Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:37 am**

See comment below

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:39 am**

raiderman wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:37 am So now you are falling back to the panpsychist position, though you don't use the word. If you want to assert that an atom is conscious, so be it. But it think it's obvious that only brains produce consciousness.

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:13 am**

For panpsychism to be true all objects would have to possess a mind not just organisms. Unless one thought of the Universe as an organism in and
of itself and therefore possessing consciousness. In the same way that pantheists think of the Universe as God. I however reject both panpsychism
and pantheism because there is precisely no evidence for either of them. And without evidence [ or proof ] a truth claim cannot be demonstrated

Posted: **Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:08 am**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:00 pm "Actually, it's buncombe, not "bunkum,""

Actually bunkum is a perfectly acceptable variant, Dave.

I prefer 'bunkum' cuz 'buncombe' looks like sumthin' a hairdresser would use.

To recap: one world with a dead cat in it. Not multiple worlds, not a cat of 'uncertain' status.

So you are saying QM is false. Because if you reject both No-collapse (MW) and Collapse you simply reject outright QM, the most successful theory ever mooted.

I'm sure quantum phycisists everywhere are on tenterhooks waiting for word from you.

Meanwhile, you did not answer my questions. The evidence suggests you imagined Many Worlds and wave function collapse to be the same things, whereas they are diametrically opposite. Having been exposed as a fool, you turn to irrelevant asides and insults.

Posted: **Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:38 pm**

*shrug*

"Translation - "who cares". Quote Henry"

Exactly.

Posted: **Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:49 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:38 pm *shrug*

"Translation - "who cares". Quote Henry"

Exactly.

Exactly. IOW, you're a troll.

Still waiting for you to substantiate this claim:

Well, Dave did admit, in another thread, he has a little problem with the bottle, so...*shrug*

Mods, why is this lie allowed to stand? Why are I Can's putting quoted words into my mouth that I never said allowed to stand?

I'm also waiting for you, Henry Dork, to substantiate your claim that both MWI and collapse are wrong. If they are both wrong, then QM itself is wrong, But it's not wrong. Response?

But of course you have nothing to offer. You're clueless.

So glad this forum is moderated, to prevent pricks like this from derailing interesting conversations.

Oh ... wait.

I guess moderators here are like God -- believed in, but nonexistent.

No wonder so few people post here.

Posted: **Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:00 pm**

...please, hold your breath.

Posted: **Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:04 pm**

Dr. McQueen,
I hope that you are still monitoring this thread despite its degeneration as so often happens on this site. My question is about the testability, without which, objection 1 stands and the entire interpretation presented by the article is a baseless assertion.

KJM wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:08 pm The issue of religion and mysticism is irrelevant given that the consciousness hypothesis is experimentally testable. See the response to objection one.

You posit a test for consciousness by a measurement Φ of a system's integrated information.
So if the measurement is not in fact a valid indication of consciousness, we're no better off than before. The premise remains untestable, and thus an interpretation, not a hypothesis.
So let's imagine that the test works. You describe this in a way that seems completely fallacious.

KJM wrote: One could imagine eventually running the experiment twice, with two different groups of nanocomputers. Members of one group are programmed with high Φ. Members of the other group (the control group) are programmed with little or no Φ. If only the latter group yield an interference pattern, then (if IIT is true) the consciousness causes collapse hypothesis will have been experimentally confirmed.

This has already been done. The experiment runs with no conscious observers present. The interference pattern is always there, arguably because somebody eventually has to learn of the results, a epistemological difference at best. The no-collapse result would be a system still in superposition, not a lack of pattern as the quote above suggests.

The quoted experiment by O'Connell managed to put a fairly large object into superposition for a moment. It lasted a nanosecond. How do they know that? Was it unobserved until the experimenter lost patience after a nanosecond and peeked? This seems to be the way the results of this experiment are being spun. I'm asking why this experiment is different than prior ones in making your consciousness premise more likely?

Posted: **Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:23 pm**

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:00 pm ...please, hold your breath.

Thanks. I'll take that as your concession that you can't defend your views.

The idea that consciousness, or anything else, collapses the wave function, is ad hoc and not parsimonious. MW suggests that the wave equation is all that there is. It describes reality. Nothing in the equation calls for collapse, either via consciousness or anything else. Thus we get MW.

Posted: **Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:38 pm**

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:23 pmThanks. I'll take that as your concession that you can't defend your views.

Henry has never claimed rational backing for his views. He's the voice of intuition and denial.
Engage with people worth engaging. You've already met several who are not.

Posted: **Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 pm**

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:38 pm Engage with people worth engaging. You've already met several who are not.

Indeed I have!

Posted: **Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:35 pm**

My gut sez 'no'.

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:49 am**

davidm wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:05 pm ...the cat is dead and alive, regardless of measurement. It's just not dead AND alive on the same branch

Just to clear things up, Schrödinger devised the “Cat in the Box” paradox in order to demonstrate how crazy and nonsensical the Copenhagen Interpretation appears to be, not as a formalized statement of how things really are.

However, MWI came along to do precisely that – formalize the nonsense.
_______

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:50 am**

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:49 pm I guess moderators here are like God -- believed in, but nonexistent.

They do stir from their lairs on occasion.

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:49 pm No wonder so few people post here.

Yes, it is a shame, and I am certain that your inane little row with henry isn’t helping with that problem.

And in regards to that, I am embarrassed to evoke this tired old cliché but doesn’t it take “two to tango”?

In other words, stop responding.
_______

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:52 am**

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:04 pm Dr. McQueen,
I hope that you are still monitoring this thread despite its degeneration as so often happens on this site. My question is about the testability, without which, objection 1 stands and the entire interpretation presented by the article is a baseless assertion.

Hi Noax,

It is unfortunate, but in light of your reference to how threads often degenerate on this site, I think it is wishful thinking on your part to assume that Dr. McQueen (or any other contributor to the magazine) is monitoring anything in this discussion forum.
_______

Philosophy Now Forum

Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re:

Re:

you'll be waitin' a looooong time, so...

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re: you'll be waitin' a looooong time, so...

Re: you'll be waitin' a looooong time, so...

Re: you'll be waitin' a looooong time, so...

"Henry has never claimed rational backing for his views. He's the voice of intuition and denial."

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?