From the "everything list" ....FYI

Brent Meeker wrote:
> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the 
> decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories 
> represents the current state of QM.
> Brent Meeker
Jesse Maser wrote:

The copenhagen interpretation is just one of several ways of thinking about QM, 
though. Other interpretations, like the many-worlds interpretation or the Bohm 
interpretation, do try to come up with a model of an underlying reality that 
gives rise to the events we observe empirically. Of course, as long as these 
different models of different underlying realities don't lead to any new 
predictions they can't be considered scientific theories, but physicists often 
discuss them nevertheless.

There are so many ways in which the point has been missed it's hard to 
know where to start. You are both inside 'the matrix' :-) Allow me to 
give you the red pill.

Name any collection of QM physicist you any XYZ 
interpretation, ABC interpretations....Blah interpretations... So what? 
You say these things as if they actually resolve something? Did you not 
see that I have literally had a work in review for 2 years labelled 
'taboo' ? Did you not see that my supervisor uttered "forbidden?"  Read 
Stapp's book: BOHR makes the same kind of utterance. Look at how Lisi is 
programmed to think by the training a physicist gets...It's like there's 
some sort of retreat into a safety-zone whereby "if I make noises like 
this then I'll get listened to"....

/and I'm not talking about some minor nuance of scientific fashion./ 
This is a serious cultural problem in physics. I am talking about that 
fact that science itself is fundamentally configured as a religion or a 
club and the players don't even know it. I'll try and spell it out even 
plainer with set theory:

<ASPECT 1> = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
<ASPECT 2> =  { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, 
including QM, multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social 
science, cognitive science, anthropology EVERYTHING}

<ASPECT 1:>  = {Null}
<ASPECT 2>  = {has NO law that predicts or explains P-consciousness, nor 
do they have causality in them. They never will. Anyone and everyone who 
has a clue about it agrees that this is the case}

In other words, scientists have added special laws to <ASPECT 2> that 
masquerade as constitutive and explanatory. They are metabeliefs. 
Beliefs about Belief. They ascribe actual physical reification of 
quantum mechanical descriptions. EG: Stapp's "cloud-like" depiction. I 
put it to you that reality <ASPECT 1> could have every single particle 
in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with just as 
exquisitely well defined momentum. There are no 'clouds'. No actual or 
physical 'fuzziness'. I quite well defined particle operating in a 
dimensionality slightly higher than our own could easily appear 
fuzzy.....There is merely /*lack of knowledge*/ and the reality of us as 
observers altering those very things when we observe....standard 
measurement phenomenon... This reality I describe is COMPLETELY 
consistent with so called QM 'laws'. To believe that electrons are 
'fuzzy', rather than our knowledge of them, in an <aspect 1> reality 
that merely behaves 'as-if' that is the case, is a meta-belief. To 
believe that there are multiple universes just because a bunch of maths 
seems to be consistent with that...utter delusion...

Physics has also added a special law to <ASPECT 2>, a 'law of nature' 
which reads as follows: "Physicists do not and shall not populate set 
<ASPECT 1> because, well just because....".

Yet, ASPECT 1 is ACTUAL REALITY. It, and nothing else, is responsible 
for everything, INCLUDING P-consciousness and physicists with a capacity 
to populate <ASPECT 2>. Abstractions of  reality derived through 
P-consciousness, never 'explained' ANYTHING, in the sense of causal 
necessity, and if incorporated in <ASPECT 2> as an explanation of 
P-consciousness, become meta-belief...."I belief that this other <aspect 
2> law has explained P-consciousness...." when it clearly does not 
because NONE of <aspect 2> PREDICTS the possibility of P-CONSCIOUSNESS.  
As to 'evidence'...Jesse... in what way does an <ASPECT 1> reality - 
responsible for the faculty that provides all observation, any less 
witnessed than anything is <ASPECT 2>? You are implicltly denying 
P-cosnciousness ITSELF and positing it as having been already explained 
in some way by CONTENTS of P-consciousness (that is literally, in 
context, scientific observation). Do you see that?

In this way, solving for consciousness is systemically proscribed, along 
with the permanent failure to solve P-consciousness. Every example where 
I have discovered anyone attempting to populate <ASPECT 1> or even 
positing a mechanism by which that might systematically 
ignored and marginalised.

Actual underlying reality creates P-consciousness. Nothing else. Until 
we allow ourselves to populate <aspect 1> we will NEVER explain 
anything, let alone P-consciousness. We will only describe. If we 
believe we already explained anything then we have installed a 
metapelief in the <ASPECT 1> set and we are living it as a religion. If 
we believe that <aspect 1> is unapproachable for no other reason than 
cultural preference then DITTO.

I hope you get this.

I finished Henry Stapp's book. There's a bunch of stuff about dual 
aspect and whitehead, which would be good except....all of it is couched 
in terms of ascription of QM as having an ontological role: a universe 
made of anstract maths descriptions. So frustrating. There is an 
inability to be able to comprehend the difference between maths as 
abstracted description of appearances and "literal reality, also 
described with further abstractions, by an observer made of it".

/As scientists we haven't even begun to populate <ASPECT 1>. We need to 
start. The delusions that are in place in <aspect 2> are far more 
bizarre than any sane approach to a characterisation of reality that 
involves populating a <aspect 1> that is explanatory of P-consciousness.
Or you can take the blue pill.... the status quo... and live a deluded 
science model in which a clubbish, fashion ridden maths rapture 
rules...something I cannot do.


Colin Hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to