On 13 May 2012, at 04:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/12/2012 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Evgenii,

All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or "unique-universe" theory are non computationalist dualist theories.

Not all of them, at least not in the sense of dualist you mean. Adrian Kent has proposed a one-universe theory which doesn't suffer the ambiguity of the Copenhagen interpretation.

arXiv:0708.3710v3 "Real World Interpretation of Quantum Theory"

It has some problems similar to those of everything theories, namely showing that a quasi-classical universe is stable against a chaos of quantum white rabbits.

But as Shimony has shown, the idea that consciousness collapse the wave leads to many difficulties, like non local hidden variables in physics, or solipsism in philosophy of mind. Or even just the problem to say what exactly is the collapse, on which all believers in collapse differ.

I think it only leads to these problems if you take the wf to be an objective property of the system. A more instrumentalist interpretation (c.f. Asher Peres "Quantum Theory:Concepts and Methods) which takes the wf to be a way of predicting measurement results doesn't suffer these problems: 'collapse' is just a change in our information.

OK, but then the superposition remains, and you have many worlds, or many dreams. QM without collapse, and without many worlds just look like word play to me. You can always define a world by a set of physical events close for interaction. QM entails many worlds in that sense, even if subjective, in the "subjective" interpretation of the wf. So Asher, unlike Kent, is still a form of "don't ask", on the nature of the world. Kent at least try to make sense of a realist QM with a single universe. But it never succeeds, and given that I believed in the multiverse even before knowing anything of QM, I have stopped for awhile to read him, to be honest.

Bruno



Brent


Computationalism and Everett (QM without collapse) have no problems in that respect, and line up well with the everything-like use of Occam.

Bruno


On 12 May 2012, at 13:03, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.

Evgenii

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/05/quantum-dualist-interactionism.html

In Chapter 2, Conscious Souls, Brains and Quantum Mechanics there is a nice section Quantum Dualist Interactionism (p. 17 – 21) where Max Velmans describes works that present interpretation of dualism in the framework of quantum mechanics.

Stapp, H. (2007a) ‘Quantum mechanical theories of consciousness’ in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness, pp. 300-312.

Stapp, H. (2007b) ‘Quantum approaches to consciousness’ in The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, pp. 881-908.

Stapp, H. (2007c) Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer.

Interestingly enough Stapp refers to the work of von Neumann:

Von Neumann, J. (1955/1932) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics/Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantummechanik.

p. 19. “In various interpretations of quantum mechanics there is in any case ambiguity, and associated controversy, about where in the observation process a choice about what to observe and a subsequent observation is made. For example, according to the ‘Gopenhagen

Convention’, the original formation of quantum theory developed by Niels Bohr, there is a clear separation between the process taking place in the observer (Process 1) and the process taking place in the system that is being observed (Process 2).”

p. 21. “To differentiate the conscious part of Process 1 (the ‘conscious ego’) from the physically embodied part, Stapp (2007c) refers to it as ‘Process 0′. Stapp believes that such quantum dualist interactionism neatly sidesteps the classical problems of mind-body (or consciousness-brain) interaction (see Stapp, 2007a, p. 305). According to the von Neumann/Stapp theory, consciousness (Process 0) chooses what question to ask; through the meditation of Process 1 that interacts with Process 2 (the developing possibilities specified by the quantum mechanics of the physical system under interrogation, including the brain) – and Nature supplies an answer, which in turn reflected in conscious experience (making the entire process a form of dualism- interactionism).”

p. 21. “A central claim of the von Neumann/Stapp theory, for example, is that it is the observer’s conscious free will (von

Neumann’s ‘abstract ego’ or Stapp’s ‘Process 0′) that chooses how to probe nature.”

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to