Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[stephenk]

On May 12, 8:00 pm, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  On 5/12/2012 10:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM, scerir  wrote:
>
> >> >A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
> >> >Evgenii
>
> >>  H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
> >> a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
> >> actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves
> >> packet).
> >> Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
> >> outcome).
> >> Born agreed.  Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
> >> and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed, there
> >> was "the free-will of the human observer".
>
> >  Leibniz, IMO, would also claim that Nature makes the choice, but that
> > his collection of monads perceive (based on their consciousness) what is
> > the best possible wave function choice to obtain the best possible
> > universe. What Leibniz apparently leaves out of his philosophy is that
> > human free-will consciousness can make the world imperfect, perhaps even
> > suicidal. String theory seems consistent with Leibniz in that the discrete
> > balls of compactified dimensions have some monad properties, which is these
> > days what I preach. And I wonder if this could be consistent with COMP,
> > since it's all theological. Richard
>
> > Hi Richard,
>
> >     We can strip out all the religiosity from Leibniz' ideas.
>
> >     Leibniz' monads where perseptions themselves, not entities that where
> > conscious and perceived things. What we have previously discussed as
> > "Observer Moments" are a better analogy to what Leibniz had in mind. He did
> > postulate that God arranged them such that their content was always
> > synchronized; this is the "pre-established harmony" (PEH) concept. I think
> > that Leibniz' mistake was to assume that there exists an "absolute"
> > observer" with a "view from nowhere" that defined an objective 3-p. There
> > are strong mathematical inconsistencies with this idea.
> >     For one thing, a PEH requires the discovery and application of a
> > solution to an infinite SAT complexity problem, not the mere existence of
> > one.-
>
> > Onward!
>
> > Hi Stephan,
>
> If what you say is true about monads, that each does not see the entire
> universe, then they cannot be the balls of compactified dimensions of
> string theory because Brian Greene's 2d solution indicates that each maps
> the entire outside plane to its inside. Now that may not be consciousness
> and Leibniz did say that his monads were not exactly conscious.  But to me
> mapping the universe to the interior, a kind of inverse holography, sounds
> exactly like what Leibniz says of his monads in his tract Monadology. I
> have no idea what you mean by your last sentence above.
> Inward,
> Richard
Hi Richard,
  It is not correct to think of the monads as "compactified
dimensions" in the usual way as this would define an inside-outside
relation on them that does is incompatible with the duality. The
relation is similar to what Brian Greene describes, but the relation
is not the usual mapping between geometric manifolds.
  Leibniz used a very simple notion of consciousness. Craig's notion
of Sense is the closest analogy that I have found so far.

  The "pre-established harmony" (PEH) concept is equivalent to an
infinite theory or model that defines all of the states of the
universe in a way that does not allow any contradictions.

Onward!

Stephen P. King

-- 
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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Stephen P. King]

On 5/15/2012 5:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Stephen,


On 14 May 2012, at 19:16, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 5/14/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse 
interpretation, they will start working more productively?


They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he 
taught chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true 
only on little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate 
Bell's inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he 
revised his opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true 
macroscopically, and that it makes the weirdness a real fact of 
life. De Broglie behaves like ghat too. This illustrates that people 
can use a theory, without taking it seriously, because they follow 
their wishful conviction. It is typical for humans to do that.


If you decide the destination of your holiday with a quantum choice, 
QM predicts that all the term of the wave makes sense, and that 
"you" will differentiate into going to all the chosen Holiday 
places. If you believe that only one term "really results", it is up 
to you to say what is wrong in QM.


Hi Bruno,

Could we agree that this concept of "really results" is merely 
the folk language way of talking about what we can communicate 
unambiguously about?


It is the content intended in that folk language, but it is also the 
literal reading of the wave.


