Hi Bruno Marchal  

There is nothing physical besides the probe before the probe  
interacts with the quantum wave field. The quantum wave field 
is simply a probability field (with prob <1) all over the universe.   
Anything with prob<1 doesn't physically exist,  because the (r,t) is not 
yet fixed. It is nonphysical.  When the probe collapses 
the quantum field, then a physical photon with p=1  
at (r,t) appears (materializes), and is physical because it is at a 
particular (r,t).  

I am not as sure about a physical body such as a ball bearing 
in a gravitational field, but a situation I had never thought of 
might be possible. I am told that the Heisenberg Uncertainty  
principle would also hold for the case of a ball bearing in
a gravitational field, so apparently even fairly large bodies  
can be considered as wavicles, that is, being nonphysical probability
fields with p<1 all over the universe before materializing at
a specific (r,t), where the wavefield collapses.

If this is possible, then the Big Bang might have been the collapse 
of a huge "pre-existing" quantum wave field (? )


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/9/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-08, 13:20:52 
Subject: Re: Wave collapse and consciousness 


On 08 Jan 2013, at 15:57, Roger Clough wrote: 

> Wave collapse and consciousness 
> 
> According to the discussion below, a field only has potential 
> existence, it does not exist by itself. It requires a body to  
> interact with it. 
> This difference is easily confused in usage. For example, we 
> may speak of an electromagnetic field as if it is a real physical 
> entity. But the only "real" part of the field is the electrons 
> moving in/through it. 
> 
> Similarly the quantum field of a photon is only a map showing 
> the probabilities that the photon may exist at certain locations. 
> When the photon collides with something, the probability 
> is de facto 1, and we have an actual photon at that location. 
> 
> So there is no mysterious connection between Cs and the 
> collapse of qm fields, all that is needed is something such 
> as a measurement probe to be in the path of the qm field 
> to cause a collision. 

Are you saying there is nothing without the probe? 
This can be refuted in some quantum experience where interference  
comes from the absence of a probe on a path. 

IN QM, even the (amplitude of) probability is "physically real". 

And what is a particles if not a singularity in a field (as in quantum  
field theory). 

I agree with you, at some other level. Yes, the physical reality is  
only a cosmic GSM to help localizing ourselves in a (vaster) reality.  
Yes, the physical is a map. But this concerns both particles and  
forces/fields. 

You might still be too much materialist for comp, Roger. 

Bruno 




> 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/8/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Roger Clough 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-08, 09:37:17 
> Subject: Re: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruno Marchal 
> 
> IMHO It doesn't matter what type of field. According to the  
> definition below, 
> a field is like a map, it is not the territory itself. ".....that  
> would 
> act on a body at any given point in that region" The word "would" 
> tells us that a field only has potential existence, not existence  
> itself. 
> 
> A gravitational field does not physically exist, IMHO, but exhibits 
> the properties of existence, such as our being able to see a ball 
> tossed in the air rise and fall. But we cannot see the gravitational  
> field itself. 
> It has no physical existence, only potential existence. 
> 
> Or to put it another way, we can not detect a field, we can only 
> detect what it does. (In that case, pragmatism rules. ) 
> 
> http://science.yourdictionary.com/field 
> 
> field 
> 
> "A distribution in a region of space of the strength and direction  
> of a force, 
> such as the electrostatic force near an electrically charged object,  
> that would 
> act on a body at any given point in that region. " 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/8/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-08, 08:36:24 
> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Roger Clough wrote: 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruno Marchal 
> 
> Yes, the theories are nonphysical, and in addition, quantum theories 
> quantum theory applies to quantum fields, which are nonphysical. 
> 
> 
> This is hard for me to grasp. What do you mean by "quantum fields"  
> are not physical? 
> It seems to me that they are as much physical than a magnetic field,  
> or a gravitational field. I don't see any difference. Quantum field  
> theory is just a formulation of quantum mechanics in which  
> "particles" become field singularities, but they have the usual  
> observable properties making them physical, even "material". 
> With computationalism, nothing is *primitively* physical, and  
> physics is no more the fundamental science, but many things remains  
> physical, like fields. They do emerge from the way machine can bet  
> on what is directly accessible by measurement. 
> 
> 
> May be we have a problem of vocabulary. We might use "physical" in  
> different sense. 
> 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/7/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-07, 11:17:56 
> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
> 
> 
> On 06 Jan 2013, at 21:59, Roger Clough wrote: 
> 
>> Hi meekerdb 
>> 
>> Not all physicists are materialists, or if they are, they are 
>> inconsistent 
>> if they deal with quantum physics, which is nonphysical. 
> 
> 
> All theories are non physical, but this does not make a materialist 
> theory inconsistent. With non comp you can make identify mind and non 
> physical things with some class of physical phenomena. 
> 
> Careful, in philosophy of mind, "materialism" means "only matter 
> fundamentally exists". But comp is already contradicting "weak 
> materialism", the thesis that some matter exists fundamentally (among 
> possible other things). 
> 
> Some physicists are non materialist and even non-weak-materialist 
> ( (which is stronger and is necessary with comp). But even them are 
> still often physicalist. They still believe that everything is 
> explainable from the behavior of matter (even if that matter is 
> entirely "ontologically" justified in pure math). 
> 
> Comp refutes this. Physics becomes the art of the numbers to guess 
> what are the most common universal numbers supporting them in their 
> neighborhood, well even the invariant part of this. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
>> 1/6/2013 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> From: meekerdb 
>> Receiver: everything-list 
>> Time: 2013-01-06, 14:17:42 
>> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/6/2013 5:30 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>> Hi meekerdb 
>> 
>> Materialists can't consistently accept inextended structures and 
>> functions such as quantum fields--or if they do, they aren't 
>> materialists. 
>> 
>> So no physicists since Schrodinger are materialists. So materialism 
>> can't very well be "scientific dogma" as you keep asserting. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
>> 1/6/2013 
>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> From: meekerdb 
>> Receiver: everything-list 
>> Time: 2013-01-05, 15:37:09 
>> Subject: Re: Is Sheldrake credible ? I personally think so. 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/5/2013 6:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
>> Hi Richard Ruquist 
>> 
>> Empirical data, to my way of thinking, trumps scientific dogma 
>> (such as materialism) any day. 
>> 
>> It's rather funny that you keep assailing scienctists as being 
>> dogmatic materialists and yet you think their world picture: curved 
>> metric space, quantum fields, schrodinger wave functions,... is all 
>> immaterial. 
>> 
>> Brent 
>> 
>> No virus found in this message. 
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
>> Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 
>> 01/03/13 
>> --  
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group. 
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-  
>> l...@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 
>> . 
>> 
>> --  
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group. 
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-  
>> l...@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  
> . 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --  
> 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.

-- 
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