Coming to Grips with the Implications of Quantum Mechanics

Scientific American ^ | May 29, 2018 | Bernardo Kastrup, Henry P. Stapp, Menas C. Kafatos on

[BenLurkin]

For almost a century, physicists have wondered whether the most counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics (QM) could actually be true. Only in recent years has the technology necessary for answering this question become accessible, enabling a string of experimental results—including startling ones reported in 2007 and 2010, and culminating now with a remarkable test reported in May—that show that key predictions of QM are indeed correct. Taken together, these experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed, which in turn suggests—as we shall argue in this essay—a primary role for mind in nature. It is thus high time the scientific community at large—not only those involved in foundations of QM—faced up to the counterintuitive implications of QM’s most controversial predictions.

…

The claim is thus that the dynamics of all inanimate matter in the universe correspond to transpersonal mentation, just as an individual’s brain activity—which is also made of matter—corresponds to personal mentation. This notion eliminates arbitrary discontinuities and provides the missing inner essence of the physical world: all matter—not only that in living brains—is the outer appearance of inner experience, different configurations of matter reflecting different patterns or modes of mental activity.

According to QM, the world exists only as a cloud of simultaneous, overlapping possibilities—technically called a “superposition”—until an observation brings one of these possibilities into focus in the form of definite objects and events. This transition is technically called a “measurement.” One of the keys to our argument for a mental world is the contention that only conscious observers can perform measurements.

…

[Disambiguator]

That’s the guy!

[Aevery_Freeman]

<>"Are 6 six billion consciousnesses on earth each viewing the same reality? Or are each viewing their own reality?"<>

It seems that some 130 million voting Americans look at the same reality and see diametrically opposed "realities".

[outofsalt]

"it’s tough to argue against a solipsist."

You're wrong.

[PAR]

Looks like Hegel could be making a comeback.

[airborne]

Does this mean that climate change could be affected (caused) by liberals and millenials fretting and worrying about the subject?

[jonno]

QM finally provides the answer to the question: “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?”

A: If a mind is not present to “measure” the event, apparently not.

[Reily]

True ! True from “theory” we think we understand - Newtonian mechanics/dynamics; to quantum theory or even biological theory - where we think, maybe, we might understand something about it; to theory where we're just whistling in the dark like M-Theory (a String Theory variant)

[outofsalt]

[Reily]

It always comes down to this!

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach ya
‘bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

[elbook]

Quantum Physics is applicable to very limited circumstance -- the VERY tiny (where the interior of an atom is like a enormous solar system and Time of events is in femtoseconds (less than trillionths of seconds) and when relative temperatures get VERY close to absolute zero (−459.67 degrees BELOW zero Fahrenheit). The whole 'when observed' thing is most related to quantum effects falling out of their quantum states on ANY interaction (you cannot observe something WITHOUT interacting in the smallest way). Much of that 'science' is still based on speculation and theory. Much of the 'truth' of it ALSO may be mostly subject to, instead of 'observation', the wish for Grant Money to make a living for many of the 'scientists' involved.

[rbg81]

The point of the article is that there isn’t just one truth. There is one truth per person, so there are many truths.

---

I think there can be many observational perceptions, but there can only be one truth. For example, if a criminal robs a bank, people may remember his appearance differently. However, he only has one actual appearance.

Of course, in the Rodney King case, people who viewed the video enough times weren’t sure what they were seeing anymore.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

True...that’s proof of QM if there ever was one, huh?

[CodeToad]

In your reality he robbed a bank. In other realities, there was no robbery.

[norwaypinesavage]

"the dynamics of all inanimate matter in the universe correspond to transpersonal mentation, just as an individual’s brain activity—which is also made of matter—corresponds to personal mentation. This notion eliminates arbitrary discontinuities and provides the missing inner essence of the physical world: all matter—not only that in living brains—is the outer appearance of inner experience, different configurations of matter reflecting different patterns or modes of mental activity."

There is but a single word that fully describes this:Nonsense

[theoldmarine]

I think I like your reply the best. Always follow the money. Things change when observed!

[Lagmeister]

Exactly, old murk in new guise.

[Bobalu]

The measurement problem, always fun at a conference.

[fruser1]

I discovered at an early age that I could make the moon dimmer by staring at it.

[tophat9000]

So per QM.
A mine is required to perceive before anything actually can exists and what that mind perceives then is what exist

so they just prove the existence of God (a mind) as being necessary to create the universe... We are all living inside a thought of God? Who knew quantum mechanics would be so theological

[InterceptPoint]

Uh...wouldn’t the “transpersonal mind” be G-d?
+++++++++
Good question. For me the article has little value without the authors clear and concise explanation of the term “transpersonal”. Without that explanation the theory falls flat. At least for me.

OTOH, I can’t resist reading this stuff. QM is real and observation at some level does affect reality. But that phenomenon may well be beyond the capability of the human brain to truly grasp. I hope not. I want to know. I want to understand it.