Hi Bruno,

But you must understand that the "wave" does not encode position 
information thus you cannot speak of it as if it does; doing so is 
mathematically inconsistent. You must understand that the "wave" picture 
assumes a particular basis, the momentum basis via the phase and the 
amplitude quantities of the wave, and it does consider position 
questions only to the degree that they can be specified by the Fourier 
transform. In the wave picture there is not such thing as "you are in 
Moscow" or "you are in Helsinki" or "you are in Washington". That 
information is simply not considered by the representations and so 
questions regarding places are unanswerable.
One thing that is the hardest part of QM for people to understand - 
at least it was for me - is the implications of the freedom and need to 
choose a basis. Without specifying the basis, it is not possible to 
define the inner product or orthogonality relation for the state 
vectors. It is impossible to have a predictive theory at all!


I mention all of this because it is what is informing my question. 
I am asking about how it is that we continue to assume things about our 
shared reality that we know are false? We have to start off with a set 
of assumptions as to what is required for us to have a shared Reality in 
the first place, not just assume that the Reality is "out there" and we 
somehow can talk coherently about it.




I see this as the same kind of idea as what you describe with Diary 
entries in your UDA. In that sense it seems to me that this is 
something that could use more closer exploration.


Sure. Everything I say deserves more closer exploration. That's the 
goal. Now, I present a reasoning, and its validity is independent of 
further exploration.


That is a nice attitude, Bruno Marchal is the "designator of what 
is interesting" (/sarcasm). What is true, my dear friend, but only for 
you. Your identity is tied up in what is interesting to you, but you are 
not the only mind that exist and your interests and Identity is not the 
only one that must be accounted for.




I have a conjecture that our "shared reality" is restricted to being 
representable by a Boolean algebra (not a Heyting algebra!), have you 
any comment on this?


Why not. As long as we try to explain how such classicality emerge 
from the quantum, itself emerging from the classical relations of numbers.


You share that particular belief with many people, even - to my 
surprise - David Deutsch. I have come to the conclusion that that belief 
may be false; numbers in general are not necessarily "classical objects" 
with classical relations. Only the Integers come close to being 
"classical" but that is only because they are specified in advance to 
have a particular set of properties. Numbers in general cannot be said 
to have some particular set of properties in an a priori fashion unless 
one has specified the Arithmetic (algebra of relations between the 
numbers) structure that defines the basis within which the numbers can 
be known.


This is a symptom of a problem in the Bp&p formulation of truth, it 
assumes an accidental  
notion of how it is that a particular string has some particular set of 
properties. I might agree with you that this is a good place to start in 
one's theology/cosmogony ideas motivating toward an ontological theory, 
as you discuss in your explanations of the hypostases, but it is not 
w

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 May 2012, at 22:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 14.05.2012 10:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...

Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse.  
When

you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start
thinking about it.


On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one  
reason
really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative argument.  
Science is

not a question of majority vote.


My empirical observations just shows that the easiness and  
obviousness that you stress to accept multiverse seems to be  
overestimated. The life seems to be more complex.


But that is true for any conception. 0 universes, 1 universes, etc.





...

Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time  
and

I would say they have been already successful without a multiverse.


No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to  
talk


In my view, your position that chemists have used multiverse all the  
time contradicts to historical facts.


They have use it without knowing. They use the collapse  
methodologically, and they are not interested in reality, but in  
practical applications. But they do use "state superposition", and  
they do know the equation is linear.
A cosmologists asked me a long time ago if it makes logical sense to  
apply QM to the cosmos. I said "yes" if we abandon the collapse of the  
wave and refer him to Everett. In his paper he just added a tiny  
footnote referring to Everett. Some ideas are shocking, for cultural  
reason, and are accepted in some silencious way.


If you study the UD Argument, you can understand that elementary  
arithmetic leads already to many worlds, with very weak version of  
comp. This shocks some of us, like the idea that the Earth is round,  
and turns around the sun can be shocking. But it is just much simpler  
for the big picture sense.







with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent for
themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid the
contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to avoid
looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain  
personal
conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM = multiverse. The  
collapse
of the wave is already an invention to hide the multiverse, and it  
has

never work.


You should look what molecular simulation is. It has nothing to do  
with the collapse of wave function. Whether wave function collapses  
or not, for chemists it does not matter.


