Science/christianity/intelligent design

[jedaisoul]

No, Intelligent Design, in the form vis-a-vis Demsey, Behe, etc. is not a theory because it is based on the belief that irreducible complex structures exist and were formed by methods outside the known laws and facts of nature... A 'theory' is a scientific "explanation" that uses facts and known laws of nature in an attempt to understand something.

I agree with your sentiments, but on a matter of terminology not all theories are scientific. You can have a theory about anything you like. It's just wrong to claim that it is scientific if it isn't.

 

For example, Jung had a theory that archetypes exist outside our minds as a part of reality. He did not pretend that it was scientific, and it's largely discounted nowadays, but it was a theory.

[Thunderbird]

I agree with your sentiments, but on a matter of terminology not all theories are scientific. You can have a theory about anything you like. It's just wrong to claim that it is scientific if it isn't.

 

For example, Jung had a theory that archetypes exist outside our minds as a part of reality. He did not pretend that it was scientific, and it's largely discounted nowadays, but it was a theory.

This is because an archetype is only conceptually reductive after one has become aware of it as an as an inherent part of existence. The same can be said for the existence of an inherent intelligence. Reductive methods do not allow for concepts of wholeness unless they can be reduced to manageable equations and or experimentations with the pieces and parts. There have been many insights made by academics and philosophers that science has discounted not because these insights were not correct, but because they were not completely reducible.

 

 

After years of study a man may say there exist certain “qualities” inherent in nature.

 

After years of studying science, nature and art, I can say there do exist archetypes outside of us but they exist in my awareness not because I was told they exist or because they were proved, but only because they slowly became evident as a reality over time.

[jedaisoul]

After years of studying science, nature and art, I can say there do exist archetypes outside of us...

Hi, Tbird. I only mentioned archetypes as an example, I did not intend to start an argument over them. However, that said, how do you explain archetypes like the unicorn, pixie, elf and fairy? These are all recognised archetypes of creatures that have never existed. Our literature is full of fabled creatures that exist only in the imagination. Surely, their archetypes have to be equally imaginary?

 

I regard archetypes as part of our cultural heritage. As such they exist outside a single person's mind, because they exist in many peoples' minds. But what if all cultural references to, say, unicorns were deleted, and no one ever mentioned them again. The archetype would live on as long as there were people alive who were aware of it. But, surely, when the last person died who knew about unicorns, the archetype would cease to exist? It was only ever a figment of the imagination.

[Thunderbird]

Hi, Tbird. I only mentioned archetypes as an example, I did not intend to start an argument over them. However, that said, how do you explain archetypes like the unicorn, pixie, elf and fairy? These are all recognised archetypes of creatures that have never existed. Our literature is full of fabled creatures that exist only in the imagination. Surely, their archetypes have to be equally imaginary?

No one is above these myths and archetypes. My father will only read books that are non-fiction, usually historical biographies, he believes fiction is not worthy of his time since they are "made up". I pointed over his shoulder to a painting that I had done for him of a farmscape. I ask him to tell me again why he liked it so much. He said it was like he knew the place, it was familiar but he could not say were it was exactly. I explained that I sensed the same thing when I looked at it. It reminded me of something about our collective heritage but the place was a total fiction because I had just made it up out of my subconscious. This deep feeling could not be gotten from looking at a photo of the farm we lived on even though it was the real farm.

 

This is why certain archetypes like dragons appear in simultaneously in separate cultures, they represent archetypes that are shared as symbols that can reduce the simple real thing into the complex concept or aspect of life. Would you rather look at an accurate photo of a night sky, are a whimsical painting by an impressionist painter ?

 

I regard archetypes as part of our cultural heritage. As such they exist outside a single person's mind, because they exist in many peoples' minds. But what if all cultural references to, say, unicorns were deleted, and no one ever mentioned them again. The archetype would live on as long as there were people alive who were aware of it. But, surely, when the last person died who knew about unicorns, the archetype would cease to exist? It was only ever a figment of the imagination.

As are all things, These archetypes serve as a condensed code that provides a numinosity for individuals to orient their collective past with a possible future. These forms underlie reality, giving life an essence that is not just reducible in the symoblic form, but more importantly expansive in the intellect.

