Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(06-07-2017, 04:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm.  The quantum equations show may solutions, many things that might come to pass.  They only provide a probability of which of these things might come to pass.

Copenhagen presumes that as one can only observe one universe, it is natural to assume that this and only this universe is real.  All other universes can be presumed not to matter, or not to exist.

Many worlds acknowledges that only one universe is going to be observable and observed, but takes a leap in saying that all solutions to the equation are equal.  The are all presumed to be equally real, though only one can be observed.

In most to every matter, the two perspectives use the same identical equations, and get the same identical probabilistic answers.

My system proposes that the more emotional future becomes more probable, more likely to be observed.  Thus, as shown experimentally, the future effects the past.  If a team scores at a sporting event, that team and its fans become emotional, jump up and down, scream, and otherwise express their approval by increasing their metabolism, thus increasing the number of quantum events happening, which increases the number of alternate worlds associated with the score on the field.  At the same time, the opposite team and their fans will be depressed, emotionally and metabolically.  They will precede to create less alternate realities.

Simplistically speaking, if there are more alternate futures where something happens, you are more apt to observe one of those futures.  While the emotion and the probability changing metabolic shifts come after the score, the chances of scoring is effected by what happens after the score.  That’s what I mean be ‘reverse time causality,’ the future effecting the past.  The desire to applaud after something good happens is an instinctive form of ‘magic’.  It is an instinct that creates probability shifts favoring good outcomes.

Whether or not there is an emotional probability shift, the equations no doubt about it say there are more than one possible outcome, and that one can only project probabilities.  If you honor quantum physics at all, one has to accept a universe that is basically random.  That is what the equations used by both Copenhagen and many worlds say.  There is more than one solution.  We will only observe one solution.  In advance, we cannot say which solution, only how likely each is to be observed.  Thus, the universe is random.

Wisdom?  This requires well evolved brains.  Brains are incredibly complex.  There is no room for this sort of thing in the equations.

To my mind,  you are creating your system of thought to extend the idea of supernatural beings or universal super minds.  These ideas are common in agricultural age systems of thought.  You too might be accused of twisting your mode of thought to sustain old ways of thinking.

I’d wield Occam’s Razor.  Gods, observers effecting quantum events, universal super minds, are all unnecessary hypotheses.  I don’t need any of them to explain my universe, even though I do see mind effecting matter, if only by recognizing good events and pushing one’s body to race one’s metabolism after a good event.

But if you are saying the universe is not random, your viewpoint is not at all compatible with quantum theory.  It is you that are embracing Newtonian thought, that the universe is clockwork, that there is only one possible solution to the equations, only one possible outcome.

Nice try! You can articulate your view, and I will articulate mine.

IF there really is "mind," which you refer to, then it can't be explained as matter.

The universal mind or cosmic consciousness did occur to a few mystic esoteric initiates and philosophers in the agricultural age, but they were hardly the dominant paradigm or attitude shaping the culture. Still, it lies at the heart of all the religions. Traditional religion in The West remained authoritarian; roughly the idea that a personal god created the world; the Big Daddy in the sky. In the Orient, though, mystical or at least organic views of the cosmos were more prevalent, and so they remain. Modernists adopted materialism; but it's outdated, and post-modern and new age views embrace consciousness again, in an updated way.

Uncertain or probable does not mean random, as I understand the term. I view probability as more a statement of the limits of knowledge, rather than a definite proclamation that the world happens all by chance. But yes, I am all for minds. I don't use the term supernatural, because there's no division between consciousness and nature; everything is conscious. Pan psychism. Right now, I can't prove it's compatible with quantum theory; maybe another time    

(and on another thread....) See my new thread "New Paradigms" in the spirituality forum.

Gotta go now.