Slow down on that coffee son, you're puttin' everybody on edge

Originally posted by clearlight
So are you saying that the following quantum physicists do not know what they are talking about whereas you do. The physicsts who consider that quantum theory indicates that consicousness is ultimate are:
Planck, Schrodinger, Hesenberg, Pauli, Wheeler, Zeilinger, Eddington, Bohm, Stapp, Goswami, Wheeler, to name just a few. Have you read any of these. In fact how familiar with quantum physics are you?

I have a degree in mathematics and did physics along side. I have taught maths and physics. I also did a PhD in Buddhist philosophy although did not finish it, I also taught philosophy of science and religion. For the last eight years I have been researching, every day, my book Dancing in Emptiness: Reality Revealed at the Interface of Quantum Theory and Buddhist Philosophy – so I am pretty conversant with both fields. You would be a good person to discuss with as you seem to think that I am massively deluded about all this, but it has to be on the basis of the evidence!

As early as 1944 the historical founder of quantum theory Max Planck, said in a lecture that:

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

This is Henry Stapp on the matter of no matter!:

‘We live in an idealike world, not a matterlike world.’ The material aspects are exhausted in certain mathematical properties, and these mathematical features can be understood just as well (and in fact better) as characteristics of an evolving idealike structure. There is, in fact, in the quantum universe no natural place for matter. This conclusion, curiously, is the exact reverse of the circumstances that in the classical physical universe there was no natural place for mind.

In their book Quantum Enigma, the industrial strength quantum physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, conclude that

…physics’ encounter with consciousness, demonstrated for the small, applies to everything. And that ‘everything’ can include the entire Universe.

This is the Third Karmapa:

If the wise examine well, they will know that
Nothing, such as atoms and so on, exist externally,
As anything other than cognition.

Erwin Schrödinger, formulated a similar insight:

Mind has erected the objective outside world … out of its own stuff.

In other words the ‘stuff’ of reality, even what appears to be material reality, the stuff that a more recent quantum researcher referred to as the ‘dream stuff is made of’ is fundamentally comprised of the cognition process of Mind.

Here’s Wheeler:

Directly opposite to the concept of universe as machine built on law is the vision of a world self-synthesized. On this view, the notes struck out on a piano by the observer participants of all times and all places, bits though they are in and by themselves, constitute the great wide world of space and time and things.

Here’s Edward Teller, the physicist in large part responsible for the development of the hydrogen bomb:

In order to understand atomic structure, we must accept the idea that the future is uncertain. It is uncertain to the extent that the future is created in every part of the world by every atom and every living being.

Here’s Martin Rees, Cambridge University professor and Astronomer Royal:

In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. … The universe exists because we are aware of it.

The quantum physicist Wojciech H. Zurek describes the quantum realm in the following terms:

…quantum states, by their very nature share an epistemological and ontological role - are simultaneously a description of the state, and the ‘dream stuff is made of.’ One might say that they are epiontic. These two aspects may seem contradictory, but at least in the quantum setting, there is a union of these two functions.

Can you find me a quantum physicist who says that classical matter exists!

I'm not sure what you mean by "classical matter". It's an interesting subject of debate, however.

By 'classical' matter I mean the notion of solid little balls of 'stuff' which were thought by the Newtonian based worldview to exist completely independently of a sentient mind.

As Professor Henry Stapp, a respected physicist who worked with some of the important early trailblazers of quantum theory indicates with reference to the concept of ‘matter’:

One might try to interpret the ‘matter’ occurring in this formula as the ‘matter’ that occurs in classical physics. But this kind of ‘matter’ does not exist in nature.

‘Classical’ physics refers to the conceptual framework adhered to by physicists prior to the quantum upheaval. So Professor Stapp is telling us that the type of ‘matter’ that had been considered to be the prime constituent of the material world that we all seem to inhabit; the conception of the solidity of reality which had been taken for granted since the inception of the scientific investigation of the material world, does not exist. Stapp further points out that the implications of this fact still have not been understood by many scientists outside of the confines of the quantum fraternity:

Scientists other than quantum physicists often fail to comprehend the enormity of the conceptual change wrought by quantum theory in our basic conception of the nature of matter.

Jim Baggot extends this conceptual revolution to reality in general. In his recent book A Beginner’s Guide to Reality, he sets out to find something that he can definitely say is real; he seeks to locate a definite reality within different spheres of human knowledge: sociological, philosophical and, finally, the physical realm of physics, and his conclusion is that:

We must now come to terms with the fact that there is no hard evidence for this common sense reality to be gained from the entire history of human thought. There is simply nothing we can point to, hang our hats on and say this is real.

