Originally posted by mikelom
Please tell me what my left sock has to do with Jesus. He didn't even know what socks were!

I was told everything was about Jesus...now I'm not so sure 😳

Originally posted by twhitehead
I will repeat. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or awareness. Quantum mechanics only deals with interactions. A 'measurement' in quantum mechanics is an interaction with another particle/group of particles. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.
A particles momentum or position are not solely determined because of our consc sts in our minds', but then again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.

Below are some of the thoughts of leading physicists mentioned by Smetham in his examination of the Hawking-Mlodinow Theory of Everything ("HAM-TOE" ) ', The full text available here:
http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/61/68

"When he speaks of 'reality' the layman usually means something obvious and well known, whereas it seems to me that precisely the most important and extremely difficult task of our time is to work on elaborating a new idea of reality. This is also what I mean when I always emphasize that science and religion must be related in some way."

Max Planck,
Nobel Prize in Physics for his foundational work on quantum theory.

"...The physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, in their important book 'Quantum Enigma : Physics encounters consciousness' -

"The physical reality of an object depends on how you choose to look at it. Physics had encountered consciousness but did not yet realize it...
'''Consciousness and the quantum enigmas are not just two mysteries; they ere THE two mysteries...Quantum mechanics seems to connect the two." [Emphasis theirs, but in italics]

and more recently:

"...Michael Brooks, commenting on quantum entanglement experiments carried out by teams led by Aspemayer of the Austrian Acadamy of Sciences and Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna tells us that the conclusion reached by the physicists involved is that:

"...we now have in face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure. In other words measuring these properties is what brings them into existence."

Despite that yourself and Mr Hamilton may have different ideas about quantum mechanics, dismissing the discussion of consciousness and the related Buddhist concept of Sunyata in its regard as just 'New Age' stuff, is unwarranted.

That is my only significant point that I seek to make, even if in a manner you find unclear. Perhaps the clearer quotation of others advanced in the field helps.

Edits:typographical

Originally posted by Palynka
But isn't that simply because the taxonomy of particle/wave is incomplete? Why can't we simply improve that taxonomy by having a name for that state?

Seems to me that there is no need for logical contradictory statements like "things are and they are not". It's just that the particular division of states as particle/wave was made before those advances in quantum mechanics and is now not the best one to describe quantum mechanics.

Taoman, did you miss this post?

Originally posted by Palynka
But isn't that simply because the taxonomy of particle/wave is incomplete? Why can't we simply improve that taxonomy by having a name for that state?

Seems to me that there is no need for logical contradictory statements like "things are and they are not". It's just that the particular division of states as particle/wave was made before those advances in quantum mechanics and is now not the best one to describe quantum mechanics.

Sorry, I thought BB's answer was comprehensive on this but I will respond further, as I may have erroneously assumed too much on the question of taxonomy.

Yes, we can improve the taxonomy but it does not change the state itself. Terms have emerged in seeking to talk about the phenomenon.
I think the term 'wave-particle' is already one such, as is 'superposition'.

It is not however a question of taxonomy that brings about the logical contradiction inherent in the state being described, as pointed to by even modern physicists and explained well here by Black Beetle.
In its taxonomy science sometimes makes the error of stating that once a phenomenon is so described, labelled and classified in great detail, basically all the questions have been answered and the phenomenon can be worked with effectively. It does this with quantum phenomenon very well and to our great and growing advantage.
Perhaps that is where its task ends. Many scientists think so and simply ignore the underlying questions of the final nature of phenomenon. Perhaps that is where philosophy takes over.
However, there is a philosophical divide being fought out still. Materialists, who are currently still in the great majority, abandon a priori any consideration of an underlying "ground of being" as having qualities associated with consciousness and this being primal and not secondary.
This is a philosophical stance. Before, it was in reaction to theistic and unfounded and superstitious ontology. But with quantum phenomenon, I and others see the discussion is a critical one for both philosophy and science together.

