Philosophy and Physics agree about God?

[_Chap]

We see very clearly through this experiment that base particles are certainly affected by observation and exist in every theoretically possible state until they're observed at which point they exist in a specific state. His point that idealism has no real application in our daily lives is well taken, but the fact remains that it does have implications if we're ever to truly understand our universe it would seem.

'This experiment' is, I suppose, the two-slit experiment. Can we split up the above statement without being too pedantic?

We see very clearly through this experiment that base particles are certainly affected by observation

Yes, certainly. If you just set up a screen with two slits, and irradiate it with particles such as photons or electrons, you see an interference pattern on a screen placed on the further side of the slits. The pattern will still be seen even if you fire particles at the slit at a low enough intensity to ensure that only one particle is passing through the apparatus at the time.

If, however, you install particle detectors at each slit (i.e. you observe the particles at the slits), the interference pattern degrades, the amount of degradation increasing as you demand more and more certainty about which slit a given particle goes through.

... base particles ... exist in every theoretically possible state until they're observed at which point they exist in a specific state.

So far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong) that is not a result of the experiment, it is one of the proposed interpretations of the experiment - and by no means the only one. If one sticks to talking about the probability wave, the idea of the particle being in a state or states when not observed does not arise.

His point that idealism has no real application in our daily lives is well taken, but the fact remains that it does have implications if we're ever to truly understand our universe it would seem.

I've been asking at various points in this thread what difference it would make to the actual practice of science (i.e. how one designs and conducts experiments, and constructs and tests predictive theories on that basis) on the assumption that:

(a) There are two mutually exclusive possible truths about the world, known as "idealism" and "realism".

And

(b) "Idealism" is the one that is true.

I don't think I have had an answer yet.

[_spotlight]

In its standard formulation and interpretation, quantum mechanics is a theory which is excellent (in fact it has met with a success unprecedented in the history of science) in telling us everything about what we observe, but it meets with serious difficulties in telling us what is. We are making here specific reference to the central problem of the theory, usually referred to as the measurement problem, or, with a more appropriate term, as the macro-objectification problem. It is just one of the many attempts to overcome the difficulties posed by this problem that has led to the development of Collapse Theories, i.e., to the Dynamical Reduction Program (DRP). As we shall see, this approach consists in accepting that the dynamical equation of the standard theory should be modified by the addition of stochastic and nonlinear terms.

The nice fact is that the resulting theory is capable, on the basis of a single dynamics which is assumed to govern all natural processes, to account at the same time for all well-established facts about microscopic systems as described by the standard theory as well as for the so-called postulate of wave packet reduction (WPR). As is well known, such a postulate is assumed in the standard scheme just in order to guarantee that measurements have outcomes but, as we shall discuss below, it meets with insurmountable difficulties if one takes the measurement itself to be a process governed by the linear laws of the theory. Finally, the collapse theories account in a completely satisfactory way for the classical behavior of macroscopic systems.

Collapse Theories have a remarkable relevance, since they have made clear that there are new ways to overcome the difficulties of the formalism, to close the circle in the precise sense defined by Abner Shimony (1989), which until a few years ago were considered impracticable, and which, on the contrary, have been shown to be perfectly viable.

Collapse Models show how one can work out a theory that makes perfectly legitimate to take a macrorealistic position about natural processes, without contradicting any of the experimentally tested predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/

___________________

This is an interesting read. I am not going to quote from much of it as it requires too much cleaning up when you try to cut and paste. Item 2 is most interesting. It does not leave one with a lot of confidence in the mind collapse of wave functions.

When I posed the question to Markus Meister (2003) as to where the wave function might collapse or state reduction take place, he stated that, “My expectation is that the state vector collapses as soon as the photons cause a change in a classical system with lots of degrees of freedom. That would be the photoisomerization of rhodopsin in the retinal rods, which acts just like the blackening of a grain of film in the old two-slit experiment. Whether you take the film out of a Kodak canister or out of an eye should make little difference”. His reasoning appears to be buttressed by experiments which demonstrate that the first step in vision, the cis-trans torsional isomerization of the rhodopsin chromophore (molecular shape-changing after the absorption of a photon), is essentially complete in only 200 femtoseconds (fs), which is one of the fastest photochemical reactions ever studied (Schoenlein et al, 1991; Baylor, 1996; Aalberts et al, 2000).

http://cds.cern.ch/record/882828/files/0509042.pdf

___________________

Now toss in the fact that consciousness exists independently in each hemisphere as revealed by split brain patients.
The binocular rivalry experiment shows the reality of this dual consciousness as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 (start at 38:50)
Which hemisphere collapses the wave function?

