On 07 Mar 2011, at 15:10, 1Z wrote:
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,
is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most
aspect of physics."
How does he know consciousness is fundamental?
Consciousness has been put under the rug by physicists since about
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
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.
There is no human observation without consciousness. We can use
physical equation to predict where a planet can be, not where a planet
can be seen, but we usually link the two. The greeks were aware that
link necessitate a theory which unify knowledge and escape the dream
problem. Aristotle was aware of that too, but its followers took his
primary matter for granted, and this had made easier the separation of
theology from the science, with the result of making physics a
theology which ignores itself.
This leads to problem with respect to the new physics
So you say. Many think QM problems have nothing
to do with consc.
QM has just dingle out the more general problem of the existence of
consciousness in a physical world. I am not saying that consciousness
is related per se with the quantum. On the contrary, as you know, I
defend Everett, and Everett use the less magical theory of
consciousness: comp (or weakening).
Consciousness plays a role in physics because we have to link being
and seeing. All physical theories uses an implicit theory of
consciousness (the identity thesis, or what is is what I see).
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.
Then I am even more a physicist. Indeed I show that the comp theory of
consciousness (computationalism) is empirically falsifiable (accepting
the greek classical theory of knowledge).
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
They do not neglect comp. They use it implicitly ever since Aristotle,
and explicitly since Everett. They neglect the consciousness, or the
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
It was fundamental for the greek. Science is born from an
understanding that the physical reality might hide something, notably
mathematical truth (Xeuxippes), or just 'truth', the original "god" of
the Platonists. But you can do physics without working on the mind-
body problem. But fundamental physics is more demanding. To solve the
mind-body problem in a monist theory, you have to sacrify, at the
ontological level, either mind or matter (provably so assuming comp).
. I just try to understand that phenomenon, among
other phenomenon. And I show that if we suppose that consciousness
be related to some computation, then matter is not fundamental.
"emerges" as a modality of self-reference (the material hypostases).
And the point is that it makes comp + the classical theory of
It has come back through the doubtful idea of the collapse of the
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
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
physically "the wave, you need a non-comp theory of consciousness.
Then comp by itself is a theory of consciousness, and does
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
of the quantum and the linear from the computationalist hypothesis.
Given that conciousness seems all too clearly to be centrally
in quantum mechanics,
That isn't clear at all
It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the
theories are too vague, or refuted).
Not at all. Objective collapse theories such as GRW have not been
and "spiritual interpretations", like von Neumann's are the vagues
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.
I agree so much with you here. I was pointing on the Shimony works
which shows exactly that.
With comp, consciousness acts notably by filtering actualized
possibility. That is what the first indeterminacy shows. Then the math
shows that if you approximate consciousness by believe in a reality,
consciousness acquire a role of self-speeding up ability.
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