This prominent scientist says life is meaningless… and he’s serious |314|

Quantum mechanics is a highly precise way of talking about reality
QM is a statistical model of reality

The wave function is a mathematical statistical construct,
a complex probability equation that describes an aspect of reality
but a description of a thing is not the thing itself

A probability function is a model of what might or might not be the case in reality
It is a map, it is not the territory

I realise there are some who claim the wave function is objectively real; this is an error, in my view
I think my point is that the time independent solutions of Schroedinger's equation - the things that determine the structure of atoms and molecules - provide some information that isn't statistical - such as energy levels. To me - as an ex-chemist - they are more real than the particle description of electrons.

I do think there is a huge puzzle here - not least because the wave function doesn't actually measure probability itself (thus the wave function at a specific point can be negative or complex valued) but the probability is determined by ψ ψ* . The point is that pure probabilities would always be positive or zero and wouldn't interfere but the wave function can, of course!

Looked at really deeply, is anything a thing in itself - I don't know!

David
 
I agree that those things are still very difficult to account for. I've said before, if indeed consciousness were proven to be brain generated, then the fact that brains evolved out of clumps of matter and were able to formulate the logic, math, and science allowing them to discover the laws and history of the universe back to the conditions existing at the time of the Big Bang, then that alone would be totally mind blowing. But if we lacked any evidence of things like telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, apparitions, vivid NDEs, spontaneous genius ability after head trauma, reincarnation (which I feel is most important), etc., then I personally would have an easier time accepting the assertion that consciousness was produced by brains and contained within our skulls.

Cheers,
Bill

That's a good point - it's like how the idea of a deterministic universe constrained by "laws of nature" is incoherent no matter what but quantum randomness opens our thinking up. Similarly if not for Psi I wouldn't have found Braude and his circle's criticism of a mechanistic universe.

Breadcrumbs someone (we?) have left for ourselves even though we're Dante at the beginning of Inferno - lost in the forest?

“We (the undivided divinity that operates within us) have dreamt the world. We have dreamt it as solid, mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and stable in time; but in its architeture we have allowed tenuous and eternal interstices of unreason in order to know that it is false."
-Jorge Luis Borges, “Avatars of the Tortoise”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me what you write here seems to presume a computational basis to reality
If that impression is correct... ??
Then what you are doing is taking a human made tool, the computer, and projecting its mode of functioning (Computation)
as being the mode of functioning of objective physical reality

Because humans have developed a statistical model for describing complex aspects of reality (QM)
does not imply that reality is statistical in its functioning
Your impression is a strawman. From a pragmatic PoV, I presume and assert the truth of the fact that computation actually takes place and is part and parcel of reality.

Computational output can be measured in terms of negentropic algorithms, which creates order and fulfill goals.

And to your second statement - I would answer that reality is ontologically probabilistic. Statistics occur because well-formed data can be mutual information and useful for agents. The data records are epistemic, but the ontological and natural structure of the patterns are not. The math symbols are subjective, however the patterns they describe are objective information objects embedded in natural activity.

Statistics is the study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data. In applying statistics to, e.g., a scientific, industrial, or social problem, it is conventional to begin with a statistical population or a statistical model process to be studied.

What you think are "maps" - and in what context they have have isomorphism with specified territories - seems confused to me. I do not share the "magic matter" PoV, where there are mental properties emerging from deep inside the "stuff".
 
Last edited:
I think my point is that the time independent solutions of Schroedinger's equation - the things that determine the structure of atoms and molecules - provide some information that isn't statistical - such as energy levels. To me - as an ex-chemist - they are more real than the particle description of electrons.

I do think there is a huge puzzle here - not least because the wave function doesn't actually measure probability itself (thus the wave function at a specific point can be negative or complex valued) but the probability is determined by ψ ψ* . The point is that pure probabilities would always be positive or zero and wouldn't interfere but the wave function can, of course!

Looked at really deeply, is anything a thing in itself - I don't know!