Sure. This is because they focuses on the accessible reality, and for  
them, an electronic orbital is like a map where to find an electron.  
They use both the wave, which gives the shape of the orbital, and the  
collapse, to describe the result. They don't focus of what is real in  
case QM applies to 'them + the electron', for they focus only on the  
electron. Now, if one say that there is a collapse, then one just use  
an inconsistent fuzzy theory which has never really work. here we  
discuss everything, not just electron.



They use quantum mechanics according to instrumentalism and, as I  
have written, they have been successful.


For their result, yes. With respect to the big picture, they don't  
ask. It is their right. We are just not tackling the same question.








Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse
interpretation, they will start working more productively?


They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he taught
chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true only on
little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate Bell's
inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he revised  
his
opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true macroscopically,  
and
that it makes the weirdness a real fact of life. De Broglie behaves  
like
ghat too. This illustrates that people can use a theory, without  
taking

it seriously, because they follow their wishful conviction. It is
typical for humans to do that.


Again, you need to look at what molecular simulation is. What you  
write has nothing to do with molecular simulation, nor with the way  
how chemists develop new molecules and materials.


But this is a different job. I am not interested in electron, but in  
question like what is an electron, is it real, where its appearance  
comes from, etc.





That was my point, try to apply multiverse ideas to develop a new  
drug more productively.


Using QM, and being aware the collapse is non sensical (or could be)  
means that you use the multiverse idea, because that is QM (without  
collapse). People can easily use theories, without trying to get the  
deep and annoying (for them) consequences. It change also the picture  
of possible after-life, in which case we are all using it all the time.




I would say that it will not

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Stephen,


On 14 May 2012, at 19:16, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 5/14/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 13.05.2012 15:09 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Evgenii,

All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or "unique-universe"  
theory

are non computationalist dualist theories.
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.


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




I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch.  
Yet, I

am not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.


The multiverse is a logical consequence of "1+1= 2", and  
mechanism. You

don't need quantum mechanics.

Then quantum mechanics, the first theory in physics succeeding to
survive more that 5 years (indeed about a century now), is very  
solid,

and based on very simple math, and it confirms the mechanism
multiverse/multidream.

So, to avoid the multiverse, you have to postulate very special  
physical

laws, yet unobserved, and a very special theory of person, yet
unobserved. Why not, but it is very speculative, and seems to be  
driven

by wishful thinking only.


I am glad that you believe in multiverse and find it logical.


I am just saying that a "multiverse" or a "multidream" is a logical  
consequence of comp. Not that I believe in multiverse.
But yes, it is plausible, and simpler conceptually than the  
speculation about one universe, or one computation.





Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse.  
When you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will  
start thinking about it.


On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start  
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one  
reason really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative  
argument. Science is not a question of majority vote.





For example, I do not remember that multiverse has been even  
mentioned in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. He discusses an  
eleven-dimensional space needed for the superstring theory but not  
the multiverse.


Martin Gardner said that the "many worlds" concept was the best  
hidden secret of the 20th centunary (and he talked of the QM  
multiverse, not the "more obvious" comp one).






You could as well defend the theory that the earth is flat, and  
build ad

hoc rules to explain why it seems to be a sphere.




I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model.


Yes. It is a theory. An hypothesis, very weird, but strongly  
supported
by the facts, and whose main weird consequences are also a  
consequence

of elementary arithmetic, and mechanism (even without any facts).



David Deutsch does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is  
a bad

philosophy and that we must take physical theories literally.


I agree with Deutsch on this. That is science. Taking ideas  
seriously,
so that we can change the theories more quickly when refuted. But  
then
Deutsch uses comp, and very typically, like many, ignore its  
logical

consequence. So Deutsch does not follow his own philosophy.





In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the
truth as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical  
inquiry.


After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?


To learn and to try to figure out what happens here and now.


Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time  
and I would say they have been already successful without a  
multiverse.


