3 ms·
I think what he's trying to express may have some value, but I agree that he's misreading quantum physics in a number of ways to try and use it to prop up his p
by nikdaheratik 11y ago
I think what he's trying to express may have some value, but I agree that he's misreading quantum physics in a number of ways to try and use it to prop up his philosophical ideas.
The observer affecting the outcome of the experiment is an interesting property of quantum physics, but it only affects very small objects that have reached the point where they are almost at the edge of perceptible reality. And it really has nothing to do with consciousness or anything else he was putting across in the interview.
And of course, since the person doing the interview hasn't even read basic pop-science stuff on this kind of physics, the guy doesn't get called out on this.
- colordrops 11y agoI hear your argument against these sorts of quantum physics inspired models of consciousness, but I could never understand them. Since you imply a greater understanding of quantum physics than the author, perhaps you could help me answer these questions: If properties like non-locality, position uncertainty, etc are real at the small scale, how are they not real at the large scale? Isn't the macroscopic world just a large number of these oddly behaving particles averaging out into emergent forms and behaviors? And arent these macroscopic forms and behaviors no more real than tiger depicted on a computer screen, which is really just a conglomeration of pixels? Or is there some special aspect of the universe that exists at the macroscopic level and not the small scale?