All good philosophy predates and anticipates advances in the sciences. If this is mind-boggling, it's not because a mind is mirroring, copying or representing an independent reality, it's because human constructions can produce pragmatic inventions that allow all kinds of impressive ways to interact with our world( which is what a science is). This feat is no more impressive that innovations in the arts or other non-empirical domains. The supposed remarkable 'fit' between philosophy and science , or between science and t he world is a trick, an artifact of the way that theoretical presuppositions game , that is, constrain and define empirical discovery.

It is the magnitude of the leap in such an opposing direction as well as the clarity and specificity of the description that is so astounding. In my opinion, the single greatest philosophical accomplishment in modern philosophy. No one comes close.

Wouldn't it be neat if a 1-dimensional model could be found, that our universe could be "encoded" in?
Would go well with computation analogies and simulation hypotheses.

When idealists hijack quantum mechanics I sometimes wonder why they still can't derive qualia therefrom.

Well, some such idealists are hell-bent on making room for their deity.
I came across one claiming to have proven the Christian Trinity from quantum mechanics, no less.
A Californian physics student I think.
(Admittedly, I didn't bother to read it.)

When idealists hijack quantum mechanics — jorndoe

No one is hijacking anything. Physicists are reworking the model of the universe around quantum information and entanglement. Information implies a Mind. It is just that scientists can't use that word so they use consciousness or quantum information instead. Keeps the materialist troops happy.

I can infer that there are other minds, but we only ever know mind in the singular and in the first person. — Wayfarer

That's something I'm currently stuck on... It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, somehow creating all that exists (including other seemingly self-aware entities) at some subconscious level. It's easier to swallow the idea that there is some sort of greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, and we are co-creating a shared reality. The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... Also confounding is the thought of the timing of all forms of consciousness coming into existence. Was most of reality basically already collapsed by the time my remembered self-awareness started to form; or is the past constantly adjusted to reflect the collective memories of all conscious entities that exist at any one time?

It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, — CasKev

Exactly. I had the same response once to a lecturer who claimed she was making her own universe. I told her to try to take my wallet and she might notice another mind at work.

greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, — CasKev

Yes, we are all waves in an ocean.

The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... — CasKev

It is all weaved into the fabric of the universe. There is no collapse and it is not in the mind. It is all around us with a holographic-like wave-form. The biggest obstacle to understanding the universe is the concept that is taught (incorrectly) from childhood that it's in the brain. It isn't. No more than people live in TV sets. The TV broadcasts spread out everywhere and are shared in this manner. The TV is only receiving and transmitting which is analogous to the brain.

or is the past constantly adjusted to reflect the collective memories of all conscious entities that exist at any one time? — CasKev

The universal memory is constantly morphing.

I had the same response once to a lecturer who claimed she was making her own universe. I told her to try to take my wallet and she might notice another mind at work. — Rich

But of course you would be 'programmed' to behave in certain ways consistent with my first-person experience, so as to appear self-aware. There's no way for me to explicitly prove that another entity is truly self-aware and experiencing the sense of 'I' that I do. I would have to have a way to temporarily 'plug in' to your first-person experience.

There is no collapse and it is not in the mind. — Rich

Doesn't this contradict the findings of quantum mechanics - that something only comes into existence (probability waves collapsing into particulate matter) once it is observed?

The universal memory is constantly morphing. — Rich

Cumulative memory is constantly changing in the present moment, but is every aspect of our past already firmly established, waiting to be observed, or do the as of yet undiscovered elements of our past exist only as probabilities, morphing to fit our most current observed reality? For example, did dinosaurs actually exist, or was that 'memory' just part of the story consciousness created to explain our existence in the present moment?

It's hard to imagine me being the sole source of consciousness, somehow creating all that exists (including other seemingly self-aware entities) at some subconscious level. It's easier to swallow the idea that there is some sort of greater source consciousness of which we are all a part, and we are co-creating a shared reality. The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality. — CasKev

I have never understood myself as 'the sole source of consciousness', but as an instance of it. As for the 'consistency' of the shared reality - I think that can be understood through the perspective of language and culture. Those are the media which sustain the 'consensus reality' which humans inhabit, because by those means we arrive at conventional designation, description, and standards of measurement, which are the basis of language and even science.

