Physicist Eugene Wigner on the principal argument against materialism

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 4, 2018

Intelligent Design, Mind, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Nobelist Eugene Wigner (1902–1995):

“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists. – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

and

“…and one can well imagine a master, even a great master, of mechanics to say: “Light may exist but I do not need it in order to explain the phenomena in which I am interested.” The present biologist uses the same words about mind and consciousness; he uses them as an expression of his disbelief in these concepts.” p. 177.

See also: How Did Mathematics Come to be Woven Into the Fabric of Reality?

and

What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness

Comments

as to:
We’re not discussing my personal metaphysical views, such as they are: we discussing interpretations of QM.
Yes we are since you are claiming that your Eastern Mystic view is equal to the claim made in John 1:1. Read carefully what you said:
"whether his couple of references to John 1:1 is any different than the many people who have pointed to similarities of QM with Eastern mysticism"
It is on you, since you made the claim, to show how Eastern Mysticism leads to a "Information Theoretic" view of reality that is specifically postulated in John 1:1. as to:
"Also, I don’t think information as a component of QM is devastating to materialism."
You are, as usual, completely wrong in your denial. It is only by bending and contorting materialism out of it's original shape, (by such a severe degree that it no longer even resembles materialism as it was originally conceived for thousands of years), that you are able, with severe distortion, able to hold on to a "so called" materialistic view of reality. I can put lipstick on a pig and call the pig a beauty queen, but that certainly will not ever make the pig a beauty queen! :) i.e. I hold that changing basic definitions of materialism in order to avoid falsification of materialism is intellectually dishonest in a severe degree! Of note: The entire history of Quantum Mechanics can be seen as the long slow, tortured, death of materialism by experimental science.
The Death of Materialism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE
One final note: Richard Conn Henry states "if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism",,,
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html
bornagain77_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

re 13: I watched about 1/3 of that video. Those issues are covered in the book I read. As with most of the rest of QM, there is not a satisfactory, consensus view of what the measurement problem is and how it is resolved. The idea that consciousness is a necessary non-material factor in producing the world we observe is one of the interpretations offered, but above at 10 I briefly pointed to some problems with this view.jdk_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

We're not discussing my personal metaphysical views, such as they are: we discussing interpretations of QM. I didn't say Zeilinger quoted Eastern mystics: I said many people do. Read carefully what you quoted. Also, I don't think information as a component of QM is devastating to materialism. QM is about the physical world. Just as relativity forced us to expand our understanding of time and space, QM has forced us to think about what is real at the most basic level of the material world. The fact that our old understanding of material particles moving though time and space at specific locations and speed, etc, has been shown to be wrong just means that we've had to change our understandings.jdk_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

As to the Measurement problem and the supposed problem of “solipsism”, this following video goes over that issue in a fairly easy to understand manner.
The Measurement Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=4
bornagain77_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

as to:
"The issue of information being central to the issue of interpreting the meaning of QM, is not, in my mind, controversial."
And yet, it is precisely that finding that is devastating to Atheistic materialism and very supportive of Christian Theism. Go figure. Oh well controversial is in the eye of the beholder! :) as to:
"I’m curious as to whether Zeilinger has a religious component to his view of QM, or whether his couple of references to John 1:1 is any different than the many people who have pointed to similarities of QM with Eastern mysticism,"
,,,funny, I can only find Zeilinger quoting John 1:1. Perhaps you can find Zeilinger quoting an Eastern Mysticism text so as to solidify your speculation that Zeilinger might hold on to your ill defined Eastern religion. Moreover, I have noted many times before that you will waffle between defending Atheistic Materialism and then retreat to some ill defined notion of Eastern Mysticism when cornered on one of the many self-defeating absurdities within atheistic materialism. Can you tell me, do you hold consciousness to be co-terminus with material particles or do you hold consciousness to be deeper than that? Be precise in your definition of your presuppositions and the relations inherent therein so that I will know exactly what evidence I need to present in order to more precisely refute your position. Moreover, what I find interesting in your ill defined retreat from atheistic materialism to Eastern Mysticism is that Stuart Hameroff, who also holds to Eastern Mysticism, finds his beliefs to be incompatible with atheistic materialism. In fact, he was treated as a pariah at an atheist convention
Being the skunk at an atheist convention – Hameroff – 2006 Excerpt: In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief”. Other speakers and attendees were predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist. Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse - the scientists were burning the believers. And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality. After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality, suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a quantum-based intelligent design). At the end a few people clapped loudly, but most sat in steely silence.,,, http://quantum.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/prod/content/being-skunk-atheist-convention
In fact, Hameroff even believes in a soul:
“Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it's possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” - Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - video (5:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300
So, perhaps you can explain exactly why you are so friendly towards atheistic materialists, whereas Hameroff, who also holds to Eastern Mysticism, is treated as a pariah. What is the exact difference in you guy's Eastern presuppositions that results in such a different outcome?bornagain77_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

