Regarding Quantum Mechanics and Materialism

Category : Randomness
Regarding Quantum Mechanics and Materialismby wpjljron.Regarding Quantum Mechanics and MaterialismThis is a response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM by Inspiring Philosophy (with help from Johanan Raatz). Yeah, that’s right, I’m addressing …

This is a response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM by Inspiring Philosophy (with help from Johanan Raatz). Yeah, that’s right, I’m addressing …

Author: 

Related Posts

25 Responses

  1. rstevewarmorycom9 April, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Nope, nope. I’m a physicist. Not-observed is non-demonstrable. Even devices
    “observing” only amount to a later observation by aware beings. Realists
    who don’t understand theory of science always make these mistaken
    interpretations of QM. There is no defensible refutation of Idealism. It
    isn’t possible, ask Descartes. Now making assumptions about what this might
    mean is also non-defensible. Your QM Realism is also such an unsupportable
    assumption. There are NO provable States without observation. The
    Copenhagen Int is not actually supportable. MWI explains more features of
    QM, the objection of Realists regarding “wastefulness” is irrelevant, since
    only ideas exist anyway, and they’re quite inexpensive. Try to show that
    anything exists apart from thought. Descartes couldn’t do it, and you can’t
    either. Even our supposed “sensations” and “perceptions” are actually only
    thoughts.

  2. Frank Later9 April, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Overall, an excellent video! A sound debunking of one of IP’s hobby horses.
    Still, a few observations:
    1) IP seems smart enough to study stuff like QM, but he appears to be
    incapable of the introspection that you refer to somewhere halfway. He is
    incapable of testing his own beliefs, and weeding out prejudices. That’s
    why he keeps falling into the pitfalls of fallacies like strawmen and
    equivocation (“conscious observer”), and false dichotomies and arguments
    from ignorance (“something else is false, therefore god”).
    2) You omitted Time as part of QM reality, when talking about the
    matter-based reality that we know. (Guess you didn’t want to get into that
    snake pit. 😉 )
    3) Magic is by its very definition an argument from ignorance. Even if all
    other possibilities were eliminated, it’d still be nothing more than a
    pseudo-intelligent way of saying “I don’t know how”. I can’t imagine you’d
    really go for that, ever.

    My estimation is that IP is too entangled in his religious delusion to ever
    come out of it, so in that respect I think your vid is pointless, but it
    serves a great purpose in protecting people who might fall for his schtick.
    And, of course, it is very entertaining and reflective for people like me
    (and yourself, I think), who just want to know more about how this blasted
    thing we live in works. 🙂

    I hope that my observations didn’t change the reality of your video. ;)

  3. woobmonkey p8 April, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    …”I’ll try not to be a condescending…”

    A part of me cried. PoMo is just as stupid as any belief-based outlook;
    even with a better whitewashing through vocabulary – and so deserves no
    mercy.

    Happily, now *you* get to use nice, big, specific language to point out
    just how idiotic they are.

    Anyone is welcome to disbelieve in reality; stepping in front of a bus
    would prove them wrong quite nicely.

    On a related note, have you read this, Marty?
    http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

    Pure fucking high-larity.

    Thanks for choosing better targets, by the way. You still rock my world!

    Oh, wait. “Never go full Deepak.” Pure Gold, man, pure gold.

  4. akli maron8 April, 2014 at 7:31 pm

    there should be an official grading of wrongness with the values “jews are
    from space wrong” and “the earth is 6000 years old wrong”
    besides marty, don’t you know that if you think of something, the universe
    will make is so because quantum mechanics?

  5. akhrod8 April, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    I’m confused now. In entanglement, when the spin is “measured”, does the
    other one changes instantaneously or it’s like the dice example? Or it’s
    still unknown? I too thought that the Bell’s experiment proved locality
    false. I need to spend some days with a physicist :D

  6. ShunTachibana8 April, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    “Never go full Deepak.” Okay, I need to start using that expression. 

  7. richo618 April, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Excellent explanations of the basic principles…
    and the common misunderstandings of QM.

  8. Necromancer12308 April, 2014 at 11:29 am

    I already know Raatz was an idiot with regards to his view on
    Homosexuality, he’s gone out of his way make as many stupid arguments
    against it as possible including the “If we allow them homos to marry than
    we’d have to let kiddy-fiddlers marry children and chicken-lovers marry
    chicken!” slippery slope argument favored by the jackasses like Rush
    Limbaugh. He’s clearly gone out of his way into putting as little critical
    thought into his dislike of homosexuals as possible.

    As for the actual topic of Quantum Mechanics it’s a topic I find
    fascinating.

  9. KalimaShaktide8 April, 2014 at 5:16 am

    And not a single “OF COARSE !!!” :)

  10. zero1321328 April, 2014 at 4:14 am

    I don’t get it. Doesn’t the idea that some changes depend on observation
    sort of contradict the concept of omniscience? I mean, if there’s an
    observer observing everything, why do OUR additional observations do
    anything?