I think philosophy needs the taxonomy of science, but in this area, science also needs to begin to seriously listen to and possibly use some of the philosophical "taxonomy", one developed after much advanced and highly logical exploring of the inner life. This is especially so as, in this field, the different taxonomies are describing the phenomena with different terminology but with apparent similarity of reference.

Originally posted by Taoman
Below are some of the thoughts of leading physicists mentioned by Smetham in his examination of the Hawking-Mlodinow Theory of Everything ("HAM-TOE" ) ', The full text available here:
http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/61/68

"When he speaks of 'reality' the layman usually means something obvious and well known, whereas it seems to me that pr arer quotation of others advanced in the field helps.

Edits:typographical

Yes, quantum, like mental health, is still in its infancy. Quantum as a science and mental health as a medical issue.
It would surprise some westerners that eastern thought has passed beyond the infancy and made some real inroads into these problems. How? As you mention, via looking at the religous/spiritual/holistic aspect of a problem and not breaking it up into its bits or reducing all theories to objectivity.

I believe we have some way to go and some great discoveries to be made as a collective species.
The quantum scientists have made the radical finds, it will take a while for these finds to be absorbed by the greater population and to feel the full impact these findings would have on all societies, not just the western ones.

Originally posted by Taoman
Sorry, I thought BB's answer was comprehensive on this but I will respond further, as I may have erroneously assumed too much on the question of taxonomy.

Yes, we can improve the taxonomy but it does not change the state itself. Terms have emerged in seeking to talk about the phenomenon.
I think the term 'wave-particle' is already one such, as is 'superp ...[text shortened]... ing the phenomena with different terminology but with apparent similarity of reference.

how about "light-wave vibration"? 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
how about "light-wave vibration"? 🙂

I think the people who came up with this have the right idea about what to call things these days:

"There are six types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

Originally posted by karoly aczel
how about "light-wave vibration"? 🙂

Then again, the Madhyamika in black beetle (many words follow oh the horror) argues that this idea of yours is just an empty projection of your (empty) mind emerging out of your engagement with the superposition. Because, from the given superposition of the bit -the simplest element of reality- (thus from the indefinite to you state 0/1 that holds whenever the element of reality is unkown to you), thanks to your own awareness alone you attributed to the bit any possible value coherent with the known to you elements of reality, thus in this case "0" and "1" at the same time -the superposition again). In my opinion, this is how the string of your thoughts over here boiled down to your expressed product 0 (wave) and 1 (particle).
In other words: thanks to your knowledge that light is emitted and absorbed in photons that exhibit properties of both waves and particles, you felt free to identify the "wave–particle duality" as "light-wave vibration". It's Only You!

Methinks I prefer the (empty) expression "wave-particle duality" though, but who cares? It's Only Me!
And I hope your girl and your boy-kid there Down Under are fine😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, quantum, like mental health, is still in its infancy. Quantum as a science and mental health as a medical issue.
It would surprise some westerners that eastern thought has passed beyond the infancy and made some real inroads into these problems. How? As you mention, via looking at the religous/spiritual/holistic aspect of a problem and not break ...[text shortened]... d to feel the full impact these findings would have on all societies, not just the western ones.

I guess in the broad sweep of history quantum science is still in its infancy though it emerged asking some of these basic questions a century ago.
We always do have some way to go, avoiding a catastrophe for our human species. We appear to need a rapid "holistic" learning curve to avoid same in one way or another.
What will be and what will not be in a thousand years?

Oh, I burnt my toast! How zen.

Originally posted by black beetle
In fact, quantum mechanics do not deal with classically physical interactions but with a set of numbers that simply depict specific interactions that are monitored by us solely because we want to be aware of specific details regarding these interactions by means of using mathematical formulations we designed especially for this monitoring. The mathemati ...[text shortened]... ntient species). QM is simply an empty projection of our own mind and not the reality itself.