to ba: what a hodge-podge of copy-and-pastes from your storehouse of previously published material. The issue of information being central to the issue of interpreting the meaning of QM, is not, in my mind, controversial. The very narrow issue that I brought up is that I'm curious as to whether Zeilinger has a religious component to his view of QM, or whether his couple of references to John 1:1 is any different than the many people who have pointed to similarities of QM with Eastern mysticism, as of historical interest but not relevant to their personal views.jdk_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

to Belfast at 7: the issue of measurement is a main theme of Becker's book, and various responses and alternative views in respect to Wigner are covered. The quote I offered was in the last chapter where Becker was summarizing the state of affairs. I'd be loath to say anything too definitive without going back and researching the book, which I'm not inclined to do: One reading of such a complex history of people and ideas isn't enough for me to summarize Wigner's contribution. However the book has a large bibliography and 100 pages of footnotes, FWIW, so it is a well-researched work. However, I did a search for solipsism (I read electronic versions, which is very handy), and here are some of quotes I found searching for "solipsism".from various places in the book.
[In discussing Bell]“Ignoring the problem of solipsism that this introduces into physics—whose observations make things real?—”

“And even worse, according to Everett, von Neumann’s approach doesn’t even tell you what measurements are. If a measurement only happens when someone looks at a system, who, in particular, has to look? Everett argued that this line of reasoning leads inevitably to solipsism—the idea that you are the only being in the universe, and everyone else is somehow illusory or secondary, existing in states of indeterminate reality until you, the High Arbiter of Wave Function Collapse, deign to observe them.”

““If wave functions are information rather than objects in themselves, they must be “information of a rather peculiar sort. “Whose information?” demanded John Bell. “Information about what?” To resolve the measurement problem, information-theoretic interpretations had to answer these questions. The most immediate and Copenhagen-friendly answers were “my information” and “information about my observations”—but to Bell, such answers were profoundly inadequate. Placing observation at the center of physics smacked of positivism, a philosophy that Bell had entertained and rejected during his college days, concluding that it led inevitably to solipsism. Solipsism—the idea that you are the only person, and everyone and everything else is merely a hallucination of some kind in your own mind—was a problem that had haunted positivism from the start. Information-based interpretations of quantum physics ran the risk of collapsing into solipsism as well. If the information that the wave function represented was your information, what makes you so special? And how could different observers agree on the same information? How could your information appear to be an objective fact in the world, something capable of creating interference patterns plain for all to see?”
jdk_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

In the double slit experiment we found that while a photon and/or electron is traveling in the double slit experiment it is mathematically required to be defined as being in an infinite dimensional space.,,,
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space
,,,And we also found that the photon is mathematically required to be described by an infinite amount of information,,,
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result,,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Now, saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, sounds very much like the theistic attribute of omnipresence. And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe sounds very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience to me. And then we also saw that when Quantum Mechanics and special relativity were unified in quantum-electrodynamics that it still took an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do,,,
Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman
Now all this is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see under Christian presuppositions. But, on the other hand, under Atheistic materialism and/or naturalism, and the presuppositions therein, there simply is no rational explanation for why we should find these things to be as they are. Moreover, the basics of quantum wave collapse dovetail perfectly into some of the oldest philosophical arguments that were made by Aristotle and Aquinas for the existence of God, and even offers empirical confirmation for those ancient philosophical arguments. Michael Egnor states that 'Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,,'
Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy Is Dead" - Michael Egnor - August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html
Here is a technical explanation of Aquinas’ First way argument for God where you can, at your leisure, see just how well the argument dovetails into what we are seeing in quantum mechanics
Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html
Moreover, besides being foundational to physical reality, information is also found to be ‘infused’ into biological life.
Information Enigma (Where did the information in life come from?) - - Stephen Meyer - Doug Axe - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Moreover, Although the purported evidence for human evolution is far more illusory than most people realize, it is interesting to note exactly where leading Darwinists themselves honestly admit that they have no real clue how a particular trait in humans could have possibly evolved.
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” https://uncommondescent.com/animal-minds/new-scientist-why-cant-monkeys-talk/
Best Selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Wolfe provided a précis of his argument:
“Speech is not one of man’s several unique attributes — speech is the attribute of all attributes!” – Wolfe “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech
In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, shelter, in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure. It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding both the universe, and life itself, are both ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
Perhaps a more convincing evidence that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God. But who has ever heard of such as that? Verse and video:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw
bornagain77_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Entire quote from Zeilinger:
49:28 mark: "This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,, https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969 constitutive 1. having the power to establish or give organized existence to something.
Elsewhere Zeilinger repeated his personal opinion about John 1:1
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum mechanics http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf
And like Wigner, Zeilinger finds himself in very good company in his claim about information:
"it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics. “The thesis of my book ‘Being as Communion’ is that the fundamental stuff of the world is information. That things are real because they exchange information one with another.” - William Dembski –The Thesis of Being as Communion – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYAsaU9IvnI
Of related interest to this, Richard Feynman, in his role in developing Quantum-Electrodynamics, which is a mathematical theory in which special relativity and quantum mechanics are unified,
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html
,, Richard Feynman was only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics in quantum electrodynamics by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” by a technique called Renormalization
THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.” http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity
In the following video, Richard Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.” in Quantum-Electrodynamics:
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
“Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." of note: ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic. So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions. In fact, as a Christian Theist, I find both the double slit and quantum electrodynamics to be extremely comforting for Christian concerns.
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism- video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM
bornagain77_{June 5, 2018
June
06
Jun
5
05
2018
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

