Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

uwot wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:45 am
seeds wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:52 amHi Noax,

It is unfortunate, but in light of your reference to how threads often degenerate on this site, I think it is wishful thinking on your part to assume that Dr. McQueen (or any other contributor to the magazine) is monitoring anything in this discussion forum.
_______
Some of us do. https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches
Purely empirical science doesn’t need such stories – it doesn’t need philosophy.
It has always seemed to me that, broadly speaking, the ultimate goal of science ought to be to establish what’s true — insofar as we can do that. We may not be able to do that because of practical limitations (no physical way to test string theory, for example) or cognitive closure (we’re not smart enough, just as dog sniffing a book isn’t smart enough to figure what the book really is).

In any case, scientists like Einstein certainly wanted to do more than “shut up and calculate.”

A few years ago Stephen Hawking wrote a book about the nature of reality in which he claimed, on the very first page, “Philosophy is dead.” Then he proceeded to write an entire book on philosophy, specifically mooting a concept he called “model-dependent realism." Such a model is pre-eminently a philosophical idea.

Taking the "shut up and calculate" route leads to agnosticism about Ptolemy v. Copernicus. The church did not want to prevent Galileo from espousing Copernicus as a calculational tool. The church just didn't want him to espouse that it was true.

As the philosopher Norman Swartz, who wrote extensively on the philosophy of science, has noted: Scientists who say philosophy is of no use to them simply don’t understand that science itself is shot through with philosophical presuppositions, many of which cannot be scientifically tested!

As to so-called reality, another possibility is that because of evolution, Organisms tuned to fitness drive those tuned to truth to extinction, and veridical knowledge is not possible. On this account the outside world, if it exists at all apart from our mental states, is nothing at all like what we perceive it to be.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by ForCruxSake »

davidm wrote:As to so-called reality, another possibility is that because of evolution, Organisms tuned to fitness drive those tuned to truth to extinction, and veridical knowledge is not possible. On this account the outside world, if it exists at all apart from our mental states, is nothing at all like what we perceive it to be.
I don't think the paper you refer to is quite saying that. In the brief summary that establishes the paper's purpose: the abstract, it states:

We find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality. This suggests that natural selection need not favor veridical perceptions, and that the effects of selection on sensory perception deserve further study.

To me that says: it's possible (not probable, or certain) that natural selection doesn't favour veridical perception and that the subject deserves more study.

You've extended that to say that the paper is suggesting that "veridical knowledge is not possible".
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

ForCruxSake wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:28 pm
davidm wrote:As to so-called reality, another possibility is that because of evolution, Organisms tuned to fitness drive those tuned to truth to extinction, and veridical knowledge is not possible. On this account the outside world, if it exists at all apart from our mental states, is nothing at all like what we perceive it to be.
I don't think the paper you refer to is quite saying that. In the brief summary that establishes the paper's purpose: the abstract, it states:

We find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality. This suggests that natural selection need not favor veridical perceptions, and that the effects of selection on sensory perception deserve further study.

To me that says: it's possible (not probable, or certain) that natural selection doesn't favour veridical perception and that the subject deserves more study.

You've extended that to say that the paper is suggesting that "veridical knowledge is not possible".
One of the authors of the paper says exactly that, here:
The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.
Got it? He said Never.

In any case, whether he is right or wrong, why not try to discuss the substance of the claim, rather than nitpick over whether I have correctly rendered it (which I have)? If you’ve got nothing better to do than post this twaddle, why do you post at all?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

Replying to the “shut up and calculate.” point.
davidm wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:44 pm In any case, scientists like Einstein certainly wanted to do more than “shut up and calculate.”

A few years ago Stephen Hawking wrote a book about the nature of reality in which he claimed, on the very first page, “Philosophy is dead.” Then he proceeded to write an entire book on philosophy, specifically mooting a concept he called “model-dependent realism." Such a model is pre-eminently a philosophical idea.

Taking the "shut up and calculate" route leads to agnosticism about Ptolemy v. Copernicus. The church did not want to prevent Galileo from espousing Copernicus as a calculational tool. The church just didn't want him to espouse that it was true.
All right, all philosophy cannot be abandoned, as your example illustrates. Most of science is based on methodological naturalism, not because it is proved the right thing to do, but because of its success rate. The Ptolemy v. Copernicus thing is an example of exactly that.

