Citta
Skepdick
Yupp, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most common one, but here arises the misconception of what an observation/measurement actually means in terms of quantum mechanics, and thus back to my first post in this thread. Here I tried to explain what an observation actually means and how conscious observers need not be directly involved in any collapse of the wavefunction into a definite state. Again, the conjecture of yours that it really is consciousness that determines the reality of the cosmos is without merit. Read for example this article Wayback Machine
And I would like to again quote from PhD theoretical physicist Victor J. Stenger as I did earlier;
"The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. 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. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."
and Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman (the discoverer of the muon neutrino in 1962 and the bottom quark in 1977, making major contributions to physics) describes all of this as "moo shoo physics".
I can give some of the other references again, if you wish to read them;
As for your question of proving, it is not me who has the burden of proof because I haven't made any incredible claims, but for the record I can't prove it directly, of course. In order to determine whether or not something is there, we have to perceive it somehow. However, my many examples used as questions to you earlier makes a pretty strong case for the fact that these events happen independently of us. The whole of science suggest this, as we study objective phenomena perceived by anyone. Just because we have to make measurements and observations doesn't automatically mean that consciousness determines the properties of the universe. I again refer you to the many questions I raised, for which I have still not received an answer, as well as previous posts and references posted here. The consequences of consciousness really creating reality would lead to absurd conclusions that run contrary to about everything we know; objective measurements wouldn't make any sense, evolution wouldn't make any sense, the history of the universe before consciousness came into the soup, the room example I gave, the very fact that we can't control anything with our minds wouldn't make sense and so on and so forth; Occams' razor cuts right through this pretty much, and would lead us to rationally think that this assumption is not a good one.
In short, there really is no rational reason, or anything to suggest, that consciousness truly begets matter and that the universe is dependent upon conscious observers in order to be there. It might be possible, sure, but likely? Not much. Just because we are perceivers and participators of our universe, it doesn't follow that we are the creators of it. And just because we can't prove that there aren't unicorns residing in every house, placed in such a way that we can't see them, it doesn't mean that it is rational to assume they actually do. The same goes for Santa Claus, gnomes in the shed, the tooth fairy or any other hypothesis of similar nature - as well as the need for conscious observers in the universe. The hypothesis that there is an objective universe is likely to be falsifiable as well; if we could, by conscious intent, move mountains with our minds, make everyone do what you think or something else that should be possible if consciousness creates reality, then this would be a clear shot at the hypothesis and show its falsehood. No such evidence exists, however.
And I would like to again quote from PhD theoretical physicist Victor J. Stenger as I did earlier;
"The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. 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. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."
and Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman (the discoverer of the muon neutrino in 1962 and the bottom quark in 1977, making major contributions to physics) describes all of this as "moo shoo physics".
I can give some of the other references again, if you wish to read them;
As for your question of proving, it is not me who has the burden of proof because I haven't made any incredible claims, but for the record I can't prove it directly, of course. In order to determine whether or not something is there, we have to perceive it somehow. However, my many examples used as questions to you earlier makes a pretty strong case for the fact that these events happen independently of us. The whole of science suggest this, as we study objective phenomena perceived by anyone. Just because we have to make measurements and observations doesn't automatically mean that consciousness determines the properties of the universe. I again refer you to the many questions I raised, for which I have still not received an answer, as well as previous posts and references posted here. The consequences of consciousness really creating reality would lead to absurd conclusions that run contrary to about everything we know; objective measurements wouldn't make any sense, evolution wouldn't make any sense, the history of the universe before consciousness came into the soup, the room example I gave, the very fact that we can't control anything with our minds wouldn't make sense and so on and so forth; Occams' razor cuts right through this pretty much, and would lead us to rationally think that this assumption is not a good one.
In short, there really is no rational reason, or anything to suggest, that consciousness truly begets matter and that the universe is dependent upon conscious observers in order to be there. It might be possible, sure, but likely? Not much. Just because we are perceivers and participators of our universe, it doesn't follow that we are the creators of it. And just because we can't prove that there aren't unicorns residing in every house, placed in such a way that we can't see them, it doesn't mean that it is rational to assume they actually do. The same goes for Santa Claus, gnomes in the shed, the tooth fairy or any other hypothesis of similar nature - as well as the need for conscious observers in the universe. The hypothesis that there is an objective universe is likely to be falsifiable as well; if we could, by conscious intent, move mountains with our minds, make everyone do what you think or something else that should be possible if consciousness creates reality, then this would be a clear shot at the hypothesis and show its falsehood. No such evidence exists, however.
