↪Banno All if the sudden everyone wants proof of what is out there when for 100 years physics had been saying it is impossible to know. Until it is viewed, it can only be said it is in a quantum state. What's more, it is all entangled and there are no boundaries. The universe is not a bunch is solid, distinct things. Wheeler theorized the universe as a quantum foam. — Rich

Philosophers have been saying that it is impossible to know at least since Kant.

The main error in your quantum thinking is the "nothing but"; the cup is both a cup and a quantum foam. They are not mutually exclusive.

While quantum physics might treat the universe as not a bunch of "solid, distinct things" all other physics does exactly that. Again, it is an error to think that because Jupiter is made up of quantum thingies, there is no Jupiter.

Another error is to give undue priority to the consciousness account over the standard Copenhagen approach. It is only the minority view consciousness approach that lends itself to your account. In the Copenhagen approach a wave function collapses when it makes a difference. Consciousness is not a part of that account.

I just want to know if in the future if I refer to materialist views of consciousness as swampy, will I need to reference this article? If so, I'll bookmark it.

Penrose received rather a lot of flack for his proposal.

Penrose received rather a lot of flack for his proposal. — Banno

Of course. Science defends materialism because it butters their bread. One has to be totally shielded to suggest what Penrose says. Otherwise, you are summarily marginalized, ostracized and run out of the profession. Penrose probably doesn't care anymore.

Ah. So there is a conspiracy to hide the truth of cosmic consciousness.

No. It's a realization that if you don't do what the department head tells you to do (funding is everything), you are out on your behind. Such is the nature of science. Science is self-selecting. Either play along or find a new profession.

OK, so the Copenhagen interpretation is only accepted because the heads of physics Departments world wide insist on it.

How about addressing the philosophical critique I made above? my 749.

You should read about the history of the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation. Pretty interesting. At this point in time, science doesn't care. They only want to keep making money by promising to end all diseases with some magic drugs. That is what keeps the money flowing big time. Materialism will conquer all.

Again, can you address the philosophical points I made?

How about addressing the philosophical critique I made above? my 749. — Banno

I have no idea what your critique was about. It's already been concluded that materialism is swampy. No observation then it is an unknown. There is no teacup. With observation, voila, teacup.

Anyway, nice that Penrose gets it.

I suspect that you and Penrose would not get on as well as you think.

So you will not address this?

While quantum physics might treat the universe as not a bunch of "solid, distinct things" all other physics does exactly that. Again, it is an error to think that because Jupiter is made up of quantum thingies, there is no Jupiter. — Banno

You still don't get it. You don't have Jupiter until there is a subject claiming so. This is the basic philosophical issue. You want there to be a Jupiter without someone saying so. You can't. Without someone(s) it is just unknown. Unknown means unknown. It's not a blank space for someone to fill in what they like. It is in some quantum state. Your viewpoint is swampy. The billard ball view of reality vanished 100 years ago.

I rather that I do "get it", and that "it" is a crock of speculative pseudo-science. At its heart it confuses Jupiter with "Jupiter", the thing named with the name. Jupiter was around long before it was named.

That you insist on filling in "unknown" with your choice of word is the pseudo-science. It is what the article graciously to referred to as swampy. But, heck, it's your philosophy not mine.

Whether or not I am in agreement with Penrose is of no mind to me. What I am glad to see is that at least he is moving philosophical thought forward and is not stuck in the 16th century.

I had wanted to discuss some philosophy, but if you are only willing to trade insults, let's leave it there.

I had wanted to discuss some philosophy, but if you are only willing to trade insults, let's leave it there. — Banno

Sorry. I thought you wanted to talk about pseudo-science. My bad.

Simply put:... — Rich

That's your problem, in a nutshell.

Jupiter was around long before it was named. — Banno

I hate to say it, but Rich has a point. Recall the famous anecdote - I've quoted it to you before - of Einstein, out on one of his afternoon walks in the woods, when he mused aloud to his companion. 'surely the moon must exist when we're not looking at it!' I'm sure that Einstein was asking this rhetorically - he is of course convinced this it must, as Einstein was a convinced scientific realist. But the question remains: why was he compelled to ask that question? Why would he have to ask it? Why bring it up?

Einstein's asking a rhetorical question about the moon does not prove "all is quanta," and Einstein never said it was.

