Because in a lot of "new age" teachings there is the idea that thought
creates reality. And it is claimed that this is possible if reality is
subjectively created from our own "C"onsciousness. Does this make
sense, or can this be made to make sense, using quantum physics?

Please help a confused fellow

Kind regards,
Francis

"francisr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because in a lot of "new age" teachings there is the idea that thought
creates reality. And it is claimed that this is possible if reality is
subjectively created from our own "C"onsciousness. Does this make
sense, or can this be made to make sense, using quantum physics?

Nope; or to be more precise no more than in classical physics (for example
EM has acasual runaway solutions for point particles - they are rejected as
unphysical). The idea in QM dates back to Von Neumann's classic treatise on
QM (The Mathematical Foundations of QM) where he analyzed what is called the
Von Neumann regress. Observations is what causes quantum states to change
and in a probabilistic way. Now the Von Neumann regress says we can
consider the observer and what is observed as a QM system that is not being
observed. In such a case what collapses the wave function? He postulated
human consciousness. Note however one does not have to do this - one can
always view the system prior to the observation so the problem never arises.
In many areas unphysical solutions to problems exist - we simply reject them
as unphysical. IMHO this is simply another example. But such a view is
purely philosophical - which is what the question really is - not physics.

Thanks
Bill


Please help a confused fellow

Kind regards,
Francis

francisr wrote:
Because in a lot of "new age" teachings there is the idea that thought
creates reality. And it is claimed that this is possible if reality is
subjectively created from our own "C"onsciousness. Does this make
sense, or can this be made to make sense, using quantum physics?

Please help a confused fellow

I don't think so. A subjective reality is one where one could not say
reliably that different observers would make the same physical
statements. Science (including quantum mechanics) is founded precisely
on the premise that there are regularities that are reliably the same
for different observers. If this were not true, science would have
little application value, because *applying* science means controlling
circumstances in such a way that those regularities can be reasonably
be expected to control the outcome.

PD

PD wrote:
francisr wrote:
Because in a lot of "new age" teachings there is the idea that thought
creates reality. And it is claimed that this is possible if reality is
subjectively created from our own "C"onsciousness. Does this make
sense, or can this be made to make sense, using quantum physics?

Please help a confused fellow

I don't think so. A subjective reality is one where one could not say
reliably that different observers would make the same physical
statements. Science (including quantum mechanics) is founded precisely
on the premise that there are regularities that are reliably the same
for different observers. If this were not true, science would have
little application value, because *applying* science means controlling
circumstances in such a way that those regularities can be reasonably
be expected to control the outcome.

PD

i cant see you got the point in his saying

this was expectable from you beus your
thinking is some how traditional mechanical

the "fact", which is not a fact, that som physical
axon connection takes place in your physical
brain, observation, might coincid , which doesnt,
with similar axon connection in some other
brain, givin rise to similar mental interpretations,
results indeed in a taught reality

the brain is nothing but a sensor, a buffer, periferials
and a slow running controller

francisr wrote:"Because in a lot of "new age" teachings there is the
idea that thought
creates reality. And it is claimed that this is possible if reality is
subjectively created from our own "C"onsciousness"

Think about it, if this is so then why are there Blind Persons?

Blindness would be self-inflicted !

Dear Quantum Ranger:

"Quantum Ranger" wrote in message
ups.com...

francisr wrote:"Because in a lot of "new age" teachings
there is the idea that thought creates reality. And it is
claimed that this is possible if reality is subjectively
created from our own "C"onsciousness"

Think about it, if this is so then why are there Blind
Persons?

What if the life-lesson that is to be learned, needs to be
learned while without sight, with losing one's sight?

Blindness would be self-inflicted !

Life is self inflicted, and inflicted our children. What a rich
and wonderful torture, for all its experiences.

Was there supposed to be physics content in there somewhere?