And by 'real' he means - having a self-powered existence independent of the process of mind.

I know what "classical" means in this context - I just don't understand why you argue the concept of matter is so different in quantum physics, because it really isn't, other than the indeterminacy that stems from it. Classical physics has some description of, say, electrons, quantum physics has a more accurate description.

The 'classcial' definition of matter is that derived from Descartes which is solid extended stuff which has none of the qualities of awareness and is completely independent of mind. This means that classical matter is antithetical to consciousness by Cartesian definition. The quantum revolution indicated that this kind of matter does not exist - simply because the fundamental quantum reality is the wavefunction, which a mathematical description of potentiality for experience (Bohr's definition) - this is obvious.

By the way - you have not responded to my demonstration that many very significant quantum physicists clearly suggest that the ultimate nature of reality is mind. I ask again can you find someone of note who says that these early founding fathers of quantum theory were seriously deluded. Come to that do you think they were seriously deluded?

Originally posted by clearlight
The 'classcial' definition of matter is that derived from Descartes which is solid extended stuff which has none of the qualities of awareness and is completely independent of mind. This means that classical matter is antithetical to consciousness by Cartesian definition. The quantum revolution indicated that this kind of matter does not exist - simply b uantum theory were seriously deluded. Come to that do you think they were seriously deluded?

Every work on quantum theory I have ever read says that the nature of reality prior to observation is expressed by the mathematical wavefunction. Is this correct or are there books with another point of view which I do not know about?

Originally posted by clearlight
Every work on quantum theory I have ever read says that the nature of reality prior to observation is expressed by the mathematical wavefunction. Is this correct or are there books with another point of view which I do not know about?

The funny thing is the Schrödinger's cat paradox was first interpreted by some as to imply there was something wrong with quantum mechanics. Actually, it shows that there was something wrong with their interpretation of quantum mechanics; the cat, the box, and the GM-counter are all macroscopic objects capable of "observing", so the cat will never be in a superposition of being dead and being alive.

Now we need to determine exactly what the ontological nature of the wavefunction is. Acccording to Descartes there are two possible ontological aspects that may be ascribed to reality (I cannot think of a third which is independent of these two):

1) matter - this is a substance extended in space, it fills space and does not have the quality of experiential awareness.

2) consciousness or mind - this is not extended in space but has the essential nature of experiential awareness and thought.

Now according to Bohr and just about every significant quantum physicist practicing at the moment (you can look at the set of essays - Science and Ultimate Reality for instance), the wavefunction describes the potentialities of possible experience. Therefore the wavefunction is encompassed by 2). It certainly does not fit into category 1).

Also your assertion about consciousness not being required is not accepted by some heavyweight minds within the field:

Erich Joos, like many others, is quite clear that:

…the last and final evidence comes in the form of perceptions made by some observer.

Professor Roger Penrose makes the similar point:

…at the large end of things, the place where ‘the buck stops’ is provided by our conscious perceptions. …

You seem to be suggesting that you know something that these (and Penrose is highly regarded - despite his lunatic notion of quantum gravity causing collapse) people do not.

THE FOLLOWING IS A REPLY TO YOUR LAST POST - MY PREVIOUS POST IS A REPLY TO YOUR PRECEEDING POST-

This is not correct - see my previous post. As Wigner, Bell, Everett, Wheeler and many others have concluded - all remain superposed until an observing consciousness intervenes. Even people who desperately do not want to beleive this - Penrose for example - have been forced to accept this. See Quantum Enigma by Rosenblum and Kuttner. I do not know how much evidence I have to supply to show you that your opinions are contrary to some of the most significant quantum physicists around at the moment. If you really believe that you know more than the most incisive minds of the previous and current century then you must be a very special person. But why do you think that these extraordinary talented people are so deluded?

Originally posted by clearlight
Actually the mapping between the correct interpretation of quantum theory and the Buddhist Madhyamaka philosophy are absolutely precise and profound and go well beyond anything Gell-mann speculated upon. Buddism has known all this stuff for 2.5 thousand years and has only been waiting for the rest of you to catch up. Buddhist philosophers knew about the Q ...[text shortened]... ects, implicate/explicate and quantum darwinism eons ago - they just had different words for it.

Originally posted by clearlight
Now we need to determine exactly what the ontological nature of the wavefunction is. Acccording to Descartes there are two possible ontological aspects that may be ascribed to reality (I cannot think of a third which is independent of these two):

1) matter - this is a substance extended in space, it fills space and does not have the quality of experie ...[text shortened]... highly regarded - despite his lunatic notion of quantum gravity causing collapse) people do not.