February 15, 2008
Craig Black wrote:
> 
> Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult?  Nope. The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries made by Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all pioneers of quantum mechanics.
> 

For the ramblings of a first rate physicist, Roger Penrose, on this and related topics, you might want to read his book "The Emperors New Mind".

Both Roger and his book are discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose.

If nothing else, the book is a good introduction to the physics of quantum mechanics.

Dennis Cote
February 15, 2008
Jb wrote:
> 
> I wonder if our ability to test theorys at the cutting edge, at the subatomic level, is getting so limited that we might just be stuck with an endless stream crackpot incomprehensible theorys for a fairly long time.
> 

Lee Smolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin), another first rate physicist, published a book that deals with this very subject. It's called "The Trouble with Physics", and discusses how we got into this mess and what science can do to help get us out. It's somewhat controversial, but he makes some very good points.

Dennis Cote
February 15, 2008
Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Aarti_pl wrote:
>>> "This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe
>>> was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude
>>> of universes—a "multiverse". "
>>>
>>> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of
>>> the consequences which follow when choosing the second option.
>> That's why finding God based only on science IMHO is not possible. As
>> Yigal Chripun already mentioned science is based on set of assumptions
>> which don't allow scientists to explore some of possible explanations.
>> I don't think it is so bad for scientists, as you never knows before
>> what you will find just beyond the corner: another physical law or God
>> himself. But what is good for scientists is not necessary so good for
>> human being. If scientists are missing something very important (as
>> God :-) ), a lot of people can be misleaded by believing in scientists
>> theories...
>>
>> Another drawback of these basic scientists assumptions is that they
>> can lead scientists to accept  very strange and improbable theories as
>> truth. So in some sense it cause scientists to accept theories which
>> are more complicated than necessary, what is kind of paradox, taking
>> Ockham's razor principle into account. In article mentioned above
>> author noticed that universe seems to be precisely fine-tuned for
>> humans to live, but it led author to conclusion that there are
>> infinite number of different universes. In such a high level abstract,
>> unverifiable thinking, the existence of God should be taken into
>> consideration on the same level as such theories. The more: there IS
>> some evidence of God's existence. And this IS fully scientific
>> evidence. It's not evidence of kind which physicians and
>> mathematicians would look for, as you can not reproduce in controlled
>> environment your experiment to prove something. But it is evidence
>> which will be gladly accepted by historicians. I mean here simplest
>> evidence available: testimony of different people experiencing God in
>> their life.
>>
>> If anyone wants to know my exact opinion on that matter you can
>> contact me through my web page: www.zapytajmnie.com
>>
>> BR
>> Marcin Kuszczak
>> (aarti_pl)
> science operates based on a set of axioms
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) which basically means that science
> is limited in what it can deduce. what you imply with the word
> "assumptions" is basically that if the assumption is wrong everything
> derived from it would also be wrong, so all our knowledge is just a pile
> of assumptions that can be wrong. that's different from using axioms as
> your starting point. There are cases where a scientific theory is based
> on an assumption but science tries very hard to minimize this as much as
> possible and to remain with ideally no assumptions at all. that's what
> ocham's razor is all about.
> 
> regarding god, it is true that science doesn't/shouldn't deal with the
> question of god, as a belief system relies on people accepting it
> _without_ any formal proof. if you provide such a proof that god exists
> (or not) you make the answer a fact, and it stops being a belief.

Life isn't that binary. There's very few things we can be certain about. In reality, we have varying degrees of confidence about everything. 'Fact' just means 'very high confidence'.

Recently, in the mathematical community, there has been discussion about what 'proof' means (particularly with regard to computer-generated proofs). How can you be confident that there are no errors in your proof? (Oops, there was a bug in the gc -- Fermat's last theorem wasn't true after all).

Instead, the question is how convincing you find the evidence to be. And since science does aid our understanding of the world, it does provide some evidence both for and against the existence of God (or gods).

> that said (and without insulting anyone religion/faith/belief system),
> my opinion is as follows:
> 1) the question of god cannot be answered by science so it's irrelevant
> and my view of the world does not depend on its answer.

