What is wrong with this is that you see the cup as nothing but a quantum thingy. Why not see it as a cup and a quantum thingy?

And why the pretence that the only interpretation is the the von Neuman, when his is not even the preferred interpretation?

And philosophers do play with quantum thingies. Even as physicists play at philosophy.

so have the balls not to fall for it.

Actually, you should have the balls to not make childish "balls." taunts. And returning a personal shot is not falling for anything, but returning the shot.

And since you like "balls" taunts, try to have the balls next time to address the initiator of personal shots, not the respondent.

:-|

It's not what most physicists think happens. It looks and smells like new-age wishful thinking.

No. — Banno

Sometimes most physicists are wrong. When Newton introduced the concept of gravity he was accused to dragging spirituality into science.

Are you really in a position to rule out any of the many quantum theories?

What is wrong with this is that you see the car as nothing but a quantum thingy. Why not see it as a cup and a quantum thingy? — Banno

I can definitely see a cup, but I have to see it.

This is absolutely key to understanding the philosophical issue. Until I see it, it is .....??????

Thanks at least for getting too the crux of the issue whether or not you agree with me.

Are you really in a position to rule out any of the many quantum theories? — Mongrel

What? Why would I want to do that?

I can definitely see a cup, but I have to see it. — Rich

So, proove that when you close the cupboard door the cup becomes no more than a quantum thingy.

Why would I want to do that? — Banno

It was probably an accident. You didn't mean to say "no" to Von Neumann. You meant "I don't know."

Where?

Look above. I quoted you.

Which post?

proove that when you close the cupboard door the cup becomes no more than a quantum thingy. — Banno

The fact that you call it 'a cup' and that it performs that function is dependent on human designation, perception and convention. If you were a micro-organism-sized intelligence that lived in the water in the cup, it might be 'the ocean', as far as you're concerned. You imagine the cup 'being there', in the cupboard, when nobody's around looking at it, but that's still an image, an imaginary act, constituted by your human mind, which classifies objects according to their shape, function and so on and situates them in the imaginary 'empty space'. There is no intrinsic cup apart from that.

We nowadays have an instinctive mental image of the 'there anyway' world, which is what scientific, or even plain vanilla 'realism', means. Philosophy used to comprise trying to fathom the real nature of existence, but nowadays it comes down to endless debates about 'whether the cup is really there' ('the cup' being a stand-in for 'anything'), and then the reflexive affirmation that yes, the world simply is as it appears. So we no longer de-construct or reflect critically on the nature of 'ordinary' experience. That's why 'the observer problem' became a problem in the first place: it demolished the idea of a 'mind-independent reality'. And it still is an outstanding problem in philosophy, for that reason.

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.

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

You keep saying this, and yet you never provide proof or a link. So, all you've been doing so far is quoting from the book of Rich.

So, go ahead and provide a link showing "until it is viewed, it can only be said it is in a quantum state." The book of Rich just isn't enough.

Also, Wikipedia, for what it's worth says Wheeler's theory of Quantum foam doesn't apply to the whole universe, but to "a speculative extension of these concepts which imagines the consequences of such high-energy virtual particles at very short distances and times."

I want proof for every one of your statements in everyone if your posts.

So, you can't provide a link either? I knew your "it's all quanta" claim was coming from the Book of Rich...:)

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/141226/is-there-an-objective-external-reality-according-to-quantum-physics

LOL. First of all, that post isn't from a famous physicist or any physicist at all; its from some dude named "Jmfig314." And even he doesn't say it's "all quanta." He only posits that possibility as a question:

"Since certain properties (i.e., an electron's position) of a particle aren't well defined until they are measured, does this mean that quantum objects don't possess these properties, unless they are looked at?"

So, try again, Rich. So, far all you got is still Book of Rich, and you're no physicist.

I think it is a fact that you bade me farewell. Oh, well, such is the fluid universe we live in.

What a lovely non sequitur and failure to respond to my last post...:)

Simply put:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/26/521478684/mind-matter-and-materialism

"Also, the logical link I draw between theories of mind and theories of matter does not rely on quantum physics as an explanation for consciousness.Some folks like Rodger Penrose have argued that quantum phenomena occurring in the brain are the root of conscious experience. I am not particularly taken by these arguments (but see this for new ideas along these lines). Instead, I point out that the irreducible democracy of quantum interpretations leaves the role of agency (i.e. the observing subject) as an open issue of contention.

Any explanation of mind is an account of "being a subject." That means quantum interpretations where the epistemological aspect of quantum physics comes to the fore make simple materialist views of consciousness a whole lot less simple. Why? Well, it's simple.If your theory of being-a-subject (i.e. consciousness) relies solely on matter, but your theory of matter can't get rid of the subject's being, then you're walking on swampy ground."

Those theories are lovely, Rich. Unfortunately for you, none of them assert that all is quanta as you claim in the Book of Rich.

Oh, I'm with Roger Penrose on this one. Famous enough for you?

Of course, but he never said all is quanta. So, you need to read your own posts better....:)

I also like the way the article described the materialistic view as swampy.

I also like how that doesn't assert that all is quanta either. You're really on a roll...:)

I mean, do you agree that materialism is swampy? That, is a great characterization wouldn't you agree? And how about quantum being the root of consciousness? Nice idea, yes? Coming from the world famous Roger Penrose with that fantastic education!

You're ranting now, Rich. We were talking about your claim that "all is quanta." You have well shown that idea only exists in your Book of Rich. Get back to me when you can show otherwise....:)