[modest]

This is why certain archetypes like dragons appear in simultaneously in separate cultures, they represent archetypes that are shared as symbols that can reduce the simple real thing into the complex concept or aspect of life. Would you rather look at an accurate photo of a night sky, are a whimsical painting by an impressionist painter ?

 

If God were the only concept or thing that the collective human experience described without any physical manifestation then I would personally feel a stronger affinity for the God idea. But, it's true that Dragons (and other unphysical creatures) go way back in history and across many cultures. If we allowed our combined human historical consciousness to be a foundation or even supporting evidence for God then we should extend the same thinking to dragons. There are clearly things that have existed in the human mind for a long time that have never existed in reality. I don't know why this is - I'm not claiming to know why. But, it does seem obvious that our shared human imagination (or whatever you want to call it) alone cannot be good evidence for something to exist.

 

For me this rules out the argument that God must be real because so many people believe he is real. I'm not saying that is your argument Thunderbird, it's just something your post got me thinking on. In fact, it's probably a bit outside the scope of the thread here.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

If God were the only

 

For me this rules out the argument that God must be real because so many people believe he is real. I'm not saying that is your argument Thunderbird, it's just something your post got me thinking on. In fact, it's probably a bit outside the scope of the thread here.

 

-modest

I highly recommend Reading or Watching "The Power Of Myth" By Joseph Campbell. It should be required reading for anyone interested in understanding the value of taping into, and decoding our collective subconscious, while inoculating the imagination against superstitious beliefs.

[modest]

I think I would enjoy that. There is a lot about ancient mythology that I find really fascinating.

 

edit: You'd think pbs would have it online, but I can't find it.

[Thunderbird]

I think I would enjoy that. There is a lot about ancient mythology that I find really fascinating.

 

edit: You'd think pbs would have it online, but I can't find it.

They show it annually on PBS, I have it recorded and have ordered the book. I rewatch it about every 6 months and I seem to get more out of it every time. He really is a wise old sage.

 

 

I have always been intrigued by the magical power of stories. I was born into a Catholicism rich with everything from the stunning account of Jesus's resurrection to a creepy legend about the sound of Satan's claws collecting scraps beneath the floorboards of a wasteful woman's home. There was a "Noah's Ark" LP that I memorized and broadcast over the intercom in our house as a child. I learned the fables of Aesop and the brothers Grimm, and in the ninth grade I discovered the vast, mysterious world of J.R.R. Tolkien, with its Hobbits, Ents, and The Dark Lord.

 

When Transcendental Meditation swept the United States in 1975, I began examining the Bhagavad-Gita, the Buddha, and other Eastern religious traditions. In my later teens, I ate up one after another of Carlos Castaneda's books and began to see the world in completely new ways, thanks to the Yaqui sorcery knowledge of don Juan and his tenderly hysterical friend don Genaro. Bruce Springsteen arrived on my horizon pointing his guitar down Thunder Road toward the Promised Land, and I gasped when Obi-Wan Kenobi prodded Luke Sykwalker to "Use the Force."

 

Gradually, it dawned on me that there was really only one story here, being told and retold in all sorts of different settings, languages, colorings, times, names, and costumes. I wondered whether I was crazy to think this way, or just the only person to ever make these connections. To my relief, I eventually discovered that I was neither.

 

One afternoon in 1988, my local PBS station aired a biographical program called The Hero's Journey, about a scholar named Joseph Campbell, who had spent his astounding life finding and mapping out the development of these themes from the first primitive societies to the most modern art. I learned that Campbell had written a book called The Hero with a Thousand Faces which revealed the universal framework underlying countless hero stories from around the world, and that Campbell's work had indeed served as both the inspiration and blueprint for his friend George Lucas's movie Star Wars.

 

It turned out that The Hero's Journey had been broadcast as an introduction to a six-hour series of conversations with Bill Moyers called Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. I watched the installments every week with my mouth hanging open. Here it all was, as if mankind had spent its existence fixating on one dot or another until Campbell came along and connected them all and said, "See? It was right in front of you the whole time." So, thanks to PBS and Bill Moyers, I found out about Joseph Campbell and I have been reading and re-reading his work ever since.

