Totally OT: Quantum Mechanics proof for the existence of a Supreme Conciousness?
Edward Diener
eddielee_no_spam_here at tropicsoft.com
Sat Feb 16 15:43:57 PST 2008
Craig Black wrote:
>
> "Edward Diener" <eddielee_no_spam_here at tropicsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:fp50mt$v2o$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
>>
>> Utter rubbish !
>>
>> For a person in a mathematical/scientific field such as computer
>> programming buying such hogwash is pathetic. Try studying the great
>> physicists, even a little, to understand that they were not in the
>> business of supporting mystagogues of any type.
>
> Actually after reading more on the topic, this is actually not the
> "conclusion" that the author here states. But it is one hypothesis that
> unless I misunderstand was posed by Schrodinger himself. This quote is
> from Shrodinger on Wikipedia:
>
> * Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...
> o "The Oneness of Mind", as translated in Quantum Questions:
> Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (1984) edited by Ken
> Wilber
Because Schrodinger, or any other person, happens to write something,
does not make it true in any sense. Do you really believe that science,
and in particular quantum mechanics, has attempted to measure
"consciousness", or even define it in scientific terms ?
Furthermore the author of that tract is oblivious to some 70 years or
more of quantum mechanics, which post-dates the theories and science of
the three scientists on which he focuses. During that period enormous
strides have been make in attempting to understand the quantum nature of
physical reality. The challenges are still so enormous that it is
doubtful the leading scientists in the field have any time to waste on a
notion which belongs clearly outside their science and how that science
is defined. Physical reality is quite complex enough without worrying
about a notion that has the vaguest of meanings outside of science.
By attempting to subvert serious, challenging, and fascinating science
to mystico-religious belief the author of the tract is doing a great
disservice to actual scientists in the field ( I am not one but as a
layman, and someone who studied a good deal of physics in college, I
have done some reading and further learning in the area ).
>
> It may be the case that the author here takes this idea further than
> Schrodinger did. However, because this particular hypothesis violates
> the Ockham's Razor principle, it gets less attention from mainstream
> science than the other alternatives.
It gets no attention because there is no way to measure "consciousness"
in scientific terms, or even define it. This has nothing to do with
Ockham's Razor or mainstream science, but everything to do with what
science is.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list