Smok Wawelski napisał(a):
Po prostu PŚ nie koloryzuje postaw ludzkich i raczej nie nadaje się do czytania dla dzieci - chyba, że fragmentami.
Zgadza się. Ale ST nie koloryzuje także postaw boskich. Bóg JHWH jest dokładnie taki, lub prawie taki, jakiego spodziewalibyśmy się po dzikim plemieniu żyjącym kilka tysięcy lat temu na Bliskim Wschodzie. I to jest smutne.
Smok Wawelski napisał(a):
Z tekstu nie bardzo moim zdaniem wynika, z czym utożsamia się sam autor.
?
"Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting such experiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that “giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments,
unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.”
(...) Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality,
then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
a jeszcze jaśniej,
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html :
" So, let me offer the Henry interpretation:
There is no actually existing universe at all. The universe is purely mental. (...)
Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am talking about your mind. Well, of course it does!
Cogito ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something, anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first crack out of the box, we have, with the Henry interpretation, a solid and irrefutable success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does not treat of consciousness at all!
But does the Henry interpretation actually say anything? Does it have any meaning? It most certainly does! First, it means you can forget all the other interpretations that are on offer (and what a relief that is!) Second, once you understand that there is no universe out there, you are forced to face up to your personal responsibility. You now have a fundamental decision to make. You know that other people do not exist. But, you must now decide whether their minds exist, as yours unquestionably does. Physics cannot assist you in this critical decision. Your stark choices are solipsism, or a leap of faith.
Eddington was a Quaker, so the leap of faith was easy for him: “the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it. But we must presume that in some other way or aspect it can be differentiated into parts. Only here and there does it rise to the level of consciousness…”
For a person (such as me) who has never before been religious, this leap of faith is not so easy. Indeed, I worry that my decision, which (let me relieve your mind) is that the reader’s mind does exist, is too much influenced by my previous (but now seen to be utterly silly) belief that the reader’s (as well as my own) mind was created by real electrons.
Physics does not require you to make the leap of faith. But, should you choose not to leap, physics does then force you to believe that your mind alone is all that exists.
What is it like, after taking the leap? Well, first, understand, what I say now has nothing whatsoever to do with physics. Surely for, say, an Eddington, the result was simply reinforcement of his Quaker beliefs (which needed no reinforcement). For an atheist such as myself, the result is simultaneously enormous, and minor.
I have made the leap of faith that MY mind is not the universe: well, you will not be surprised to learn that I sure don’t accept that YOURS is! So, I am forced to meet the Great omniscient Spirit, GoS. How do you do! Pleased to meet you! I am here not at all joking; as I go for my hour of walking each day, I not infrequently hold hands with GoS.
You can see what I mean by “enormous.” Of fundamental importance to me. But minor at the same time, because that is the end of it.
The first ten Presidents of the United States were all Deists, not Christians. As was Lincoln. I join them in that belief.
The authors make the critical point that religious belief flowing out of quantum mechanics does not in any way validate “intelligent design.” (Indeed, in my view ID is insulting to GoS, who is surely not, as the authors emphasize, a tinkerer.)
Let me return now to physics, and to the book Quantum Enigma. “Einstein believed quantum theory denied the existence of the real world.” “This seems to deny the existence of a physically real world.” “If unobserved atoms are somehow not physically real things, what does it say of chairs, for example?” “You’re denying the existence of a physically real world.” “… told his cat story to show that quantum theory denied the existence of a physically real world.” All quotes from this book! Why, then, does the list of interpretations in this book not include the Henry interpretation?
Or perhaps I should call it the Rees interpretation;I have not read Martin’s book but the authors quote him “The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.” "
Zwróć uwagę na jakie nazwiska powołuje się profesorek: Eddington, Einstein, Rees ...