 

http://http://www.czerniec.com/2007/03/26/joseph-campbell-mythology.html

[jedaisoul]

This is why certain archetypes like dragons appear in simultaneously in separate cultures, they represent archetypes that are shared as symbols that can reduce the simple real thing into the complex concept or aspect of life.

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support the claim that the archetype for dragons appeared simultaneously, or even independently, in multiple cultures. It is quite possible that it spread from a more ancient culture.

 

These archetypes serve as a condensed code that provides a numinosity for individuals to orient their collective past with a possible future. These forms underlie reality, giving life an essence that is not just reducible in the symoblic form, but more importantly expansive in the intellect.

I don't mean to be rude, but most of this is meaningless to me. Perhaps that is my limitation, but I try to keep a firm grasp on reality. What evidence is there that "these forms underlie reality"? That can only be so if there is no external physical reality. Now you may chose to deny its existence, but that does not make it go away.

 

For example, would you agree that a tree that falls in the forest makes no sound if there is no one there to hear it? Indeed, that tree simply does not exist unless someone experiences it at that time. Of course, I can't prove this is not true, but there are very good reasons to suggest this is so. If everything blinked in and out of existence depending on when it was being observed, then the physical laws of conservation of matter and energy would fail, big time. They don't. Now that does not prove that the physical reality exists outside our perception of it, nor that tomorrow the laws of physics won't fail, but there is an aweful lot of scientific evidence behind that view. What evidence do you have to support your view?

[Thunderbird]

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support the claim that the archetype for dragons appeared simultaneously, or even independently, in multiple cultures. It is quite possible that it spread from a more ancient culture.

The dragon is a "Mythical_creature" typically depicted as a gigantic and powerful Serpent symbolism or other "Reptile" with "Magical" or "Spirituality" qualities. Most dragons are either European_dragon derived from various European folk traditions, or unrelated Oriental_dragon", derived from the "/wiki/Chinese_dragon" (lóng). The word "dragon" derives from "Greek_language" δράκων (drakōn), "a serpent of huge size, a python, a dragon" and that from the verb δέρκομαι (derkomai) "to see clearly

Dragon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

Although dragons occur in many legends around the world, different cultures have varying stories about monsters that have been grouped together under the dragon label.

Dragons are often held to have major spiritual significance in various religions and cultures around the world. In many "East_Asia" cultures dragons were, and in some cultures still are, revered as representative of the primal forces of "Nature", religion and the "Universe". They are associated with "Wisdom"—often said to be wiser than humans—and longevity. They are commonly said to possess some form of "Magic_paranorma" or other supernatural power, and are often associated with wells, rain, and rivers. In some cultures, they are also said to be capable of human speech.

I don't mean to be rude, but most of this is meaningless to me. Perhaps that is my limitation, but I try to keep a firm grasp on reality. What evidence is there that "these forms underlie reality"? That can only be so if there is no external physical reality. Now you may chose to deny its existence, but that does not make it go away.

 

For example, would you agree that a tree that falls in the forest makes no sound if there is no one there to hear it? Indeed, that tree simply does not exist unless someone experiences it at that time. Of course, I can't prove this is not true, but there are very good reasons to suggest this is so. If everything blinked in and out of existence depending on when it was being observed, then the physical laws of conservation of matter and energy would fail, big time. They don't. Now that does not prove that the physical reality exists outside our perception of it, nor that tomorrow the laws of physics won't fail, but there is an aweful lot of scientific evidence behind that view. What evidence do you have to support your view?

No observer, no sound, no tree, no reality, We are having a lively discusion on this here,Philosophy and Humanities, "Where does reality reside" http:// Science Forums > Humanities Forums > Philosophy and Humanities if you care to prove there is a "realty" out side of our perseption...

[Thunderbird]

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence to support the claim that the archetype for dragons appeared simultaneously, or even independently, in multiple cultures. It is quite possible that it spread from a more ancient culture.

