I wasn't talking about the wave function, I was speaking of the question of wave/particle duality. W/P duality doesn't alter the physical nature of a thing.
That's because its ranging up to particles. But before particles I thought the universe existed is a state of waves.
I think you are missing a space dimension (and time, and momemtum).
Ok I thought the wave equation was in 2D.
The
wave equation is a second-order linear partial differential equation describing the behaviour of mechanical waves; its two (spatial) dimensional form can be used to describe waves on a surface of water:
scipython.com
The electron field is the physical thing. An electron is a excitation of that field.
Actually its not. Its a mathmatical equation of the potential locations and states a particle can be in. There is actually no connections of wires or physical wave activity in the field itself. A field is not like a chair you can point to in space and show where it is. A quantum field is just a mathematical function that assigns every spacetime point some mathematical quantity. Numbers are clearly not physical objects but are mathematical abstracts.
Quantum field theory is a mathematical model that tries to describe real measured particle interactions, but it would be a leap to declare that the model is the reality. This is the problem when many people say that fields are “fundamental” — they have confused the model with reality. In every single experiment done, we see particles interacting (or not) with each other. We never see some visible fluctuation that we call a field. The field just serves the describe the interactions of these particles.
https://medium.com/@thisscience1/quantum-fields-dont-exist-5a11baf9cebc
The point is science works within an assumed ontology. That is the closure of the physical. So even if God and miracles are real science could not possibly measure it but rather will look for a physical explanation even if its wrong.
Perhaps it always existed.
To me thats a God of the gaps arguement. But it contradicts cause and effect. Everything that exists within the closure of the physical has a physical cause, a cause of a cause of a cause ect. So something caused so called quantum nothingness. The energy potention was put there by something. A physical state cannot be an infinite state of always existing by its very nature.
Why does it need to have a "fuel" or a "first"?
Because that is the materialist and reductionist paradigm. Some naturalistic cause and reason had to have caused the universe and reality and whatever that cause is it also had to have had a cause.
You claimed electrons had consciousness. I have challenged that. That challenge is what I have been writing about. I don't know what other 99 things you are simultaneously writing about. I lose track of them.
The 99 other things which is an exaggeration can basically be summed up as Mind and Consciousness including Information is fundemental to reality. So that means even electrons can have a basic form of consciousness as consciousness is fundemental.
I can liken it to computers. The compter interface is like our interface of objective reality. When we view the screen we see a virtual reality appearing and we become part of that. But the screen or interface is just information, pixels and codes of something deeper. That is a program and behind that program is Mind. Mind is the fundemental reality that creates the interface and the interface is just a projection.
This is the basis for most of those 99 other ideas.
Quite a reach, but let's see how that applies to consciousness of electrons...
Why is it quite a reach. Is that because you measure this within an assumed idea that everything must be physical or material in nature. But that is a metaphysical belief and not scientific itself.
Certainly we can measure the effects of mind on the physical world. Pray and spiritual augmentation are examples of how something non physical and transcendent can influence the physical world. Even if its a matter of the psyche it seems theres plenty of evidence for mind over matter. These causes and effects are beyond reductionist explanations.
So if these non physical influences can alter physical reality then they must effect the quantum world such as electrons. Even if quanta is responding to such influences. Its certain a new and different influence to material reductionist explanations. I don't think naturalism could even begin to formulate a theory for such phenomena.
Simply saying that intentions, concentrations, imaginations, subjective experiences are what is effecting things is to further support a non material ontology because just as the experience of red cannot be reduced to neurons and light waves these mind states are not a mere sum of brain activity. But a phenomena of injecting self, the subject into the equation which brings in a completely different kind of force or influence that material science cannot ever explain. The Hard problem just gets bigger and bigger.
This doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. Setting that aside, the scenario is so vague
I think it does and its not so vague. Its only vague because you assume it should be a certain way to be something real in the world. Like the experience of red cannot be reduced to material and mechanical equations yet can be a real phenomena that tells us something about reality (red experience) humans have red experiences about the world.
Other experiences such as belief, praying a miracle, mind over matter, experiences that give knowledge of something beyond what we see can be real like the red experience but cannot be measured by conventional science.
But we can take seriously these experiences and try to understand how they do give us a deeper knowledge of reality. That takes a different kind of assumptions, thinking and methodology.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
I am saying that science involves ontological assumptions that reality is within the ccausal closure of the physical. So no matter what they are looking at they will interpret all activity as falling within that closure.
So even if there is such a thing as God and He has had or is having an influence on things science and the scientist will always find a naturalistic explanation.
That's how scientific theories work.
Yes and its good at what it does in explaining reality from the outside, from a quantative way. But that is only a part of reality. It cannot explain reality from the imside, the subjective 1st person experiences.
We can? I don' think that has happened yet.