So let's bring up Tegmark, since his peers have told him to shut up and calculate. Of his views that are interpretations, the Everett interpretation qualifies as meaningful physics, something that produces results like quantum computers even though other interpretations have no hard falsification. But his mathematical universe work is pure philosophy (and actually stems from modal logic), admittedly one that solves so many of the philosophical conundrums. But it makes zero predictions, and is simply not science. His work on that project annoyed his peers, as he relates in the book in question.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by Noax »

Concerning the true vs. fit thing, I have come to that conclusion some time ago, and at a far more fundamental level than is addressed in your article.
davidm wrote:As to so-called reality, another possibility is that because of evolution, Organisms tuned to fitness drive those tuned to truth to extinction, and veridical knowledge is not possible. On this account the outside world, if it exists at all apart from our mental states, is nothing at all like what we perceive it to be.
ForCruxSake wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:28 pm I don't think the paper you refer to is quite saying that. In the brief summary that establishes the paper's purpose: the abstract, it states:

We find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality. This suggests that natural selection need not favor veridical perceptions, and that the effects of selection on sensory perception deserve further study.

To me that says: it's possible (not probable, or certain) that natural selection doesn't favour veridical perception and that the subject deserves more study.
The summary possibly says that. The analysis that follows goes at least as far as probable. Agree that this paper doesn't say not possible.
davidm wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:09 pmOne of the authors of the paper says exactly that, here:
He does say it there, but only by pulling the same disproved card that Dr McQueen is pulling: That only consciousness collapses wave functions. This leads him to idealism. Good for him, but I don't take is paper as significant evidence of impossibility of knowing truth.
Hoffman wrote:The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.
Got it? He said Never.
That theorem seems not difficult to prove, but it concludes that fit is always at least as good as truth, not that fit therefore isn't truth. Mind you, I agree with the conclusion that we're chock full of lies, but the linked articles aren't doing it for me.
In any case, whether he is right or wrong, why not try to discuss the substance of the claim, rather than nitpick over whether I have correctly rendered it (which I have)? If you’ve got nothing better to do than post this twaddle, why do you post at all?
I'm game, and I don't think FCS is posting twaddle.
I was going to start a thread on exactly this (lies of evolution), but not on this forum, it being so poorly moderated.

So lies aside, what is the true nature of the cup on the table, or of 'me'? My conclusion was literally that there are no words to describe their true natures.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by uwot »

davidm wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:44 pm
uwot wrote:Purely empirical science doesn’t need such stories – it doesn’t need philosophy.
It has always seemed to me that, broadly speaking, the ultimate goal of science ought to be to establish what’s true — insofar as we can do that. We may not be able to do that because of practical limitations (no physical way to test string theory, for example) or cognitive closure (we’re not smart enough, just as dog sniffing a book isn’t smart enough to figure what the book really is).
Well, "purely empirical" science, in essence, is the study of what the world does. What we think it is, only matters if it impacts on our ability to measure and control phenomena. But then science isn't all purely empirical.
davidm wrote:In any case, scientists like Einstein certainly wanted to do more than “shut up and calculate.”
Absolutely. It was his use of philosophical models that were the insights that led him to special and general relativity. Essentially, the premise underpinning special relativity was that light does not need a medium to be transmitted, whereas in general relativity, gravity does. (See http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html I make the point in a book I am working on which you can see here http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk )
davidm wrote:A few years ago Stephen Hawking wrote a book about the nature of reality in which he claimed, on the very first page, “Philosophy is dead.” Then he proceeded to write an entire book on philosophy, specifically mooting a concept he called “model-dependent realism." Such a model is pre-eminently a philosophical idea.
Yup. Great with black holes, not so hot on irony.
davidm wrote:Taking the "shut up and calculate" route leads to agnosticism about Ptolemy v. Copernicus. The church did not want to prevent Galileo from espousing Copernicus as a calculational tool. The church just didn't want him to espouse that it was true.
As it happens, I am currently researching medieval cosmology. In my view, hardly original or contentious, that was the single most important episode that caused the shift from medieval 'science' to that of the renaissance. It marked the rejection of authority, particularly of Aristotle, and the dogma of Catholicism. Agnosticism comes up a lot on this forum, and I have made the point several times, that technically, it doesn't mean 'we don't know', rather it means 'we can't know'. The Ptolemaic model, having been developed, over 2000 years, from the original of Eudoxus, at the behest of Plato, was more accurate, in terms of calculating where planets would appear in the sky, than the Copernican. While the moons of Jupiter, phases of Venus and imperfections on the surface of our Moon, are cited as empirical evidence supporting Copernicus (a Catholic churchman after all), it was a philosophical leap to argue for heliocentricism, because, at the time, there simply wasn't the technology to prove it. And anyway, we now know that is false, too.
davidm wrote:As the philosopher Norman Swartz, who wrote extensively on the philosophy of science, has noted: Scientists who say philosophy is of no use to them simply don’t understand that science itself is shot through with philosophical presuppositions, many of which cannot be scientifically tested!
Yup. As I said in another thread, all interpretation of empirical data is theory-laden.
davidm wrote:As to so-called reality, another possibility is that because of evolution, Organisms tuned to fitness drive those tuned to truth to extinction, and veridical knowledge is not possible. On this account the outside world, if it exists at all apart from our mental states, is nothing at all like what we perceive it to be.
Well, that may be true (and in fact we know it is), but it doesn't follow. I looked through the article, but haven't studied it in detail, so I may have missed the case studies that support the mathematical model. I'm not a biologist, and don't know of any creature that has been driven to extinction, because of it's commitment to veridical knowledge. I would agree though, that the model describes physics quite well, insofar as it is an instrumentalist exercise, and mathematical models live or die by their utility, rather than truth. The truth is useless, if it doesn't work.
The problem with 'truth', as I see it, is the underdetermination inherent in induction. It doesn't matter how accurately a philosophical or mathematical model describes observations; it will never be certain that any model will account for all future observations.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by ForCruxSake »

davidm wrote:One of the authors of the paper says exactly that, here:
The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.
Got it? He said Never.
That's as maybe but that is not what the paper you originally cited was stating, in it's abstract. It's this kind of clumsy thinking that misdirects others. You introduced what you considered to be an impressive source, without taking the time to read the first page yourself. Or if you did read it, you failed to understand that it was not saying what you seemed to be stating so certainly that it was.
davidm wrote:In any case, whether he is right or wrong,
I'm not questioning how correct he is, I'm questioning how correct *YOU* were.
davidm wrote:...why not try to discuss the substance of the claim, rather than nitpick over whether I have correctly rendered it (which I have)? If you’ve got nothing better to do than post this twaddle, why do you post at all?
You're welcome.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

uwot wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:04 am.
Absolutely. It was his use of philosophical models that were the insights that led him to special and general relativity. Essentially, the premise underpinning special relativity was that light does not need a medium to be transmitted, whereas in general relativity, gravity does. (See http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... ether.html I make the point in a book I am working on which you can see here http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk )
Thanks for these links. I’ve already seen the link to your book, but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I will do so.

Einstein understood the unity of science and philosophy; of course at one time, science was known as natural philosophy. Somehow that has gone by the wayside.
As it happens, I am currently researching medieval cosmology. In my view, hardly original or contentious, that was the single most important episode that caused the shift from medieval 'science' to that of the renaissance.
I recommend the following, if you have not read it already:

The Galileo Affair
It marked the rejection of authority, particularly of Aristotle, and the dogma of Catholicism. Agnosticism comes up a lot on this forum, and I have made the point several times, that technically, it doesn't mean 'we don't know', rather it means 'we can't know'. The Ptolemaic model, having been developed, over 2000 years, from the original of Eudoxus, at the behest of Plato, was more accurate, in terms of calculating where planets would appear in the sky, than the Copernican. While the moons of Jupiter, phases of Venus and imperfections on the surface of our Moon, are cited as empirical evidence supporting Copernicus (a Catholic churchman after all), it was a philosophical leap to argue for heliocentricism, because, at the time, there simply wasn't the technology to prove it. And anyway, we now know that is false, too.
Very well said.
Yup. As I said in another thread, all interpretation of empirical data is theory-laden.
Yes.
Well, that may be true (and in fact we know it is), but it doesn't follow. I looked through the article, but haven't studied it in detail, so I may have missed the case studies that support the mathematical model. I'm not a biologist, and don't know of any creature that has been driven to extinction, because of it's commitment to veridical knowledge. I would agree though, that the model describes physics quite well, insofar as it is an instrumentalist exercise, and mathematical models live or die by their utility, rather than truth. The truth is useless, if it doesn't work.
The problem with 'truth', as I see it, is the underdetermination inherent in induction. It doesn't matter how accurately a philosophical or mathematical model describes observations; it will never be certain that any model will account for all future observations.
As to the above, the following, by one of the authors of the paper to which I linked, gives it a fuller philosophical rendering:

Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

Post by davidm »

    ForCruxSake wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:05 am
    That's as maybe but that is not what the paper you originally cited was stating, in it's abstract. It's this kind of clumsy thinking that misdirects others.
    :lol:

    Maybe you should read beyond the abstract before mindlessly posting? You know, read the actual effing paper?

    Oh, poor you, all you can read is an abstract and somehow I am to blame for that!
    ForCruxSake
    Posts: 496
    Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

    Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

    Post by ForCruxSake »

    davidm wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:45 am
      ForCruxSake wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:05 am
      That's as maybe but that is not what the paper you originally cited was stating, in it's abstract. It's this kind of clumsy thinking that misdirects others.
      :lol:

      Maybe you should read beyond the abstract before mindlessly posting? You know, read the actual effing paper?

      Oh, poor you, all you can read is an abstract...
      I have a feeling I'm going to be rather disappointed that I am spending valuable coffee time answering to someone who is posting like a whiny child but...

      Look up (or down, depending on whether yoir posts ascend or descend in time order). Another poster could see that the article was not claiming the certainty you were and thought it reasonable to point out. So your attack on me seems rather harsh. Unable to directly challenge what I said, you seem to want to goad me into saying other things, I have no interest in saying, by employing a childlike playground manner that amounts to nothing less conducive to discussion than taunting.

      Following on in the vein that you seem to make incorrect assumptions, you are assuming I didn't read the article, possibly just to continue with the aggression that follows you having been caught with your pants down? Not right down, just so that a few inches of chubby crack are exposed. You just seem to want to fight. Maybe that's why you make foolish claims. Like the drunk on the side of street who tells you he can deck you and he'll prove it if you fight him for a dollar. By continuing to challenge me, on this point, with aggression and incorrect assumptions, you seem to want to make a public display of pulling your own pants right down.

      You have no idea, whether I read the article or not. I did read the article. I had little to say on the subject except to point out you were making a claim that wasn't quite borne out by the report you posted up. I did that respectfully. I didn't need to pull up a mass of stuff to argue the point, particularly as it was visible on the first page.

      Don't assume that the charming, responsive manner in which you communicate with me will elicit the response, or attention, you crave, or have me do as you demand. When you can get what you do right, maybe I'll think of taking advice from you. Maybe you should concentrate on what you do, and getting that right, before you feel qualified to tell others what to do.
      davidm wrote:....and somehow I am to blame for that!
      If you are to blame for anything. It's aggressive stupidity.

      You're welcome.
      User avatar
      henry quirk
      Posts: 14706
      Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
      Location: Right here, a little less busy.

      posting like a whiny child

      Post by henry quirk »

      An umpteenth try at sobriety can make a body testy.
      uwot
      Posts: 6093
      Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

      Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

      Post by uwot »

      Yeah, but what's the alternative?
      Impenitent
      Posts: 4330
      Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

      Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

      Post by Impenitent »

      uwot wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:30 pm Yeah, but what's the alternative?
      unconsciousness causing quantum collapse...

      if you snore loud enough maybe...

      -Imp
      User avatar
      henry quirk
      Posts: 14706
      Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
      Location: Right here, a little less busy.

      unconsciousness causing quantum collapse...

      Post by henry quirk »

      HA!
      davidm
      Posts: 1155
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

      Re: Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

      Post by davidm »

      ForCruxSake wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:44 pm <snip content-free rubbish>
      This is from the conclusion of the paper to which I originally linked, from 2010: (Note the date)
      Nevertheless, the evolutionary simulations presented here demonstrate that naive-realist and critical-realist strategies can be driven to extinction when they compete with interface strategies that hide the truth. More simulations, in the directions outlined above, are needed to determine if there are plausible environments in which critical-realist perceptions can survive.
      Bold mine.

      IOW, the authors claim to have demonstrated that the default assumption via their mathematical models is that organisms tuned to truth are driven to extinction by those tuned to utility. What I wrote in my post, which instigated your pathetic trolling, was this:
      As to so-called reality, another possibility is that because of evolution, Organisms tuned to fitness drive those tuned to truth to extinction, and veridical knowledge is not possible. On this account the outside world, if it exists at all apart from our mental states, is nothing at all like what we perceive it to be.
      Notice, air head, that I said this was a possibility -- a conditional claim -- which, IF true, justifies the conclusion that "veridical knowledge is not possible."

      Moreover, since I am familiar with the totality of the author's works, I know that what I wrote thoroughly agrees not only with the 2010 paper but with his LATER assertion (from 2016; six years later than the paper to which I linked) that: (Please read carefully and slowly; move your lips if it helps.)
      The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.
      Bold mine.

      Do you see that word NEVER? Do you, stupid? It's in there twice, in bold.

      And there you go, you ignorant, pathetic troll. You’re welcome.

      Of course, I cited this paper, and another paper of the author’s in my response upthread to uwot, because it is a different and highly unusual take on the mind-body problem and on how we do science and how we understand the world. It may be wrong, of course, but I thought it might well be worth discussing at a board ostensibly dedicated to, you know, philosophical discussion. It wasn’t even the main point of my post. I didn’t even say that I agreed with it. I merely raised the idea for disccussion.

      But my effort to promote discussion of a highly unusual view predictably lured from under his rock just another pathetic troll intent on derailing discussion with an irrelevant aside that was also a false claim. Gresham’s Law can be updated for message boards: Bad posters drive out good posters.

      As to Harry or Henry Quirk or whatever his name is, since I learned about his cocaine habit I am much more inclined to overlook his stupid and content-free posts. I imagine that drooling from the nose while typing impedes reflective consideration of what one is typing.
      Post Reply