 

 

I don't mean to be rude, but most of this is meaningless to me. Perhaps that is my limitation, but I try to keep a firm grasp on reality. What evidence is there that "these forms underlie reality"? That can only be so if there is no external physical reality. Now you may chose to deny its existence, but that does not make it go away.

 

 

 

Quantum mechanics implies that “reality” The basic physical realm, there is neither space nor time nor matter.

Starting with the observer point in time space, that provide vectors in an quantum flux - that we perceive from a particular coordinate point in space time, we then construct our mental world around firstly, basic dualities, secondly, around particular basic forms representing qualities of our own nature. These qualities are the archetypes, or as Pythagoras said eternal true forms.

[REASON]

Quantum mechanics implies that “reality” The basic physical realm, there is neither space nor time nor matter.

Starting with the observer point in time space, that provide vectors in an quantum flux - that we perceive from a particular coordinate point in space time, we then construct our mental world around firstly, basic dualities, secondly, around particular basic forms representing qualities of our own nature. These qualities are the archetypes, or as Pythagoras said eternal true forms.

 

So, according to this philosophy, nothing actually exists. Not you, nor I, nor the entire universe. We are not communicating on the internet for we were never actually born. We have no family, no friends, no jobs, no emotions. Everything is an illusion created in minds we don't actually have. There is no science, no analysis, no data, because there is nothing to observe in reality. In fact, there are no observers, other than that which exists in some realm apart from this physical existance that obviously does exist, even though there is nothing to show that it does.

 

Of course, since there is no life in reality, than there is no death either. When our imaginary bodies die, we will continue on as observers in the eternal flux.

 

We are all nothing but a coordinate in the midst of an infinite amount of probability waves.

 

:applause:

 

 

:applause: Wow, I just had a really weird dream!

[freeztar]

:applause: Wow, I just had a really weird dream!

 

Go back to sleep Neo. :applause:

[Thunderbird]

So, according to this philosophy, nothing actually exists. Not you, nor I, nor the entire universe. We are not communicating on the internet for we were never actually born. We have no family, no friends, no jobs, no emotions. Everything is an illusion created in minds we don't actually have. There is no science, no analysis, no data, because there is nothing to observe in reality. In fact, there are no observers, other than that which exists in some realm apart from this physical existance that obviously does exist, even though there is nothing to show that it does.

 

Of course, since there is no life in reality, than there is no death either. When our imaginary bodies die, we will continue on as observers in the eternal flux.

 

We are all nothing but a coordinate in the midst of an infinite amount of probability waves.

 

:applause:

 

 

:applause: Wow, I just had a really weird dream!

This is a misrepresentation of what I actually stated, “Reality” is from a certain perspective of an observer. This perspective we call reality is particular to us. Outside of this point is an infinite flux. A reality cannot be a real world without an observer point in a coordinant in space time.

[REASON]

This is a misrepresentation of what I actually stated,...

 

Okay.

 

 

...“Reality” is from a certain perspective of an observer. This perspective we call reality is particular to us.

 

Our Individual Reality is from our perspective as an observer and is particular to us. Actual Reality is the world that exists outside of our perception of it. I find it very difficult to understand why you reject this obviousness. In what reality does the baseball bat exist in, that knocks you unconscious when you were unaware that you were about to get hit? If our minds are not actually responsible for consciousness, than how can anyone even get knocked unconscious?

 

 

Outside of this point is an infinite flux.

 

:applause: Please clarify this statement. What is an infinite flux? What evidence is there of such a thing?

 

 

A reality cannot be a real world without an observer point in a coordinant in space time.

 

That has already been answered in the Where does Reality Reside thread. An observer point in a coordinate of space/time can simply be a second object that can provide a spacial relationship to the first. It is not required that either observer be conscious. If it did, there would literally be no matter or energy that exists in space/time prior to human consciousness, and there is vast amounts of empirical evidence to refute such a notion.

[Thunderbird]

Okay.

 

 

 

 

Our Individual Reality is from our perspective as an observer and is particular to us. Actual Reality is the world that exists outside of our perception of it. I find it very difficult to understand why you reject this obviousness. In what reality does the baseball bat exist in, that knocks you unconscious when you were unaware that you were about to get hit? If our minds are not actually responsible for consciousness, than how can anyone even get knocked unconscious?