In short the appeal to collapse of the wave function by consciousness is just a variation of the God of the gaps argument where god has been replaced by something else as equally undefined and unexplained, consciousness itself.

[_cognitiveharmony]

If, however, you install particle detectors at each slit (i.e. you observe the particles at the slits), the interference pattern degrades, the amount of degradation increasing as you demand more and more certainty about which slit a given particle goes through.

Just for clarity, in all of the different variations of the two slit experiment that I've read, the result is always a constant per particle, never a degradation. If a specific particle is observed to ascertain which slit it passed through, or in other words, it's specific state or position when passing the barrier, it always behaves as a particle. And conversely as a wave when it is not observed. There are no variations as far as I'm aware.

So far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong) that is not a result of the experiment, it is one of the proposed interpretations of the experiment - and by no means the only one. If one sticks to talking about the probability wave, the idea of the particle being in a state or states when not observed does not arise.

You're correct that it doesn't specifically prove this but Superposition is a fundamental principle of QM and this experiment clearly supports this principle and may reasonably be interpreted in this way.

I've been asking at various points in this thread what difference it would make to the actual practice of science (i.e. how one designs and conducts experiments, and constructs and tests predictive theories on that basis) on the assumption that:

(a) There are two mutually exclusive possible truths about the world, known as "idealism" and "realism".

And

(b) "Idealism" is the one that is true.

I don't think I have had an answer yet.

I don't think idealism and realism need to be mutually exclusive and both may be true in all practical applications. A perception of realism is a perfectly acceptable construct within the realm of idealism, especially when we consider that the perception of realism would be the product of idealism in this sense. Again, I'll go where the science leads, but right now, I'm leaning towards realism simply being a perception of idealism and idealism is what will eventually truly explain our universe.

As an aside, my personal opinion is that QM lends credibility that some sort of super intelligence or God exists, but it simultaneously destroys the probability that any existing religion has accurately described Him/it....not that this hasn't been done many times over without the help of QM. :)

[_cognitiveharmony]

In its standard formulation and interpretation, quantum mechanics is a theory which is excellent (in fact it has met with a success unprecedented in the history of science) in telling us everything about what we observe, but it meets with serious difficulties in telling us what is. We are making here specific reference to the central problem of the theory, usually referred to as the measurement problem, or, with a more appropriate term, as the macro-objectification problem. It is just one of the many attempts to overcome the difficulties posed by this problem that has led to the development of Collapse Theories, i.e., to the Dynamical Reduction Program (DRP). As we shall see, this approach consists in accepting that the dynamical equation of the standard theory should be modified by the addition of stochastic and nonlinear terms.

The nice fact is that the resulting theory is capable, on the basis of a single dynamics which is assumed to govern all natural processes, to account at the same time for all well-established facts about microscopic systems as described by the standard theory as well as for the so-called postulate of wave packet reduction (WPR). As is well known, such a postulate is assumed in the standard scheme just in order to guarantee that measurements have outcomes but, as we shall discuss below, it meets with insurmountable difficulties if one takes the measurement itself to be a process governed by the linear laws of the theory. Finally, the collapse theories account in a completely satisfactory way for the classical behavior of macroscopic systems.

Collapse Theories have a remarkable relevance, since they have made clear that there are new ways to overcome the difficulties of the formalism, to close the circle in the precise sense defined by Abner Shimony (1989), which until a few years ago were considered impracticable, and which, on the contrary, have been shown to be perfectly viable.

Collapse Models show how one can work out a theory that makes perfectly legitimate to take a macrorealistic position about natural processes, without contradicting any of the experimentally tested predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/

___________________

This is an interesting read. I am not going to quote from much of it as it requires too much cleaning up when you try to cut and paste. Item 2 is most interesting. It does not leave one with a lot of confidence in the mind collapse of wave functions.

When I posed the question to Markus Meister (2003) as to where the wave function might collapse or state reduction take place, he stated that, “My expectation is that the state vector collapses as soon as the photons cause a change in a classical system with lots of degrees of freedom. That would be the photoisomerization of rhodopsin in the retinal rods, which acts just like the blackening of a grain of film in the old two-slit experiment. Whether you take the film out of a Kodak canister or out of an eye should make little difference”. His reasoning appears to be buttressed by experiments which demonstrate that the first step in vision, the cis-trans torsional isomerization of the rhodopsin chromophore (molecular shape-changing after the absorption of a photon), is essentially complete in only 200 femtoseconds (fs), which is one of the fastest photochemical reactions ever studied (Schoenlein et al, 1991; Baylor, 1996; Aalberts et al, 2000).

http://cds.cern.ch/record/882828/files/0509042.pdf

___________________

Now toss in the fact that consciousness exists independently in each hemisphere as revealed by split brain patients.
The binocular rivalry experiment shows the reality of this dual consciousness as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 (start at 38:50)
Which hemisphere collapses the wave function?

