Totally OT: Quantum Mechanics proof for the existence of a Supreme Conciousness?

[Gregor Richards]

Craig Black wrote:
> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last night 
> and am still buzzing about it.  I just have to share it.  I personally am an 
> agnostic, so not trying to preach anything, but I thought this was very 
> interesting.  I didn't realize that modern science has such a solid theory 
> about consciousness.  Namely, that there is only one conscious mind in the 
> universe, and that matter is the result of observations of that mind.  At 
> the subatomic level, there are only possibilities that require a mind to 
> bring into actual reality.  And that mind is not Many but One.  The universe 
> essentially consists of a single Indivisible Mind from which matter 
> emmanates.
> 
> Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult?  Nope. 
> The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries made by 
> Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all pioneers of 
> quantum mechanics.
> 
> http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
> 
> -Craig
> 
> 

I've seen this sort of argument a thousand times, and as per usual, it's 
veiled in extremely long and complicated prose which completely ignores 
one fact: There is a competing theory of quantum waveform collapse that 
does not require one to hold the ridiculous belief that certain 
complicated chemical reactions are endowed with the magical property of 
consciousness. Better yet, this theory is extremely simple, and Occam's 
Razor always likes simplicity. It is the many-worlds hypothesis.

Essentially, the hypothesis this page (and so many others) professes as 
proven truth is that the consciousness of a being causes the quantum 
state of things that being observes to collapse. It requires that you 
believe that certain beings are endowed with this mystical power of 
causing collapse, which is contrary to hundreds of years of science 
suggesting that humans (and all other forms of life) are 
physical/chemical/electrical reactions (albeit extremely complicated ones).

One property of quantum mechanics that has been observed and proven 
fairly well is quantum entanglement. Put simply, one quantum state can 
be defined with another quantum state as variables. A simplified example:

1) You have a cat in a box. For simplicity, we will say that it has a 
50% probability of being alive and a 50% probability of being dead.

2) You shoot the box. The bullet has a 99.99% probability of passing 
through the box and the cat (killing it), and a 0.01% probability of 
jumping spontaneously and missing the cat entirely.

3) Because the bullet affects the cat, the quantum state of the cat is 
now defined with the bullet as a variable:
     The 50% chance that the cat was alive now becomes a 49.995% chance 
that the cat is dead and a 0.005% chance the cat is dead.
     The 50% chance that the cat was dead is still a 50% chance that the 
cat is dead (no use shooting a dead cat :P )
     So: The cat's state is now 99.995% dead and 0.005% alive.

4) You observe the cat.

By the theory on this page (observation causes waveform collapse), your 
observing the cat causes it to resolve to either 100% dead or 100% 
alive, with a 0.005% probability and 99.995% probability respectively. 
However, there is no explanation for why you, the observer, are not 
entangled just like everything else is.

Here's a simple explanation: You ARE entangled. Your state becomes 
99.995% the-cat-is-dead, 0.005% the-cat-is-alive. What does this mean? 
This means that you exist simultaneously in two worlds, one with a 
living cat and one with a dead cat. Your consciousness is entangled, and 
so becomes divided into two universes (in a matter of speaking). What do 
you observe? Well, you can't simultaneously observer both universes 
(they are two separate streams of consciousness), so it appears that the 
state has collapsed. In reality, you've just become part of it.

This is called the many-worlds hypothesis. It makes sense and doesn't 
require a philosophical definition of "observer". It's compatible with 
the well-supported notion that humans are NOT special, merely 
complicated. And, sci-fi loves it :P

  - Gregor Richards