On Mar 7, 9:30 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 06 Mar 2011, at 16:16, 1Z wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 5:49 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> >> On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote:
> >>> On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I suspect we all may.
> >>>> Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be,
> >>>> "... it
> >>>> is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
> >>>> consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most
> >>>> fundamental
> >>>> aspect of physics."
> >>> How does he know consciousness is fundamental?
> >> Consciousness has been put under the rug by physicists since about
> >> 1500 years.
> > Really? Have daffodils and shopping centres likewise? Physicists
> > cannot be accused of neglecting something unless it can be
> > shown to be something they should prima facie be dealing with.
> They do use it all the time. They have just use the primary matter (as
> simplifying assumption), and the identity thesis (as simplig-fying
> assumption), so that they can correlated observation with predictive
You haven;t explained why they should be dealing with
consc. in the first place. Surely it is prima facie psychology.
>This leads to problem with respect to the new physics
> (quantum physics),
So you say. Many think QM problems have nothing
to do with consc.
> and with respect to the computationalist
> hypothesis. But the Platonist were aware of this (mainly by the dream
> argument), and kept us vigilant of not reifying matter.
> > Physics is the science of the fundamental.
> Then I am a physicist.
Physics is the empirical sciencce of the fundamental.
> > If consciousness
> > is another high level phenomenon, like shopping centres,
> > it is no business of the physicist.
> "IF" consciousness emerges ...
> That might be a big "IF".
You need to show that it *is* a big
if before accusing physicists of
> > If you think cosnc. is
> > fundamental, you are making an extraordinary claim and the
> > burden of proof is on you.
> I am not making any claim about the fact that consciousness is
> fundamental or not
Implicitly you are. To say that physics has failed
to deal with it is to imply that it should be dealing with it,
which is to imply that it is fundamental
>. I just try to understand that phenomenon, among
> other phenomenon. And I show that if we suppose that consciousness can
> be related to some computation, then matter is not fundamental. Matter
> "emerges" as a modality of self-reference (the material hypostases).
> And the point is that it makes comp + the classical theory of
> knowledge testable.
> >> It has come back through the doubtful idea of the collapse of the
> >> wave
> >> packet. It is a way to avoid the literal many-worlds aspect of the
> >> linear quantum evolution. This has been debunked by many since. See
> >> the work of Abner Shimony, for example.
> >> I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the
> >> idea that "everything" is simpler than "something".
> >> Of course Everett has given a comp phenomenological account of the
> >> collapse with the linear equation, so that if consciousness collapse
> >> physically "the wave, you need a non-comp theory of consciousness.
> >> Then comp by itself is a theory of consciousness, and does provide a
> >> transparent (I mean testable) link with consciousness, not by
> >> identifying the mystery of consciousness with a non linear and non
> >> mechanical phenomenon (the collapse) but by providing an explanation
> >> of the quantum and the linear from the computationalist hypothesis.
> >>>> Given that conciousness seems all too clearly to be centrally
> >>>> involved
> >>>> in quantum mechanics,
> >>> That isn't clear at all
> >> It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other
> >> theories are too vague, or refuted).
> > Not at all. Objective collapse theories such as GRW have not been
> > refuted,
> > and "spiritual interpretations", like von Neumann's are the vagues of
> > the lot
> I refer you to Shimony for a refutation that consciousness can
> collapse the Q wave.
> And GRW proposes a new theory, which they admit themselves to be ad
> hoc, and makes no sense in QM+relativity. I am not sure at all it
> works even for non relativistic QM.
So? "conscisouness does it by magic" is not better.
>It would reduce Quantum
> computation to classical probabilistic computation, in particular.
> That might still be possible (forgetting relativity). I can imagine
> that it could lead to the collapse of many comp complexity classes,
> including P and NP.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at