The bat and the head are both solid objects because the wave function is collapsed as vectors, coodinates to one another that can relate, thus react within an equation that starts with the observer point in space time.

 

I was hit with a bat, on the top of my head, here at my office at 5-21-2008 @ 3:30pm pm, by an angry Newtonian physicist.

:applause: Please clarify this statement. What is an infinite flux? What evidence is there of such a thing?

IVB. Technical Introduction.

Is quantum mechanics as it now stands the final theory of the physical universe? Its highly unified mathematical structure and its successes in elementary particles, atomic and nuclear structure, and solid state physics certainly seem to imply it is on the right track.

 

Quantum Mechanics and Representation Theory

 

On the other hand, the current theory of quantum mechanics is built entirely upon concepts from representation theory. (Representation theory is reviewed in Secs. IIIA2.2 and IVC.)

 

● The particlelike properties of mass, energy, momentum, spin and charge, along with their addition and conservation laws, all follow from group representation theory; they are group representational labels on the quantum mechanical states.

 

● The states of fermions correspond to spin ½ (or 3/2) representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

 

● The states of vector bosons correspond to spin 1 representations of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

 

● Both fermion and vector boson states correspond to representations of the internal symmetry group.

 

● Both fermion and boson states correspond to (antisymmetric and symmetric, resp.) representations of the permutation group.

 

● The free particle Dirac and Proca equations follow from group representation theory.

 

● The internal symmetry group representational properties of the interactions play a prominent role in elementary particle physics.

 

Thus the theory is constructed exactly as if it were a representational form of an underlying theory.

 

This would seem to imply with near certainty that there is a more fundamental, pre-representational form of quantum mechanics, with the current form being a representational form of the underlying, pre-representational theory.1

 

The Underlying Independent Variable Theory

 

To conform to the basic principles of quantum mechanics, the underlying, pre-representational theory must be linear. And it must be invariant under a set of transformations that is homomorphic to the direct product of the Lorentz group, an internal symmetry group, and a permutation group. The general structure of this conjectured underlying theory, given in Sec. IVD1, takes the form of a linear (partial differential) equation in a currently unknown set of independent variables. In it, space, time and matter are derivative, not primary, concepts. An example of such a theory—a linear partial differential equation in complex variables—is given in Sec. IVE.

 

Spin ½ Representational Form of the Theory.

 

To go from the general, pre-representational form of the theory to the conventional, representational form, one must choose a set of basis functions (functions of the independent variables). We suppose these functions form the basis for a particlelike spin ½ representation of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. The four-fermion spin ½ representational formulation can then be viewed either as following from the underlying independent variable formulation, or as an underlying formulation of current quantum mechanics in its own right.

 

All states in the spin ½ formulation are sums of antisymmetrized products of the basis functions. The vacuum state is presumed to be constructed from tightly bound “molecules” that are invariant under global transformations from the internal symmetry group. Vector bosons states correspond to perturbed vacuum molecules.

 

Insights Offered by the Spin ½ Formulation.

 

The spin ½ formulation has several advantages.

 

● One explicitly sees from the molecular construction of the vacuum that gauge transformations produce vector bosons.

 

● One explicitly sees from the molecular construction of the vacuum that the boson fields produced are proportional to the derivatives of the gauge transformation.

 

● One explicitly sees from the molecular construction of the vacuum that the boson fields transform as a spin 1 representation of the Lorentz group.

 

● One sees why the number and transformation properties of the vector bosons are the same as those of the generators of the internal symmetry group.

 

● In an SU(6) model, one can explicitly construct a broken symmetry vacuum that leads to results very similar to the standard model theory. This includes an explicit, scalar symmetry-breaking, mass-generating term with the proper group transformation properties. It also yields quarks, electrons and neutrinos with the proper properties.