No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to  
talk with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent  
for themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid  
the contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to  
avoid looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain  
personal conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM =  
multiverse. The collapse of the wave is already an invention to  
hide the multiverse, and it has never work.



Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse  
interpretation, they will start working more productively?


They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he  
taught chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was  
true only on little distance, so he predicts that nature did not  
violate Bell's inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was  
done, he revised his opini

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 14.05.2012 10:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...


Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse. When
you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start
thinking about it.


On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one reason
really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative argument. Science is
not a question of majority vote.


My empirical observations just shows that the easiness and obviousness 
that you stress to accept multiverse seems to be overestimated. The life 
seems to be more complex.


...


Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time and
I would say they have been already successful without a multiverse.


No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to talk


In my view, your position that chemists have used multiverse all the 
time contradicts to historical facts.



with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent for
themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid the
contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to avoid
looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain personal
conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM = multiverse. The collapse
of the wave is already an invention to hide the multiverse, and it has
never work.


You should look what molecular simulation is. It has nothing to do with 
the collapse of wave function. Whether wave function collapses or not, 
for chemists it does not matter. They use quantum mechanics according to 
instrumentalism and, as I have written, they have been successful.





Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse
interpretation, they will start working more productively?


They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he taught
chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true only on
little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate Bell's
inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he revised his
opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true macroscopically, and
that it makes the weirdness a real fact of life. De Broglie behaves like
ghat too. This illustrates that people can use a theory, without taking
it seriously, because they follow their wishful conviction. It is
typical for humans to do that.


Again, you need to look at what molecular simulation is. What you write 
has nothing to do with molecular simulation, nor with the way how 
chemists develop new molecules and materials.


That was my point, try to apply multiverse ideas to develop a new drug 
more productively. I would say that it will not work, because the 
collapse of wave function is irrelevant at this level.


Evgenii

--
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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Stephen P. King]

On 5/14/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 13.05.2012 15:09 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Evgenii,

All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or "unique-universe" 
theory

are non computationalist dualist theories.
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.

Computationalism and Everett (QM without collapse) have no 
problems in

that respect, and line up well with the everything-like use of Occam.



I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Yet, I
am not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.


The multiverse is a logical consequence of "1+1= 2", and mechanism. You
don't need quantum mechanics.

Then quantum mechanics, the first theory in physics succeeding to
survive more that 5 years (indeed about a century now), is very solid,
and based on very simple math, and it confirms the mechanism
multiverse/multidream.

So, to avoid the multiverse, you have to postulate very special 
physical

laws, yet unobserved, and a very special theory of person, yet
unobserved. Why not, but it is very speculative, and seems to be driven
by wishful thinking only.


I am glad that you believe in multiverse and find it logical.


I am just saying that a "multiverse" or a "multidream" is a logical 
consequence of comp. Not that I believe in multiverse.
But yes, it is plausible, and simpler conceptually than the 
speculation about one universe, or one computation.





Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse. When 
you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start 
thinking about it.


On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start 
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one 
reason really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative argument. 
Science is not a question of majority vote.





For example, I do not remember that multiverse has been even 
mentioned in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. He discusses an 
eleven-dimensional space needed for the superstring theory but not 
the multiverse.


Martin Gardner said that the "many worlds" concept was the best hidden 
secret of the 20th centunary (and he talked of the QM multiverse, not 
the "more obvious" comp one).






You could as well defend the theory that the earth is flat, and 
build ad

hoc rules to explain why it seems to be a sphere.




I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model.


Yes. It is a theory. An hypothesis, very weird, but strongly supported
by the facts, and whose main weird consequences are also a consequence
of elementary arithmetic, and mechanism (even without any facts).




David Deutsch does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is a bad
philosophy and that we must take physical theories literally.


I agree with Deutsch on this. That is science. Taking ideas seriously,
so that we can change the theories more quickly when refuted. But then
Deutsch uses comp, and very typically, like many, ignore its logical
consequence. So Deutsch does not follow his own philosophy.





In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the
truth as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical 
inquiry.


After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?


