here is that you couldn't have any philosophical views or concepts at all without consciousness.  The very statement,

 

"I am not a solipsist."

 

...requires consciousness.

 

Whether one is a solipsist or holds any other philosophical views is irrelevant, nothing can be known or even experienced in any way at all without consciousness...  Existence requires consciousness, that is simply a fact.  Now, solipsism or any other philosophical views that may or may not be held on account of this fact, well that is a matter of debate.

 

I am not a solipsist either, but the fact remains, that consciousness is integral to existence.

 

Existential discussions are beyond weird.

[pawn]

Lets just all move to Colorado, buy some retail weed, get high and THEN discuss quantum theory and existentialism...

[mymistake]

 

 

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

 

 

 

The irony here is that you couldn't have any philosophical views or concepts at all without consciousness.  The very statement,

 

"I am not a solipsist."

 

...requires consciousness.

 

Whether one is a solipsist or holds any other philosophical views is irrelevant, nothing can be known or even experienced in any way at all without consciousness...  Existence requires consciousness, that is simply a fact.  Now, solipsism or any other philosophical views that may or may not be held on account of this fact, well that is a matter of debate.

 

I am not a solipsist either, but the fact remains, that consciousness is integral to existence.

 

Existential discussions are beyond weird.

 

 

 

I think you are mixing up existence for understanding existence.  Your argument renders our universe nonexistent until a life form developed consciousness.  And where did that life form develop from if nothing before it existed?

 

 

[pawn]

I think you are mixing up existence for understanding existence. Your argument renders our universe nonexistent until a life form developed consciousness. And where did that life form develop from if nothing before it existed?

Well that all depends on the definition of "existence". Can a universe really be says to "exist" without anything at all aware of anything at all?

 

Unfortunately these kind of discussions always end up breaking down into an argument of semantics.

 

I personally see existence as requiring a subject-object relationship. Without a subject, can their really BE an object? Is the color blue actually even a color without something to reflect and perceive that color?

 

Can insentient matter have an existence without any interaction with anything else? I suppose it could be argued that the object "existed" on its own without anything aware of its existence, but if the object is never an object of some subjective experience, it's existence is difficult to conceive of as really existence. It (the object that is void of any subject) may as well be a total void since there is nothing at all aware of it existing in any way at all.

 

Even space-time itself is relative to the objects moving in relationship to eachother. Everything in the universe is interdependent on relationship.

 

Imagine an eternal existence WITHOUT any sort of sentient forms, void of any consciousness at all. Can such an existence really be? Or is the fact of our present consciousness proof that existence itself gives rise to consciousness of existence itself?

 

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

-Carl Sagan

 

I know hard materialists will dislike this view, but I really don't see a universe void of consciousness as any universe at all... And quantum physics holds the promise of demonstrating how subject-object relationships are interdependent. The "observer effect" in quantum physics shows at least some solid relationship between observation and concrete reality. It is not well understood, at least I could not find any concrete explanation of these quantum phenomena, such as QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION.

 

Can anyone explain quantum superposition without the aid of an observer? No, the very concept of quantum superposition requires an observer!

 

I don't know, but it's all very fascinating, this universe we live in!

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

 

 

 

The irony here is that you couldn't have any philosophical views or concepts at all without consciousness.  The very statement,

 

"I am not a solipsist."

 

...requires consciousness.

 

Whether one is a solipsist or holds any other philosophical views is irrelevant, nothing can be known or even experienced in any way at all without consciousness...  Existence requires consciousness, that is simply a fact.  Now, solipsism or any other philosophical views that may or may not be held on account of this fact, well that is a matter of debate.

 

I am not a solipsist either, but the fact remains, that consciousness is integral to existence.

 

Existential discussions are beyond weird.

 

 

 

I think you are mixing up existence for understanding existence.  Your argument renders our universe nonexistent until a life form developed consciousness.  And where did that life form develop from if nothing before it existed?

 

 

Same place the big bang came from. :-)

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

 

 

 

The irony here is that you couldn't have any philosophical views or concepts at all without consciousness.  The very statement,

 

"I am not a solipsist."

 

...requires consciousness.

 

Whether one is a solipsist or holds any other philosophical views is irrelevant, nothing can be known or even experienced in any way at all without consciousness...  Existence requires consciousness, that is simply a fact.  Now, solipsism or any other philosophical views that may or may not be held on account of this fact, well that is a matter of debate.

 

I am not a solipsist either, but the fact remains, that consciousness is integral to existence.

 

Existential discussions are beyond weird.

 

 

 

I think you are mixing up existence for understanding existence.  Your argument renders our universe nonexistent until a life form developed consciousness.  And where did that life form develop from if nothing before it existed?

 

 

Same place the big bang came from. :-)

 

 

 

I expect the Big Bang came from forces that were real, natural and physical.  It would not surprise me if there was nothing conscious to observe it.  But like Pawn said we are getting into a difference of world view and there isn't much to do after that.

