Nassim
New
Physicalism is another form of materialism , a bit like some classical liberals who call themselves neo-liberals these days . lol
Whatever name you use , it's all the same thus , deep down : materialism.Cheers.
Some Philosophical Arguments
- Thread starter Phil Argument
- Start date
Physicalism is another form of materialism , a bit like some classical liberals who call themselves neo-liberals these days . lol
Whatever name you use , it's all the same thus , deep down : materialism.Cheers.
Bertha Huse
New
I imagine if you confine yourself to a strict old-fashion materialistic thinking - then yes, QM non-locality and the quantum wave function would appear to be impossible to trace. And yet, scientists (the best in their time) did come up with ways to describe these aspects of QM phenomena. Mathematics especially came in handy with quantum fields and the quantum wave function.
My Best,
Bertha
But it isn't what you said it is:
"The main point is rather the fact that the so-called physicalism or any other form of materialism are still stuck within the approximately correct and fundamentally false deterministic mechanical classical Newtonian world view ..."
It's not about a world of billiard balls.
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
Good question! Maybe if you're willing to educate yourself regarding quantum physics, you will find your answer. You know the old saying, you can lead a horse to the water ...
My Best,
Bertha
malf
Member
Are you sure you understand the concept of a discussion forum?
Nassim
New
It is , in the sense that the so-called physicalism tries to "reshape " QM and the interpretation of the latter to its own materialist classical mechanical deterministic image / advantage , in the same fashion the so-called hidden variables theories did/do (Remember the failed attempts of the EPR argument with Bohr to show that QM was incomplete through the alleged hidden variables theory , and how Bell's theorem and its related experiments confirmed the predictions of QM by challenging classical realism, classical locality as well as classical determinism ...or as John Bell said : " Einstein was wrong in all the details , and Bohr right ..." ) ..
QM, for example , has been replacing the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistc one ,by eliminating the causal closure of the physical , and hence has been allowing , so to speak, for a kind of a non-mechanical form of causation by consciousness in relation to matter , brain and body , while physicalism and all other forms of materialism thus still assume that consciousness has no causal effects on matter .
That's why there is what can be called the many worlds interpretation of QM , for example, that tries to rescue all forms of materialism , including physicalism , and their intrinsic determinism, by assuming that consciousness is just a material , physical or biological process that has to join the superpositions states "dance party lol " of its environment :
"Why the Many-Worlds Formulation of Quantum Mechanics Is Probably Correct" :
See this bombastic materialist physicist at work, who tries to reshape QM to his own materialist or physicalist classical deterministic mechanical image :
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...ion-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/
Materialist physicist Sean Carrol, for example , here below also , claims that there are no significant or relevant forces , fields ...that remain to be discovered , and hence consciousness has no causation, or no detectable significant or relevant form of causation = psi phenomena,NDE , and all other consciousness -related anomalies are ruled out by the materialist so-called standard model of quantum field theory :
That reminds me of what a British physicist said about classical physics in the 19th century : almost the same thing : that there remained no laws of physics to be discovered , just better and better measurements. lol : history repeats itself thus .
To put it differently :
William James, for example, did predict the fact that classical physics had to be approximately correct and fundamentally false , simply because it could not account for consciousness and made no room whatsoever for its causal efficacy on matter.
I say that the above mentioned materialist or physicalist standard model of QFT has to be , in its turn , fundamentally false and approximately correct , and for the same reasons, and hence all forms of materialism, including physicalism, are fundamentally false too.
P.S.: Wigner said , for example , that physicists cannot even explain physics ( The interpretation, measurement or observation problem of QM , for example, remains unresolved up to date and counting thus ) , let alone consciousness, and that we might be needing even better physics than QM to account for consciousness ( and for its causal efficacy on matter and on other consciousnesses as well, i must add, since QM might , in its turn, turn out to be fundamentally false and approximately correct too , who knows ? ) .Cheers.
Last edited:
Bertha Huse
New
"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description." ~Niels Bohr
but you can't fool him into thinking you have a clue what you're talking about.
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
Don't you find it a bit odd Paul that I quote one of the most famous of intellectual geniuses and physicists of the last century, and you immediately disagree with the quote? I mean - is there no end to your strong opinions about subjects and people you (apparently) know so little about?
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited:
Surely you're joking, Mr. Huse. I asked some simple questions about what you think Heisenberg means. Do I get a conversation on the matter? Of course not. I simply get accused of not agreeing with an expert.
Your entire discussion is an appeal to authority sprinkled with an apparent lack of understanding. It is impossible to have an interesting conversation with you.
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
Sorry to disappoint you Paul. But first you made statements about mediumship which I pointed out were incorrect. I then had to refer you to google and Amazon.com. You were able to find a good book on Mrs. Piper which hopefully you can inform yourself better regarding the topic, which based on your erroneous statements, you knew little about.
On this thread, you asked for quotes from physicists. Again, I suggested you google them or perhaps read a book regarding Heisenberg. And despite my reluctance to do so - I even provided you a quote of Werners. And others posters here kindly provided other quotes. Which you amazingly proceeded to dismiss - not even showing the courtesy of thanking them for the quotes they provided!
I have attempted to stick to science i.e. Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr were well-known scientists - I'm not sure how we can have any kind of scientific discussion if you are even unwilling to admit this Paul. It appears your knowledge regarding quantum physics may even be more diminutive than your knowledge of mediumship, to my surprise.
How can anyone have a reasonable scientific discussion with you when you lack even the most basic scientific knowledge?
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited:
Max_B
Member
Heisenberg is stating that atoms and particles are not real in a classic sense.
The more I read about Piper the less impressed I am.
Where did I dismiss any quotes? All I did was ask you what you thought about one particular quote---in posts #32, 34, 40, and 44.
We're not having a conversation because you refuse to talk about the subject. But I certainly will admit that Heisenberg and Bohr are well-known scientists. Can we talk now?
~~ Paul
Do you mean they don't behave like billiard balls? That's certainly true. But it's a far cry from their not being real and not being things or facts. What do you suppose he meant?
~~ Paul
Bertha Huse
New
I had no idea you read anything regarding mediumship. Good! This is a step in the right direction.
You continued to ask questions dismissively about the Heisenberg quote, such as "How do you think this relates to the fact that we can manipulate elementary particles in all sorts of subtle ways" etc.
Now now Paul, how many times do I have to repeat myself? How can I say this politely to you? I have a lot better things to do with my time then be your grad student advisor. I'm retired. It's late in the evening and I'm about to watch a film. And now you want me to start providing you with science lessons regarding quantum physics and Werner Heisenberg. I already gave you my thoughts on the quote: you need to educate yourself more regarding quantum physics - because so far, you don't appear to know what you're talking about. At the very least, if you want to have a discussion about a certain scientific topic, you need to familiarize yourself with the science. I know this may sound like a lot to ask, but really - let's be reasonable here. We're reasonable men right?
Well that's something at least. I was afraid you were about to announce Heisenberg & Bohr were pseudo-scientists and their scientific work was just metaphysics! Sure, I'd love to have a conversation with you, once you become more informed. Currently, you know almost nothing and want me to instruct you. Listen - I gave you a book recommendation (just like with Leonora Piper). Von Neumann is a good resource. There are quite a few good books on quantum physics. It's a pretty popular field of science.
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited:
Bertha Huse
New
Perhaps you might know the answer to the question if you educated yourself regarding quantum physics?
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited:
That does not mean the atomic and subatomic world is immaterial in a spiritual meaning as two particular members are making a case for. QM is fully grounded in this reality even though it confounds our common sense.
Last edited:
Max_B
Member
Ive just told you what he means?According to QM particles and atoms are not real in a classical sense.
malf
Member
Right. So we all agree that they are real in a post classical sense.