> 2) I can reason logically and show that logically god doesn't exist but
> as i said, god isn't supposed to be logical or scientific so even if i
> could prove that he/she/it didn't exist it's irrelevant to my view of
> the world  as stated in (1).
> 
> if god is almighty and can do anything, he can create a rock no one can
> lift, so he either cannot lift it or he can't create it, both ways show
> a logical contradiction to the idea of an all powerful god.

That does indeed rule out certain categories of god, and says interesting things about what 'all powerful' can mean, but my guess is that such arguments haven't had any effect on the development of your views <g>. Curiously, it is an example of a contribution from logic towards theology! Historically, science has done a pretty decent job of rendering a fair number of religious world views untenable.

> --Yigal (just another atheist..)
-- Don (just another Christian..) Unfortunately, one of the few things we can be sure about is that
(at least) one of us is wrong.  Bummer.
February 15, 2008
Craig Black wrote:
> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last night and am still buzzing about it.  I just have to share it.  I personally am an agnostic, so not trying to preach anything, but I thought this was very interesting.  I didn't realize that modern science has such a solid theory about consciousness.  Namely, that there is only one conscious mind in the universe, and that matter is the result of observations of that mind.  At the subatomic level, there are only possibilities that require a mind to bring into actual reality.  And that mind is not Many but One.  The universe essentially consists of a single Indivisible Mind from which matter emmanates.
> 
> Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult?  Nope. The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries made by Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all pioneers of quantum mechanics.
> 
> http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html

Utter rubbish !

For a person in a mathematical/scientific field such as computer programming buying such hogwash is pathetic. Try studying the great physicists, even a little, to understand that they were not in the business of supporting mystagogues of any type.
February 16, 2008
Craig Black wrote:
> Yeah.  I have just been on Wikipedia reading about this.  The article I read originally incorrectly promoted the "Continuous infinity of minds" hypothesis as a conclusion.  It's hard because I can barely follow the logic of the that hypothesis, let alone try to digest this one too.  It's very interesting that both of these hypothetical ideas have huge and quite strange implications.  Either you believe in God or you believe in parallel universes.  It's nuts.
> 
> -Craig 

Or you view the Schroedinger's cat problem from the perspective of the Geiger counter, and any quantum nastiness is dealt with on a quantum level.

As for calling that 'single universal consciousness' idea a theory, I take issue with that. Theories are not only testable, they are well tested. This idea is neither.
February 16, 2008
Craig Black <cblack@ara.com> wrote:
> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last night and am still buzzing about it.  I just have to share it.  I personally am an

I had a funny idea for some time already, that the weird laws of quantum mechanics could be a consequence of a finite precision of hardware running our Universe.  I'm not a math geek at all, but it could be interesting to try and figure out which pecularities would a digital mind observe while trying to measure distances less than real.epsilon, or to measure time less than frame duration.  Would they possibly formulate an uncertainty principle ?

And, most importantly, this is much closer to the topic than The Ultimate Mind Hypothesis. :D

-- 
SnakE
February 16, 2008
"Edward Diener" <eddielee_no_spam_here@tropicsoft.com> wrote in message news:fp50mt$v2o$1@digitalmars.com...
> Craig Black wrote:
>> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last night and am still buzzing about it.  I just have to share it.  I personally am an agnostic, so not trying to preach anything, but I thought this was very interesting.  I didn't realize that modern science has such a solid theory about consciousness.  Namely, that there is only one conscious mind in the universe, and that matter is the result of observations of that mind.  At the subatomic level, there are only possibilities that require a mind to bring into actual reality.  And that mind is not Many but One.  The universe essentially consists of a single Indivisible Mind from which matter emmanates.
>>
>> Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult? Nope. The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries made by Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all pioneers of quantum mechanics.
>>
>> http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
>
> Utter rubbish !
>
> For a person in a mathematical/scientific field such as computer programming buying such hogwash is pathetic. Try studying the great physicists, even a little, to understand that they were not in the business of supporting mystagogues of any type.