David

You are completely missing my point about maps and territory
You dont seem to be able to see it; and I cannot express it any clearer

Perhaps that is because you are an idealist (?)

For the idealist there is no territory really - no objective reality
The map and the territory are both just mental events in your mind
so you see them as being the same thing
 
Your impression is a strawman. From a pragmatic PoV, I presume and assert the truth of the fact that computation actually takes place and is part and parcel of reality.

Computational output can be measured in terms of negentropic algorithms, which creates order and fulfill goals.

And to your second statement - I would answer that reality is ontologically probabilistic. Statistics occur because well-formed data can be mutual information and useful for agents. The data records are epistemic, but the ontological and natural structure of the patterns are not. The math symbols are subjective, however the patterns they describe are objective information objects embedded in natural activity.



What you think are "maps" - and in what context they have have isomorphism with specified territories - seems confused to me. I do not share the "magic matter" PoV, where there are mental properties emerging from deep inside the "stuff".


So are you an idealist?

ps it was not a strawman; it was a question; clearly stated and indicated
 
You are completely missing my point about maps and territory
You dont seem to be able to see it; and I cannot express it any clearer

Perhaps that is because you are an idealist (?)

For the idealist there is no territory really - no objective reality
The map and the territory are both just mental events in your mind
so you see them as being the same thing

Did you read the Paul Marshall paper on Idealism that I suggested?
 
So are you an idealist?
ps it was not a strawman; it was a question; clearly stated and indicated
I am an Informational Realist. (Kenneth Sayre, Luciano Floridi, Terrance Ward Bynum) In my simplistic worldview, neither Materialists or Idealists can define Matter or Ideas in a coherent way.

Information as (1) "bits" that structure communication and (2) as logical meaning: are much better understood at a formal level. The most successful exposition of Quantum concepts have been addressed by Structuralism in recent decades. (Redhead, French and Ladyman). Floridi's Informational Structural Realism is a breakthrough paper and has generated a lot of response in the Philosophical community. Terrell Ward Bynum adddresses informational Realism in a Quantum context.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z#/page-1
http://philpapers.org/rec/BYNOTP
 
Last edited:
You really ripped into him in the post-interview analysis, Alex. I wonder whether he's heard it, and if so, what he makes of it. Has he responded in any way? Totally agree that materialism is incoherent and nonsensical, and that such "priests" of materialism are holding back the progress of a paradigm more representative of truth, I just wonder whether the way you went about that analysis will harm your chances of getting similarly-minded guests to appear on your show in future - whether or not that's something worth wondering about in the face of an imperative to point out that the emperor's naked I don't really know.
have not heard from him. re future guests, I can't imagine it will have any effect... when people want to sell new books they come on. most of these guys never really look at the site before they agree, or in the case of Carroll, think they can BS there way thru it... which is one of the reasons for the analysis... I mean, Carroll made some serious factual and logical errors during the interview and he counts on the fact that no one will really dig into stuff after the interview is over.

-- let me add that I would welcome a follow-on discussion/debate anywhere anytime.
 
Last edited:
Fascinating interview Alex - thank you Alex and Sean

Sean was correct about Schroedinger in the context in which his name came up
Schroedinger composed the cat analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion that the wave function was collapsed by observation

Nonetheless many today think that Schrodinger was serious and composed the analogy to show how reality actually functions
Popular culture has turned the cat analogy on its head...
as it has so much of quantum mechanics, to apparently prove all kinds of nonsense

At the same time Alex is correct that Schrodinger did believe in the existence of consciousness as a reality distinct from matter:

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

I agree with Schroedinger and Alex about consciousness

I agree with Sean about the wave function - it is an epistemic tool, not a physical reality
Quantum mechanics is an epistemic tool and a model; it is not reality
People get the map and the territory mixed-up
very nice distinctions. but I would suggest that Carroll's nitwittedness should cost him his seat at this discussion table. Carroll is suggesting that Schroedinger and Bohr we supportive of his reductionistic Naturalism, that's intellectually dishonest.
 