And I say that is all nonsense. A non-conscious computer is just as capable of calculating the momentum of a particle as we are.
Your insistence on introducing awareness/consciousness is entirely to do with your Buddhist leanings and has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.
I fully realize that Newtons laws or Einsteins equations are only models of the universe and do not constitute reality in themselves, but neither do they require consciousness, nor do what they describe require consciousness. Next you will be telling us that the moon goes around the earth solely because you thought about it. I say you are talking nonsense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I say that is all nonsense. A non-conscious computer is just as capable of calculating the momentum of a particle as we are.
Your insistence on introducing awareness/consciousness is entirely to do with your Buddhist leanings and has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics.
I fully realize that Newtons laws or Einsteins equations are only mo ...[text shortened]... moon goes around the earth solely because you thought about it. I say you are talking nonsense.

Edit: “And I say... ...with quantum mechanics.”

I am talking about my evaluation after having read amongst else Herbert (Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, 1985), Marcus Chown (Quantum Physics Cannot Hurt You, 2007), Bohm. Wheeler (threeplusone.com/misc/quotes), Penrose, Stapp ((Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness But Quantum Mechanics Can, 1995), Robert Oerter (The Theory Of Almost Everything, 2006), Al-Khalili (BBC Focus Magazine, Jan. 2009), Lee Smolin (Three Roads To Quantum Gravity, 2002 and The Trouble With Physics: The rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, 2006), Jim Baggott (Beyond measure, 2004 and A Beginner’s Guide To Reality, 2005), Michael Mensky (Concept of Consciousness in the context of Quantum Mechanics, 2005), Rosenblum, Bruce and Huttner (Quantum Enigma: Science Encounters Consciousness, 2006), Paul Davies (The Goldilocks Enigma, 2006) Davies & Gribben (The Matter Myth: Discoveries that challenge our understanding of Physical reality, 2007). Of course, you are free to believe that I am talking nonsense😵


Edit: “I fully realize... ...require consciousness.”

Of course they require consciousness, because the equations are nothing more than a language. Languages are strictly consiousness depended;


Edit: “Next you will be telling us that the moon goes around the earth solely because you thought about it.”

Next I will tell you that the Moon orbiting around Earth is only an (empty) projection of your (our) empty collective subjectivity; there is no such a thing for other sentient beings that they do not share the same collective subjectivity with us, due to the fact that the projections of the mind of those sentient beings are different that ours. It’s Only You😵


Edit: “I say you are talking nonsense.”

You simply ignore the Two Truths: you taste constantly the First and you are fully unaware of the Second
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course they require consciousness, because the equations are nothing more than a language. Languages are strictly consiousness depended;

So in reality this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics - as I already said. Your argument would apply to Newtons laws and Einsteins theory of relativity.
Yet you always bring it up when quantum mechanics is being discussed and never with those other two situations. This is because you want to hide behind the fact that most people don't understand quantum mechanics so you can get away with vagueness and false claims.

You simply ignore the Two Truths: you taste constantly the First and you are fully unaware of the Second
😵
It appears so. As a result, I still think you are talking nonsense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So in reality this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics - as I already said. Your argument would apply to Newtons laws and Einsteins theory of relativity.
Yet you always bring it up when quantum mechanics is being discussed and never with those other two situations. This is because you want to hide behind the fact that most people don't understand qu ...[text shortened]... ware of the Second
😵
It appears so. As a result, I still think you are talking nonsense.[/b]

Edit: "So in reality this has nothing to do with quantum mechanics - as I already said. Your argument would apply to Newtons laws and Einsteins theory of relativity."

It has to do not only with QM, but with whatever we human beings grasp thanks to our awareness, our consiousness and our rest senses. For example, you are not justified to believe that whatever you see is real (in the context of its real nature and form the way you perceive it, that is). Visible light has a wavelength in the range 380-400 nanometres to 760-780nm, with a frequency 405-790THz; therefore, the sentient beings with eyes that see at a different range than ours do have the sense of an "as-real-as-it-gets" reality quite different than ours although they share the very same environment with us.
Certainly, whatever you grasp with your 6 senses is merely a mapping of the reality in full dependence with the way your senses decode it, and not some kind of "absolute reality" that exists out there as if it was totally independent from your own mind (from the empty projections of your empty mind, that is).
On the other hand, I cannot understand why and how you concluded that "in reality this has nothing to do with QM". The scientists I mentioned at the post to which you replied this way, are all very well versed in QM😵


Edit: "Yet you always bring it up when quantum mechanics is being discussed and never with those other two situations."

I just explained you how it is related in full to all the range of our knowledge, science and philosophy;


Edit: "This is because you want to hide behind the fact that most people don't understand quantum mechanics so you can get away with vagueness and false claims."

Where exactly did you notice vagueness? Where exactly did you spot false claims?
I expose in full my philosophy to you and to our friends here at RHP, I always give you you explanations in detail, just a post earlier I offered you bibliography, I always share with you and with every RHP friend my sources. And still you claim that I hide😵


Edit: "It appears so. As a result, I still think you are talking nonsense."

We agree that it appears so. As a result, instead of being a vague fault-finder, methinks it would be far better to try to debunk my theses, have me corrected and help me break free from my ignorance by means of sharing with me your sources and your knowledge
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It has to do not only with QM, but with whatever we human beings grasp thanks to our awareness, our consiousness and our rest senses.

Yet you invariably bring it up in discussions on quantum mechanics. Even the references you gave were related to quantum mechanics. That doesn't add up.

Visible light has a wavelength in the range 380-400 nanometres to 760-780nm, with a frequency 405-790THz;
So now you not only admit that light has wavelengths, but it has the same wavelength for you and for me and for your hypothetical sentient beings with different eye sight.

On the other hand, I cannot understand why and how you concluded that "in reality this has nothing to do with QM". The scientists I mentioned at the post to which you replied this way, are all very well versed in QM😵
I know they are. How does that make a relationship? And why did you pick people versed in QM? You are trying to make a relationship where there is none. Why?

I just explained you how it is related in full to all the range of our knowledge, science and philosophy;
So why only bring it up in QM discussions?

We agree that it appears so. As a result, instead of being a vague fault-finder, methinks it would be far better to try to debunk my theses, have me corrected and help me break free from my ignorance by means of sharing with me your sources and your knowledge
😵
To be honest, I usually find your posts too long and I give up before I have read them all. I also am too lazy to go and look up all your references.
I would have difficulty debunking your thesis because I am, as always, unclear as to what it is. A moment ago, I thought you were claiming that QM was intricately tied to consciousness and I have already debunked that, but it seems now you are making a different claim which is unclear to me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you invariably bring it up in discussions on quantum mechanics. Even the references you gave were related to quantum mechanics. That doesn't add up.

[b]Visible light has a wavelength in the range 380-400 nanometres to 760-780nm, with a frequency 405-790THz;
So now you not only admit that light has wavelengths, but it has the same wavelength f ...[text shortened]... eady debunked that, but it seems now you are making a different claim which is unclear to me.[/b]

Edit: “Yet you invariably bring it up in discussions on quantum mechanics. Even the references you gave were related to quantum mechanics. That doesn't add up.”

I invariably bring it up in discussions related to whatever beliefs we use to hold regarding the nature of the physical world and regarding every given theory of reality. Since reality is related solely to the awareness of the sentient beings that they perceive it and, thus, since their awareness alone is the sole interface they use in order to perceive the physical world, it follows that the shape of the reality unveiled to each sentient being is strictly related to their awareness and to their rest senses alone. Therefore, I keep up repeating to you that reality has as many shapes as are the sentient beings that they perceive it, although the reality is a given. To me, reality is consisted of countless diamond-like polyhedric bits/ elements of reality, where each bit reflects each one of its facets to all the other facets of all the other polyhedrics. Well, methinks we merely see glances of the reality, but we have the illusion that each glance exists on its own, separated from all the other ones and separated from the field of our awareness. This is the case regarding QM and every other theory of reality. This is how it adds up😵