The logical truth and reality of God's believing mind.

[Whatsisface]

Again. Informally, that's fine. Go ahead and say, "So-and-so said this...what do you think?" Totally fine.

Formally? It's a fallacious and irrational argument.

Even though what's being appealed to isn't so much the expert, but why the expert says this or that?

No idea. It's all inductive reasoning and therefore guesswork. Not dismissing it out of hand, but I'm not impressed nor do I worship it as many do here.

So, if scientists think that because of what relativity predicts about adjusting the clocks on satellites because they run slower than clocks on Earth, and doing so results in synchronization of said clocks, that's guesswork?

Hope this helped a bit.

Thanks!

Not sure it does.

 

[Woody50]

Even though what you're appealing to isn't so much the expert, but why the expert says this or that?

I'm not understanding you. Who is "you" (you're) in your sentence? As for your question, I need clarity on what you mean there, as well.

So, if scientists think that because of what relativity predicts about adjusting the clocks on satellites because they run slower than clocks on Earth, and doing so results in synchronization of said clocks, that's guesswork?

Never said it was. Maybe you need to scroll up and read again? I'd also recommend taking a couple of years to learn logic. Again, not an offense, but it's clear you're not understanding this.

Not sure it does.

Fair enough.

Good talking to you, though.

 

[Whatsisface]

I'm not understanding you. Who is "you" (you're) in your sentence? As for your question, I need clarity on what you mean there, as well.

Anyone.

If I appeal to Einstein, am I appealing to just the man or the reasons he thinks as he does?

Never said it was. Maybe you need to scroll up and read again?

This doesn't illuminate what you mean.

I'd also recommend taking a couple of years to learn logic. Again, not an offense, but it's clear you're not understanding this.

Really? Are you not appealing to yourself as an authority here?

Fair enough.

Good talking to you, though.

Ok?

 

[Woody50]

Anyone.

If I appeal to Einstein, am I appealing to just the man or the reasons he thinks as he does?

Fine by me...just don't do so in an formal argument.

This doesn't illuminate what you mean.

How can I help, then?

Really? Are you not appealing to yourself as an authority here?

OH! I get you!!!

You have an agenda!!!

Uff da.

G'night.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Careful readers will note that the Carroll quote did not just assert that Tercon's claim about QM was wrong, but also explained why. They will also note that the point in contention was not some matter of empirical fact, but rather a point about what a specific scientific theory (or set of theories) says in order to explain certain phenomena. And an actual theoretical physicist is better qualified than anyone to say what it is that a scientific theory actually says.

Again, best to ignore the troll.

 

[Woody50]

Careful readers will note that the Carroll quote did not just assert that Tercon's claim about QM was wrong, but also explained why. They will also note that the point in contention was not some matter of empirical fact, but rather a point about what a specific scientific theory (or set of theories) says in order to explain certain phenomena. And an actual theoretical physicist is better qualified than anyone to say what it is that a scientific theory actually says.

Assertions.

Dude...stop talking to the ether. It's weird.

 

[Whatsisface]

Fine by me...just don't do so in an formal argument.

But, if someone gives the reasons as to why they think as they do, you're not so much appealing to the authority of the person, but rather to the reasons they think as they do.

How can I help, then?

By being clear instead of offhand.

OH! I get you!!!

You have an agenda!!!

Uff da.

G'night.

Yes, I have an agenda, it's called logic, the thing you accused me of not having, but now you're running away from.

 

[Tercon]

So, if I want to know something about quantum mechanics, I shouldn't go to an expert on quantum mechanics, right?

Experts don't make anything true. That's just a appeal to authority.

You have to rely on belief in order to make the truth and reality known to you and it's only the truth and reality that can make you believe. I am just saying things that are undeniably true and you can't find a reason to disbelieve it, because if you could then you would just say what YOUR own reason is for your disagreement and not rely on someone else's.

Every bit of evidence that I have ever seen required and entailed observation and measurement, and both entail a believing mind in order to observe or undertake.

 

[Whatsisface]

Experts don't make anything true. That's just a appeal to authority.

True. It's the reasons they give for thinking as they do that count.

You have to rely on belief in order to make the truth and reality known to you and it's only the truth and reality that can make you believe. I am just saying things that are undeniably true and you can't find a reason to disbelieve it, because if you could then you would just say what YOUR own reason is for your disagreement and not rely on someone else's.

Every bit of evidence that I have ever seen required and entailed observation and measurement, and both entail a believing mind in order to observe or undertake.

But a mind should only believe what the evidence says. So the observation and measurement come first, then the mind believes, or not.

 

[Tercon]

Sort of. But when it comes to quantum mechanics most people have no chance of an appreciation of it's ins and outs, so we have to defer to the experts. If it's an expert worth his/her salt, he/she will say what we know and importantly why, and what we don't and what we can only speculate.