@jdk, Curious about this line "(minus Wigner’s consciousness-based proposal, which has been dismissed as needlessly speculative and vague, and in danger of collapsing into solipsism" Does Becker say who has dismissed iWigner's proposal; are there any sources for his conclusion?Belfast_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Hey Denise, could you fix the link in the OP, please?jdk_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Hmmm. I looked at the video, and Zeilinger mentions that he is reminded of John 1:1, and that the idea is present in other religions. He certainly doesn't imply that he is offering that as a conclusion. So I've been googling Zeilinger, and find nothing about him and his religious beliefs. There is an essay in a book by Polkinghorne (The Trinity and an Entangled World) called "Quantum Physics: Ontology and Epistemology" that looks interesting (this is perhaps the key issue), but I can't find it online and I'm not going to buy the book. But given ba's tendency to pick the quotes that support his position without, perhaps, a proper balance of other views, it would be interesting to see what Zeilinger's perspective on religion and religious connections with QM is. As I said, in the few articles I read, there was nothing there.jdk_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

If it is all the same with you jdk, I think I will take Zeilinger's word, who is a leading experimentalist in quantum mechanics with many breakthroughs under his belt, over Becker's word, who is a 'science writer' with a PhD. who has no breakthroughs under his belt.
48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw
bornagain77_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

Anyone who would like to have a perhaps more diverse view might like Becker's book.jdk_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Actually, contrary to what Becker and jdk believe, Wigner's insights into the foundations of quantum mechanics are holding up quite well:
Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution - Anton Zeilinger - Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf
As to Wigner's point about the primacy of consciousness and Adam Becker's question as to “What Is Real? If consciousness is not 'real' then nothing else can be 'real'.
At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: "consciousness is an illusion" A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s
And contrary to what jdk, via Becker, would like to imply, Wigner is in very good company:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931 “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334. “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” Werner Heisenberg - As quoted in The New York Times Book Review (March 8, 1992). - "Uncertainty," David C. Cassidy's biography of my father, Werner Heisenberg "We wish to measure a temperature.,,, But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.” John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
Even Steven Weinberg himself, an atheist, reluctantly admitted that the 'instrumentalist approach' is very much a viable option in quantum mechanics:
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics - Steven Weinberg - January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
And Anton Zeilinger, a leading experimentalist in Quantum Mechanics, stated this:
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger - Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
Thus, the reports of the death Wigner's ideas, like Twain, have been greatly exaggerated And it is not as if there is a shortage of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that overwhelmingly supports the Christian's claim that the Mind of God precedes material reality. The following video goes over five lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics which strongly indicate that the infinite Mind of God must precede material reality:
due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE
But Wigner's principle argument was not about experimental science. His principle argument was about the primacy of consciousness:
“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied." - Wigner
And in that regards Wigner is more than correct, Atheistic Materialism, (i.e. the denial of the primacy of our own consciousness and the denial of the Mind of God as being primary), simply collapses into complete epistemological failure, i.e. complete insanity!
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 34: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Of related interest to this is the falsification, by advances in quantum mechanics, of Einstein’s a-priori materialistic beliefs about experimental science:, i.e. the falsification of Einstein’s methodological naturalism.
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

I just finished reading "What Is Real: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics", a history of various interpretations of quantum mechanics, including questions of exactly what is real, what is the role of measurement, and how, specifically, has the Copenhagen interpretation fared against other interpretations in light of further experiments in QM. In the summary, Becker wrote this:
While the different possibilities laid out in this book are the most significant historically, and they are all mostly still around in various forms (minus Wigner’s consciousness-based proposal, which has been dismissed as needlessly speculative and vague, and in danger of collapsing into solipsism), many, many more have been proposed in the past thirty years.
Excerpt From: Adam Becker. “What Is Real?.” iBooks. So Wigner's views are not in the mainstream, I think. Anyone interested in the issue might enjoy reading Becker's book to understand more about why he says what he does. By the way, the link titled Remarks doesn't work.jdk_{June 4, 2018
June
06
Jun
4
04
2018
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply