Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[stevevw]

What does this have to do with the issue of observers?

Our eyes register photons just as scientific measuring devices register photons. There's nothing less "quantum" about either process.

There is nothing about the premise "quantum stuff is weird" that leads to the conclusion that only conscious observers collapse wave functions, especially when scientists make so much use of non-conscious mechanical observation devices to take measurements.

Do you think that physicists at CERN must have conscious persons stationed in the complex during every experiment, being told not to blink or they will ruin the experiment?


eudaimonia,

Mark

The point is because of the nature of quantum physics in having many possible outcomes there are different interpretations to quantum weirdness and this does not just apply to wave function. The many worlds interpretation states that there is no collapse of the wave function and all possible alternative of past and future are real and happen with varying states. The Copenhagen interpretation has the collapse being the interaction between the quantum world and the classical world and another interpretation the Von Neumann-Wigner the collapse is because of the measurement of the collapse in subjective terms.

The fact is there are many scientists who support the observer being a conscious being despite how or what is used for measurement and only a human observer can make the results real. Many scientists say that reality does not exists until we are looking at it. Wheeler seemed to agree with this interpretation as well and he understood quantum physics more than most. So who is to say these scientists are wrong, just like scientists disagree on other interpretations of quantum physics.

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human. He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.” [Reference: Radio Interview With Martin Redfern]

Wheelers delayed choice experiment was repeated and once again found the same results as his original experiment. In fact, it has been done at great distances and this shows that even if a light particle has been traveling billions of miles the act of measuring it can determine its past state. The delay in measuring still determined the state of the particle even after billions of years of already being in existence.

Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide?


Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.


"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness

Some scientists interpret the observer effect to imply that consciousness is needed because without a person (scientist) looking through the measuring device or just looking at the data from any scientific tests there would be no data, or quantum experiments. Some scientists believe that all things have some form of consciousness (panpsychism). The fact is we don’t completely know and that is why there are different interpretations regarding quantum wave action.

Wheelers “participatory anthropic principle,” states “We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago." and that a human observer is key to the process and Every piece of matter contains a bit of consciousness, which it absorbs from this proto-consciousness field.
The Universe May Be Conscious, Say Prominent Scientists

 

[KCfromNC]

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human. He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.” [Reference: Radio Interview With Martin Redfern]

Does he ever say that only conscious observers do this?

 

[stevevw]

Not in the paper I posted.

Like I said the tests they did in seperating particles may have had an effect which the outcome. But I am not up on this enough to understand it completely. Even so quantum duel action is verified and it is just a case of what way you want to interpret the results.

Like I said, I need more than maybe to reject peer-reviewed scientific results.

So I gave you a stack of papers on the observer effect and consciousness that you seem awefully quiet about. There's ample papers making their case that you could read. Also some of the articles I have posted though they may have come from a website had the original article linked to it.

I think you're missing the point. Normal everyday computers are a perfect example of quantum effects linking with the everyday world.

I see what you mean. Yes becuase scientists are understanding how Quantum physics works they are able to harness it. I could imagine some pretty amazing things in the future. But I was thinking more along the lines of really amazing things that would defy the classical world.
Quantum Physics Enables a New 'Telepathic' Photography Technique

For some reason he fails to mention consciousness in the abstract of the first paper and there's no mention of it in the second link either. Seems weird to leave such an important part of the result out. In fact, the first abstract talks about using an unconscious detector to observe the experiment. Are you sure you linked the correct paper?

His delayed choice experiment is all about delaying the time when to measure a quantum particle for which he states can change past and future states of a particle. Wheelers states in his “participatory anthropic principle,” is all about the observer and how consciousness makes reality. He states that we are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago." That a human observer is key to the process and Every piece of matter contains a bit of consciousness, which it absorbs from this proto-consciousness field.
The Universe May Be Conscious, Say Prominent Scientists

If he doesnt mention consciousness he is mentioning the observer being a person that makes reality which is more or less the same thing as humans have consciousness. There is no doubt Wheeler support consciousness just like other prominent scientists and this is seen in his other writings I have posted.