In short the appeal to collapse of the wave function by consciousness is just a variation of the God of the gaps argument where god has been replaced by something else as equally undefined and unexplained, consciousness itself.

Collapse Theories are plagued with their own problems, the least of which not being that they haven't been demonstrated via experimentation and the math behind them doesn't always work. I think what is being said here is that Collapse Theories MAY one day be able to explain the strange behavior in QM and that it's not crazy to think so. But with the same reasoning we could posit any number of theories that ALMOST work. I'd rather keep my mind open until we reach likely explanations for quantum behavior.

As far as answering the question of which consciousness collapses the wave function, I would say either/both could in theory. But not directly, it would seem that there would need to be a loosely coupled actuator. We're so far away from being able to answer a question such as this that it's hardly worth considering at this point for anything other than the novelty factor.

I disagree with your comparison of idealism with the God of the Gaps argument. God of the Gaps is based on an absence of evidence whilst idealism, or more specifically the fact that particles don't take on a specific state until they're observed, is based on observable experimentation. It's certainly not proven but it is attempting to explain what we can observe, not what we can't.

[_Chap]

I've been asking at various points in this thread what difference it would make to the actual practice of science (i.e. how one designs and conducts experiments, and constructs and tests predictive theories on that basis) on the assumption that:

(a) There are two mutually exclusive possible truths about the world, known as "idealism" and "realism".

And

(b) "Idealism" is the one that is true.

I don't think I have had an answer yet.

I don't think idealism and realism need to be mutually exclusive and both may be true in all practical applications.

I don't know what you mean by 'all practical applications'. But since I can't see anything I'd call science that was not at least in principle practice-based, I'm inclined to think that what you said is consistent with my own view after reading this thread - which is that I have so far been shown no reason why a scientist, as a scientist, needs to think about the philosophical debate (in so far as there is one) between realism and idealism in order to do science.

A perception of realism is a perfectly acceptable construct within the realm of idealism, especially when we consider that the perception of realism would be the product of idealism in this sense. Again, I'll go where the science leads, but right now, I'm leaning towards realism simply being a perception of idealism and idealism is what will eventually truly explain our universe.

I am confused. In order to unconfuse me, I wonder if you or someone else could state clearly and succinctly what you consider to be connoted by the words 'realism' and 'idealism'.

This might not be a bad place to start - from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Realism

Idealism

Please note that I don't cite this work as any kind of authority, giving the 'true' definitions of these two terms. But since the entries cited give quite wide-ranging reviews of past usage, they may help in picking and articulating something that suits your personal preferences.

As an aside, my personal opinion is that QM lends credibility that some sort of super intelligence or God exists, but it simultaneously destroys the probability that any existing religion has accurately described Him/it....not that this hasn't been done many times over without the help of QM. :)

For me the real shocker about the universe is not the details of the ways in which (we presently think) it behaves, but the fact that it is there at all. After that, the rest seems to me largely a matter of detail. And I doubt very much that, if you and I had not been brought up in historically theistic cultures, we would have found that some aspect of the currently understood laws of physics would have made us think up a deity if there wasn't already one in our heads - a kind of lost but once-loved teddy-bear who wants us to take him out of the toy cupboard and play with him again. Any excuse will do.

[_spotlight]

Collapse Theories are plagued with their own problems, the least of which not being that they haven't been demonstrated via experimentation and the math behind them doesn't always work. I think what is being said here is that Collapse Theories MAY one day be able to explain the strange behavior in QM and that it's not crazy to think so. But with the same reasoning we could posit any number of theories that ALMOST work. I'd rather keep my mind open until we reach likely explanations for quantum behavior.

Um, where is the math behind mind collapsing wave functions in the current equations to be found?
A mathematical theory of collapse must be nonlinear, a significant departure from current quantum theory. So your suggestion that collapse theories are all a mess when collapse actually occurs is problematic while you excuse the current equations that fail to address collapse.

So when the observer leaves the room the superposed states keep accumulating and all come crashing down when he gets back from the john?

Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_collapse

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Why didn't you address the 2nd reference? Section 2 describes the fact that photons in route to the brain are going to collapse long before they get to the thing doing the collapsing in idealism. In section 3 the problem is extended back through our evolutionary past until we arrive at euglena gracilis a unicellular protozoan or more accurately an algal flagellate dating back 2 billion years that has an eye spot for searching and a chloroplast for photosynthesis. Both will need to collapse the wave function in order to function. Is there consciousness here? How does this differ from vitalism?

As far as answering the question of which consciousness collapses the wave function, I would say either/both could in theory. But not directly, it would seem that there would need to be a loosely coupled actuator. We're so far away from being able to answer a question such as this that it's hardly worth considering at this point for anything other than the novelty factor.

So maybe you can answer the problem here that Mikwut didn't for me.

How is this connection effected between mind and matter? The brain is made of matter and so it follows the laws of chemistry in evolving from one state to the next. In order for the mind to control the body it must affect the chemistry of the brain in some way other than what would result naturally from the laws of chemistry alone. To do that it must necessarily contradict the laws of chemistry. This would be observable via experimentation if it were happening.

If the mind were not violating the laws of chemistry then it would not be in control of the brain and hence of the motor control of the body. Instead the laws of chemistry alone would be in control.

I disagree with your comparison of idealism with the God of the Gaps argument. God of the Gaps is based on an absence of evidence whilst idealism, or more specifically the fact that particles don't take on a specific state until they're observed, is based on observable experimentation. It's certainly not proven but it is attempting to explain what we can observe, not what we can't.

It's vitalism. We have enough experimental evidence that the mind is what the brain does to eliminate it.
You are reading too much into quantum mechanics. It applies solely to the situation for which it was formulated. Try applying it to the experiment including the observer while being observed by another observer.


A good article by Stenger that discusses idealism and QM.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/mindless_quantum

[_Chap]

How is this connection effected between mind and matter? The brain is made of matter and so it follows the laws of chemistry in evolving from one state to the next. In order for the mind to control the body it must affect the chemistry of the brain in some way other than what would result naturally from the laws of chemistry alone. To do that it must necessarily contradict the laws of chemistry. This would be observable via experimentation if it were happening.

If the mind were not violating the laws of chemistry then it would not be in control of the brain and hence of the motor control of the body. Instead the laws of chemistry alone would be in control.

Yup. How can something non-physical (mind? soul?) take control of something physical (the brain) without interacting with it physically - and thus beginning to look pretty physical itself?

Descartes faced this problem in the 17th century. He needed to find a way that an immaterial soul could interact with the body, which he saw as a kind of machine. This machine, according to him, basically worked by the movements of a very fine material fluid he called 'animal spirits' that flowed through the nerves to the muscles and made them contract or relax.

Descartes 'solved' his his soul/body interaction problem by assuming that the tiny pineal gland at the base of the brain was a special interface where the soul somehow influenced the flow of animal spirits - though how it did that, he was unclear.

Nobody thought much of his idea, it has to be said. The problem he tried and failed to solve still confronts all those who want the body to be under the control of a non-physical entity.

[Guest]

How is this connection effected between mind and matter? The brain is made of matter and so it follows the laws of chemistry in evolving from one state to the next. In order for the mind to control the body it must affect the chemistry of the brain in some way other than what would result naturally from the laws of chemistry alone. To do that it must necessarily contradict the laws of chemistry. This would be observable via experimentation if it were happening.

If the mind were not violating the laws of chemistry then it would not be in control of the brain and hence of the motor control of the body. Instead the laws of chemistry alone would be in control.

Yup. How can something non-physical (mind? soul?) take control of something physical (the brain) without interacting with it physically - and thus beginning to look pretty physical itself?

Descartes faced this problem in the 17th century. He needed to find a way that an immaterial soul could interact with the body, which he saw as a kind of machine. This machine, according to him, basically worked by the movements of a very fine material fluid he called 'animal spirits' that flowed through the nerves to the muscles and made them contract or relax.

Descartes 'solved' his his soul/body interaction problem by assuming that the tiny pineal gland at the base of the brain was a special interface where the soul somehow influenced the flow of animal spirits - though how it did that, he was unclear.

Nobody thought much of his idea, it has to be said. The problem he tried and failed to solve still confronts all those who want the body to be under the control of a non-physical entity.

Although no longer thought of as the Seat of the Soul, many would say that the pineal gland can put one in contact with the spirit world. It's a fact that the mammalian pineal gland does express the enzymatic machinery required to synthesize dimethyltryptamine, or DMT.

DMT has been nicknamed the Spirit Molecule because of its ability to induce a mind state felt by many to be an intensely spiritual experience.

The metabolic product for which the pineal is best known is melatonin, which can function both as a hormone and a neurotransmitter (this latter role could be important in the DMT story). Being a metabolic product of an amino acid, melatonin appeared very early in evolution and plays a variety of roles in organisms up and down the phylogenetic scale.

