You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Pinocchio Paradox and Possibility, Objectivity and Truth
Great post. unfortunately I only find it now that the voting is over. Followed you anyway. I'm into philosophy as well. I'd like to add to your story that in fact there is no objective reality or truth, only a consensus reality. Quantum mechanics made clear that if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
Thank you for you kind comment! I'm happy you noticed the age of the post and didn't waste your vote on it ;)
I was on vacation until recently, but I should start posting again regularly very soon and I'll be happy to read your comments on my future posts.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a consensus reality. If it is a way to acknowledge the problem of solipsism, then I might be inclined to agree. But bar for this limitation, I do think we share an objective reality.
But I would strongly disagree with your statement about quantum mechanics. While quantum mechanics is a rigorous mathematical model that allows us to predict events with great precision, we don't have a clear mental picture to associate with it yet and there is no leading interpretation that can be pointed out as the clear explanation for where it arises from and what this means. In that sense there is nothing that quantum mechanics can show us clearly. ;)
But to go deeper into the substance of what you seem to be saying, the idea that looking at things changes them is basically a misunderstanding propagated by people that don't really understand quantum mechanics and the way the word observer is used in that context. Switching a particle from a cloud of probabilities or a wave into a specific location is not brought on by observation or looking at something in the same way that you and I would look at something. Looking at things on the quantum levels is indeed measuring them which is in turn interacting with them. When you and I look at things, we feel it's something passive that doesn't change the object we are looking at. But this works only for objects that can reflect photons back to our eyes that our retinas can absorb. But if you want to measure a single electron, you can't shower it with photons (light) and look at a reflection. To measure a single electron you have to interact with it somehow and even the smallest interaction at that scale is bound to change the electron somehow. That's what looking at things is at the quantum scale, but it is in fact fallacious to extend that to broader philosophical concepts especially to our concepts of observation, consciousness and so on.
Basically the whole quantum observer thing is woo based on a misunderstanding of a word and wishful interpretation. As far as quantum mechanics goes, a useful rule of thumb is that if your interpretation fits the one of Deepak Chopra or What The Bleep Do We Know, it's based on misconceptions and insufficient understanding.
Of course, I hope that we'll be able to discuss this type of topics in the future under my, your or other people's posts on all kinds of fascinating topics! :) I'm looking forward to it...
What about the experiments by Dean Radin, showing that focussed intent had a statistically significant influence on the outcome of certain delayed choice variants of the double slit experiments? Btw I think QM is still open for interpretation. I have sympathy for pilot wave theories as well. Further I consider objective reality as unproven as an interference pattern of subjective realities, which could lead to a kind of common consensus we call reality. A lot of scientific theories if not all are based on certain assumptions, which can turn out to be wrong interpretations of data at a later stage.Let's say I am agnostic with a preference for panpsychic hypotheses.
Thank you for your reply :)
As far as I know, none of the intention experiments have been shown to be repeatable. A single experiment from a single source is a question at best. You need multiple experiments that are reliably and consistently repeatable to claim an answer. As far as I'm aware of claims like this made in the past, there have been other experiments showing no correlation with intention.
I agree. This doesn't mean that one could claim any interpretation just because they feel like it or because it furthers their "alternative science" career. For now we have to admit that the jury is still out on the possible interpretations and that might remain the case for some time now until somebody finds a way to pry things open.
Additionally, I think looking for an underlying interpretation might just be a problem with our way of thinking and comprehending reality. The mathematical model might be really all that is and quantum mechanics could conceivably be just counter-intuitive and forming a satisfying mental picture of it might not be a problem with quantum mechanics but a problem with our perception. Just the way we might not be able to form a satisfying mental picture of 10-dimensional geometry which doesn't stop the math from working and being rigorous and clear.
Me too. I have sympathy for more than one interpretation to be honest and I find the question really interesting.
As far as your last point goes, it is indeed true that there are assumptions that have been made as nobody really has an answer for solipsism. So we do need to assume things and all our inquiry into reality is clearly an inquiry into the specific reality we seem to share. But we need to limit our assumptions as much as possible and assume as little as possible so as much as possible remains open for examination. There are many possible explanations for what the reality we seem to share is fundamentally and there have been a wide variety of hypotheses that have been put forward on that front. And since subscribing to any of those hypotheses requires additional assumptions, I don't see accepting any of them as reasonable. Additionally, it has to be clear that preference (if you meant it literally which I doubt) in the absence of evidence is basically wishful thinking. Why would we favor an interpretation when none has been properly substantiated? We should be honest about the questions that are open instead of selecting an answer too early.
Panpsychic hypotheses are a set of hypotheses that offer a lot of testable predictions that could potentially disprove competing explanations, so I think the reasonable thing is to withhold belief until they have stood up to scrutiny and have been left as the most likely explanation of the evidence available.