If you need an expert to tell you how and why the truth and reality is known to you, then you need another kind of "expert" and it's not a physicist.

Now, when it comes to a certain poster here making claims about quantum mechanics or a known expert in the field, who is it that's the most rational person to turn to?
Yes.


What does science need experts for? Really?

Not quite, no.

Actually if you think QM somehow represents something in reality at all, then I am a better equipped to interpret QM than Carroll is. All Carroll as done is demonstrate how and why he can't interpret QM, because he has already denied the ONLY means by which interpretation can take place.

 

[Whatsisface]

If you need an expert to tell you how and why the truth and reality is known to you, then you need another kind of "expert" and it's not a physicist.

You're doing it again, baiting and switching. The above isn't what we were talking about. That's dishonest.

Actually if you think QM somehow represents something in reality at all, then I am a better equipped to interpret QM than Carroll is. All Carroll as done is demonstrate how and why he can't interpret QM, because he has already denied the ONLY means by which interpretation can take place.

Yeah right.

 

[Tercon]

True. It's the reasons they give for thinking as they do that count.

No-one including Carrol has ever gave a reason as to how and why a believing mind isn't necessary in order to make anything known, including the truth, reality QM known to us.

But a mind should only believe what the evidence says.

A mind should only believe what is true in reality. And it is ONLY the truth and reality that can make that occur.

So the observation and measurement come first, then the mind believes, or not.

Actually "observation and measurement" entails and requires a believing mind in order for "observation and measurement" to take place to begin with. That's why reality must be a believing mind, because it all starts and started in and with a believing mind, because outside of a believing mind nothing can be done, known or undertaken in the first place. Understand.

 

[Whatsisface]

No-one including Carrol has ever gave a reason as to how and why a believing mind isn't necessary in order to make anything known, including the truth, reality QM known to us.

Why should he, no one ever shown it is.

A mind should only believe what is true in reality. And it is ONLY the truth and reality that can make that occur.

True, but so what?

Actually "observation and measurement" entails and requires a believing mind in order for "observation and measurement" to take place to begin with. That's why reality must be a believing mind, because it all starts and started in and with a believing mind, because outside of a believing mind nothing can be done, known or undertaken in the first place. Understand.

No, if you keep going back, you have to learn first.

 

[Tercon]

You're doing it again, baiting and switching. The above isn't what we were talking about. That's dishonest.

If you are referring to or denoting anything other than the truth and reality, then you are strawmanning and denoting something other than what I am, because I am always trying to exposé you to the the truth and realty and nothing else. Even when I am referring to QM.

Yeah right.

Does the truth matter to you at all? If it does, then a believing mind is the only way and mode by which it can be known to you. And when Carroll says that "We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem", then he sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM and not the solution as to how and why QM is like it is. He sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM because he is a unbeliever and to him a believing mind isn't capable of making the truth and reality of QM known to him. But he hasn't shown in any way or means by which the truth and reality in QM is made known to us outside of our conscious believing minds and that's a real problem for anyone promoting a mind independent reality or QM. Understand?

"No. We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem. We've seen several counterexamples. Many-Worlds is an explicit example, accounting for the apparent collapse of the wave function using the purely mechanistic process of decoherence and branching. We're allowed to contemplate the possibility that consciousness is somehow involved, but it's just as certainly not forced on us by anything we currently understand. [...] We have very straightforward and compelling models of the world in which reality exists independently of us; there's no need to think we bring reality into existence by observing or thinking about it." (Sean Carroll, Something Deeply Hidden, pp.224-225"

 

[Tercon]

Why should he, no one ever shown it is.

Because if he is pretending that the truth and reality can be known anywhere else or by another means other than a believing mind, then he needs to let us know that. And he is doing just that when he says "We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem", because "consciousness" requires and entails a believing mind that's why.

True, but so what?

Because the truth and reality requires and entails a believing mind.

No, if you keep going back, you have to learn first.

Strawman. If QM doesn't somehow represent the truth and reality for you, then please make that known. So, we can dispense with your strawmanning.

 

[Tercon]

Careful readers will note that the Carroll quote did not just assert that Tercon's claim about QM was wrong, but also explained why. They will also note that the point in contention was not some matter of empirical fact, but rather a point about what a specific scientific theory (or set of theories) says in order to explain certain phenomena. And an actual theoretical physicist is better qualified than anyone to say what it is that a scientific theory actually says.

Again, best to ignore the troll.

Reader the truth doesn't matter to this poster.

If it does, then a believing mind is the only way and mode by which it can be known to you. And when Carroll says that "We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem", then he sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM and not the solution as to how and why QM is like it is. He sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM because he is a unbeliever and to him a believing mind isn't capable of making the truth and reality of QM known to him. But he hasn't shown in any way or means by which the truth and reality in QM is made known to us outside of our conscious believing minds and that's a real problem for anyone promoting a mind independent reality or mind independent QM. Understand?