[RogueScholar]

Actually, superposition doesn't really require an observer because it's often an approximation. The whole concept of orbitals in say Carbon atoms are approximations of Hydrogen atom like wave functions. In fact, the literal solutions for wave functions have absolutely no known meaning. As strange as it sounds, the wave function has no known physical meaning. We actually have to take the exact solutions and multiply them by their complex conjugates to arrive at a solution that if interpreted as probability density has physical meaning. Even more difficult is the fact that we use imaginary numbers as an integral component of wave functions. The problem with people using all this quantum mechanical business to push a philosophical agenda is two fold: First, you are not in a great position to really discuss the implications if you don't really know the field that well. Second, it seems that people inject a significant amount of human hubris into a subject that is still not well developed.

 

As stated earlier, I'm no expert in this stuff, but to really say anything about this field you need to have studied it. The bottom line being, the philosophical implications are up in the air.

[RogueScholar]

I want to be clear that my views on quantum mechanics come from a very provincial application of the theory. I don't want anybody to think I have a great understanding of quantum mechanics or know the theory in any general sense.

[pawn]

Yeah, quantum mechanics is something only a handful of people in the world really understand enough to discuss properly. I'm certainly not one of them! It is fun though to think about this stuff, even if we really don't know what the heck we are dealing with.

Weird stuff.

[pawn]

Actually, superposition doesn't really require an observer because it's often an approximation. The whole concept of orbitals in say Carbon atoms are approximations of Hydrogen atom like wave functions. In fact, the literal solutions for wave functions have absolutely no known meaning. As strange as it sounds, the wave function has no known physical meaning. We actually have to take the exact solutions and multiply them by their complex conjugates to arrive at a solution that if interpreted as probability density has physical meaning. Even more difficult is the fact that we use imaginary numbers as an integral component of wave functions. The problem with people using all this quantum mechanical business to push a philosophical agenda is two fold: First, you are not in a great position to really discuss the implications if you don't really know the field that well. Second, it seems that people inject a significant amount of human hubris into a subject that is still not well developed.

 

As stated earlier, I'm no expert in this stuff, but to really say anything about this field you need to have studied it. The bottom line being, the philosophical implications are up in the air.

Rogue, I really don't understand it enough to debate with you. I have only read some views of quantum physicists and when they talk about quantum superposition and other quantum theories, there does certainly seem to be an interaction between the quantum event and the scientific observation of the event. I intend to research this stuff further.

 

I do agree with you that many, many people have only a very small education on quantum matters, and yet they write elaborate, bizarre bullshit philosophy and pretend that their philosophy is "proven" by quantum physics, even though it is not, and they obviously don't really know what they are talking about.

 

Someone wrote earlier about the book, "the secret" and that is a perfect example of some new age asshat taking a few quotes from quantum physicists and twisting it into their wacky new age philosophy, when in fact they are only manipulating the research and words to fit their "magical secret" views.

[Ravenstar]

Actually.. "The Secret" is one of the very latest publications on the subject of intentional creation and probably has its roots in (again sorry) the Seth material (1963 - 1984) by Jane Roberts (First I know of to say "You create your own reality") and the new age movement of the 60's which began actually with the spiritualist movement of the 19th century .. it's also related to magic. By that I mean the belief that one can influence the universe by sympathetic ritual and intention. (the Hermetic concept of 'as above, so below' popularized by Helen Blavatsky with her 1888, "The Secret Doctrine". Alistair Crowley's work is another influence) 

 

The reconstructionist neo-pagan religions (Gerald Gardner, et al) which came out in the 50's probably had some effect as well as the integration of Hinduism/Buddhism (All is One) with western culture in the 19th and 20th centuries. Quantum physics was thrown in because someone heard that our 'observations affect outcome in the quantum universe' (this is correct - I've heard countless new agers quote this concept - inaccurately) as well as the discovery of 'virtual particles', and Einsteins "spooky action at a distance" - which has been interpreted by the layman as thought can affect matter. (this may be true -  but again it is philosophical, not evidence based at this time)

 

Shakti Gawain was I believe the first person to publish a book (after the Seth material) on creative visualization with intention.. it's actually called "Creative Visualization". (1979)

 

Carlos Casteneda's "The adventures of Don Juan" is another set of publications with a lot of influence. "A Course in Miracles" by Helen Schucman (1976) was also a front-runner for "The Secret",(2006) and who can forget "The Celestine Prophecy"? (1993) (hugely popular book based on intentional creation, synchronicity and spiritual evolution) as well as "Conversations with God"? (1996)

 

Carl Jung's, "Collective Unconscious" has also played a huge role, as well as this prominence psychiatrists' other works and ideology.

