Proving the Immaterial World

I believe this is what Aruoet was referring to (correct me if I'm wrong Arouet)

http://phys.org/news/2011-06-canadian-method-quantum-wavefunction.html

I think so in that I recall the news that I read involving a new technique that allowed them to "gently" measure the wave function without actually collapsing it. My surprise with this link is that the article is from 2011. The news stories I read on this were relatively recent and I had the impression they were being presented as new results. Maybe the recent story was some kind of further improvement on the 2011 techniques?
 
The nice thing about comparing wave-functions to ghosts is that both wave-functions/quantum fields have available energy states. Ghosts are well known for their need for energy if they are going to produce phenomena; sometimes they get it from batteries, the air (cold spots) or even their observer-victim. Quantum fields have available energy states, but have no consciousness that stands there and says, "mmm.... now where can I get some energy?"
 
I think so in that I recall the news that I read involving a new technique that allowed them to "gently" measure the wave function without actually collapsing it. My surprise with this link is that the article is from 2011. The news stories I read on this were relatively recent and I had the impression they were being presented as new results. Maybe the recent story was some kind of further improvement on the 2011 techniques?

Not seeing anything like this when I search for "wave function" in Google News.

New Scientist's article on results supporting Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) was published in 2013. (Summary here + here).

So I'd be curious to see any results that outright disprove the CI.
 
Not seeing anything like this when I search for "wave function" in Google News.

New Scientist's article on results supporting Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) was published in 2013. (Summary here + here).

So I'd be curious to see any results that outright disprove the CI.

I may simply have been mistaken, thinking I was reading something new but not. This topic is not my forte, don't rely on my posts on it in the slightest!
 

Interesting. Kauffman offers a way to connect decoherence with observer effects as noted here.

His general ideas about the "Poised Realm" that sits between QM and Classical levels of reality & consciousness are collected here.

@ghost

Josephson goes into your ideas of consciousness creating physical laws, as posted here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Hulme offers some thoughts on the Immaterial:
Consciousness (1/2): mind or matter?

Aren’t these just anecdotes and metaphors, carrying no more weight than any other personal opinion? Is this going to help reconcile the differences between faith and science in this all important area?

Fortunately, since I first explored this question much more research has come into the public domain. And I’m not talking about things like Near Death Experiences (see the links at the end of this post), or David Fontana‘s explorations of the reality of the soul and the afterlife. I’m referring to work such as Schwartz‘s that demonstrates that the mind is not easily reducible to the brain but rather can, by force of deliberate willed attention, change the brain. Not quite enough to carry a hard-line materialist with me, though? Not even enough to cause him or her a fleeting doubt?

Well, beyond that, and most recently, there has been Rupert Sheldrake‘s book The Science Delusion. In the next post I will seek to unpack some of the most telling points he makes that should cause us to question too glib an attachment to a materialist explanation of consciousness.
Consciousness (2/2): a no-brainer?

And before you say it, if my preference for this picture, based on the evidence I have adduced, has in fact really been predetermined, then so has the preference of a materialist for a different reductionist picture. So why would his or her views have more weight than mine?
 
Back
Top