It can never happen because science is not equippedto measure such subjective phenomena. Science is a 3rd person objective measure. Whereas subjective experiences are 1st person subjective phenomena. Its not a case of finding the answer. Its a category problem. Its like trying to measure the experience of a violen music with the vibrations of a bow against cat gut. No such experience can be found in such things.
You should really see what neurobiologists say about the nature of consciousness. They are the ones studying it.
They can't explain the nature of consciousness in objective terms. Go back to colorblind Mary example. No amount of correlations and understanding of the mechanical processes could give Mary a red experience to even understand its nature. It wasn't until Mary could have a red experience 1st hand that she could gain knowledge of what it was.
That alone, the ability to experience is the nature, the ability of something that is not conscious such as non animate neurons and photons to somehow have subjective experiences. Science cannot explain this nature and why non conscious matter can be conscious.
They can say that this or that activity happens when a red experience happens. But that doesn't explain the experience itself. Its actually jumping an explanatory gap between matter and subjective experiences.
If there is some sort of consciousness field (which I sincerely doubt as there is no evidence for it), then it is so weak that it does not need to be included in QED and QED works to high precision without it.
Like I said you may be assuming the wrong basis that the evidence must conform to certain metaphysics. As mentioned Mind over Matter and other spiritual experiences seem to defy physical reality and its not doing so by conventional means. Some other non detectable influence is bridging the gap. Almost quantum like in that it seems non local.
Maybe we are not looking in the right places. The evdience may be there all along but is continually rationalised away as coincidence or imagination or make believe ect.
For some reason you are still responding to my "electrons and photons are described to great precision by QED" sentence. Measurements of electrons and photons are not subjective, nor related to neurons.
I was using the comparison as just like electrons are verified physical activity so are neurons. So measuring the activity of these physical aspects does not tell us anything about consciousness itself. Only what physical activity happens during consciousness. Its like describing the physical activity of a radio does not explain the nature of the radio waves that cause that activity.
Well actually QM does show strange activity for what would be expected from a physical and deterministic ontology because the activity doesn't conform to normal cause and effect. In fact it conforms to non locality which is more related to consciousness.
Still in the QED reply, I said nothing of wave function collapse or consciousness to which you made this reply.
My point was that if there is some sort of "consciousness field" the interaction with electrons is so weak we can't detect it.
We don't know. It may scale up. Reach certain threshholds. If consciousness collapses the wave function into a fixed state then that is not a weak effect. It may happen so fast we cannot even comprehend this. I think this is Penroses Orch theory where microtubals may be associated with consciousness causing the collapse.
But interpretations of QM support this idea in several ways which I have linked and are valid and possible interpretations as any other like the Many Worlds.
I'm not sure what the "classical period" of QM is.
The classical period of physics was Newtonian physics, the billiard ball schema. Atoms were little solid particles knocking into each other with deterministic behaviour. During that time QM behaviour would have been laughed at, impossible and quackery. It took a complete paradigm shift in thinking to include QM. Still today there is the fundemental problem of uniting the two.
So I am saying that it may be that we need another paradigm shift in thinking. Just like with QM being seen as woo back then it may take ideas outside the box that may seem woo now to make that shift. Certainly more and more scientists are turning to the ideas I mentioned as part of this paradigm shift as it seems to fit the data better. But like other paradigm shifts there is resistence of holding on to the old ways.
Well the moist basic everyday one is how we can manifest physical reactions just through thoughts. Thinking of a beautiful piece of music can cause the hairs to stand or the eyes to water. Positive mind positive benefits. We are what we think we are. Or become what we think we are. The mind is in the drivers seat in that sense physically.
But there is also evidence from phenomena such as positive thinking, prayer and spirituality. Persons who have beliefs tend to have better health outcomes. Prayer actually has positive effects on peoples lives and changes what would seem impossible odds into good results.
Theres something going on and its not just coincident. I think the Global Workstation which connects thousands of minds to data output has shown spikes before world events happen like natural disasters.
We know animals can sense things well before they happen. So our minds are not completely detached from something beyond our brains. Some sort of telepathy or sense we can tune into and sublimarily communicate. Then there is all the real experiences of out of body experiences like NDE. Many have been verified as not be coincident and something that really happened to the person.
I'll let you know if it fails.
The important question is, are you open to other possibilities besides the material and reductionist paradigm. You can never know if you restrict the evidence to a certain measure within the causal closure of the physical.
Thats the other thing I think is telling of the materialist and reductionist view. It reduces all our experiences, the real experiences we believe we have, our agency, free will, our belief that we can make a real difference in this world down to delusions that were caused by something physical as a way to determine the outcomes.
Its ironic in that the materialist approach wants to make the non conscious conscious with Ai thus proving that consciousness is just an epiphenomena and seconary. While at the same time turning the only real thing we know, our consciousness of our own intental agency into a machine thus making us more or less robots programmed without any real influence on reality.