 

Note:

 

1. Our reasoning that there must be an underlying pre-representational form of the theory is based on thinking of quantum mechanics as a mathematical theory. One could take a different tack here. One could suppose the theory is relativistic because the underlying physical reality is relativistic (and has internal and permutation symmetries) by nature. Then it is natural to assume its mathematical description would use representations of the inherent symmetry group(s). This reasoning, however, effectively assumes there is a physical reality other than the wave function. And we show in Sec. IIIB3 that it is apparently not possible to construct a theory of such a reality that meshes properly with quantum mechanics. That is, there cannot be a physical reality other than the wave function.

 

 

 

IIIB3. Problems with Non-Collapse Objective Reality Theories

 

 

1. Introduction.

 

A non-collapse objective reality is one in which both the wave function - with all its branches - and a separate, objective reality exist together. We will give three arguments against such a scheme. First, there can be no evidence which implies there is such a scheme unless quantum mechanics is found to be wrong. And so far, it has always been right. Second, there is no way to show that objective reality theories achieve their intended goal of explaining why we perceive a particular quantum mechanical outcome. And third, there are technical difficulties encountered in attempting to meld quantum mechanics with an objective reality theory.

 

 

 

2. No Experimental Evidence for an Objective Reality

 

In the various attempts to interpret quantum mechanics, its weaknesses are often emphasized while its strengths are not fully appreciated. We feel that a proper appreciation of its strengths significantly narrows the field of potential interpretations.

 

 

 

The Strengths of Quantum Mechanics.

 

To illustrate how well the theory of quantum mechanics does, suppose we again consider Schrödinger’s cat. The wave function is the sum of two parts, two potential versions of reality – a version with the cat alive and a version with the cat dead. We perceive one or the other. The point is that, no matter which possibility we perceive, quantum mechanics includes within its wave function an exact description of our perceptions. (The problem, of course, is that it includes more than just what we perceive in a given instance, but never mind for now.)

 

 

 

Exactly the same thing occurs in the scattering of an electron (section IID.4) off a proton surrounded by a sphere of film emulsion. The wave function for the end result is the sum of many possible versions of reality, each with just one grain of film exposed. And one of those possible versions of reality will correspond exactly to what we perceive.

 

 

 

This can be generalized. In a given experiment (or in real life), the wave function will contain many versions of physical reality. And it will always be found that one of those versions corresponds exactly, quantitatively, to what we perceive. In short, quantum mechanics always contains the right answer - a correct, accurate description of what we perceive.

 

 

 

No Experimental Evidence for Objective Realities.

 

There are two consequences of this observation. The first is that as long as quantum mechanics always gives the right answer, there can be no experimental evidence for a separate objective reality, for quantum mechanics has co-opted all the evidence. The only hope for those who advocate a separate, objective reality is that some experiment will show quantum mechanics to be wrong. And after all the tests quantum mechanics has been put through and passed – especially those involving Bell-like situations – that seems like a vain hope.

 

 

 

Perception of the Wave Function.

 

The second consequence is that, since the wave function always contains an accurate, complete description of what we perceive, we must, in some sense, be perceiving the wave function! (This, of course, also holds in collapse theories.)

 

 

 

3. How does an Objective Reality Lead to Perception of a Particular Branch?

 

 

 

Not only is it very unlikely that an objective reality exists, but also, even if it does, it is not at all clear that it leads to conscious perception of one particular branch. To illustrate the problem, suppose we do the Schrödinger’s cat experiment yet again. Ignoring for the moment the reputed objective reality, the two-version wave function, including the cat and the observer’s brain, is

 

[cat alive][observer’s neurons correspond to perceiving cat alive]

 

+

 

[cat dead][observer’s neurons correspond to perceiving cat dead]

 

Now we include the objective reality. If we think in terms of the Bohm model, for example, all the particles corresponding to the cat and the observer will be on one branch or the other. (The argument is essentially the same for all objective reality theories.) Suppose the branch with the particles is the cat alive branch. Then the state, {alive}, of the system, wave function plus particles, is

 

{alive}=

 

[cat alive]pa[observer’s neurons correspond to perceiving cat alive]*pa

 

+

 

[cat dead]no pa[observer’s neurons correspond to perceiving cat dead]no pa

 

where the asterisk denotes the particled, conscious version of the brain.

