I posted a thread awhile back that led to an in depth discussion of the topic. It's locked so if you see any good info there you could probably copy and paste over to here. http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/470013-is-the-uncertainty-principle-incompatible-with-determinism/?hl=determinism
Bohr is closer to my own view which is that everything is context dependent. Mathematicians have recently established that any number of simple metaphors can describe all of causal physics and classical mathematics. In other words, you can describe everything equally well as merely composed of black holes, springs, balls of string, or whatever. Similarly, Donald Hoffman is a game theorist who spent ten years running one computer simulation after another and studying the neurological evidence only to conclude that if the human mind and brain had ever remotely resembled anything like reality we would have already become extinct as a species. In other words, he came to the same kind of conclusion that quantum mechanics suggests which is utter nonsense that contradicts itself, but happens to be much more useful than anything else anyone can propose. The implication is that quantum weirdness is not confined to the ubber tiny world of quanta.
I would agree but if you think about it, despite what Bohr, Bell, and Aspect have provided, there's still many who would disagree with the idea that reality isn't there if you you don't look at it.
Yes, a universal recursion in the law of identity would mean anything can be used to describe life, the universe, and everything including describing them all as revolving around bullshit, or what's missing from this picture. However, more cartoonish yin-yang dynamics would apply meaning Mother Nature's sense of humor rivals her sense of beauty. It also means a simple, but subtle, self-organizing systems logic should be capable of reconciling Relativity and quantum mechanics using the assumption that the only thing we can ultimately know is nothing.
For sure. I definitely feel there has to be a natural connection between the quantum and relative world since they are in fact one reality.
I can fully comprehend a scenario in which reality wouldn't be there when you weren't looking. It's not that hard to imagine that this is the case. Reality being defined as the shape things take in a typical waking human experience. I'm not sure that nothing at all exists when I'm not looking at it, but I don't think it is necessarily reality as we know it that exists. Also, I see no reason to assume that the universe ultimately makes sense. What is sense besides a human value judgment? Maybe the nonsensical is what is actually sensible. Could be, for all we know. So I think it's possible that quantum reality and relativity will never seem compatible. I'm not saying this is my belief, but I can see how it could be possible that we live in a world that just isn't dictated by what we think is sensible.
But isnt the very imagining of a scenario already proving that Consciousness is present? The very notion of imagining a scenario is already showing that Consciousness is required.
To elaborate, to actually prove a scenario in which reality exists without observing it, you would have to be there to observe it, which already shows that Consciousness is present. So the next best thing you can do is imagine a scenario, but this still requires your Consciousness and awareness to imagine and cognizant a scenario. So no matter what, Consciousness has to be there.
I would side with Bhor if I am understanding correctly that he believed in the perceived existence of reality over the actual existence of it
My bad. When I first read it I thought you were saying the opposite but now see what you're saying after reading it again.
Its not about what I accept but whats scientificly accepted and thats Bohrs view. Einstein couldnt not accept the quantum side of the universe and even said "God does not roll dice"
The determination of order over chaos. Bohr's conceptualization of reality much favored chaos whilst Einstein's favored order. Was either truly wrong or right?