I have looked for his original paper on the participatory anthropic principle but cannot find it. But here is another paper that critiques the idea and quotes severasl of his papers that are found in the reference section.
A “Participatory Universe” of J. A. Wheeler as an Intentional Correlate of Embodied Subjects and an Example of Purposiveness in Physics

Wheeler, after a long intellectual evolution working in physics, attempted to approach physical reality not as something “out there”, which is passively described by observers, but to see it as a genesis through conscious dialogue between observers participants and physical reality, so that the universe emerges as a special articulation of the relationship between human intelligence and physical reality (Wheeler 1994[1], p. 128).

Then he comments on observership, referring to the views of Bohr and Wigner who advocated that observation and measurement are complete when they enter consciousness of an observer and then can be communicated to another observer in a plain language; “.. an experiment is only an experiment when the outcome is expressed in the form of communicable knowledge, knowledge which can be shared” (Wheeler 1994[1], p. 26).

Indeed, if Wheeler claims that the observers bring the universe into being, including its space, time, etc. (Wheeler 1988),then one can reasonably ask: where do human observers do this from , if there is no preexistent space and time?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.2277.pdf

But like I said if its paper you are looking for on consciousness there are plenty in my previous post which I linked, in fact journals of them becuase it is a popular topic.

 

[stevevw]

Does he ever say that only conscious observers do this?

Yes in the paper I just posted to you. That is what his “participatory anthropic principle,” is based on.

 

[Allandavid]

Stevevw....have you ever wondered about a belief that requires you to twist yourself into so many knots....!

 

[stevevw]

Stevevw....have you ever wondered about a belief that requires you to twist yourself into so many knots....!

Quantum physics tends to do that . All I am doing is supplying support for what others are questioning. You may interpret it that way becuase you disagree with what I am saying in the first place. So, therefore you see everything I post as just another baseless assertion. Whereas we are talking about quantum physics not belief and what I am posting is based on the interpretations of quantum physics according to scientists, one being one of the pioneers of quantum physics.

If you wish to use the same logic that supplying support for quantum physics is really about defending beliefs then we could also apply the same logic to the many ideas that have come from quantum physics about parallel worlds, multiverses, holohgraphic worlds, worm holes, the possibility of cats being alive and dead at the same time and all other crazy far fetched ideas which are all about some people also trying to defend their materialistic view of the world.

All I am doing is using the same logic to support ideas that may imply that there is more to things than materialism. Like it or not there are two camps to how we can interpret things and both have just as much right to be included. I find it ironic that some are willing to reject whole journals and many scientists work some who are very prominent in the field of quantum physics becuase of the fear that acknowledging them may point to a God or intelligence behind what we see which is not a given. But the very thought of the possibility causes them to deny any substance to the entire field of consciousness. Maybe it is these people who are tiring the knots for others to try and undo.

 

[KCfromNC]

Like I said the tests they did in seperating particles may have had an effect which the outcome.

Which effects are you proposing which might indicate that the observations depend on the involvement of a conscious entity? Please be specific.

So I gave you a stack of papers on the observer effect and consciousness that you seem awefully quiet about.

I mentioned them - the only peer-reviewed papers in your list failed to mention consciousness.

If he doesnt mention consciousness he is mentioning the observer being a person that makes reality which is more or less the same thing as humans have consciousness.

How does he account for experiments like the one I linked where the observer is an inanimate object?

There is no doubt Wheeler support consciousness just like other prominent scientists and this is seen in his other writings I have posted.