 

The implicit assumption, normally made without comment in particle theories, is that the branch which the particles travel on is the branch that enters our awareness. The point is that this is an assumption which I believe it is most difficult to defend. And if it cannot be defended—if it must simply be assumed—then the presumption that there is an objective reality does not really give an explanation for why we perceive one and only one particular version of reality.

 

Conjectured Defenses of the Consciousness-Particle Connection.

 

The onus is on the objective reality advocate to defend the particle-perception connection but as far as I know, that is never explicitly done. So I will guess at the defenses and comment on them. Before doing that, however, I will list four relevant points.

 

• Existence in objective reality theories consists solely of the objective reality plus the wave function. There is nothing apart from these two that would correspond to consciousness. There is no inherent intelligence within the particles, for example, nor is there an “outside” observer perceiving the state of the particles or the wave function.

 

• Because wave functions alone—with no assumption of the existence of particles—have been found sufficient for very accurately describing (low energy) reality, at least in simple cases, we assume the wave function of the neurons of the brain is not substantially changed by the presence or absence of particles.

 

• More generally (aside from the problems associated with understanding many branches), quantum mechanics gives a complete (as far as we know) and accurate accounting of the properties of the physical universe. Whatever we perceive has qualities corresponding to those of the wave function.

 

• Particles on the other hand add nothing (as far as we know) to the quantitative description of nature. In particular, particles are not needed to explain the Compton effect (IIIA4), localization (IIIA5), particlelike trajectories (IIIA5), the discrete properties of matter (IIIA6), atomic spectra and so on.

 

Conjectured Defense 1. The particles (or more generally the objective reality) are the “actual” reality, with the wave function being a subsidiary, nonperceived reality.

 

Comments:

 

• Everything we perceive corresponds to properties of the wave function. How does one justify saying we do not perceive the wave function?

 

• Why are particles given the role of arbiter of consciousness when they play no role in the quantitative description of the physical universe (and when there is not even any evidence for them)?

 

• There is, in objective reality models, no external being that perceives either the particles or the wave function. So it is simply an assumption—an apparently unsupportable assumption—that the particles are the actual, perceived reality. What is perceiving them and not the wave function (which is the carrier of all the quantitative information)?

 

• Finally, one cannot simply say that that is just the way the universe is; the particled version is the version that enters our consciousness. One must explain why we perceive only the branch with the particles and, particularly, why we don not the quantum-mechanically-equally-valid branches with no particles. Otherwise one is “solving” the particular-version problem by declaration, not by fact or logic.

 

Conjectured Defense 2. The particled version forms a self-consistent universe which one could imagine giving rise to an artificial-intelligence-like awareness. And objective reality theories have the potential to explain the probability law.

 

Comment:

 

• These may indeed be true. But they still do not explain why we are aware of the particled version but not the nonparticled versions. And the artificial-intelligence-like awareness argument cuts both ways; it can be applied to wave functions as well as particles.

 

In summary, until a clear explanation is given for why we are aware of the particled version but not the nonparticled versions, objective reality theories cannot even get out of the starting gate. The presumed existence of particles or any other form of objective existence cannot solve the problem of why our awareness corresponds to one particular version of our brain.

 

 

 

4. Technical Difficulties with Objective Reality Theories.

 

Because of the reasoning in section 2, I do not believe there is an objective reality. In addition, because of the reasoning in section 3, I do not believe that there is an acceptable explanation for why we perceive only the branch associated with the objective reality in underlying objective reality theories. Nevertheless, we will continue our criticism of such theories by considering the technical difficulties they face.

 

We will use an electron scattering experiment to explain the requirements on an underlying objective reality theory and the difficulties encountered in trying to construct such a theory. A target proton is at the center of a 1 meter sphere covered with detectors. An electronlike wave function scatters off the proton. The wave function spreads out and hits all the detectors, but only one registers the passage of the wave function. We infer from this that the “objective reality that triggered the detector” (actually, there is a detector triggered on each branch) must be very small, as small as the smallest possible detector. This essentially throws us back to the Bohmlike objective reality model of a point particle. In that model, the point particle moves rapidly back and forth within the confines of the wave function.