David A. Smith

Bill Hobba wrote:
"francisr" wrote in message
oups.com...
Because in a lot of "new age" teachings there is the idea that thought
creates reality. And it is claimed that this is possible if reality is
subjectively created from our own "C"onsciousness. Does this make
sense, or can this be made to make sense, using quantum physics?

Nope; or to be more precise no more than in classical physics (for example
EM has acasual runaway solutions for point particles - they are rejected as
unphysical). The idea in QM dates back to Von Neumann's classic treatise on
QM (The Mathematical Foundations of QM) where he analyzed what is called the
Von Neumann regress. Observations is what causes quantum states to change
and in a probabilistic way. Now the Von Neumann regress says we can
consider the observer and what is observed as a QM system that is not being
observed. In such a case what collapses the wave function? He postulated
human consciousness. Note however one does not have to do this - one can
always view the system prior to the observation so the problem never arises.
In many areas unphysical solutions to problems exist - we simply reject them
as unphysical. IMHO this is simply another example. But such a view is
purely philosophical - which is what the question really is - not physics.

Thanks
Bill


"The idea in QM dates back to Von Neumann's classic treatise on
QM (The Mathematical Foundations of QM) where he analyzed what is
called the
Von Neumann regress. Observations is what causes quantum states to
change
and in a probabilistic way. Now the Von Neumann regress says we can
consider the observer and what is observed as a QM system that is not
being
observed. In such a case what collapses the wave function? He
postulated
human consciousness. Note however one does not have to do this - one
can
always view the system prior to the observation so the problem never
arises."

VERGON

The question in my mind is, If they know what the quantum state is
BEFORE they observe it, then they do NOT need to observe it.

Collaterally, If they need to observe it, then how do they know what it
is before they observe it?

I say things are as we observe them --- pre-observation is just
theory.


I offer the postulate upon which my theory of QM is based:


THE POSTULATE

The objective universe consists only of matter, space between matter,
and the motion of matter through that space, the rest is
anthropocentric
interpretation.

In elucidation thereof:

Man perceives matter, to quantify it he conceptualizes "mass".
Matter exists objectively, mass is a concept.

Matter resists motion or alteration of motion. Man perceives that as
"inertia" which in turn quantifies mass.


Matter moves with varying degrees of motion. Man compares all motion to
one used as a standard which is constant. This standard motion is
divided into arbitrary units. The transit of the standard through one
unit is designated as time. (The rotation of the earth is a standard
motion. One rotation is designated as a day {time} with arbitrary
subdivisions.) All other motions are then compared to a unit of time.
Thus, at base, time is the comparison of motions, nothing more.

The quantification of motion in terms of time is conceptualized as
"velocity". Ultimately this is a comparison of motions against the
standard.

The quantification of the motion of matter in terms of mass and
velocity
is conceptualized as "momentum", i.e., there is a simultaneous
determination of the quantity of matter and the quantity of motion it
possesses.

Matter moves and changes that motion by interaction. Man perceives
the rate of change as "force", i.e., the change of momentum with
respect to time. Collaterally he perceives "acceleration" as the change
of velocity with respect to time.

Matter interacts with matter forming an altered configuration.
Man regards that as "energy", ultimately energy is matter (mass) in
motion.

There is space between matter. Man perceives that and quantifies it by
arbitrary standards of matter. Thus is created the concepts of
"dimension" and "distance".

--


So we see that dimension, space, time, mass, inertia, momentum,
acceleration, force, and energy are all subjective interpretations by
man of matter and its motion through space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Admittedly the observation of QM is difficult because it exists on the
micro level.
However, I believe the clues to why this is so are contained in my
theory, "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity".

Anyone interested can find it on http://www.wbabin.net . Go to LIST OF
AUTHORS and click on Vertner Vergon.


The truth is in one way hard and in
Another easy. For it is evident that
no one can master it fully nor miss
it wholly. But each adds a little to
our knowledge of nature, and from all
the facts assembled there arises a
certain grandeur.
- ARISTOTLE -