People believe all sorts of stuff. Lots of it can't get published in scientific papers because it simply isn't science. For example :

A “Participatory Universe” of J. A. Wheeler as an Intentional Correlate of Embodied Subjects and an Example of Purposiveness in Physics

"Published in Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences"

Then he comments on observership, referring to the views of Bohr and Wigner who advocated that observation and measurement are complete when they enter consciousness of an observer and then can be communicated to another observer in a plain language; “.. an experiment is only an experiment when the outcome is expressed in the form of communicable knowledge, knowledge which can be shared” (Wheeler 1994[1], p. 26).

This is quite a stretch. It is talking about the practice of science, not how the universe works at a fundamental level.

Indeed, if Wheeler claims that the observers bring the universe into being, including its space, time, etc.

Does he?

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes in the paper I just posted to you. That is what his “participatory anthropic principle,” is based on.

Feel free to post quotes.

 

[stevevw]

Feel free to post quotes.

As I mentioned I have already posted where he has mentioned consciousness or the observer effect in the paper below.

A “Participatory Universe” of J. A. Wheeler as an Intentional Correlate of Embodied Subjects and an Example of Purposiveness in Physics

Wheeler, after a long intellectual evolution working in physics, attempted to approach physical reality not as something “out there”, which is passively described by observers, but to see it as a genesis through conscious dialogue between observers participants and physical reality, so that the universe emerges as a special articulation of the relationship between human intelligence and physical reality (Wheeler 1994[1], p. 128).

Then he comments on observership, referring to the views of Bohr and Wigner who advocated that observation and measurement are complete when they enter consciousness of an observer and then can be communicated to another observer in a plain language; “.. an experiment is only an experiment when the outcome is expressed in the form of communicable knowledge, knowledge which can be shared” (Wheeler 1994[1], p. 26).

Indeed, if Wheeler claims that the observers bring the universe into being, including its space, time, etc. (Wheeler 1988),then one can reasonably ask: where do human observers do this from , if there is no preexistent space and time?

“Nothing is more astonishing about quantum mechanics than its allowing one to consider seriously the view that the universe would be nothing without observership as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity” (Wheeler 1994, p. 39).
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.2277.pdf

 

[stevevw]

Citation needed on the "mind behind the material world" assertion.

What you are forgetting is that I am not saying that consciousness being something that creates reality or is behind what we see is directly verified through science but that it should be an idea that is included amoung the many other ideas that science proposes. I am saying there are indirect supports and have provided ample links to these such as the Journal of Cousciousness studies which has peer reviewed papers on consciousness. If you want to push the criteria to only allowing ideas about the quantum world based on direct peer reviewed scientific evidence then we would have to ask for that level of evidence also for all the ideas that are promoted and well supported by scientists such as inflation, the big bang, dark energy and matter, parelle worlds, multiverses, hologram universe, worm holes, black holes etc etc etc. Otherwise we should also reject these ideas out of hand.

 

[Allandavid]

Quantum physics tends to do that . All I am doing is supplying support for what others are questioning. You may interpret it that way becuase you disagree with what I am saying in the first place. So, therefore you see everything I post as just another baseless assertion. Whereas we are talking about quantum physics not belief and what I am posting is based on the interpretations of quantum physics according to scientists, one being one of the pioneers of quantum physics.

If you wish to use the same logic that supplying support for quantum physics is really about defending beliefs then we could also apply the same logic to the many ideas that have come from quantum physics about parallel worlds, multiverses, holohgraphic worlds, worm holes, the possibility of cats being alive and dead at the same time and all other crazy far fetched ideas which are all about some people also trying to defend their materialistic view of the world.

All I am doing is using the same logic to support ideas that may imply that there is more to things than materialism. Like it or not there are two camps to how we can interpret things and both have just as much right to be included. I find it ironic that some are willing to reject whole journals and many scientists work some who are very prominent in the field of quantum physics becuase of the fear that acknowledging them may point to a God or intelligence behind what we see which is not a given. But the very thought of the possibility causes them to deny any substance to the entire field of consciousness. Maybe it is these people who are tiring the knots for others to try and undo.

No, you’re not......you’re clinging...

