> 
> 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 like....name 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:
> 
>  = {descriptive laws of an underlying reality}
>  =  { every empirical law of nature ever concocted bar NONE, including QM, 
> multiverses, relativity, neuroscience, psychology, social science, cognitive 
> science, anthropology EVERYTHING}


You're not being very clear about why you think things like the Bohm 
interpretation of QM cannot fall into the category "descriptive laws of an 
underlying reality". By "descriptive" do you mean something intrinsically 
non-mathematical, so that any mathematical model of an underlying reality 
wouldn't qualify? If so, how could this non-mathematical description give rise 
to quantitative explanations of what we actually measure empirically? On the 
other hand, if you do allow the descriptive laws to be mathematical, what is it 
specifically about something like the Bohm interpretation or the many-worlds 
interpretation that makes them fail to qualify?

> 
> FACT
>   = {Null}
> FACT
>   = {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}


What do you mean by the term "P-consciousness"? Are you talking about the 
first-person aspects of consciousness, what philosophers call 'qualia'? 
Personally I'd agree that no purely third-person description of physical 
phenomena can explain this, but I like the approach of the philosopher David 
Chalmers, who postulates that on the one hand there are laws which fully 
determine the mathematical relationships between events in the physical world 
(so the physical world is 'causally closed', the notion of interactive dualism 
where some free-willed mind-stuff can influence physical events is false), and 
on the other hand there are 'psychophysical laws' which determine which 
patterns of events in the physical world give rise to which types of 
first-person qualia. Of course, since I prefer monism to dualism I have some 
vague ideas that the laws of mind might actually be fundamental, with the 
apparent physical laws being derived from them--see 
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg13848.html for my 
speculations on this.

> 
> In other words, scientists have added special laws to  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  could have 
> every single particle in an exquisitely defined position simultaneously with 
> just as exquisitely well defined momentum. 

That's exactly what's true in the Bohm interpretation, particles have 
well-defined positions and velocities at all times. If you're not familiar with 
this interpretation see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to