And if you and Carroll both think that the truth and reality can be known outside of "consciousness" and a believing mind and somewhere else and by another means other than a believing mind, then you both need to let us know what and where that is.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Reader the truth doesn't matter to this poster.

If it does, then a believing mind is the only way and mode by which it can be known to you. And when Carroll says that "We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem", then he sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM and not the solution as to how and why QM is like it is. He sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM because he is a unbeliever and to him a believing mind isn't capable of making the truth and reality of QM known to him. But he hasn't shown in any way or means by which the truth and reality in QM is made known to us outside of our conscious believing minds and that's a real problem for anyone promoting a mind independent reality or mind independent QM. Understand?

And if you and Carroll both think that the truth and reality can be known outside of "consciousness" and a believing mind and somewhere else and by another means other than a believing mind, then you both need to let us know what and where that is.

You are so deeply confused it's hard to know where to start. Carroll was not talking about how things are known. He was talking about whether or not conscious minds are required in QM for wave function collapse. You say they are, and he explained how and why you are wrong about that. Your insistence that in your complete ignorance of science you are somehow better equipped to interpret QM than an actual professional physicist is truly ridiculous. It would be like someone who has never read the Bible insisting that they are better equipped to be a Christian minister than an actual Christian minister.

 

[Whatsisface]

If you are referring to or denoting anything other than the truth and reality, then you are strawmanning and denoting something other than what I am, because I am always trying to exposé you to the the truth and realty and nothing else. Even when I am referring to QM.

It was a bait and switch.

Does the truth matter to you at all?

Yes, of course.

If it does, then a believing mind is the only way and mode by which it can be known to you. And when Carroll says that "We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem", then he sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM and not the solution as to how and why QM is like it is. He sees "consciousness" as a "problem" in QM because he is a unbeliever and to him a believing mind isn't capable of making the truth and reality of QM known to him. But he hasn't shown in any way or means by which the truth and reality in QM is made known to us outside of our conscious believing minds and that's a real problem for anyone promoting a mind independent reality or QM. Understand?

So, Carrol is wrong because he doesn't agree with you. Sorry, but who am I going to believe? An actual expert in the field, or someone on a backwater site on the internet who isn't making much sense and isn't an expert in the field?

"No. We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem. We've seen several counterexamples. Many-Worlds is an explicit example, accounting for the apparent collapse of the wave function using the purely mechanistic process of decoherence and branching. We're allowed to contemplate the possibility that consciousness is somehow involved, but it's just as certainly not forced on us by anything we currently understand. [...] We have very straightforward and compelling models of the world in which reality exists independently of us; there's no need to think we bring reality into existence by observing or thinking about it." (Sean Carroll, Something Deeply Hidden, pp.224-225"

Yes,

 

[Whatsisface]

Because if he is pretending that the truth and reality can be known anywhere else or by another means other than a believing mind, then he needs to let us know that. And he is doing just that when he says "We don't need to invoke any special role for consciousness in order to address the quantum measurement problem", because "consciousness" requires and entails a believing mind that's why.

So what that truth and reality can be known in a mind? No one disagrees with this.

Because the truth and reality requires and entails a believing mind.

No. The truth and reality requires a mind to be aware of it, it isn't entailed by a mind.

Strawman. If QM doesn't somehow represent the truth and reality for you, then please make that known. So, we can dispense with your strawmanning.

What? QM doesn't represent truth and reality, its part of reality.

 

[Tercon]

It was a bait and switch.

Strawman. Deal with what's being said to you instead evading and bluffing.

Yes, of course.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

So, Carrol is wrong because he doesn't agree with you. Sorry, but who am I going to believe? An actual expert in the field, or someone on a backwater site on the internet who isn't making much sense and isn't an expert in the field?

Yes,

He's wrong because he just can't and didn't show how and why "observation and measurement" doesn't require and entail "consciousness" and a believing mind in order to do so. That's what makes him wrong, as he didn't make a case showing that "consciousness" wasn't necessary for wave function collapse and entanglement to occur.

So what that truth and reality can be known in a mind? No one disagrees with this.

Strawman and more specifically; 'the truth and reality can ONLY be known in and with a believing mind', don't forget the 'believing' part, because that's the part that makes the truth and reality known to you. And without it you are obviously left ignorant.

No. The truth and reality requires a mind to be aware of it, it isn't entailed by a mind.

If you can't know it without a believing mind because it is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to you, then how is it possible that "it isn't entailed"? See you are pretending you believe that belief is necessary and entailed, but your own words exposes you as a unbeliever of belief's necessity to make the truth and reality known to you. You are oblivious to you ignorance of how and why the truth and reality is known to you.

What? QM doesn't represent truth and reality, its part of reality.

If QM is a "part of reality", then it should be able to "represent truth and reality". Did you forget how the truth and logic work old son?