 

[KCfromNC]

As I mentioned I have already posted where he has mentioned consciousness or the observer effect in the paper below.

Two problems here

1. you're posting a paper from a humanities journal when I've been asking for peer-reviewed scientific papers. And strangely, you're not even going to the primary source.
2.The paper says that Wheeler's ideas aren't science :

The more radical, metaphysically oriented conclusion of Wheeler is that the overall reality, that is the totality of the world, is constituted through the interaction between the inarticulate “out there” with human intelligent agencies who create the network of questions and answers directed to and received from what they intend to call “reality”.
​

You'll note that your author calls his conclusion metaphysics, which is pretty far from actual science.

 

[stevevw]

Which effects are you proposing which might indicate that the observations depend on the involvement of a conscious entity? Please be specific.

How can you be specific when the very nature of quantum physics has various interpretations which can all be indirectly argued. According to some any effect that is seen in the classical world may only be real because of a conscious observer. This is something Wheeler supported. Some support panpsychism such as philosopher Alfred North Whitehead who has drawn on the indeterminacy observed by quantum physics to defend panpsychism. A similar line of argument has been repeated subsequently by a number of thinkers including the physicist David Bohm, anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff.

By the way David Bohm is considered one of the most significant theorectical physicists of the 20th century who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory.
Panpsychism - Wikipedia

So effects of quantum physics that are observed by consciousness can have different interpretations. All possibilities are considered and possible just like paraelle worlds, multiverses and other far fetched ideas from mainstream science are interpretations of qunatum physics.

I mentioned them - the only peer-reviewed papers in your list failed to mention consciousness.

The entire Journal of counsciousness studies I linked is peer reviewed so any papers in it will be peer reviewed. There were plenty in there talking about consciousness.
Journal of Consciousness Studies
Journal of Consciousness Studies - Wikipedia
Heres some examples of the many papers it contains
Quantum theory and the need for consciousness
It is argued that the main reason why quantum theory is relevant to consciousness is that the theory cannot be completely defined without introducing some features of consciousness.
Quantum theory and the need for consciousness: Ingenta Connect
Beyond Scientific Materialism: Toward a Transcendent Theory of Consciousness
Beyond Scientific Materialism: Toward a Transcendent Theory of Co...: Ingenta Connect
QUANTUM AND CONSCIOUSNESS: IN SEARCH OF A NEW PARADIGM
QUANTUM AND CONSCIOUSNESS: IN SEARCH OF A NEW PARADIGM: Ingenta Connect

How does he account for experiments like the one I linked where the observer is an inanimate object?

The question can also be asked how doyou explain the findings in tests like Wheelers delayed choice and his “participatory anthropic principle,” which are far more famous for showing the oberver effect quantum in the light of the results from your paper. As far as I understand it the double split experiment has been proven time and time again to show the dual states in quantum physics and how measurment breaks down coherence.

People believe all sorts of stuff. Lots of it can't get published in scientific papers because it simply isn't science. For example :
"Published in Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences"

I have only posted the paper to quote Wheelers work which the author used to support his work so Wheelers work stands independent of the paper. Neevertheless its seems pretty unfair to start degrading papers based on the country they come from andd assume they are incapable of doing scientific work. Especially when you begin to find that other papers in more mainstream journals have used that paper to support their work for which the example below comes from the journal of Neuro Quantology and is a peer reviewed scientific journal. This paper also quotes Wheelers work but also quotes the paper you say is a dud becuase it comes from a country you deem is incapbale of doing science. Plus how is social science not a scientific area of research.

The Universe as a Cyclic Organized Information System: John Wheeler's World Revisited
The Universe as a Cyclic Organized Information System: John Wheeler's World Revisited
Journal of NeuroQuantology | March 2015 | Volume 13 | Issue 1 | Page
Meijer D.K.F., John Wheeler’s world revised
/The_Universe_as_a_Cyclic_Organized_Information_System_John_Wheelers_World_Revisited?auto=download
NeuroQuantology is a quarterly peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scientific journal that covers the intersection of neuroscience and quantum mechanics.

