Vicsun wrote:"there is no reality in the absence of human observation, or for the purpose of our debate, human consciousness."
Can you give me a source for this, then? Specifically the part about human observation (as opposed to observation by an animal or an inanimate object) and human consciousness influencing reality.
You're taking the "human" part of that description a little bit too literally. When we're talking about measurements at the quantum level, I suppose what we're really talking about is what a physicist can "see" with the use of scientific instruments, not an ordinary human being, and not the naked eye. I don't believe in Martians, and animals can't grasp the
concept of scientific measurement/observation, so the only reason why the term "human" comes into play here is because we're talking about scientific activity, which is specifically a human endeavor.
As for the source of this idea, a great place to start would be "Quantum Mysteries for Anyone" by N. David Mermin, but I can't find a free version for everyone to read because it is still under copyright. However, you can find indirect references to it all over the place because Mermin famously made the claim, "The moon is demonstrably not there when no one is looking," and he devised an experiment to prove it that even a non-scientific audience can understand. (Mermin is really good at that, and I'd like to read a book of his that I just found out about.)
Here is a related article by Mermin.
For a nice summary of the debate between the realists such as Einstein and the idealists such as Bohr and Heisenberg (proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation), try
this article. Their arguments are what gave rise to Mermin's own philosophical musings. Take a look at the author's use of the terms "human mind" and "human consciousness" and maybe you'll see the kind of context I intended.
Vicsun wrote:there's nothing special about human observation or human consciousness that would influence the world on a quantum level, and QM certainly doesn't pave the way for a link between two separate conscious minds.
I'm not so sure that human choices cannot change the behavior of subatomic particles. If they can't, then I don't see any choice but to believe in determinism, but I'm not ready to give up on free will just yet.
So that's why I welcome speculation (as long as it's reasonable).
I agree that QM does not pave the way for a link between two separate conscious minds. In the first place, QM is not concerned with such things. In the second place, even if we have the ability to alter the effects of subatomic activity inside our own brains, telepathy is too big of a leap for me. I actually said, "I'm not saying that there is any type of 'spiritual communication' between two souls," and that's actually what I was alluding to. But I'm sort of an Idealist myself in the classical sense of the word, and I think if we start talking about things, we might eventually learn something about the things we're talking about, and if we end up with a theory that accurately explains how things work, then that sounds like progress to me. So I don't discourage any sort of reasonable speculation.
The book I mentioned by Albert Messiah (it's a well-known classic) not only explains the basic principles of quantum mechanics, it also explains why the well-defined principles of classical physics do not apply to phenomena at the quantum level. It avoids some of the loopier philosophical leaps that someone like Heisenberg was famous for, but the fundamentals of QM make it clear that you can't describe all phenomena in classical terms.
I take Neils Bohr at his word when he claimed that QM was not about reality. He said:
"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words. Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We are suspended in language. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not lose their objective or ambiguous character." (as quoted in "The Philosophy of Niels Bohr" by Aage Petersen)
My own interpretation is that just because QM has a limited scope in what it attempts to describe, that doesn't mean we can't resort to other types of descriptions to explain the things that QM does not address. And I don't think it's necessary for those other descriptions to be fully consistent with a theory such as QM that has no place for them. Just as QM does not pave the way for a spiritually-oriented theory of reality, I don't think it necessarily excludes any other theory from being operative on its own terms. You just have to use your own judgment to decide whether you think such theories are crap.