 

A constraint on objective reality models is that there must be one and only one “particle” associated with each single-particle wave function. This constraint must be put into the theory in a mathematical form; it cannot simply be one of the assumptions defining the theory (as it is in the Bohm model). The mathematical form of this constraint will presumably be that of a “source” equation, with the particle being the source of the associated single-particle wave function.

 

The conditions that an underlying objective reality theory with a source equation must satisfy are:

 

• The source equation must not significantly modify the wave function. In particular, it must not measurably affect the emitted light spectrum or the chemical properties of the elements.

 

• When there is a source equation, the Bohm derivation of the probability law no longer holds in general. So one must make sure there is a valid derivation of the probability law.

 

• The wave function must not be significantly affected by the rapid zig-zag “Bohmian” motion of the source.

 

• When the wave function splits into two or more widely separated parts, the particle (localized objective reality) must presumably still be the source for all the parts.

 

• Suppose the source equation takes the form of a modified Schrödinger equation, with being the usual Hamiltonian for the N-particle wave function and the source term being, in general, a nonlinear function of the wave function. Then separability ( becomes a sum and becomes a product) implies that . This constraint must be satisfied in an underlying objective reality theory with sources.

 

• The theory must allow for the creation and annihilation of photonlike states and particle-antiparticle pairs.

 

• The theory must be relativistically invariant.

 

• Internal symmetries must be integrated into the theory. (Remember that mass, energy, momentum, spin and charge are properties of the wave function—section IIIA2.)

 

To the best of my knowledge, there is not a candidate theory that even starts to address these constraints on a hidden variable theory with a source equation.

 

 

 

5. Conclusion.

 

Because quantum mechanics always gives an accurate description of what we perceive, I do not believe there is an objective reality. In addition the two problems—explaining why only the branch associated with the objective reality is perceived, and overcoming the technical difficulties—present formidable barriers to the construction of a satisfactory objective reality theory. I would not like to hang my view of reality on the slim possibility that these problems will be solved.

 

 

 

6. The Copenhagen Interpretation.

 

The Copenhagen interpretation says, in essence, that the physical world divides into two aspects, a macroscopic, large-scale aspect and a microscopic, atomic-scale aspect. It is only the macroscopic aspect—meters, cats, and so on—that we directly perceive. So, says this interpretation, because we cannot directly perceive on the atomic scale, it is useless to speculate on the nature of matter on that scale. (And by implication, it is useless to search for an explanation of the mysteries of quantum mechanics.)

 

Because of the following points, I simply don’t agree with this point of view.

 

• We perceive something.

 

• What we perceive agrees in every checkable instance with the characteristics of the wave function.

 

• We have argued that it is very difficult to defend the existence of an objective (microscopic or macroscopic) reality separate from the wave function.

 

So, even though we cannot verify the nature of matter by "direct perception," it still seems valid to conclude that matter, on every scale, consists of the wave function and the wave function alone.

 

We might consider an analogy here. Imagine a picture of a beautiful snow-capped mountain, digitally printed. The various pixels correspond in the analogy to the facts of science while the whole picture corresponds to the implications, or the meaning of the facts of science. To me, the Copenhagen interpretation is like saying we are only allowed to pay attention to the pixels. We have no business inferring what the mountain actually looks like from the picture. Casey Blood PH.D.

 

http://http://www.quantummechanicsandreality.com/Interpretations/iic3_no_objective.htm

 

 

 

That has already been answered that in the Where does Reality Reside thread. An observer point in a coordinate of space/time can simply be a second object that can provide a spacial relationship to the first. It is not required that either observer be conscious. If it did, there would literally be no matter or energy that exists in space/time prior to human consciousness, and there is vast amounts of empirical evidence to refute such a notion.

Not on the quantum level. :applause:

[Thunderbird]

The challenge associated with twentieth century quantum physics is monumental. Theories and interpretations for explaining quantum events appear mystical, if not whimsical to the outside observer. Theories such as infinite universes, pilot waves and the need for a conscious observer to create physical reality are indicators that our present worldview is falling apart. "Today there is a wide measure of agreement…that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine [Capra, p.86, 1982]."