Anyway why all this insistence of jumping through hoops to support my claims. If it was a paper supporting multiverses or some other idea interpeted from the quantum effects that support the materistic view I am sure you would not care if it came from the North pole and some obscured fringe science journal. As I said many of the ideas from mainstream science are not directly supported by peer reviewed journals either but they are held up as the answer to the hard to explain obervations we see in the universe and physics.

This is quite a stretch. It is talking about the practice of science, not how the universe works at a fundamental level.

You asked me for quotes where Wheeler is talking about the Oberver/consciousness being something that makes reality which is an interpretation from quantum physics experiements which I had already done and you did not acknowledge them. So I posted them again and then you say they are not complying to some other criteria you have now decided. You seem to be changing the goal posts all the time.

Does he?

Didnt you read the quotes I posted in the llast post.

 

[stevevw]

No, you’re not......you’re clinging...

Clinging to what

 

[KCfromNC]

How can you be specific when the very nature of quantum physics has various interpretations which can all be indirectly argued.

I'm not the one making claims about it so I don't have to worry. This seems like something you should be concerned about.

According to some any effect that is seen in the classical world may only be real because of a conscious observer.

Let me know when they can demonstrate this is true.

Quantum theory and the need for consciousness

It is argued that the main reason why quantum theory is relevant to consciousness is that the theory cannot be completely defined without introducing some features of consciousness.

Can you list 5 of those arguments and the scientific experiments which support them?

Quantum theory and the need for consciousness: Ingenta Connect

Beyond Scientific Materialism: Toward a Transcendent Theory of Consciousness

Even the abstract says this isn't science.

QUANTUM AND CONSCIOUSNESS: IN SEARCH OF A NEW PARADIGM

QUANTUM AND CONSCIOUSNESS: IN SEARCH OF A NEW PARADIGM: Ingenta Connect

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/searc...1=consciousness,+quantum&pageSize=10&index=15

Written by the co-Chair of the The World Wisdom Council, no less. But "in search of" is a far cry from any sort of scientific conclusion on the matter.

The question can also be asked how do you explain the findings in tests like Wheelers delayed choice and his “participatory anthropic principle,” which are far more famous for showing the oberver effect quantum in the light of the results from your paper. As far as I understand it the double split experiment has been proven time and time again to show the dual states in quantum physics and how measurment breaks down coherence.

That's nice. What does that have to do with "the assessment of mind and consciousness, a consistent and parsimonious paradigm suggests that mind and consciousness are not part of a chain of events consisting of an admixture of physical and mental events but that physical events form a single, coherent set of events, and mental events another set, with the two sets related" or whatever it is you think your sources are saying?

Neevertheless its seems pretty unfair to start degrading papers based on the country they come from andd assume they are incapable of doing scientific work.

Good thing I never did that. How about addressing what I actually write?

the journal of Journal of Neuro Quantology and is a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Yes, one where you can learn how to modify DNA by breathing correctly : DNA Modifications Through Remote Intention | Gagliardi | NeuroQuantology.

This paper also quotes Wheelers work but also quotes the paper you say is a dud becuase it comes from a country you deem is incapbale of doing science.

No idea where you're getting this from. Please stop making things up that I've never said.

The Universe as a Cyclic Organized Information System: John Wheeler's World Revisited

The Universe as a Cyclic Organized Information System: John Wheeler's World Revisited
Journal of NeuroQuantology | March 2015 | Volume 13 | Issue 1 | Page
Meijer D.K.F., John Wheeler’s world revised
/The_Universe_as_a_Cyclic_Organized_Information_System_John_Wheelers_World_Revisited?auto=download

Is there anything notable about this paper, or do you just want us to know it exists?