I am an Informational Realist. (Kenneth Sayre, Luciano Floridi, Terrance Ward Bynum) In my simplistic worldview, neither Materialists or Idealist can define Matter or Ideas in a coherent way.

Information as (1) "bits" that structure communication and (2) as logical meaning: are much better understood at a formal level. The most successful exposition of Quantum concepts have been addressed by Structuralism in recent decades. (Redhead, French and Ladyman. Floridi's Informational Structural Realism is a breakthrough paper and has generated a lot of response in the Philosophical community. Terrell Ward Bynum adddresses informational Realism in a Quantum context.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z#/page-1
http://philpapers.org/rec/BYNOTP

Thank you for the reply and links, which I will follow up on
 
Did you read the Paul Marshall paper on Idealism that I suggested?

I had a look at the Marshall paper
Very hard read for me - coming from my perspective
I would say only someone who is an idealist will find it entertaining or convincing

Just a couple of comments:
I hold a representationalist view of perception; and I don’t see the criticism that the representational model of perception gives grounds for scepticism as being a problem for the representational model. It is only a problem for philosophers who hanker for completely absolutist knowledge

Personally I have no problem with the implicit limitations to knowing in my dualist and representational model
I am happy the universe is mysterious and we must use intelligence and observation to endeavour to solve its many mysteries

It was this hankering or demand for absolute truth that led Kant to create his transcendental idealism
Kant in my opinion was not primarily concerned with metaphysics, but with science
His puzzle was this - how could scientific knowledge be rendered absolute, in the manner that mathematics and geometry is absolute
His answer was to create an a priori epistemology and claim that scientific knowledge is a priori
To do this he had to create the absurd notion of the synthetic a priori; the notion that experience is somehow a priori
He eliminated objective matter, space, time and causality and made them subjective mind dependent categories
(He did not deny an objective physical universe, but it plays no active part in his epistemology)
I think he had the wrong motivation; and he got human epistemology wrong

Following the opposite motivation lead Berkeley to his form of idealism; a similar idealism to Marshall and Kastrup (?)
Berkley wanted to oppose the malign influence of scientific knowledge and its challenge to religious revelation and authority
His method was to simply remove the material upon which scientific knowledge relies - matter, space, time and causality
just as Kant did in his own manner
For Berkeley matter, space, time and causality were mental ideas or activities in the mind of God

Neither of these philosophies succeeded in unravelling the puzzle of human knowing
They are ingenious attempts to shoehorn human knowing into different prejudices and ideologies
Which means they are sophistries

This view of Berkeley and Kant is not mainstream etc; it is my view
Also I confess that I see a similar anti-science motivation in many regular posters here who are idealists

Another thought:
The puzzle as to how consciousness interacts with the body (the nervous system) does not dispose me to collapse subject and object, consciousness and the universe, into a reductive monism of either matter or mind. It is in my view a problem for science to investigate and hopefully one day solve. I am certain that consciousness does interact with the body and therefore I see no reason to abandon the problem by reducing it to a monism.

The puzzle of human knowing is properly a matter for a mature and expanded human science
(which we do not have at this time)
It is not a matter for rational sophistries;
(I do not mean people ought not to engage in creating them; only that they will not solve the problem)

Apologies for lengthy post
 
Wow! ... great Sean did the interview. Really respect him for this.

Just listening through ... there's one part he says ... "There's nothing that we know about consciousness or are likely to learn about it that would lead us to doubt the idea that it is a phenomenon that emerges from the natural workings of the of the stuff, the forces and particles and energy, in our brain. The actual physical stuff that makes us up."

But this is in direct contradiction to Edward Witten, the world's greatest physicist who works on the stuff Sean does but in a much more major way, where he says ...

