JavaScriptDonkey wrote:
Ludwig wrote:
Where did I say I think that? I think the opposite.
So you think we can garner information from the Universe without interacting with it?
I hope you're genuinely trying to understand what I'm saying, and not just looking for straw men to set fire to.
Without the means to measure attributes of subatomic particles, we can know nothing about them.
Ludwig wrote:Because what is being changed is not a single, simple characteristic of that "thing", but its very nature.
Now you're floundering. 'It's very nature' is woolly nonsense.
I made quite clear what I meant elsewhere. I believe that until we measure an attribute of a particle, it exists only in a state of potentiality - as a probability wave, to use a somewhat limited term.
There is no materialist interpretation of physics.
There can be any interpretation of physics we like.
The Cambridge physicist I mentioned earlier on once said expressly that he was looking for a materialist interpretation of QM.
Materialism is a philosophical notion dealing with the existence of souls.
You what? What on earth are you talking about?
Firstly, all interpretations of physics are philosophical. Otherwise, all we have are equations.
Secondly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism wrote:
In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.
What has this got to do with the existence of souls?
You're redefining terms at every step to avoid engaging with what, if you've any common sense, I think it should be clear I am trying to say.
Ludwig wrote:The double slit experiment shows that this interpretation cannot be true. When we don't look to see which slit a particle goes through, it goes through both. It shows up on the detector in a position it can't possibly have arrived at if it had definitely gone through one slit or the other.
Oh really? And how is the electron observed without interacting with it?
Do you know what the double slit experiment is? I didn't describe it, because it is described in every single book on quantum mechanics that I've ever read, and I gave you credit for having read at least one of them.
Anyhow, I shall spell it out. God knows why I am bothering, there are any number of Web sites where you can read about it.
You fire a scattered electron beam towards a screen with two slits in it. Beyond the screen is another screen that registers the arrival of electrons through the slits.
Firstly, you fire the beam without placing any measurement apparatus adjacent to the first screen. So you are not observing which slit each electron goes through.
Most electrons simply hit the first screen and ricochet back.
When they hit the second screen, the electrons that make it through the holes form an interference pattern. The pattern is characteristic of waves. Electrons appear at points on the second screen where they could not possibly have ended up if they had followed a straight trajectory through either one hole or the other.
Now do the same experiment, but this time place a piece of measuring apparatus adjacent to the first screen, so that you can see which slit each electron goes through.
The interference pattern now disappears, and electrons appear on the second screen in positions consistent with their having gone through one hole or the other.
In the first run of the experiment, the electrons retained their "wave" nature until the moment they were registered on the second screen. Until that moment, they
quite literally appear to travel through both holes at once.
In the second run, the wave function collapsed at the first screen, and the electrons exhibit particle-like behaviour thereafter (notably, straight trajectories).
Ludwig wrote:I'm guessing that both you and AndySir have been through the education system since the idea of listening to, and assessing, other points of view dispassionately was dropped, in favour of the idea that all opinions are a priori valid, and that the sign of a good mind is the ability to wilfully misinterpret others' statements in such a way that you can "prove" them wrong. That may be a good way of boosting young people's self-esteem, but it guarantees they will never learn anything.
Whereas I'm guessing you have never had a science lecture in your life and earned a degree by parroting out the viewpoints of authorities.
That sounds like a coy acknowledgment that I was correct.
You start out assuming that you are correct, that no one else has anything important to tell you, and that when somebody presents an opinion different to yours, however knowledgeable they are and however logically they present it, the difference of opinion can only be explained by the fact that they are wrong and you are right.
At least listen to authorities before you reject them.
Incidentally, I earned a degree by learning French and German vocabulary and grammar, and listening to what my tutors taught me about how to interpret literature and how to formulate an argument in essay form.
Studying literature, despite the derision third-rate scientists heap on it, is one of the best ways of developing a critical mindset and understanding points of view other than one's own.
I understand that the world of QM is appealing to philosophers as it looks like they can prove their theories with real science but it doesn't work that way. QM no more provides evidence for consciousness than it provides evidence for the Flying Soup Dragon.
I never said QM provides evidence for consciousness. You're not even attempting to follow UE's or my arguments, you're just reinventing them as nonsense in your own head.
Evidence for consciousness is in the fact that you, reading this, are aware that you are reading this, and therefore are conscious.
If you want "consciousness" to mean something else than the dictionary definition and the bleeding obvious, then fine. On your own terms, you can't lose this argument.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