NeuroQuantology

is a quarterly peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scientific journal that covers the intersection of neuroscience and quantum mechanics.

First Impact Factor for NeuroQuantology Journal : The journal is now ranked 213th of 237 journals, in the Neuroscience category.

Anyway why all this insistence of jumping through hoops to support my claims.

Because I find them very hard to believe and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not just making stuff up.

If it was a paper supporting multiverses or some other idea interpeted from the quantum effects that support the materistic view I am sure you would not care if it came from the North pole.

I would care if it came from a humanities journal, though.

As I said many of the ideas from mainstream science are not directly supported by peer reviewed journals either

Yes, still waiting for support of this claim.

You asked me for quotes where Wheeler is talking about the Oberver/consciousness being something that makes reality which is an interpretation from quantum physics experiements which I had already done and you did not acknowledge them.

I asked questions about the quotes and you reposted them rather than answering. Again, this doesn't give me much confidence the facts behind what you're claiming.

 

[stevevw]

Two problems here

1. you're posting a paper from a humanities journal when I've been asking for peer-reviewed scientific papers. And strangely, you're not even going to the primary source.
2.The paper says that Wheeler's ideas aren't science :

The more radical, metaphysically oriented conclusion of Wheeler is that the overall reality, that is the totality of the world, is constituted through the interaction between the inarticulate “out there” with human intelligent agencies who create the network of questions and answers directed to and received from what they intend to call “reality”.
​

You'll note that your author calls his conclusion metaphysics, which is pretty far from actual science.

You are quoting out of context. The above quote is not the author saying that Wheelers work is radical metaphysics but he is saying that mainstream science would have seen his work this way. But prior to that section he says

Wheleer believes that the question “What makes meaning?” applied to physics, is an existential question, for it also addresses the issue of the existence of human beings and the universe. But unlike existential philosophers, who were sceptical about science’s capacity to deal with this issue, he believes that physics itself can address the issue of the facticity of existence: “Tomorrow, will it not be existence itself that comes under the purview of physics?” (Wheeler 1983, p. 404).

Which is becoming more of a question that science is looking at now we are deep into quantum physics and the beginning of existence of the universe. The point is the paper is critiquing Wheelers “Participatory Anthropic Principle” as applied to the idea of a Participatory universe and how science is gradually coming around to the same ideas in a roundabout way such as with metaphysics that the answer to what is being seen points to something beyond the classic physics and materialistic views. That is why we have so many now looking at metaphysics and other branches to try and find the answers.

A Fight for the Soul of Science
Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine
Philosophy isn't dead yet
Philosophy isn't dead yet | Raymond Tallis

He then goes on to say
It is interesting that this trend of Wheeler’s thought is similar to phenomenology which asserts nature, as articulated worldly reality, as having sense only in the context of the dialogue between human consciousness and that which is posited by consciousness. It is the dialogue with the unarticulated otherness of consciousness that ultimately reveals the meaning.

Our analysis thus unfolds the most important and metaphysical point to be made on Wheeler’s ideas, namely the mystery and precarious status of human agents, observers-participants in what concerns the origin of their purposive actions which are in the foundation of knowledge of the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are quoting out of context. The above quote is not the author saying that Wheelers work is radical metaphysics but he is saying that mainstream science would have seen his work this way.

Which mainstream scientific studies and results does he reference to demonstrate this?

Wheleer believes that the question “What makes meaning?” applied to physics, is an existential question, for it also addresses the issue of the existence of human beings and the universe. But unlike existential philosophers, who were sceptical about science’s capacity to deal with this issue, he believes that physics itself can address the issue of the facticity of existence: “Tomorrow, will it not be existence itself that comes under the purview of physics?” (Wheeler 1983, p. 404).

Have anything more recent than a generation-old reference hoping that his will happen?

That is why we have so many now looking at metaphysics and other branches to try and find the answers.

Looking to metaphysics to find answers? Why, that almost sounds like this has nothing to do with actual scientific research.

