Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Scientist on the yoga mat: We make everything real

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Image result for yoga mat public domain image From Philip Ball at New Scientist:

The idea that we create reality seems absurd. But an audacious new take on quantum theory suggests the fundamental laws of nature emerge from our own experiences

That woo-woo has been around forever, or at least since the last remnants of the Stone Age. It was one of the things people had to fight, to get science off the ground.

Now some are contemplating a mind-boggling alternative: that a coherent description of reality, with all its quantum quirks, can arise from nothing more than random subjective experiences. It looks like the “perspective of a madman”, says the author of this bold new theory, because it compels us to abandon any notion of fundamental physical laws. But if it stands up, it would not only resolve some deep puzzles about quantum mechanics, it would turn our deepest preconceptions about reality itself inside out. (paywall) More.

Many naturalists must be looking for that exit just now. After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.

Quantum mechanics doesn’t tell us that we make everything real unless that is the only way we can see it.

So why does scientism always seem to end up in mysticism’s illegal booze can?

Note: We extend a sincere apology to the manufacturers of yoga mats, most of whose occupants have more sense than what we describe above.

See also: Biophysicist Kirk Durston: Canada’s governor general as a highly visible example of scientism

and

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Comments
dgosse said:
There is a difference (albeit slight) between the mind of God and the mind of man. Give the near mystical properties of the “quantum world” perhaps what we are observing is not the “mind of man” creating but how the “mind of God” did create.
Where exactly to you propose the mind of man came from, if not from the mind of God?
The ability to communicate concepts about external reality between minds through language really, really, shoots holes in all these (hypotheses?) that what we perceive does not really correspond to what is external to our beings – whether the (hypothesis?) is floated by 17th C. philosophers or modern quantum physicists.
This is reasoning extended from the same false dichotomy aarceng used. Just because an external world exists and can be affected by human consciousness doesn't mean it cannot be mutually observed by and conceptualized interpersonally by those who are affecting it. You've provided no reasoning for that conclusion.William J Murray
November 14, 2017
November
11
Nov
14
14
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
aarceng said:
the ability to reference external physical objects in time and space with other people means we are either part of the same delusion or there really is an external world around us.
This is what is known as a false dichotomy. There can both "really" be an external world AND it can be affected to one degree or another by our conscious observation of it.
I’ll go for the simple explanation; the world is really there just as we observe it.
Yeah, the five human senses are the final say on what the universe is and is not. Matter is solid! The idea it is actually made up of energetic wave potentials is hogwash! /sarcasm It is bizarre to me that the idea that human consciousness directly impacts the physical world meets such resistance here. At the skeptical zone I understand - they are terrified of being anything other than biological automatons in a mechanistic universe. Is there some theistic or ID principle that this interpretation of quantum physics undermines or threatens? I honestly don't get it.William J Murray
November 14, 2017
November
11
Nov
14
14
2017
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
A couple of observations (pun intended) Who was observing the quantum world before we allegedly arose from the "primal soup"? We cannot observe (and therefore create reality) if we are not extant. There is a difference (albeit slight) between the mind of God and the mind of man. Give the near mystical properties of the "quantum world" perhaps what we are observing is not the "mind of man" creating but how the "mind of God" did create. The ability to communicate concepts about external reality between minds through language really, really, shoots holes in all these (hypotheses?) that what we perceive does not really correspond to what is external to our beings - whether the (hypothesis?) is floated by 17th C. philosophers or modern quantum physicists.dgosse
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT
Once we accept that there are other people; we're not just an isolated mind in a jar; the ability to reference external physical objects in time and space with other people means we are either part of the same delusion or there really is an external world around us. I'll go for the simple explanation; the world is really there just as we observe it.aarceng
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
RE critical rationalist @19: ROFL!!William J Murray
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
@William J Murray
You seem to think I’m trying to argue that a certain interpretation of QM is true. I am not.
Nothing in the theory of quantum mechanics indicates that observers are somehow immune to the wave function or play any kind of special role. For that to be the case, you have to add something to the theory, which you haven't done in any specific way. This is not the most simple, direct integration of quantum mechanics.critical rationalist
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
