Experiment makes Schrodinger's cat choose

But it's deeply uncomfortable for people. That's why as I'm sure you agree. Zeilinger's comment "we are not just passive observers" makes many people balk at the very notion that measurement somehow effects reality. Secondly, classical physics makes things simple and easy to understand. We humans do not like uncertainty and the unknown, so imho, QM blasts away the known, and forces us to confront the startling notion than reality is not all that it seems

I certainly agree... we always fear what we don't understand. In my case, I discovered indirect perception before my more recent understanding of QM, so it was indirect perception which I found to be my first big hurdle.

It was really after reading Celia Greens book 'Apparitions' that I really made a change in my thinking... such a logical series of arguments which forced me to confront my ideas of perception as being totally wrong. I had probably been building towards this for a number of years, but her book seemed to be a catalyst.

I can remember having some vivid and disturbing visual experiences as I was dropping off to sleep one night after reading the book. This experience unnerved me for a few weeks, however, I eventually rationalized the imagery, as a metaphor for my disturbing new ideas about reality that I was integrating. I also had a few disassociational experiences that were unpleasant, one particularly strange one in a supermarket whilst shopping, yuck.

But everything stabilized after a couple of months, and my new ideas about perception and QM now seem quite obvious. Personally I think they are just two different ways of explaining the same basic issues. Everything got back to normal for me, and yet everything was viewed rather differently, so I reckon probably went through a big reorganization.
 
I certainly agree... we always fear what we don't understand. In my case, I discovered indirect perception before my more recent understanding of QM, so it was indirect perception which I found to be my first big hurdle.

It was really after reading Celia Greens book 'Apparitions' that I really made a change in my thinking... such a logical series of arguments which forced me to confront my ideas of perception as being totally wrong. I had probably been building towards this for a number of years, but her book seemed to be a catalyst.

I can remember having some vivid and disturbing visual experiences as I was dropping off to sleep one night after reading the book. This experience unnerved me for a few weeks, however, I eventually rationalized the imagery, as a metaphor for my disturbing new ideas about reality that I was integrating. I also had a few disassociational experiences that were unpleasant, one particularly strange one in a supermarket whilst shopping, yuck.

But everything stabilized after a couple of months, and my new ideas about perception and QM now seem quite obvious. Personally I think they are just two different ways of explaining the same basic issues. Everything got back to normal for me, and yet everything was viewed rather differently, so I reckon probably went through a big reorganization.

I wouldn't be surprised if before long we find quantum effects in the brain. It's certainly seen in biology already:

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-biology-algae-evolved-coherence.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047
 
I wouldn't be surprised if before long we find quantum effects in the brain. It's certainly seen in biology already:

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-quantum-biology-algae-evolved-coherence.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21150047

My understanding is there are quantum vibrations in the brain*, but what remains unclear is the extant to which this matters for the brain's functioning. I have to admit I'd be amused if the brain depends on the indeterministic, potentially time symmetric QM reality.

More fodder for my assertion that the Universe is Absurd...

*Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness
 
My understanding is there are quantum vibrations in the brain*, but what remains unclear is the extant to which this matters for the brain's functioning. I have to admit I'd be amused if the brain depends on the indeterministic, potentially time symmetric QM reality.

More fodder for my assertion that the Universe is Absurd...

*Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness

Well, if matter is no longer deterministic under quantum theory. And our brains are made of matter. I see no reason why they should be regarded as entirely deterministic.
 
Well, if matter is no longer deterministic under quantum theory. And our brains are made of matter. I see no reason why they should be regarded as entirely deterministic.

Keep in mind something Massimo said - determinism is a metaphysical position:

What about the caveat to which I hinted above? Well, it’s actually three caveats: i) We still lack a good philosophical account (let alone a scientific theory, whatever that would look like) of causality itself [30]. That ought to make everyone in the free will debate at least a bit queasy. ii) Causality plays little or no explanatory role precisely where the determinist should expect it to be playing a major one: in fundamental physics. Again, someone should think carefully about this one. iii) Hard determinism is, let us not forget it, a philosophical (indeed, metaphysical!) position, not a scientific theory. It is often invoked as a corollary of the so-called principle of the causal completeness of physics [31]. But “causal completeness” simply means that the laws of physics (in general, not just the currently accepted set) exhaust our description of the universe. The notion is definitely not logically incompatible with different, not necessarily reductionist, ways of understanding said laws; nor does it rule out even instances of strong emergence [32] (i.e., the possibility that new laws come into being when certain conditions are attained, usually in terms of system complexity). I am not saying that determinism is false, or that strong emergence occurs. I am saying that the data from the sciences — at the moment, at least — strongly underdetermine these metaphysical possibilities, so that hard determinists should tread a little more lightly than they typically do.

Furthermore, I agree with Talbott - the Laws of Physics don't make anything happen. Causality remains as mysterious as ever, perhaps more so if one considers a larger degree of separation between the phenomenal and actual than is usually assumed:

There is a relationship then, in the normal case, between what you see in the phenomenal and relational senses. What you see in the phenomenal sense is a useful and simplified interface to what you see in the relational sense. It summarizes a myriad of complexities in a way that lets you interact with that complexity without tedium and distraction. What it provides you is indeed phenomenal — a phenomenal interface. So the answer to your first question — Are we seeing and playing with the same volleyball? — is both yes and no. No, you each have constructed your own volleyball experiences. And yes, you each are interacting with the same hidden world of circuits and software. There are as many phenomenal volleyballs as there are players. There is only one relational volleyball, and it doesn’t resemble a volleyball at all.
 
Back
Top