The pineal produces one unique enzyme (HIOMT) to accomplish the task of converting serotonin (a neurotransmitter made from tryptophan) to melatonin, as well as a number of garden variety enzymes that help things along by catalyzing decarboxylation, phosphorylation and methylation reeactions.

The graphic below shows metabolic pathways from the amino acid tryptophan to three well known hallucinogenic compounds; dimethyl tryptamine (DMT), Psilocin, and Psilocybin. The enzymes in this pathway are not shown, but include those mentioned above (except for HIOMT). All of the enzymes needed to produce Psilocin, and Psilocybin (and most of their metabolic precursors) are found in certain plants and fungi, but not in mammals.



Because of a slight non-specificity in the activities of some of the pineal enzymes (mainly methylating enzymes) on the way from from tryptophan to melatonin, small amounts of DMT can be produced by the mammalian pineal.

Since human brains certainly have DMT receptors, it is highly likely that it can be produced (in trace quantities, at least) by humans and most likely in the pineal. DMT is rapidly metabolized. Once synthesized it does not hang around long - thus its high is relatively short lived, and one would not expect to find it in the pineals of cadavers.

DMT has been detected in the pineal glands of live rats. Not sure that any live humans would volunteer to give a pineal tissue sample.

Based on the evidence available, some folks take human DMT as a given and weave it into their spiritual worldview narrative.

They would probably say Descartes' guess that the pineal was the human mind's portal to the spirit world was a pretty good one.

[_Chap]

Since human brains certainly have DMT receptors, it is highly likely that it can be produced (in trace quantities, at least) by humans and most likely in the pineal. DMT is rapidly metabolized. It would not hang around long once synthesized - thus its high is relatively short lived, and one would not expect t find it in the pineals of cadavers.

Based on the evidence available, some folks take human DMT as a given and weave it into their spiritual worldview narrative.

They would say that Descartes' guess that the pineal was the portal to the spirit world was a pretty good one.

DMT sounds an interesting molecule, but ...

OK, the pineal gland synthesizes molecules that, by reason of their chemical properties, interact with the nervous structure of the brain and change its mode of functioning to a certain degree. As a result, people may have unusual experiences that (if their culture leads them that way) they may interpret in terms of being in touch with a world of disembodied spirits. (If it happened to me, I would probably not do so once the effect had worn off and I had my critical faculties back, unless my brain had been irreversibly zapped).

The fact remains, however, that we are NOT in the presence of an interaction between an immaterial non-physical entity (the 'soul' or 'mind') and the material brain - which is what spotlight and myself were talking about. No laws of chemistry are being violated. If anything, we are demonstrating that extremely striking modifications of consciousness can be induced by purely chemical means.

And so far as I know, Descartes chose the pineal gland because he (falsely) believed that its structure and situation made it ideal as a switch-point for 'animal spirits', not because of any substance it produced.

[Guest]

Since human brains certainly have DMT receptors, it is highly likely that it can be produced (in trace quantities, at least) by humans and most likely in the pineal. DMT is rapidly metabolized. It would not hang around long once synthesized - thus its high is relatively short lived, and one would not expect t find it in the pineals of cadavers.

Based on the evidence available, some folks take human DMT as a given and weave it into their spiritual worldview narrative.

They would say that Descartes' guess that the pineal was the portal to the spirit world was a pretty good one.

DMT sounds an interesting molecule, but ...

OK, the pineal gland synthesizes molecules that, by reason of their chemical properties, interact with the nervous structure of the brain and change its mode of functioning to a certain degree. As a result, people may have unusual experiences that (if their culture leads them that way) they may interpret in terms of being in touch with a world of disembodied spirits. (If it happened to me, I would probably not do so once the effect had worn off and I had my critical faculties back, unless my brain had been irreversibly zapped).

The fact remains, however, that we are NOT in the presence of an interaction between an immaterial non-physical entity (the 'soul' or 'mind') and the material brain - which is what spotlight and myself were talking about. No laws of chemistry are being violated. If anything, we are demonstrating that extremely striking modifications of consciousness can be induced by purely chemical means.

And so far as I know, Descartes chose the pineal gland because he (falsely) believed that its structure and situation made it ideal as a switch-point for 'animal spirits', not because of any substance it produced.

Chap,

The post about DMT was meant only as an aside - a bit of local color from this side of the pond, if you will. Did you check out the second link?

Truth be told, I can think of no recent thread of this length wherein your worldview and expressed opinions on the subject aligned so consistently with mine as they do on this one.