    It just seems like a self-defeating notion of you want to use it to argue
    for the existence of an omniscient being.

  11. raythink8 April, 2014 at 3:59 am

    +Martymer 81 Just for thought. IP and Raatz always regard “interaction” as
    “observation”. They claim that all evidence are “empirical evidence”. When
    all evidence are empirical, consciousness involves. Following that logic,
    all interactions in QM is being observed by conscious mind.

  12. ozmoroid8 April, 2014 at 3:53 am

    The “observer” in QM can be a non-living object, such as a video camera. I
    have never understood the claim that *consciousness* specifically is the
    cause of wave-function collapse. 

  13. nunya bisnass8 April, 2014 at 2:49 am

    The really troubling part in all of this, is that all of this information,
    and all of the these distinctions and more are readily available within the
    first two pages of a google search. You can even cross reference the
    material to get a consistent interpretation to make sure that you’re not
    being mislead, and so many still get these crazy ideas despite the much
    higher probability of coming across the correct information first.

    Yes, qm is complicated, but it isn’t so complicated that you’re going to
    see things that aren’t there (like reality being dependant on observation
    by conscious beings). To see things that aren’t there, requires an answer
    in search of a question. 

  14. Andrey Larionov8 April, 2014 at 1:15 am

    Thanks, Martymer. QP is one of the things I completely don’t understand and
    you make it simple enough for me (and others like me) to grasp.

  15. WarpRulez8 April, 2014 at 1:15 am

    One extremely strange form of argumentation, which seems in essence what
    this guy is also doing, is trying to prove that something supernatural
    exists, and once that has been proven, it somehow automatically implies the
    existence of a god. It’s hard to grasp the logic behind this, but it seems
    to be a classical fallacious argument of the form:

    1) God is supernatural.
    2) Supernatural things exist.
    3) Therefore God exists.

    There are, of course, at least three things horribly wrong in this. (I
    think the proper name for the major fallacy here is “fallacy of the
    undistributed middle”, but that’s of course not the only problem in it.)
    And you could use the same logic to prove anything you want. A completely
    equivalent deduction would be:

    1) Unicorns are horned animals.
    2) Horned animals demonstrably exist.
    3) Therefore unicorns exist.

    This deduction is actually even better because the second premise is
    actually true (unlike in the deduction about god above.)

  16. I-Theist8 April, 2014 at 1:12 am

    Forget quantum mechanics. The real issue here is that it doesn’t make sense
    to speak of an “in it self” (reality) independent of mind. That’s Like
    saying “imagine a world without imagination” you can’t. Because any world
    one imagines will be based on this one since all conceptualization is based
    on experience. Therefore a mind independent world is non sense. Everything
    we know is based on our own observation. I think the subject object
    dichotomy is only apparent. 

  17. GreatPirateSolomon8 April, 2014 at 12:10 am

    “Never go full Deepak.” Ive got to use that one.

  18. Kaycee K7 April, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    When will we see Raatz’s breakthrough involving revival of James Clerk
    Maxwell’s postulates regarding light waves and the aether? That stationary
    gas he posited filled the entire universe, the substance that light waves
    “waved”? The aether that no scientific device could detect? The substance
    that repeated experiments suggested *did not exist*?

    Is that aether….god?

  19. JamesFrancesco7 April, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    “never go full depak”
    i want that on a shirt

  20. InspiringPhilosophy7 April, 2014 at 11:09 pm

    Thanks for the response. I’ll be posting a rebuttal on my blog in two or
    three weeks.

  21. AntiCitizenX7 April, 2014 at 10:54 pm

    Very well done.

  22. King Crocoduck7 April, 2014 at 10:21 pm

    My approach to science is pretty instrumentalist so I don’t really weigh in
    much on which interpretation of quantum is the best. I’m more of a “just do
    the math and get the right answers” guy, so Copenhagen is where I currently
    stand. Who knows, though… once I get to grad school, that might change.

  23. fanghur7 April, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    I was hoping you could clarify this. The Many Worlds Interpretation is not
    the same thing as the multiverse, right? In the case of the MWI, the entire
    multiverse that we inhabit (for sake of argument) would be considered a
    single ‘world’, while in the MWI there would in principle be as many
    different multiverses as there were ‘worlds’. Is that more or less the
    accurate way of thinking about it, or am I misunderstanding it?

  24. TheMessianicManic7 April, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    This is great. I regret that I never picked up on the fact that Raatz
    conflates the idea that observation causes wave-function collapse with the
    idea that observation creates reality itself. So obviously silly.

  25. KnownNoMore7 April, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Prepare for a shitload of semi-scientific sounding word salad from Raatz
    and pals in the comment section

    Fantastic video though. It’s especially important to distinguish between
    scientific terminology and metaphysical terminology. InspiringRaatz equates
    between the two like crazy

Leave a Reply