So the basic argument from Amit Goswami, Deepak Chopra, and other new age spirituality guys is that consciousness is the fundamental ground of all there is, not matter or energy. And since this is true, that consciousness can be considered God. Their argument for this being the case is that quantum mechanics show that for a wave function to be collapsed, there must be an observer--therefore there must be some sort of super consciousness that is more fundamental than matter or energy, i.e. God.

What do you guys think of that argument? Amit Goswami is a nuclear physicist btw.

Here is a video by Goswami.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6SaBflpiM

I'm not really qualified to discuss the physics but it seems like this view conflates a particular ontological interpretation of QM (Copenhagen? basically?) for QM itself, ignoring that the mathematical formalism doesn't necessitate that interpretation. So for example in the many worlds view I don't think the conclusion would hold

And beyond that, it's never been clear to me that the operational definition of an "observer" or a "measurement" actually necessitates consciousness in a physical sense, and that the pop culture understanding of the uncertainty principle as involving a conscious observer is not necessitated by the actual math, and wiki even suggests there is a distinction between Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and observer effects in general. I can't sort all of that out, but it makes sense intuitively that it's difficult for us to really test the idea of consciousness being involved in a fundamental way with the outcome of quantum interactions because it's impossible for us to remove consciousness from our own process of understanding those interactions. Physics abstractly isolates the part of the universe under investigation from the rest and this is perfectly useful but in considering this kind of question the abstraction breaks down. I'm not sure how we could demonstrate that consciousness is fundamental to the laws themselves rather than just being fundamental to our own experience of phenomena. No matter how rube-goldberg-ish you make the testing apparatus you just push back the part where the conscious human becomes aware of the results.

Anyway, I think this stuff is fascinating but I think the argument draws conclusions that are beyond the scope of what can be given direct support from the actual physics, and there is always the danger of taking the predictive strength of the physical models as evidence for the correctness of the interpretation when that's not warranted

The new age thinkers like to use the double-slit experiment as evidence that consciousness is important to QM. I don't understand physics well at all but it seems to me that something must happen on a physical basis for us to "observe" the photons. Like when I observe a flower, photons are bouncing off of it and reaching my eye...so there is a collision, or a physical interaction, that was necessary for the observation. I wonder if something similar has to happen in the double-slit experiment and that a physical interaction is necessary for us to observe the photons going through the slit and that is what actually collapses the wave function, not our consciousness.

I don't really understand how all that works though, so my idea might be off base.

The part of the double slit electron experiment that deals with the observer effect and the uncertainty principle is the part where you attempt to determine which slit the electron passes through by using a light source pointed at the slits, and a light detector which is calibrated to detect photons coming from each slit, and can tell which slit the photon originated from. The idea is that a photon will only enter the detector when it is scattered by the electron passing through the slit, since otherwise the light source is not pointing at the detector.

The reason for doing this test is that you are otherwise mystified by the wave-like interference pattern you observe, and you want to confirm that these things you thought were particles are actually particles and follow a path and go through one slit or the other

And what happens is you find that you can in fact detect that an electron goes through one slit or the other, your light source scatters photons off the electrons and the detector picks them up. But it has another effect: the interference pattern disappears

So far, I don't think any of this necessitates consciousness, it follows from the idea that the interaction between the photon and electron does more than just scatter the photon to your detector. It modifies the behavior of the electron, which modifies the pattern. What remains very amazing about it is that the interaction between photon and electron is just the right kind of interaction to fuzz out the interference pattern so that the aggregate behavior of the electron gun "looks" classical again, rather than wavelike.

Then from there (and I'm borrowing all this from Feynman's description from the Lectures on Physics) you decide to try to minimize the effect of the photon/electron interaction so that you won't disturb the interference pattern. So what you do is you use a lower-frequency light source, so that the photons have less energy and will disturb the electrons less. And then what happens is you run into the problem where as you turn the frequency of the light down, correspondingly you have a longer wave-length, which impacts the resolution of your detector, and you reach a point where the energy level of the light is low enough that you see the interference pattern again, but consequently your light detector can no longer isolate which slit the electron passed through, because the wave-length is larger than the distance between the slits and the resolution of the detector corresponds to the wavelength

It's a very pretty sort of catch-22 and it makes you go "really?", but there's nothing about it that seems to depend on consciousness. You can imagine the interactions between the electron gun, the light source, detector, and backdrop all working the same with no one seeing it. It's rather the sort of spooky correlation between all these different properties that is perplexing. But I think the takeaway is more to do with the ontology of fundamental particles (that both "wave" and "particle" analogies fail, that classical ideas about objects and "paths" and such are fundamentally approximations of reality) than with the observer effect or with consciousness.

When you say "observation" are you talking about the experience of seeing the flower (by way of the photon hitting your eye and starting various reactions that you count as part of your conscious experience) or are you talking about the idea that the photon must interact with something to be observed (so that a light sensor would be a suitable stand-in for you).

Interesting how this is almost exactly the same as an argument used by George Berkeley 300 years ago.

I intuitively believe that hippy physics is complete bollocks but from my (extremely minimal) understanding of QM, it's not that a conscious observer is required to collapse a wave function but rather that the act of observation requires an expenditure of energy and/or interference with the event that creates an outcome at the quantum level.

So consciousness is not required, it's not observation as such but the act of measurement and the attendant interference.

aka consciousness

So if we set up a machine to make automatic measurements, that machine is therefore conscious?

I think the objection would be that in observing or having observed the machine you represent some form of consciousness or flow of consciousness, and if it was never observed... well, you get the drift.

This is all just "if a tree falls..." in a new frock. OrP's observation on this basically being the ideas of George Berkeley seems extremely apt.


As an objection I would raise, more as a scientific than a philosophical one, is that these people seem to conflate models with study objects. I know that they would probably object that the model is the study object. However, while I am certainly no expert on physics, I certainly know enough to know that models don't always fit observation. This would seem to invalidate such an objection rather well.

Consciousness has always been one of the big mysteries, if not the biggest. But other than that, human minds simply cannot get around the issue of first cause. Nobody in the history of mankind has ever been able get around that the idea that everything has to have a beginning, so you get into an infinite regression, which usually leads to an eternal universe, or God. The human mind demands a first cause, but it is an unsolvable problem.

Anyone who claims to know what cannot be known, is a LOSER. Anyone who asks you to believe in something that cannot be disproved (in the first cause, universe, god question), is someone that should be avoided at all costs, as they are intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

You dont know we will never answer the question of first cause (or if there was one). Never could be a long time. Billions of years. We cant know is just a guess.

And since you dont know and calm to know we cant, it looks like ...

Okay.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The human mind demands a first cause. So, whatever you start with, whether it be the universe or god, it cannot be started by itself (that is what humans believe in all other matters, therefore some bailout and go to god, while smart people understand that it is an unsolvable human dilemma). You will always have someone who will ask: "what was there before the universe, or before god?"

I could argue that instead of god, there is an invisible FROG that started it all. In fact, I talk to this FROG daily, and he gives me great comfort. You cannot disprove it, and it works for me, so you must be a soulless atheiest...lol. In fact, this FROG sent his only son to some swamp, and other FROGS killed him. But, he awoke from the dead and therefore you must believe in my FROG...lol. In fact, when I help a homeless person, it is not out of any decency that I may have as a person, it comes from the power of the FROG. Feel the power, baby.

Any god that you can dream up, can be substituted by a FROG, or even an empty box of pizza. Believe in it if you will. If you do, you are a loser, and so are your parents who taught you that.

Back under your rocks.

lol, you lack conviction

I think it would be delightful if you could tailor your trolling a bit more closely to the topic of the thread

You are arguing that we can never understand the universe and the ex-nihilo problem, but what is being argued is that perhaps in the future the problem will be solved.

As for your Frog, I'm not sure what this accomplishes except that you are substituting one God for another.

I was done with them. I am one of the top experts in the world on beauty, finance, and religion. However, I won't teach those who are unwilling to learn about the reality of the world. I will never post in that thread again. Most people want to remain losers, and are not looking for help. Some of those people in that thread actually told me that their parents were good people for teaching children that garbage....lol.

And this is demonstrated by high quality, articulate reasoning.

One can have dreams...

did you know that when you google "top experts in the world on beauty, finance, and religion" the first result is the wiki page for Donald Trump?

If you ever come up with a higher power, you still have to ask the question of how did that higher power come into existence, and what was it like just before there was a higher power. The human mind is not capable of getting around the first cause problem, so people will believe in an eternal god or an eternal universe.

Nowadays, you have people saying that the universe can be created from nothing, but their "nothing" still has to be something, at least that is what the mind demands. And you have the multiple universe argument, but that gets you right back to where you started, with the question of what was there before the original universe.

If you can't see that it is unsolvable from a human mind, then I guess there is nothing to say. You can never get around the first cause question, since there had to be something right before the eternal universe, or god. If the universe or god can be created from nothing, then anything goes, and you might as well say that there is a Master Frog in control of the universe. Once you go down the rabbit hole, and try to fit an answer into something that is unknowable, you start looking like an ass.

Because there is no answer, people will come up with embarrassing theories that make them look like idiots. They can waste their lives if they wish. But even if there was an answer, you still end up with the same questions that society has now, which is how to best navigate though the journey. So, it really doesn't even matter if there is an answer as to why, as it doesn't alter the questions faced, and the decisions that need to be made.

Then why do you keep posting?

What's wrong in accepting a transcendent immaterial cause instead of a transcendent physical one?

Seems like a quite sweeping assertion, I think there are many more important measures of a person than whether or not these believe in an initial first cause and desire that others share that opinion.

EDIT

I see from your later posts that you are deluded or trolling. As you were then.

Nice try, but a bit too obvious. Ignore it is.