William J Murray @15, So, again, to be clear, I’m not sure why the negative, naturalist spin on this subject. There’s a lot of negativity in News’ post about a lot of things (beginning with Yoga) that I don’t understand. Is it the intention here to alienate EVERYONE who doesn’t toe a very particular ideological narrative, even if they are both theists and IDists? I do not dispute the fact that our consciousness/spirit interacts with a number of physical processes in the brain. I experience it. But I suspect that O'Leary (News) is motivated by a sense of rebellion against the torrent of BS that continually pours out of the scientific community on a daily basis. I understand her frustration. I, too, am a rebel. This being said, I see nothing in QM that points to consciousness or the supernatural, regardless of the many pronouncements of its practitioners. What I see mostly is superstition and wishful thinking.FourFaces
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Funny you should mention David Deutsch because Popper would dismiss him as a complete charlatan and a kook. And I would agree.
Well, go on. Why did you stop there? This is were you present an argument as to why Popper would dismiss Deutsch as a charlatan and a kook. From the same article...
It’s tempting to view Deutsch as a visionary in his devotion to the Many Worlds Interpretation, for the simple reason that he has been a visionary before. “Quantum computers should have been invented in the nineteen-thirties,” he observed near the end of our conversation. “The stuff that I did in the late nineteen-seventies and early nineteen-eighties didn’t use any innovation that hadn’t been known in the thirties.” That is straightforwardly true. Deutsch went on, “The question is why.” DiVincenzo offered a possible explanation. “Your average physicists will say, ‘I’m not strong in philosophy and I don’t really know what to think, and it doesn’t matter.’ ” He does not subscribe to Many Worlds, but is reluctant to dismiss Deutsch’s belief in it, partly because it has led Deutsch to come up with his important theories, but also because “quantum mechanics does have a unique place in physics, in that it does have a subcurrent of philosophy you don’t find even in Newton’s laws or gravity. But the majority of physicists say it’s a quagmire they don’t want to get into—they’d rather work out the implications of ideas; they’d rather calculate something.”
That the majority of physicists say "I’m not strong in philosophy and I don’t really know what to think, and it doesn’t matter." and "they’d rather calculate something", is the very attitude that Popper was against. It's instrumentalism.critical rationalist
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
FourFaces, You seem to think I'm trying to argue that a certain interpretation of QM is true. I am not. What I am doing is questioning why News would put such a dismissive spin on it as if it was a naturalism-friendly perspective, which it clearly is not. If one believes in free will, then one necessarily must believe that at some point, somehow, consciousness can directly affect reality at least when it comes to our own thoughts and behaviors. Somehow consciousness must be at least able to override/manipulate the ongoing physico-chemical processes of our brain and body, or else we would simply be biological automatons doing and thinking whatever happenstance chemical interactions dictate. Also, if we believe that God can intervene in the physical universe, this QM interpretation provides model for that interaction and how God can "create reality" via omnipresent omniscience (btw, that would be "who" is observing what is going on in the heart of a star). Furthermore, I think that humans having some capacity to directly affect physical reality via the nature/state of their consciousness is something that works remarkably well in scientifically grounding all sorts of religious phenomena associated with individuals that have been reported on down through the ages. So, again, to be clear, I'm not sure why the negative, naturalist spin on this subject. There's a lot of negativity in News' post about a lot of things (beginning with Yoga) that I don't understand. Is it the intention here to alienate EVERYONE who doesn't toe a very particular ideological narrative, even if they are both theists and IDists?William J Murray
November 13, 2017
November
11
Nov
13
13
2017
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
William J Murray @13, Arguments from authority are not particularly powerful. I have seen no valid argument from QM according to which particles do not exist unless they are observed by a conscious entity. Who is observing the particles in the sun's interior? Besides, direct observation is impossible since all observations depend on EM radiation from the "observed" particle to the observer. The observed particle can only be assumed to exist. At which point, we come face to face with Descartes's "cogito ergo sum", another untamed beast of the reality jungle.FourFaces
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
News said:
William J Murray, quantum mechanics does not mean that we create the reality we see, although a naturalist may be driven to believe that as opposed to confronting the difference between that reality and his beliefs.
Quantum mechanics in and of itself doesn't "mean" anything; it is a collection of data that is interpreted into models. Some of that data, and some of those models, can be rationally interpreted to mean (among other things) that reality is not "matter" centric, or caused by happenstance qualities of matter and energy, but is rather information and consciousness-centric. IMHO, naturalists want no part whatsoever of that idea because it means consciousness and information precede and inform the existence of matter and its behavior, something naturalism cannot tolerate.
“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” - Werner Heisenberg "In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.” - Martin J. Rees "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 "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it." - Pascual Jordan "When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat
It seems to me a natural extension of the theistic concept of a creation manifest by divine mind, that human beings with consciousness given them by god and with free will have some capacity to be an active part of that creation process. IMO, quantum mechanics and the idea of consciousness generating reality is a naturalists worst nightmare, and completely friendly to ID and theism.William J Murray
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
critical rationalist @10, Funny you should mention David Deutsch because Popper would dismiss him as a complete charlatan and a kook. And I would agree.FourFaces
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.
I would agree. There is more to the physical universe. Our visible, classical universe is actually one of many physical universes that are part of the multiverse of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (not to be confused with the cosmic multiverse), which interfere with each other. This explains all the “deep puzzles about quantum mechanics”. And it does so without positing some non-physical realm.critical rationalist
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Then, as a way to hide the pseudoscience, they gave it a nice little scientific-sounding name: quantum superposition and voila! Karl Popper is doing full 360-degree rotations in his grave at the speed of light as I write.
Popper was a strong opponent of instrumentalism, which would include the shut up and calculate view of QM. In fact he proposed a way to test between different interpretations of quantum mechanics. So, why I agree that he would reject the "it's not there unless I'm looking at it" view, Popper wouldn't reject a good, deeper explanation for quantum mechanics, in principle. The whole field of quantum computation was founded, for the purpose of just such a test, by a physicist who is a Popperian. From this article...
According to Deutsch, the insight for that paper came from a conversation in the early eighties with the physicist Charles Bennett, of I.B.M., about computational-complexity theory, at the time a sexy new field that investigated the difficulty of a computational task. Deutsch questioned whether computational complexity was a fundamental or a relative property. Mass, for instance, is a fundamental property, because it remains the same in any setting; weight is a relative property, because an object’s weight depends on the strength of gravity acting on it. Identical baseballs on Earth and on the moon have equivalent masses, but different weights. If computational complexity was like mass—if it was a fundamental property—then complexity was quite profound; if not, then not. “I was just sounding off,” Deutsch said. “I said they make too much of this”—meaning complexity theory—“because there’s no standard computer with respect to which you should be calculating the complexity of the task.” Just as an object’s weight depends on the force of gravity in which it’s measured, the degree of computational complexity depended on the computer on which it was measured. One could find out how complex a task was to perform on a particular computer, but that didn’t say how complex a task was fundamentally, in reference to the universe. Unless there really was such a thing as a universal computer, there was no way a description of complexity could be fundamental. Complexity theorists, Deutsch reasoned, were wasting their time. Deutsch continued, “Then Charlie said, quietly, ‘Well, the thing is, there is a fundamental computer. The fundamental computer is physics itself.’ ” That impressed Deutsch. Computational complexity was a fundamental property; its value referenced how complicated a computation was on that most universal computer, that of the physics of the world. “I realized that Charlie was right about that,” Deutsch said. “Then I thought, But these guys are using the wrong physics. They realized that complexity theory was a statement about physics, but they didn’t realize that it mattered whether you used the true laws of physics, or some approximation, i.e., classical physics.” Deutsch began rewriting Turing’s universal-computer work using quantum physics. “Some of the differences are very large,” he said. Thus, at least in Deutsch’s mind, the quantum universal computer was born.
[...]
I told Deutsch that I’d heard that even Everett thought his theory could never be tested. “That was a catastrophic mistake,” Deutsch said. “Every innovator starts out with the world view of the subject as it was before his innovation. So he can’t be blamed for regarding his theory as an interpretation. But”—and here he paused for a moment—“I proposed a test of the Everett theory.” Deutsch posited an artificial-intelligence program run on a computer which could be used in a quantum-mechanics experiment as an “observer”; the A.I. program, rather than a scientist, would be doing the problematic “looking,” and, by means of a clever idea that Deutsch came up with, a physicist looking at the A.I. observer would see one result if Everett’s theory was right, and another if the theory was wrong. It was a thought experiment, though. No A.I. program existed that was anywhere near sophisticated enough to act as the observer. Deutsch argued that theoretically there could be such a program, though it could only be run on radically more advanced hardware—hardware that could model any other hardware, including that of the human brain. The computer on which the A.I. program would run “had to have the property of being universal . . . so I had to postulate this quantum-coherent universal computer, and that was really my first proposal for a quantum computer. Though I didn’t think of it as that. And I didn’t call it a quantum computer. But that’s what it was.” Deutsch had, it seems, come up with the idea for a quantum computer twice: once in devising a way to test the validity of the Many Worlds Interpretation, and a second time, emerging from the complexity-theory conversation, with evidenced argument supporting Many Worlds as a consequence.
