Does MWI suggest a mind-body duality?

[durant35]

Hi guys,

I was listing some older threads regarding mwi and I found an interesting number of posts by a member named vanesch. So let me first say that I don't want to start a philosophical discussion because this is clearly a physics forum, but he analyzed the 'mind body problem' in a mathematical way. Here is the thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mwi-alice-bob-and-alfred.114207/

My question is, does mwi, or quantum physics itself imply mind body dualism, or a distinction between our subjective experiences and the physical body?

Thank you.

 

[Demystifier]

My question is, does mwi, or quantum physics itself imply mind body dualism, or a distinction between our subjective experiences and the physical body?

Quantum physics and MWI do not imply it, but some interpretations of quantum physics or sub-interpretations of MWI do suggest it.

 

[bhobba]

My question is, does mwi, or quantum physics itself imply mind body dualism, or a distinction between our subjective experiences and the physical body?

No.

QM is a theory about observation that occur in a common-sense objective classical world independent of us.

Some, nowadays fringe, interpretations have conciousness involved.

Thanks
Bill

 

[durant35]

Thanks for the responses Demystifier and Bill. This guy in his posts supposedly (and mathematically, using the Born rule) somehow derived that in mwi our subjective experience is neccessarily dualistic, he of course doesn't go so far to say that consciousness causes collapse or some other bs like that, but I'm also highly sceptical about this what he wrote, so maybe if you have the time and the will you can check the thread and elaborate what has been done in his example.

Regards

 

[bhobba]

Its simply a philosophical view he takes - don't worry about it unless you are into philosophy. And if you are by forum rules this is not the place to discuss it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[durant35]

Its simply a philosophical view he takes - don't worry about it unless you are into philosophy. And if you are by forum rules this is not the place to discuss it.

Thanks
Bill

I know this is not the place to talk about it, that's why it sounded weird that something about the minds can be derived from QM. I just wanted to ensure that default Qm and mwi don't say nothing about the mind body problem but instead focus on what you said, the objective reality.

 

[Demystifier]

I just wanted to ensure that default Qm and mwi don't say nothing about the mind body problem but instead focus on what you said, the objective reality.

Actually, default QM is somewhere in between. It talks about results of measurements, which, on the scale of subjectivity, is somewhere between "mind body problem" and "objective reality". Both "mind body problem" and "objective reality" are often considered too philosophical for default QM.

It is precisely the fact that default QM is somewhere in the middle that makes many people unsatisfied with it. They just want QM to choose one side or the other: Is it about the subjective or about the objective? As a consequence, we have many non-default views of QM which are more specific about that. But to keep balance, the default QM remains in the middle and neutral.

 

[bhobba]

I know this is not the place to talk about it, that's why it sounded weird that something about the minds can be derived from QM.

It can't - and obviously so. Any argument to the contrary is philosophical mumbo jumbo.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

But to keep balance, the default QM remains in the middle and neutral.

Thanks
Bill

 

[vanhees71]

Actually, default QM is somewhere in between. It talks about results of measurements, which, on the scale of subjectivity, is somewhere between "mind body problem" and "objective reality". Both "mind body problem" and "objective reality" are often considered too philosophical for default QM.

So you say that a silicon pixel detector and/or the electronic data aquisition system connected to it has a mind and that there is even a "mind-body problem" for such an apparatus? Well, it's hard to prove or disprove whether a computer has a mind or consciousness or not. It's even complicated for living organisms. Has an amoeba a mind, or some sponge, your pet, a monkey, an ape or only humans? The good "news" is: That's completely irrelevant for physics and doing measurements.

It is precisely the fact that default QM is somewhere in the middle that makes many people unsatisfied with it. They just want QM to choose one side or the other: Is it about the subjective or about the objective? As a consequence, we have many non-default views of QM which are more specific about that. But to keep balance, the default QM remains in the middle and neutral.

QM is a description of (certain aspects) of nature as any scientific theory or model. It describes objective reproducible observations correctly, as far as we know today. That's it. I think this thread is way beyond the tolerable limits of a scientific (!) discussion.

 

[atyy]

So you say that a silicon pixel detector and/or the electronic data aquisition system connected to it has a mind and that there is even a "mind-body problem" for such an apparatus? Well, it's hard to prove or disprove whether a computer has a mind or consciousness or not. It's even complicated for living organisms. Has an amoeba a mind, or some sponge, your pet, a monkey, an ape or only humans? The good "news" is: That's completely irrelevant for physics and doing measurements.

So physicists don't need minds?

 

[Demystifier]

So you say that a silicon pixel detector and/or the electronic data aquisition system connected to it has a mind and that there is even a "mind-body problem" for such an apparatus?

That, of course, is not what I am saying. But I am saying the following:
- If it is not obvious whether a single electron has a position before measurement, then it may not be obvious whether a single electron has any property at all before measurement.
- But then it may also not be obvious whether the atom has any property at all before measurement.
- But then it may also not be obvious whether any object made of atoms has proprties before measurement.
- But then it may also not be obvious whether silicon pixel detector has properties before measurement of the detector.
- But then it may also not be obvious whether silicon pixel detector exists without observation by a conscious being.

And finally, for anyone who chooses that some (but not all) of those are obvious, it may not be obvious to specify where exactly the cut between obvious and not obvious is.

Clearly, black is not white. But with a 50 shades of gray, where exactly the cut between black and white is?

 

[vanhees71]

Of course, it's nonsense to claim that an electron doesn't have any property if it's not measured. If you know that there is somewhere and electron that's the property that it is an electron. I don't understand the point of the entire discussion to be honest. I think, it's high time to close the thread.

 

[atyy]

Of course, it's nonsense to claim that an electron doesn't have any property if it's not measured. If you know that there is somewhere and electron that's the property that it is an electron. I don't understand the point of the entire discussion to be honest. I think, it's high time to close the thread.

What property does it have when it is not measured?

 

[naima]

Atyy, you are too pessimistic.
We know that the double of its spin is an integer.

 

[jerromyjon]

We know that the double of its spin is an integer.

Not from what I understand, 4 half spins = 2 times the square root of 2 for maximally entangled inequality...

 

[jerromyjon]

2 times the square root of 2 for maximally entangled inequality...

No, that is not right either, but isn't is greater than or less than 2?

 

[atyy]

Atyy, you are too pessimistic.
We know that the double of its spin is an integer.

I guess I should have asked: does it have any dynamical properties?

 

[naima]

It seems that the "no property" will win, but what do you think of these sentences:
Particles can be prepared in the same state.
Information is physical (it from bit)
It cannot travel ftl.
A qbit cannot be cloned nor erased.
It flows in the environment.
there is no interference if you have which path information?

 

[atyy]

It seems that the "no property" will win