Actually after reading more on the topic, this is actually not the "conclusion" that the author here states.  But it is one hypothesis that unless I misunderstand was posed by Schrodinger himself.   This quote is from Shrodinger on Wikipedia:

   * Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...
         o "The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

It may be the case that the author here takes this idea further than Schrodinger did.  However, because this particular hypothesis violates the Ockham's Razor principle, it gets less attention from mainstream science than the other alternatives.

-Craig 

February 16, 2008
> It may be the case that the author here takes this idea further than Schrodinger did.

Actually, after reading more of Shrodinger's quotes, I take this back.  He was quite esoteric, and quoted the writings of ancient mystics.

-Craig 

February 16, 2008
"Sergey Gromov" <snake.scaly@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.222149caa85aab41989696@news.digitalmars.com...
> Craig Black <cblack@ara.com> wrote:
>> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last night
>> and am still buzzing about it.  I just have to share it.  I personally am an
>
> I had a funny idea for some time already, that the weird laws of quantum
> mechanics could be a consequence of a finite precision of hardware
> running our Universe.  I'm not a math geek at all, but it could be
> interesting to try and figure out which pecularities would a digital
> mind observe while trying to measure distances less than real.epsilon,
> or to measure time less than frame duration.  Would they possibly
> formulate an uncertainty principle ?
>
> And, most importantly, this is much closer to the topic than The
> Ultimate Mind Hypothesis. :D
>
> -- 
> SnakE

Interseting idea.  There's not much more I can comment on this because I don't think it's ever been proposed as a serious hypothesis for quantum mechanics.  I think you would have a lot of work on your hands if you really wanted to develop this idea further.

-Craig 

February 16, 2008
Craig Black wrote:
> 
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_no_spam_here@tropicsoft.com> wrote in message news:fp50mt$v2o$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Craig Black wrote:
>>> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last night and am still buzzing about it.  I just have to share it.  I personally am an agnostic, so not trying to preach anything, but I thought this was very interesting.  I didn't realize that modern science has such a solid theory about consciousness.  Namely, that there is only one conscious mind in the universe, and that matter is the result of observations of that mind.  At the subatomic level, there are only possibilities that require a mind to bring into actual reality.  And that mind is not Many but One.  The universe essentially consists of a single Indivisible Mind from which matter emmanates.
>>>
>>> Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult? Nope. The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries made by Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all pioneers of quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
>>
>> Utter rubbish !
>>
>> For a person in a mathematical/scientific field such as computer programming buying such hogwash is pathetic. Try studying the great physicists, even a little, to understand that they were not in the business of supporting mystagogues of any type.
> 
> Actually after reading more on the topic, this is actually not the "conclusion" that the author here states.  But it is one hypothesis that unless I misunderstand was posed by Schrodinger himself.   This quote is from Shrodinger on Wikipedia:
> 
>    * Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...
>          o "The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken Wilber

Because Schrodinger, or any other person, happens to write something, does not make it true in any sense. Do you really believe that science, and in particular quantum mechanics, has attempted to measure "consciousness", or even define it in scientific terms ?

Furthermore the author of that tract is oblivious to some 70 years or more of quantum mechanics, which post-dates the theories and science of the three scientists on which he focuses. During that period enormous strides have been make in attempting to understand the quantum nature of physical reality. The challenges are still so enormous that it is doubtful the leading scientists in the field have any time to waste on a notion which belongs clearly outside their science and how that science is defined. Physical reality is quite complex enough without worrying about a notion that has the vaguest of meanings outside of science.

By attempting to subvert serious, challenging, and fascinating science to mystico-religious belief the author of the tract is doing a great disservice to actual scientists in the field ( I am not one but as a layman, and someone who studied a good deal of physics in college, I have done some reading and further learning in the area ).
> 
> It may be the case that the author here takes this idea further than Schrodinger did.  However, because this particular hypothesis violates the Ockham's Razor principle, it gets less attention from mainstream science than the other alternatives.

It gets no attention because there is no way to measure "consciousness" in scientific terms, or even define it. This has nothing to do with Ockham's Razor or mainstream science, but everything to do with what science is.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home