Evan Shaw
06-29-2013, 05:19 PM
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/QuantumConsciousness.pdf
To begin with, Dr. Stenger never misses the opportunity to bring up "the supernatural views" from "ancient traditions" in an attempt to discredit his opposing position, by painting it as full of "fantastical notions." Classical use of a red herring. ("We are all the ephemeral forms of a consciousness greater than ourselves") In an era where consciousness itself is still doubted, this would cause alarm to some.
"The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with many whose egos have made it impossible for them to accept the insignificant place science perceives for humanity."
Or perhaps, what doesn't sit well with the adherents of materialism is, that despite our microscopic place in the universe, significance remains. "Oh no! If the universe has purpose, so might I!" The allure of freedom appeals more than responsibility, I suppose.
"Atomic theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits - quanta."
But what organizes these particles of quanta? Are not there patterns that govern how matter builds up from the micro to the macro level? "Well their are some random events in qp." Are they truly random, or just causes yet unfound? From my understanding, science always looks for the answers, never attributes it to "it just happened." I mean, isn't that the ridicule thrown on religionists?
"Quantum mechanics does not violate the Copernican principle that the universe cares not a whit about the human race."
Did Copernicus ever say the universe doesn't care about us, or did he just put us in a different place?
"Einstein and other physicists proved that matter and light were composed of particles, wiping away the notion of universal continuity." and "Electricity is the flow of electrons or other charged particles, and that light is a current of particles called photons."
He asserts that matter and light are composed of particles, indeed so, but photons are essentially electromagnetic energy. Even two of physics fundamental equations equate light and matter with energy (Einstein's E=mc2, and Planck's E = hv) So I must ask, why hardly any mention of this elusive energy? Is there only one side to the coin?
"Shortly thereafter, in 1905, Einstein developed his theory of relativity which demonstrated that the concept of an aether was logically inconsistent with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Einstein concluded that electromagnetic waves, including light, could not be the vibrations of aether."
Yet during Einstein's address, "Aether and the Theory of Relativity", delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, Germany, he says:
"According to the Special Theory of Relativity, both Matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy …. More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the Special Theory of Relativity does not compel us to deny the Aether. We may assume the existence of an Aether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."
To sum up the root of the author's logical fallacies, with all due respect, let me refer to a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his essay The American Scholar:
"Genius is always sufficiently the enemy of genius by over influence. The book, the college, the school of art, the institution of any kind, stop with some past utterance of genius. This is good, say they, — let us hold by this. They pin me down. They look backward and not forward. But genius looks forward: the eyes of man are set in his forehead, not in his hindhead; man hopes: genius creates."
Just as Newton was once considered the benchmark of natural science, Einstein has now taken his place.
"Einstein's principle that no signals can move faster than light implies that separated events in the universe - even those atomic diameter apart - cannot be simultaneously connected."
Although the implications of quantum entanglement were disputed at the now called "Copenhagen interpretation", by the EPR paradox, the explanation for how these particles could reflect each other across vast distances, without exceeding the speed of light, leaves a puzzling conclusion. "The information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'." So in world without a conscious fundamental reality, in a world without some "Underlying Field of Information" here we have information implanted into these particles?? How can information precede intelligence?
"The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it."
This assertion basically says, "we cannot change the world, or else it would be different." Frankly, maybe this just shows how few people believe they actually can change the world. Tell Napoleon that he had little to say about the world.
Lastly, he makes no remarks on any attempts of his to conduct the experiments that have been presented which support many of the claims from such traditions. He has criticized the stars without using a telescope, he has knocked single-cell organisms without using a microscope, he has brought preconceived notions without giving it a try. Direct experience always trumps theories, and thankfully a discerning skeptic can believe what he wants.
To begin with, Dr. Stenger never misses the opportunity to bring up "the supernatural views" from "ancient traditions" in an attempt to discredit his opposing position, by painting it as full of "fantastical notions." Classical use of a red herring. ("We are all the ephemeral forms of a consciousness greater than ourselves") In an era where consciousness itself is still doubted, this would cause alarm to some.
"The myth of quantum consciousness sits well with many whose egos have made it impossible for them to accept the insignificant place science perceives for humanity."
Or perhaps, what doesn't sit well with the adherents of materialism is, that despite our microscopic place in the universe, significance remains. "Oh no! If the universe has purpose, so might I!" The allure of freedom appeals more than responsibility, I suppose.
"Atomic theory and quantum mechanics demonstrated that everything, even space and time, exists in discrete bits - quanta."
But what organizes these particles of quanta? Are not there patterns that govern how matter builds up from the micro to the macro level? "Well their are some random events in qp." Are they truly random, or just causes yet unfound? From my understanding, science always looks for the answers, never attributes it to "it just happened." I mean, isn't that the ridicule thrown on religionists?
"Quantum mechanics does not violate the Copernican principle that the universe cares not a whit about the human race."
Did Copernicus ever say the universe doesn't care about us, or did he just put us in a different place?
"Einstein and other physicists proved that matter and light were composed of particles, wiping away the notion of universal continuity." and "Electricity is the flow of electrons or other charged particles, and that light is a current of particles called photons."
He asserts that matter and light are composed of particles, indeed so, but photons are essentially electromagnetic energy. Even two of physics fundamental equations equate light and matter with energy (Einstein's E=mc2, and Planck's E = hv) So I must ask, why hardly any mention of this elusive energy? Is there only one side to the coin?
"Shortly thereafter, in 1905, Einstein developed his theory of relativity which demonstrated that the concept of an aether was logically inconsistent with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Einstein concluded that electromagnetic waves, including light, could not be the vibrations of aether."
Yet during Einstein's address, "Aether and the Theory of Relativity", delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, Germany, he says:
"According to the Special Theory of Relativity, both Matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy …. More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the Special Theory of Relativity does not compel us to deny the Aether. We may assume the existence of an Aether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."
To sum up the root of the author's logical fallacies, with all due respect, let me refer to a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his essay The American Scholar:
"Genius is always sufficiently the enemy of genius by over influence. The book, the college, the school of art, the institution of any kind, stop with some past utterance of genius. This is good, say they, — let us hold by this. They pin me down. They look backward and not forward. But genius looks forward: the eyes of man are set in his forehead, not in his hindhead; man hopes: genius creates."
Just as Newton was once considered the benchmark of natural science, Einstein has now taken his place.
"Einstein's principle that no signals can move faster than light implies that separated events in the universe - even those atomic diameter apart - cannot be simultaneously connected."
Although the implications of quantum entanglement were disputed at the now called "Copenhagen interpretation", by the EPR paradox, the explanation for how these particles could reflect each other across vast distances, without exceeding the speed of light, leaves a puzzling conclusion. "The information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'." So in world without a conscious fundamental reality, in a world without some "Underlying Field of Information" here we have information implanted into these particles?? How can information precede intelligence?
"The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it."
This assertion basically says, "we cannot change the world, or else it would be different." Frankly, maybe this just shows how few people believe they actually can change the world. Tell Napoleon that he had little to say about the world.
Lastly, he makes no remarks on any attempts of his to conduct the experiments that have been presented which support many of the claims from such traditions. He has criticized the stars without using a telescope, he has knocked single-cell organisms without using a microscope, he has brought preconceived notions without giving it a try. Direct experience always trumps theories, and thankfully a discerning skeptic can believe what he wants.