 

We also need to give credit to Emmanuel Swedenborg, Swami Vivekananda; who introduced the philosophy of Vedanta to western society, Alice Bailey, Ramtha, Ram Dass, Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, and Gary Zukav and friggin' OPRAH, amongst others... (William Blake comes to mind).

 

I think the inclusion of quantum mechanics/theory is just another attempt by people to find 'proof' that their metaphysical beliefs are supported by science.

[RogueScholar]

 

Actually, superposition doesn't really require an observer because it's often an approximation. The whole concept of orbitals in say Carbon atoms are approximations of Hydrogen atom like wave functions. In fact, the literal solutions for wave functions have absolutely no known meaning. As strange as it sounds, the wave function has no known physical meaning. We actually have to take the exact solutions and multiply them by their complex conjugates to arrive at a solution that if interpreted as probability density has physical meaning. Even more difficult is the fact that we use imaginary numbers as an integral component of wave functions. The problem with people using all this quantum mechanical business to push a philosophical agenda is two fold: First, you are not in a great position to really discuss the implications if you don't really know the field that well. Second, it seems that people inject a significant amount of human hubris into a subject that is still not well developed.

 

As stated earlier, I'm no expert in this stuff, but to really say anything about this field you need to have studied it. The bottom line being, the philosophical implications are up in the air.

Rogue, I really don't understand it enough to debate with you. I have only read some views of quantum physicists and when they talk about quantum superposition and other quantum theories, there does certainly seem to be an interaction between the quantum event and the scientific observation of the event. I intend to research this stuff further.

 

I do agree with you that many, many people have only a very small education on quantum matters, and yet they write elaborate, bizarre bullshit philosophy and pretend that their philosophy is "proven" by quantum physics, even though it is not, and they obviously don't really know what they are talking about.

 

Someone wrote earlier about the book, "the secret" and that is a perfect example of some new age asshat taking a few quotes from quantum physicists and twisting it into their wacky new age philosophy, when in fact they are only manipulating the research and words to fit their "magical secret" views.

You are correct that there can be an interaction or measurement when talking about quantum mechanics. As I stated my example is a very narrow application of quantum mechanics. However, Carbon atoms have been bonding with other atoms long before life ever existed, never mind human life. The concept of superposition has allowed us to make very good predictions in organic chemistry, but human observations and measurements are not required and chemistry would occur regardless of human intervention.

 

With that said, there are many questions regarding what fundamentally happens when we measure a quantum system. Unfortunately, we just do not have all the answers and it is human hubris to assert you know some deep, fundamental truths about quantum mechanics. It's actually very frustrating to think about such things with a human brain that has evolved to understand running lions and falling rocks. The way I use the theory is by looking at it as a calculational tool that allows me to make predictions and understand chemical bonding.

 

It's really important to understand that the concepts of measurement, observation and interaction are much less defined than one would expect. There are many open questions involving these concepts and ultimately it appears that our understanding of making measurements fundamentally breaks down in certain circumstances. It is likely that our understanding of the universe may fundamentally change over the next several decades, so I'm not so bold to make definitive statements about existence, measurements, observations and so on.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

 

Cousin Ricky, how can you state that the coffee mug exists without your consciousness of it existing?

 

Because I’m not a solipsist.

 

 

 

The irony here is that you couldn't have any philosophical views or concepts at all without consciousness.  The very statement,

 

"I am not a solipsist."

 

...requires consciousness.

 

Whether one is a solipsist or holds any other philosophical views is irrelevant, nothing can be known or even experienced in any way at all without consciousness...  Existence requires consciousness, that is simply a fact.  Now, solipsism or any other philosophical views that may or may not be held on account of this fact, well that is a matter of debate.

 

I am not a solipsist either, but the fact remains, that consciousness is integral to existence.

 

Existential discussions are beyond weird.

 

 

 

I think you are mixing up existence for understanding existence.  Your argument renders our universe nonexistent until a life form developed consciousness.  And where did that life form develop from if nothing before it existed?

 

 

Same place the big bang came from. :-)

 

 

 

I expect the Big Bang came from forces that were real, natural and physical.  It would not surprise me if there was nothing conscious to observe it.  But like Pawn said we are getting into a difference of world view and there isn't much to do after that.

 

 

I had to throw in my 2 cents. :-) I may be wrong about the primacy of consciousness. But it's a fun idea to play around with. Not that proof for it or against it really is going to effect how we live, really.

[pawn]

Our understanding of making measurements fundamentally breaks down in certain circumstances...

 

Well said, that is as good a description of quantum physics as I have ever heard. I don't pretend to know what is happening at that level of reality, but I really enjoy these discussions.

 

Thanks so much for sharing your chemistry knowledge here Roguescholar, much appreciated. I may be totally wrong about this, but I suspect there is something of a relationship between subject and object (mind and matter) that quantum physics may someday demonstrate more clearly....