"I think understanding the functioning of the brain is a very exciting problem on which there will probably be a lot of progress in the next few decades, that’s not out of reach. But I think there’s probably a level of mystery that will remain about why the brain has functionings we can see. Um, it creates consciousness or whatever we want to call it. How it functions in the way that a conscious being functions will become clearer but what it is we are experiencing when we experience consciousness I see as being remaining a mystery."

The Witten interview and transcript is here in my comment a few months back and he emphasises this more:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...hard-problem-of-consciousness-300.2951/page-3

Surely this attitude by Sean here is "promissory materialism", where it's a kind of future hope that materialism is right? That's not science.
 
Last edited:
On Dr. Dean Radin's (and colleagues) experiments Alex says ... "a human being that was instructed to focus on that photon beam–can actually collapse the quantum wave function. So this is one of the core, fundamental questions that we’ve had about consciousness. And it seems to be answered in a way that moves us away from your mind-equals-brain physicalism."

Dr. Sean Carroll: "Yeah. I think that’s just not right. I think that is not something that 99.9 percent of working physicists would say is actually true."


I thought it was utterly shocking that he dismissed these careful experiments in seven words and I think he knows about these experiments.
Again, that's not science.

There's also a proper academic survey (2011) on physicists attitudes towards quantum mechanics and a question on consciousness and the wave function.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf

In fact 6% say the observer "Plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)"

However, I would bet that practically no physicists know of Dr. Radin's experiments to make an informed judgement, so even this 6% is a flawed conclusion
from a survey carried out in 2011. If physicists really looked at the experiments that 6% would rise surely?

From the survey there's 21% say the observer "Should play no fundamental role whatsoever" but does that mean 79% say the observer should play a fundamental role?

Overall, I think many physicists are quite confused as to what the observer is and the only way forward is to keep on gathering data before jumping to conclusions.
 
Something on the wave function being real or not or in the interview ...

Carroll "Bohr and Heisenberg, the founders of the Copenhagan interpretation of quantum mechanics, they were saying that we think of as the wave function isn’t a physically real thing. It's a way of calculating what's being measured. So it's not that consciousness in some philosophical sense with collapsing the wave function, it's just that what the wave function is, is a calculational tool for physicists to use."

There's is something called the PBR Theorem (2011 paper) which has suggested very strongly that the wave function is actually real and not just a state of knowledge of a quantum system. Considered widely true by many physicists. Maybe this could help in consciousness/wave function collapse ideas?

The full implications of what this means could also update the survey I mentioned above on physicists attitudes towards consciousness and quantum physics I guess? Really, really fundamental I think. And Carroll would surely have to go with the consensus on the wave function being real.
 
I agree with Sean about the wave function - it is an epistemic tool, not a physical reality
Quantum mechanics is an epistemic tool and a model; it is not reality
People get the map and the territory mixed-up

David, there is an update on this I mentioned just above in which the wave function is now considered to be real, i.e. ontological, the PBR Theorem. I guess Carroll is well aware of this theorem so I'd be very interested to know whether he is sticking with the epistemic view.
 
David, there is an update on this I mentioned just above in which the wave function is now considered to be real, i.e. ontological, the PBR Theorem. I guess Carroll is well aware of this theorem so I'd be very interested to know whether he is sticking with the epistemic view.

Well I dont know about Sean, but I certainly hold to the view that QM is epistemic

ps; theorems do not refer to ontic realities; they are mental constructions; a theorem cannot 'prove' an ontic reality
 
Last edited:
KeithA said:
"promissory materialism", where it's a kind of future hope that materialism is right

good point.

I heard something else in what Sean said about materialism being proven right
First of all Sean is very clear - he believes that is already the case for all honest thinkers... he says so
But he also says that nothing we will discover in the future will alter that conclusion...!!

That he mistakes his belief for an objective fact is bad enough
but to also imply some kind of prescient authoritativeness as to future science is foolishness and hubris

As I said in an earlier comment both of these are common traits in fundamentalists
 
Back
Top