Soundness of QM assumptions

[Dave casarino]

I am an idiot in regard to quantum physics, I have two introductory books which I have never read. When I was younger I would read people like the much loved or much maligned Deepak Chopra and he would say some very strange things about stranger things that I barely understood, as I got older I would find people slamming Chopra all over the internet in regards to this oh so precious QM, to this day I see physics channels on youtube making long video's viciously decrying quantum woo and all things they think are related, the amount of articles "no the double slit experiment doesn't mean what you think it means" is many, but as I got older still I am seeing that QM may be even vaguer still, not favouring anyone's assumptions on it, so I must ask, what is Kastrups essential view on QM? Is it a sound view? Are the physicalists right in rejecting his favoured view and is the 'subject' an actual human subject or can it be simply a piece of apparatus without any humans present whatsoever?

[Dave casarino]

WOOPS by subject I meant observer

[Eugene I]

All this confusion around QM is only related to the fact that QM is incompatible with the naïve realistic interpretation of the world. As long as we believe that the there is an "objective world" consisting of separate "objects" (be it particles or waves or any other elementals) causally interacting with each other, we can never make sense of QM, unless we would adopt insanely bizarre interpretations of QM like the many-world one. But if you drop the naïve realism and take QM as simply a math equation-procedure to describe the patterns of sense-perception phenomena of our conscious experience, then there is no problem with QM whatsoever (no bizarre ideas like wave-function collapse caused by the "observer" etc) , it's just a simple and compact math model of these patterns, and the math of it is actually pretty straightforward and easy to understand (if you have some background in math of course)

[Dave casarino]

But what I really want to understand is the "observer"? Is it an apparatus, a person or can it be both? From the materialists I get the impression that everything in the quantum world is so delicate that even the slightest disturbance kicks up the whole substrate like when you put your feet into the sand in a clear water beach and all the sand comes up and blurs everything beyond coherent observation.

[Eugene I]

All those speculations about "observer" in QM turned out to be nonsense. It was experimentally proven that the QM measurement results (e.g. the double-slit experiment) are the same regardless whether there is an observer registering the results at the moment of the measurement or not. For example, in the double-slit experiment if you place a photographic plate at the plain of observation, the same interference pattern will show up on the plate, and this pattern will be destroyed if a measurement device will try to measure the occurrence of electrons at one of the slits, regardless whether there was any conscious observer in the room or not.

[AshvinP]

All those speculations about "observer" in QM turned out to be nonsense. It was experimentally proven that the QM measurement results (e.g. the double-slit experiment) are the same regardless whether there is an observer registering the results at the moment of the measurement or not. For example, in the double-slit experiment if you place a photographic plate at the plain of observation, the same interference pattern will show up on the plate, and this pattern will be destroyed if a measurement device will try to measure the occurrence of electrons at one of the slits, regardless whether there was any conscious observer in the room or not.

But why are we assuming the "measurement device" is also not a conscious observer? It seems to me these technologies are extensions of our natural perceptual-cognitive capacities, created through those capacities, which simply allow us to observe from a non-local 'place' within Space-Time.

[Eugene I]

But why are we assuming the "measurement device" is also not a conscious observer? It seems to me these technologies are extensions of our natural perceptual-cognitive capacities, created through those capacities, which simply allow us to observe from a non-local 'place' within Space-Time.

All that I wrote above only applies to physicalism: they tried to introduce a "conscious observer" into the physicalist QM interpretation to try to make sense of so-called "WF collapse", which of course spectacularly failed. Naive-realistic physicalism and QM so far have been incompatible, except for if we adopt the insane many-world interpretation of QM. There are other interpretations like relational and QBit which are simply agnostic to the metaphysical models of reality and do not assume naive realistic metaphysics but can be compatible with a variety of ontologies equally well.

For example the QBit (informational interpretation of QM) would connect quite well with idealism. In this interpretation what we observe through our 1-st person sense perceptions of natural phenomena is only a flow of information (from within the domain of Spirit in idealism) shaped in a specific mathematical way following QM equations, but the QM-randomness of this information flow allows for a lot of degrees of freedom. In other words, it is' a very "wide" informational communication flow/channel that can convey a lot of meaningful content. The QM equations are simply very rough constraints that shape this flow in specific patterns without them being too restrictive. This is my hypothesis of course. QBit interpretation resolves the so-called "paradoxes of QM" quite nicely.

[AshvinP]

But why are we assuming the "measurement device" is also not a conscious observer? It seems to me these technologies are extensions of our natural perceptual-cognitive capacities, created through those capacities, which simply allow us to observe from a non-local 'place' within Space-Time.

All that I wrote above only applies to physicalism: they tried to introduce a "conscious observer" into the physicalist QM interpretation to try to make sense of so-called "WF collapse", which of course spectacularly failed. Naive-realistic physicalism and QM so far have been incompatible, except for if we adopt the insane many-world interpretation of QM.

Ah ok, I misunderstood. I agree none of these results can be made sense of under metaphysical materialist or naive realist assumptions. I am really looking forward to Cleric's essays which I think will shed a lot of light on QM from a consistent idealist perspective.

[Eugene I]

Interesting quote from Einstein from that video talk:
"The most incomprehensible think about the universe it that it is comprehensible"
which is another intractable problem for materialism, but almost a tautology in idealism - it is comprehensible simply because it is a manifestation of Comprehension.