To learn and to try to figure out what happens here and now.


Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time and 
I would say they have been already successful without a multiverse.


No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to 
talk with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent for 
themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid the 
contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to avoid 
looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain personal 
conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM = multiverse. The 
collapse of the wave is already an invention to hide the multiverse, 
and it has never work.



Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse 
interpretation, they will start working more productively?


They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he taught 
chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true only on 
little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate Bell's 
inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he revised his 
opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true macroscopically, 
and that it makes the weirdness a real fact of life. De Broglie 
be

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 13.05.2012 15:09 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Evgenii,

All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or "unique-universe"  
theory

are non computationalist dualist theories.
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.

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




I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Yet, I
am not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.


The multiverse is a logical consequence of "1+1= 2", and mechanism.  
You

don't need quantum mechanics.

Then quantum mechanics, the first theory in physics succeeding to
survive more that 5 years (indeed about a century now), is very  
solid,

and based on very simple math, and it confirms the mechanism
multiverse/multidream.

So, to avoid the multiverse, you have to postulate very special  
physical

laws, yet unobserved, and a very special theory of person, yet
unobserved. Why not, but it is very speculative, and seems to be  
driven

by wishful thinking only.


I am glad that you believe in multiverse and find it logical.


I am just saying that a "multiverse" or a "multidream" is a logical  
consequence of comp. Not that I believe in multiverse.
But yes, it is plausible, and simpler conceptually than the  
speculation about one universe, or one computation.





Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse.  
When you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start  
thinking about it.


On reality, usually all humans are wrong. Also, if people start  
reasoning when the majority is convinced, this means that no one  
reason really. You should avoid that kind of authoritative argument.  
Science is not a question of majority vote.





For example, I do not remember that multiverse has been even  
mentioned in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. He discusses an  
eleven-dimensional space needed for the superstring theory but not  
the multiverse.


Martin Gardner said that the "many worlds" concept was the best hidden  
secret of the 20th centunary (and he talked of the QM multiverse, not  
the "more obvious" comp one).






You could as well defend the theory that the earth is flat, and  
build ad

hoc rules to explain why it seems to be a sphere.




I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model.


Yes. It is a theory. An hypothesis, very weird, but strongly  
supported
by the facts, and whose main weird consequences are also a  
consequence

of elementary arithmetic, and mechanism (even without any facts).



David Deutsch does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is a  
bad

philosophy and that we must take physical theories literally.


I agree with Deutsch on this. That is science. Taking ideas  
seriously,
so that we can change the theories more quickly when refuted. But  
then

Deutsch uses comp, and very typically, like many, ignore its logical
consequence. So Deutsch does not follow his own philosophy.





In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the
truth as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical  
inquiry.


After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?


To learn and to try to figure out what happens here and now.


Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time  
and I would say they have been already successful without a  
multiverse.


No, this is false. They use multiverse all the time. They prefer to  
talk with the "superposition state labeling", and they can invent for  
themselves the idea that QM does not apply to them, to avoid the  
contagion of he superposition state, but that's word play to avoid  
looking at what happens. It is just avoiding facts to sustain personal  
conviction. Humans does that all the time. QM = multiverse. The  
collapse of the wave is already an invention to hide the multiverse,  
and it has never work.



Do you mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse  
interpretation, they will start working more productively?


They accept it. I have a book, by Baggot, who explains that he taught  
chemistry for 17 years, absolutely convinced that QM was true only on  
little distance, so he predicts that nature did not violate Bell's  
inequality, but when the experience of Aspect was done, he revised his  
opinion, and accept the idea that QM might be true macroscopically,  
and that it makes the weirdness a real fact of life.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 13.05.2012 15:09 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Evgenii,

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

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



I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Yet, I
am not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.


The multiverse is a logical consequence of "1+1= 2", and mechanism. You
don't need quantum mechanics.

Then quantum mechanics, the first theory in physics succeeding to
survive more that 5 years (indeed about a century now), is very solid,
and based on very simple math, and it confirms the mechanism
multiverse/multidream.