He then goes on to say
It is interesting that this trend of Wheeler’s thought is similar to phenomenology which asserts nature, as articulated worldly reality, as having sense only in the context of the dialogue between human consciousness and that which is posited by consciousness. It is the dialogue with the unarticulated otherness of consciousness that ultimately reveals the meaning.

Figuring out what meaning means has little to do with the idea that consciousness is required for QM to work.

Our analysis thus unfolds the most important and metaphysical point to be made on Wheeler’s ideas, namely the mystery and precarious status of human agents, observers-participants in what concerns the origin of their purposive actions which are in the foundation of knowledge of the universe.

Knowledge relying on things which can know doesn't say much about QM needing consciousness to work or whatever it is that we're supposed to be discussing.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not the one making claims about it so I don't have to worry. This seems like something you should be concerned about.

I am only concerned that some can accept ideas from mainstream science like paradelle worlds and then reject other ideas like consciousness which are based on the same logic from the interpretations of quantum experiments because they don’t like what it implies.

Let me know when they can demonstrate this is true.

So on that basis we will have to reject all ideas that have not been directly verified and demonstrated as true such as inflation, multiverses, the big bang, dark matter and energy, etc. The problem is mainstream science acts like these ideas are true because they prop up their existing material view so well. If they had to let, go of them then everything would be a mess.

Can you list 5 of those arguments and the scientific experiments which support them?

As I stated several times now I am not claiming any direct scientific support for consciousness. I am claiming there is indirect support which is derived from interpretations of the effects of quantum physics in experiments like the double split experiment. I have already supplied ample papers showing how scientists interpret and argue consciousness.

Even the abstract says this isn't science.

It also says that a materialistic view constrains the practcie of science andd makes it inauthentic. The paper is also trying to argue a non materialistic view and link it into the physical world using quantum phsyics. It still uses scientific reasoning. The point is even mainstream science is beginning to appeal to ideas beyond scientific criteria and verification when it comes to some of their far-fetched ideas to account for the problems they encounter in their currecnt theories and in their search for a uniting theory of everything.

Written by the co-Chair of the The World Wisdom Council, no less. But "in search of" is a far cry from any sort of scientific conclusion on the matter.

Of course and its the same for how science is searching for the unification of quantum physics and relativity (the theory if everything). They will come up with many far fetched ideas in their effect to do so and call it science.

That's nice. What does that have to do with "the assessment of mind and consciousness, a consistent and parsimonious paradigm suggests that mind and consciousness are not part of a chain of events consisting of an admixture of physical and mental events but that physical events form a single, coherent set of events, and mental events another set, with the two sets related" or whatever it is you think your sources are saying?

Yes consciousness is non-material and the aim is to link this to the material world. That is the point. It’s a bit like trying to unite the quantum world with the classical world. It ttakes some pretty weird interpretations ie Schrodinghers cat to do so. The answer has eluded science for nearly 50 years and may never be solved. Science may have to acknowledge that there are some things it cannot answer or explain.

Good thing I never did that. How about addressing what I actually write?

Ok sorry, it seemed you were also making a point that the paper comes from Siberia of all places. I think I did address it by saying the same paper was used in another scientific paper from a scientific journal and then linked another paper from a scientific journal on neurology and quantum physics that also used Wheelers papers/quotes as support. The point is you are going to a lot of trouble just to discredit a scientist who is well known for his work in quantum physics and his ideas about consciousness.

Yes, one where you can learn how to modify DNA by breathing correctly : DNA Modifications Through Remote Intention | Gagliardi | NeuroQuantology.

What is your point.

No idea where you're getting this from. Please stop making things up that I've never said.

Once again sorry I have assumed you were making a point about the country it originated from as well by pointing out the country. It would have been sufficient to just point out the journal it was from i.e. social sciences as this was the relevant part.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am only concerned that some can accept ideas from mainstream science like paradelle worlds and then reject other ideas like consciousness which are based on the same logic from the interpretations of quantum experiments because they don’t like what it implies.

