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

[Don Clugston]

Craig Black wrote:
> "Gregor Richards" <Richards at codu.org> wrote in message 
> news:fp2e2k$jvj$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> 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
> 
> Yeah.  I have just been on Wikipedia reading about this.  The article I read 
> originally incorrectly promoted the "Continuous infinity of minds" 
> hypothesis as a conclusion.  It's hard because I can barely follow the logic 
> of the that hypothesis, let alone try to digest this one too.  It's very 
> interesting that both of these hypothetical ideas have huge and quite 
> strange implications.  Either you believe in God or you believe in parallel 
> universes.  It's nuts.

There was a wonderful article in New Scientist a few years ago called "Anything 
Goes" by Marcus Chown which 'proves' that there are an infinite number of universes:

"This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was 
designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes—a 
"multiverse". "

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html

I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of the 
consequences which follow when choosing the second option.