So, to avoid the multiverse, you have to postulate very special physical
laws, yet unobserved, and a very special theory of person, yet
unobserved. Why not, but it is very speculative, and seems to be driven
by wishful thinking only.


I am glad that you believe in multiverse and find it logical. Yet, I 
guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse. When you 
convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start thinking 
about it.


For example, I do not remember that multiverse has been even mentioned 
in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. He discusses an 
eleven-dimensional space needed for the superstring theory but not the 
multiverse.



You could as well defend the theory that the earth is flat, and build ad
hoc rules to explain why it seems to be a sphere.




I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model.


Yes. It is a theory. An hypothesis, very weird, but strongly supported
by the facts, and whose main weird consequences are also a consequence
of elementary arithmetic, and mechanism (even without any facts).




David Deutsch does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is a bad
philosophy and that we must take physical theories literally.


I agree with Deutsch on this. That is science. Taking ideas seriously,
so that we can change the theories more quickly when refuted. But then
Deutsch uses comp, and very typically, like many, ignore its logical
consequence. So Deutsch does not follow his own philosophy.





In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the
truth as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical inquiry.

After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?


To learn and to try to figure out what happens here and now.


Let us take chemists. They use molecular modeling for a long time and I 
would say they have been already successful without a multiverse. Do you 
mean that when all chemists accept the multiverse interpretation, they 
will start working more productively?


Evgenii

--
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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Bruno Marchal]

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:/

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Bruno Marchal]

On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Evgenii,

All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or "unique-universe"  
theory

are non computationalist dualist theories.
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.

Computationalism and Everett (QM without collapse) have no problems  
in

that respect, and line up well with the everything-like use of Occam.



I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Yet, I  
am not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.


The multiverse is a logical consequence of "1+1= 2", and mechanism.  
You don't need quantum mechanics.


Then quantum mechanics, the first theory in physics succeeding to  
survive more that 5 years (indeed about a century now), is very solid,  
and based on very simple math, and it confirms the mechanism  
multiverse/multidream.


So, to avoid the multiverse, you have to postulate very special  
physical laws, yet unobserved, and a very special theory of person,  
yet unobserved. Why not, but it is very speculative, and seems to be  
driven by wishful thinking only.


You could as well defend the theory that the earth is flat, and build  
ad hoc rules to explain why it seems to be a sphere.





I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model.


Yes. It is a theory. An hypothesis, very weird, but strongly supported  
by the facts, and whose main weird consequences are also a consequence  
of elementary arithmetic, and mechanism (even without any facts).




David Deutsch does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is a  
bad philosophy and that we must take physical theories literally.


I agree with Deutsch on this. That is science. Taking ideas seriously,  
so that we can change the theories more quickly when refuted. But then  
Deutsch uses comp, and very typically, like many, ignore its logical  
consequence. So Deutsch does not follow his own philosophy.






In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the  
truth as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical  
inquiry.


After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity  
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into  
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?


To learn and to try to figure out what happens here and now.

Bruno

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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 13.05.2012 04:38 meekerdb said the following:

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.

Brent



Brent,

Could you please comment on

On the reality of the quantum state
Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett & Terry Rudolph
Nature Physics, (2012)

http://www.nature.com/news/a-boost-for-quantum-reality-1.10602

What does it imply?

Evgenii



--
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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[meekerdb]

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.


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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 5/12/2012 10:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM, scerir  wrote:
>
>> >A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
>> >Evgenii
>>
>>  H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
>> a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
>> actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves
>> packet).
>> Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
>> outcome).
>> Born agreed.  Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
>> and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed, there
>> was "the free-will of the human observer".
>>
>>
>>
>  Leibniz, IMO, would also claim that Nature makes the choice, but that
> his collection of monads perceive (based on their consciousness) what is
> the best possible wave function choice to obtain the best possible
> universe. What Leibniz apparently leaves out of his philosophy is that
> human free-will consciousness can make the world imperfect, perhaps even
> suicidal. String theory seems consistent with Leibniz in that the discrete
> balls of compactified dimensions have some monad properties, which is these
> days what I preach. And I wonder if this could be consistent with COMP,
> since it's all theological. Richard
>
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> We can strip out all the religiosity from Leibniz' ideas.
>
> Leibniz' monads where perseptions themselves, not entities that where
> conscious and perceived things. What we have previously discussed as
> "Observer Moments" are a better analogy to what Leibniz had in mind. He did
> postulate that God arranged them such that their content was always
> synchronized; this is the "pre-established harmony" (PEH) concept. I think
> that Leibniz' mistake was to assume that there exists an "absolute"
> observer" with a "view from nowhere" that defined an objective 3-p. There
> are strong mathematical inconsistencies with this idea.
> For one thing, a PEH requires the discovery and application of a
> solution to an infinite SAT complexity problem, not the mere existence of
> one.-
>
> Onward!
>
> Hi Stephan,

If what you say is true about monads, that each does not see the entire
universe, then they cannot be the balls of compactified dimensions of
string theory because Brian Greene's 2d solution indicates that each maps
the entire outside plane to its inside. Now that may not be consciousness
and Leibniz did say that his monads were not exactly conscious.  But to me
mapping the universe to the interior, a kind of inverse holography, sounds
exactly like what Leibniz says of his monads in his tract Monadology. I
have no idea what you mean by your last sentence above.
Inward,
Richard

> Stephen
>
> "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
> ~ Francis Bacon
>
>  --
> 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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Stephen P. King]

On 5/12/2012 10:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:



On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM, scerir > wrote:


>A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
>Evgenii

H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990)
reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of
waves packet).
Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
outcome).
Born agreed.  Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be
followed, there
was "the free-will of the human observer".



Leibniz, IMO, would also claim that Nature makes the choice, but that 
his collection of monads perceive (based on their consciousness) what 
is the best possible wave function choice to obtain the best possible 
universe. What Leibniz apparently leaves out of his philosophy is that 
human free-will consciousness can make the world imperfect, perhaps 
even suicidal. String theory seems consistent with Leibniz in that the 
discrete balls of compactified dimensions have some monad properties, 
which is these days what I preach. And I wonder if this could be 
consistent with COMP, since it's all theological. Richard




Hi Richard,

We can strip out all the religiosity from Leibniz' ideas.

Leibniz' monads where perseptions themselves, not entities that 
where conscious and perceived things. What we have previously discussed 
as "Observer Moments" are a better analogy to what Leibniz had in mind. 
He did postulate that God arranged them such that their content was 
always synchronized; this is the "pre-established harmony" (PEH) 
concept. I think that Leibniz' mistake was to assume that there exists 
an "absolute" observer" with a "view from nowhere" that defined an 
objective 3-p. There are strong mathematical inconsistencies with this 
idea.
For one thing, a PEH requires the discovery and application of a 
solution to an infinite SAT complexity problem, not the mere existence 
of one.


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM, scerir  wrote:

> >A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
> >Evgenii
>
> H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
> a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
> actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves
> packet).
> Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
> outcome).
> Born agreed.  Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
> and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed, there
> was "the free-will of the human observer".
>
>
>
Leibniz, IMO, would also claim that Nature makes the choice, but that his
collection of monads perceive (based on their consciousness) what is the
best possible wave function choice to obtain the best possible universe.
What Leibniz apparently leaves out of his philosophy is that human
free-will consciousness can make the world imperfect, perhaps even
suicidal. String theory seems consistent with Leibniz in that the discrete
balls of compactified dimensions have some monad properties, which is these
days what I preach. And I wonder if this could be consistent with COMP,
since it's all theological. Richard


> --
> 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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

Evgenii,

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

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



I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Yet, I am 
not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.


I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model. David Deutsch 
does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is a bad philosophy and 
that we must take physical theories literally.


In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the truth 
as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical inquiry.


After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity 
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into 
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?


Evgenii


--
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.

Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics

[Bruno Marchal]

Evgenii,

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


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.