Deutsch is mainly interested in the building of a quantum computer for its implications for fundamental physics, including the Many Worlds Interpretation, which would be a victory for the argument that science can explain the world and that, consequently, reality is knowable. (“House cures people,” Deutsch said to me when discussing Hugh Laurie, “because he’s interested in solving problems, not because he’s interested in people.”) Shor’s algorithm excites Deutsch, but here is how his excitement comes through in his book “The Fabric of Reality”:
To those who still cling to a single-universe world-view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor’s algorithm works. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor’s algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources than can be seen to be present, where was the number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minuscule number compared with 10^500. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?
Deutsch believes that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound. He is nearly alone in this conviction, though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation. “Once there are actual quantum computers,” Deutsch said to me, “and a journalist can go to the actual labs and ask how does that actual machine work, the physicists in question will then either talk some obfuscatory nonsense, or will explain it in terms of parallel universes. Which will be newsworthy. Many Worlds will then become part of our culture. Really, it has nothing to do with making the computers. But psychologically it has everything to do with making them.”
That was 2011. Today, we have IBM preparing to sell quantum computation as a cloud service by giving developers access to a simulated 20 qbit quantum computer. Google has a foot in the water and Microsoft has publicly launched their own initiative.critical rationalist
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Many naturalists must be looking for that exit just now. After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.
And...
But if it stands up, it would not only resolve some deep puzzles about quantum mechanics, it would turn our deepest preconceptions about reality itself inside out.
I always find these sorts of statement confusing, as it suggests there is no existing way to resolve the "deep puzzles about quantum mechanics" - such as entanglement, supposed spooky action at a distance, etc. - which would overturn some of our deepest preconceptions about reality. So, the idea that I should be "looking for an exit" is based on false pretenses.critical rationalist
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
We must remember that quantum mechanics is a cesspool of pseudoscience. One that sticks like a sore thumb is the one where a quantum property can have two opposite states at the same time but, wait for it, it happens only when nobody is looking. It's a howler. Then, as a way to hide the pseudoscience, they gave it a nice little scientific-sounding name: quantum superposition and voila! Karl Popper is doing full 360-degree rotations in his grave at the speed of light as I write.FourFaces
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
The problem with this idea that it doesn't actually follow from quantum mechanics or observations. Nothing about the wave function equation indicates this is the case. IOW, you'd need to *add* something to QM to reach this conclusion, which implies we (observers) are not subject to it as well. So, what specific addition to are you suggesting should be added to the theory to reach this conclusion. Otherwise, this seems like special pleading..critical rationalist
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
How so, News? Is it not the case than when we cease to observe something, it ceases to exist (other, presumably, than in the eyes of a third party)? What about the collapsing of a wave function by observation? Woudn't that count? And altering the path of a particle issuing from a distant galaxy so that it goes one side of a planet or the other, after it's already passed it ? Something weird like that. Or have I got it well and truly garbled?Axel
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
William J Murray, quantum mechanics does not mean that we create the reality we see, although a naturalist may be driven to believe that as opposed to confronting the difference between that reality and his beliefs.News
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Not sure exactly why the negative take on this. I hardly think naturalists would cozy up to the idea that it is consciousness that generates our reality, whereas it is a natural fit for theists like myself who believe that it is indeed the mind of God that is creating all that we experience. Isn't the trend in ID towards information as the basis for both matter and energy? Information as that which accounts for the precise design of the universe and life? What else but consciousness would be producing and utilizing that information?William J Murray
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
So why does scientism always seem to end up in mysticism’s illegal booze can? LOL. You're cracking me up.FourFaces
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
News: That woo-woo has been around forever ROTFL. It boggles the mind. The so-called scientific community is a cesspool of superstitions.FourFaces
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
New Scientist is entertainment.Truth Will Set You Free
November 12, 2017
November
11
Nov
12
12
2017
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply