Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
That was one massive strawman, as expected.
Where’s the strawman?
And if you are silly enough to suggest that my entire post is a strawman, then you will be demonstrating that you have no idea of what a strawman argument actually is.
So again, where’s the strawman?
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
Again:
1. I wrote about QM in the context of observer-independent reality, which seems to be true regardless of interpretation.
I thought that you have been arguing that reality is observer-dependent?
I am assuming that the above quote is a typo or accidental misspeak.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
As I said, while I consider my MWI-type interpretation the only one mentioned so far that doesn't use any magical thinking...
Let’s get something straight:
Anyone who believes that there literally exists a near infinite number of copies of one’s self – copies who are each standing on a near infinite number of copies of the earth, all stretching “sideways” across a multiversal reality...
...has utterly and thoroughly forfeited the intellectual authority to accuse anyone else of being guilty of “magical” thinking.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM.
In one of your earlier posts, you brazenly accused Londoner of being “wrong” in his dualistic thinking, wherein you then stated the following:
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:15 pm
The idea of an external reality independent of "us" was experimentally
refuted in physics ~100 years ago, and in every such experiment since then.
(Underline/bolding mine.)
The dictionary definition of “refuted” is as follows:
the dictionary wrote:
re•fute
verb
past tense: refuted; past participle: refuted
1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false...
Clearly, to “refute” something means to “prove” something wrong.
So here you are stating that QM doesn't prove or disprove dualism, because no one knows how to interpret QM, yet at the same time you also proclaim that duality was experimentally “refuted” (proven wrong) by physics - 100 years ago.
I’m sorry Atla, but you can’t have it both ways.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
You are the one who seems to think that your Neumann-Wigner type interpretation is automatically the correct one. You won't get a Nobel-prize unfortunately, you think you invented something awesome but your type of interpretation was one of the first things those physicists deeply investigated.
Also, the Copenhagen says nothing about mind, you clearly are misinterpreting things.
I never said that the Copenhagen Interpretation associates itself with mind. I merely mentioned Copenhagen due to my statements regarding Heisenberg’s referring to the quantum as being a kind of “potentia.”
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am
2. I wrote that everything in the last 100 years confirms this non-observer-independent reality.
Yeah, you keep saying that, yet you refuse to provide one citable example of an experiment that supports your claim.
The ironic aspect of this whole debate is that I actually agree with you that the “phenomenal reality” of this universe (i.e., the manifestation of three-dimensional objects appearing in a spatial dimension) is indeed observer-dependent...
...
(something that has been tentatively verified by physics in the way you’ve been asserting it to be).
However, I just don’t believe that you can regard life, mind, and consciousness as being scientifically “measureable” in the same way that quarks, electrons, and photons are measureable.
In other words,
mind and
matter seem to have their own unique ontological makeup and structure and are therefore not coequally subject to the same blanket theories that are obviously slanted toward pure materialism.
And unless we are crossing over into the Spinozan concept of an ultimate “oneness” substance, then they simply do not belong in the same category together...
...
(hence the argument for duality – at least in that particular context).
_______