Before we can discuss that, let's establish that they are based on the same logic.

So on that basis we will have to reject all ideas that have not been directly verified and demonstrated as true such as inflation, multiverses, the big bang, dark matter and energy, etc.

The fact you don't know there's direct evidence for at least a few of these makes it hard to take your other assertions seriously.

The problem is mainstream science acts like these ideas are true because they prop up their existing material view so well.

That plus the objective evidence for them.

As I stated several times now I am not claiming any direct scientific support for consciousness. I am claiming there is indirect support which is derived from interpretations of the effects of quantum physics in experiments like the double split experiment.

Even the ones which require no conscious observer?

I have already supplied ample papers showing how scientists interpret and argue consciousness.

In my view, it is more like you've picked one scientist and posted a paper written by someone talking about how that scientist's view are similar to certain epistemological views. That's pretty far from scientists doing science.

It also says that a materialistic view constrains the practcie of science andd makes it inauthentic.

People say lots of stuff. What's more interesting is backing that talk up. For example, in this case it would be much more convincing if the paper introduced an non-materialistic approach which produced demonstrably better results than science.

The point is even mainstream science is beginning to appeal to ideas beyond scientific criteria and verification

In what ways?

Of course and its the same for how science is searching for the unification of quantum physics and relativity (the theory if everything). They will come up with many far fetched ideas in their effect to do so and call it science.

And then they look to find objective evidence to confirm or disprove those far-fetched ideas. So?

Yes consciousness is non-material

Citation needed.

I think I did address it by saying the same paper was used in another scientific paper from a scientific journal

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.

What is your point.

That the standards of this journal don't seem to be particularly high.

 

[stevevw]

Is there anything notable about this paper, or do you just want us to know it exists?

The point is you asked me for some support about Wheelers claims about consciousness for which I thought I had done with the first paper. But rather than acknowledge Wheelers statements on consciousness you decided to try and discredit the paper (source). The point is it didn’t really matter about the source because the aim was to show Wheelers quotes on consciousness. I then posted a second paper from a scientific journal which I really should not have had to do to further support Wheelers claims about consciousness which you also did not acknowledge.

First Impact Factor for NeuroQuantology Journal

: The journal is now ranked 213th of 237 journals, in the Neuroscience category.

This is a logical fallacy that ranking can be assumed as credit worthy. I can tell you that even the highly ranked journals have been found to produce shaky and false work and cannot be trusted. In some ways even more so that most because this is where all the money and pressure is to produce results.

I would care if it came from a humanities journal, though.

I can see you're trying hard to find some way to discredit Wheeler or any ideas along the lines of the observer affect and consciousness. You forgot to mention that the journal is also a social sciences journal, and both do include scientific reasoning and logical arguments. The authors will be finding ways to argue their hypothesis/thesis on scientific grounds. There is more than one way to determine what we see besides physics and this is especially relevant considering that many see the quantum world effects stepping outside physics.

Yes, still waiting for support of this claim.

So can you show me peer reviewed direct scientific support for multiverses or paradelle worlds, what about holographic worlds and have we ever directly verified dark matter or energy directly. Science may have some mathematical equation on paper for multiverses but that’s not the same as being scientifically tested and directly verified. It is the same for all these other ideas which are basically interpretations of quantum physics which is the same for consciousness.

This is one of the problems some scientist is saying where the criteria for scientific verification should be lowered so they can use ideas like multiverse because they can never be directly verified according to the scientific methods. This will allow them to start bending the rules for verification and more or less do what they claim metaphysics does.

I asked questions about the quotes and you reposted them rather than answering. Again, this doesn't give me much confidence the facts behind what you're claiming.

Then why are you trying so hard to discredit the source of those quotes. You said show me a quote where Wheeler was supporting consciousness for which I did.