No, that is the author's description. It's easy to understand the point of view. No mind (observer), no object. What's out there, without the mind, is unknown. In physics it is called a quantum state.

But of course, it is possible to simplify further and claim there is an object out there without an observer, but then we would have to push back physics 100 years. There is no boundary. There is entanglement. And consciousness is involved. Simply put.

BTW, did you object to that a materialistic viewpoint being described as swampy?

No, nobody in physics supports your "all is quanta" claim. So the only ones setting physics back 100 years is you and that claim.

Einstein's asking a rhetorical question about the moon does not prove "all is quanta," and Einstein never said it was. — Thanatos Sand

Of course it doesn't, nor am I saying it did. I think that Rich has a point, but that Rich doesn't appreciate how radical the statement 'no subject, no object' is. I have, for example,Brian Magee's book on Schopenhauer's philosophy; it has a chapter on this very point, called 'no object without a subject'. But Schopenhauer wrote his magnum opus on this very point - hundreds of pages of argument - and furthermore, philosophy has, on the whole, long since rejected Schopenhauer's style of idealism. So you can't simply take for granted that people are going to accept such ideas.

People are, by and large, instinctive realists. They believe that the world of the senses, and the world described by science, is the real world. It is very hard to see it otherwise. Magee's book makes the point that Schopenhauer's (and Kant's) philosophy has some points in common with Indian philosophy. But he also points out that Vedanta, for example, is a philosophy which traditionally takes decades of study to understand. It's actually a very subversive type of philosophy, in that it undermines what most people take for granted.

Entanglement (non-locality) and other quantum effects has now been demonstrated for protons. The Schrodinger Cat puzzle demonstrates the entanglement of large states and small states. One cannot draw a boundary.

My views are only radical within specific populations and cultures. Such conditioning of perception begins at the cultural level and for those who never step outside their closed system, any new thought (I mean really new thought) will seem unreasonable or ridiculous. For those who are steeped in multi-cultural environments, new ideas are welcomed not derided.

If students are taught in grade school that the universe was energy (Qi, Quantum, Prana), and this energy creates energy imprints in the fabric of the universe (itself) as is a hologram, and the image does not appear until it is observed with a reconstructive wave, then nothing I say would surprise anyone. But this would disrupt an entire industry that depends upon envisioning humans as robots, so it is not taught and thus the image of the universe is molded by economic determinants.
;
Anyone who's disapproves is similar drummed out, reinforcing the self-reinforcing nature of the materialistic view of life. We are billiard balls just knocking around and only scientists know how to put things right. The making of a new-fashioned priesthood.

I would like to agree with you, except that you're speaking, or spouting, pop philosophy - partially-understood ideas from the usual suspects - Deepak Chopra, Frithjof Capra, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. As this is a philosophy forum, not a New Age forum, one should adjust one's approach accordingly. Saying 'the universe is Qi, Quantum, Prana' is meaningless - what do any of those terms mean? A general catch-all term for 'The Great Spirit'? Sorry, not meaning to sound hostile, but that is what a lot of readers will be thinking.

Right. The only acceptable concepts are concrete ones like Big Bang, Natural Selection, Natural Laws, Dark Matter, the illusion of consciousness, etc. This is how the system enforces the order.

BTW, you have no idea what I've studied and how I arrived at my ideas.

None of it is nearly as easy as you think it is.

8-)

↪Thanatos Sand Entanglement (non-locality) and other quantum effects has now been demonstrated for protons. The Schrodinger Cat puzzle demonstrates the entanglement of large states and small states. One cannot draw a boundary.

You just supported what I previously wrote about your erroneous notion of "all is quanta":

↪Rich "No, nobody in physics supports your "all is quanta" claim. So the only ones setting physics back 100 years is you and that claim."

Of course it doesn't, nor am I saying it did. I think that Rich has a point, but that Rich doesn't appreciate how radical the statement 'no subject, no object' is

.

The problem is you keep saying Rich has a point, but you don't specify what that "point" is, and the point he's been largely and avidly making is the erroneous and unfounded one that "all is quanta."

People are, by and large, instinctive realists. They believe that the world of the senses, and the world described by science, is the real world. It is very hard to see it otherwise.

That is true, but Science's descriptions of the world are certainly not to be unfoundedly rejected and saying that "all isn't quanta" doesn't mark one as a instinctive realist.