However it needs to be understood that, according to traditional philosophy, the ordinary person (the hoi polloi, the mass of people) labour under some fundamental misconceptions as to the nature of reality. This gives rise to many confusing and contradictory notions which are basically fuel for all the debates that are constantly going on here on Philosophy Forum!

I think your post is hinting at a worldview in which 'consciousness is the primary reality'. That is the understanding behind Neo-platonism, Advaita Vedanta, and Yogācāra Buddhism, all of which developed elaborate philosophical cosmologies based on the primacy of mind. Interesting fact: many of the pioneers in quantum mechanics, including Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Wigner, and Pauli, became very interested in such philosophies, as they appeared to offer some means to accomodate the paradoxes that had been discovered through their research. (That is the subject of the well-known book,The Tao of Physics, by Frithjof Capra.)

But of course you would be 'programmed' to behave in certain ways consistent with my first-person experience, so as to appear self-aware. There's no way for me to explicitly prove that another entity is truly self-aware and experiencing the sense of 'I' that I do. I would have to have a way to temporarily 'plug in' to your first-person experience. — CasKev

At some point in one's life one had to jettison these notions of proof and someone programming them, and just come up with a model of nature and life that makes sense and provides real insight. But of course one can treat the whole thing like Sci Fi game and just have fun and forget about insights.

Doesn't this contradict the findings of quantum mechanics - that something only comes into existence (probability waves collapsing into particulate matter) once it is observed? — CasKev

Quantum suggests that the observer is entangled with the system. The so-called Copenhagen wave-collapse interpretation is nonsense, but it fun because it yields so many paradoxes. The interpretation that makes senses and avoids paradoxes as well as predicting "spooky actions at can distance" is the Bohm model which is real and which Bohm first used to develop a prototype of the Holographic Universe.

Cumulative memory is constantly changing in the present moment, but is every aspect of our past already firmly established, — CasKev

No memory and history is constantly changing. Everything is always in flux.

For example, did dinosaurs actually exist, or was that 'memory' just part of the story consciousness created to explain our existence in the present moment? — CasKev

The bones exist. They change over time. What happened before we can only guess, and that is what science does. It makes up a story by guessing. We can never know, but we can enjoy the bones and the story behind it.

It’s interesting that you’re so utterly adamant that David Bohm’s theories of quantum physics are the correct ones, whereas in all other regards you are completely dismissive of the idea that science deals in objective truths. It must be useful being able to define ‘the truth’ in such a way that it supports any argument you wish to put forward at the time, but it does entail some loss of overall credibility in my view. :-)

By the way, here is a skeptical account of David Bohm which takes a look at some of his philosophical preoccupations and his relationship with Krishnamurti. It’s from Martin Gardner who was a mainstay of the Skeptic Society. I don’t agree with many of its conclusions, but it’s worth reading as a counter-factual.

He does, however, believe that Bohm's 'pilot-wave theory' has merit, so we might as well post the PBS explanation here of the De Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Theory:

It’s interesting that you’re so utterly adamant that David Bohm’s theories of quantum physics are the correct ones, — Wayfarer

It will evolve but easily explains all of the wave collapse paradoxes, predicts spooky action at a distance (Bell was an advocate for Bohm Mechanics) and is real. He should have received a Nobel Prize but was implicated as a Communist sympathizer during the McCarthy era and the Copenhagen crowd never forgave him for showing how wrong they were in claiming a real, cause equivalent was impossible (yes, they claimed it was impossible so he hurt their feelings).

whereas in all other regards you are completely dismissive of the idea that science deals in objective truths. — Wayfarer

For the most part, maybe over 90%, science is no different from Wall Street and exists to make money and grow in power. Any one who challenges it is ostracized. Bohm's treatment was a disgrace but scientists had to keep the government funding coming in during the McCarthy era and beyond. Industry and government is in charge and they carefully place their puppets in position of authority.

It must be useful being able to define ‘the truth’ in such a way that it supports any argument you wish to put forward at the time, but it does entail some loss of overall credibility in my view. — Wayfarer

There is no "truth here". Just lots of pieces of a large puzzle that people have put together. It will evolve, but it works and had practical applications and insights. Much, much better then the ridiculous mess that science has put together, but then again it doesn't matter since science had become a make work business with lots of featherbedding.

As for the video, the guy hasn't read Bohm. He calls it deterministic (impossible) which Bohm explicitly rejected. Bohm called it causal. The quantum potential in Bohm Mechanics is still probabilistic and leaves open a causal interpretation that allows for choice. He does point out the "action at a distance", one of the reasons it was rejected, was shown by Bell and all experiments since is real.

Calling it certainly wrong because it doesn't conform to Relativity is bone-headed. In fact, recent research work confirms it. Now you understand I ignore everything scientists say and always do my own research using source material where feasible.

No more theories!

The problem with the second scenario is how gazillions of contributing minds collapse all of the probable outcomes into a consistent shared reality... — CasKev

Getting back to this... Assuming quantum behavior at a macro level, what seems more likely? That once observers collapse probability waves, they are permanently collapsed, and future collapses have to be consistent with what has already been collapsed? Or is everything being constantly re-collapsed, and the consistency arises from probability waves being heavily weighted toward what existed previously? (I'm currently leaning toward re-collapse dependent on cumulative collective memory...)

Another question... If reality depends on conscious observation, does it not make the most sense for reality to have arisen from a single consciousness? If so, what seems more likely? That there still exists only one conscious observer, in which all other seemingly conscious observers are just constructed 'bots'? Or that the single consciousness was able to create similar conscious entities capable of co-creating reality? (I'm currently leaning toward a single conscious observer, given the inability to create conscious AI, and the lack of understanding of how consciousness arises from matter...)

Getting back to this... Assuming quantum behavior at a macro level, what seems more likely? That once observers collapse probability waves, they are permanently collapsed, and future collapses have to be consistent with what has already been collapsed? Or is everything being constantly re-collapsed, and the consistency arises from probability waves being heavily weighted toward what existed previously? (I'm currently leaning toward re-collapse dependent on cumulative collective memory...) — CasKev

There is no collapse. The wave/particles are real. Forget about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. If you stick with it, you'll always come up with weird scenarios of reality that will make no sense.

Another question... If reality depends on conscious observation, does it not make the most sense for reality to have arisen from a single consciousness? — CasKev

Of course it doesn't. Everything is real and out there as we perceive it. Consciousness is perceiving and then co-creating just like two artists working on a canvas.

All of this weird ontology is coming from the ridiculous Copenhagen Interpretation. Watch Stephen Robbin's videos on Bergson and understand Bohmian Mechanics and you'll be on a sensible track. Otherwise you'll just be playing games of how does consciousness collapse this and that for the rest of your life.

@Rich

Does Bohmian Mechanics explain the quantum experiments where a particle's behavior is affected retroactively based on a choice made in the present?

Does Bohmian Mechanics explain the quantum experiments where a particle's behavior is affected retroactively based on a choice made in the present? — CasKev

Yes, in a very straightforward way.

Whenever the experiment is changed (e.g. opening or closing one if the slits), the guiding wave (quantum potential) instantaneously changes affecting the behavior of the particle/position.

@Rich

Instantaneous behavior doesn't explain retroactive behavior though, does it?

Also, Bohmian Mechanics doesn't seem compatible with what Stephen Hawkings writes in 'The Grand Design'. Am I right?

"The usual assumption in cosmology is that the universe has a single definite history. One can use the laws of physics to calculate how this history develops with time. We call this the “bottom-up” approach to cosmology. But since we must take into account the quantum nature of the universe as expressed by the Feynman sum over histories, the probability amplitude that the universe is now in a particular state is arrived at by adding up the contributions from all the histories that satisfy the no-boundary condition and end in the state in question. In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn’t follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there’s a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time. Some histories will be more probable than others, and the sum will normally be dominated by a single history that starts with the creation of the universe and culminates in the state under consideration. But there will be different histories for different possible states of the universe at the present time. This leads to a radically different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us.

The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history might seem to
conflict with certain facts we know. There might be one history in which the moon is made of
Roquefort cheese. But we have observed that the moon is not made of cheese, which is bad news
for mice. Hence histories in which the moon is made of cheese do not contribute to the present
state of our universe, though they might contribute to others. That might sound like science fiction,
but it isn’t.

An important implication of the top-down approach is that the apparent laws of nature depend on
the history of the universe. Many scientists believe there exists a single theory that explains those
laws as well as nature’s physical constants, such as the mass of the electron or the dimensionality
of space-time. But top-down cosmology dictates that the apparent laws of nature are different for
different histories."

Instantaneous behavior doesn't explain retroactive behavior though, does it? — CasKev

It's not retroactive with Bohmian Mechanics. It is only retroactive in other interpretations because they lack the quantum potential that acts instantaneously when they slit configuration changes.

Of the folks here who lean towards the mind being primary, how many of you would say you've gained insights from psychedelics?

Full disclosure - I've had an experience where this seemed obvious. Never been sure how much to make of it.

I've never done drugs. I just observe and put together an ontology based upon clues I pick up and put together.

Cool. No judgment from me one way or the other but I suppose it lends credibility to the insights if they're corroborated soberly.

It's not retroactive with Bohmian Mechanics. — Rich

I'm pretty sure this experiment shows true retroactivity ...

I've had an experience where this seemed obvious — Roke

Where what seemed obvious?

No. Only in the context of the Copenhagen Intepretation. Delayed Choice is immediately resolved by the introduction of the quantum potential. Quite eloquently in fact, which is why the Bohm' Model should be the only change one to be considered. The former issue with quantum potential is that it acts instantaneously at a distance. But this is a non-issue nowadays because of experimental support for non-local action at school distance.

Bohm's model is very nice and resolves all of the spookiness of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The quantum potential can be viewed as the fabric of the holographic universe, which is the trajectory of current quantum theory, which will surely replace General Relativity (which is an ontological mess)

Possibility if you Google delayed choices, quantum potential you will find a thorough description of how Bohm's model makes it a non-issue.

That we're all subsets of the same source of consciousness, and that this is something like the fundamental nature of reality.

The former issue with quantum potential is that it acts instantaneously at a distance. But this is a non-issue nowadays because of experimental support for non-local action at school distance. — Rich

So the issue of quantum entanglement remains unexplained? There is no known cause for the "spooky action at a distance"?

So the issue of quantum entanglement remains unexplained? — CasKev

Only in all other interpretations other that Bohmian. In Bohmian, it is a fundamental aspect. Bohmian Mechanics was Bell's inspiration.

I cannot underscore enough how much Bohmian Mechanics leaves the other interpretations in the dust. For sure it is not the final say, but it is the best trajectory in terms of continued understanding of the nature of nature. One needs to understand Bohm, Sheldrake's morphic resonance, and Bergson's duree/time). And very important is Stephen Robbins' conceptualization of perception (based upon Bergson's) in a holographic universe. These pieces fit together to form a real universe that one can understand and use as a platform for deeper understanding of life. Of course, I'm always big on practicing the arts.

In Bohmian, it is a fundamental aspect. — Rich

So that is to say it occurs, but has no observable explanation as of yet?

So that is to say it occurs, but has no observable explanation as of yet? — CasKev

A holographic perspective accounts for this, since the holographic wave formation spreads in all all directions. A holographic image can be reconstructed from any piece of the hologram.

Trust me. Bring yourself up to speed on the fundamental concepts and a very coherent view of nature will begin to emerge.