Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a major problem with Chopra's concept of a Cosmic Consciousness, a field of consciousness that permeates the universe. All human consciousness connects to this Cosmic Consciousness. It is a basic principle of quantum theory that observation causes wave function collapse and a definite result. The two slit experiment demonstrates that observation leads to definite results but the absence of observation allows results to remain indefinite. (Much simplified explanation.) If there were a Cosmic Consciousness seeing everything in the universe, all wave functions would be collapsed and the two slit experiment would not work.
It is not quite accurate to say that the wavefunction collapse is a basic principle of quantum theory. These days, the "no collapse" versions of QM are most influential. Quantum decoherence, for example, gives the appearance of a collapse. The basic idea is that interaction with the environment prevents different elements in the the total system's wave function from interfering with each other. Decoherence explains the appearance of wavefunction collapse, as information disappears (for all practical purposes) into the environment. The key point is that a total superposition of the universal wave function still exists.
But even if we accept the collapse of the wavefunction for specific observations, I'm not convinced that the existence of a cosmic consciousness would cause all possible wavefunctions to collapse. The problem is that we don't really have a consensus explanation of the measurement problem. Without knowing exactly how or why the wavefunction collapses, we can't simply assume that a "cosmic consciousness" would totally collapse the universal wavefunction. The other major problem, of course, is that 'consciousness' itself is not a technical term in physics. Without knowing what consciousness is, in operational terms, we can't simply assume that a cosmic version of it would collapse the universal wavefunction.
I have not read any of Chopra's books, so I don't know exactly what he means by consciousness. So even if we did all agree that observation collapses wavefunctions, we still could not assume that cosmic consciousness collapses all wavefunctions prior to the experimental data-gathering of a human being. I think we can reasonably rule out the idea of a god who simultaneously observes every event in the universe (i.e., the "all knowing" god), but there are many conceptions of "cosmic consciousness" that do not imply the property of being omniscient. Again I don't know much about Chopra, but my impression is that he takes more of an Eastern mysticism approach to the idea of cosmic consciousness - not a traditional Western theistic approach.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-17-2015 at 07:55 AM..
I'm confused about what, exactly, it would take to earn the million dollar prize. Listening to the podcast, etc., I had the impression that you just needed to prove that Chopra's interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, but when I watched Chopra's video challengewhere he offered the prize, he said that, to win the prize, you have to "solve the hard problem of consciousness." That's a totally different type of challenge. If winning the prize means that you need to solve the hard problem by using the conceptual tools of current physics (or the "hard science" more generally), then I think that Chopra's money is safe. If I had a million dollar to bring to the table, I'd happily offer the same challenge. There is also this version of the challenge: Getting Zombies Excited (It Takes a Million-Dollar Challenge)
Chopra's video challenge.
Notice I'm not saying that science cannot someday solve the hard problem. Those of you who are familiar with my ramblings in other threads know that I believe that a naturalist explanation can be found; I just think that a couple of new fundamental principles will need to be adopted by physics in order for this to happen.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-17-2015 at 08:28 AM..
It is not quite accurate to say that the wavefunction collapse is a basic principle of quantum theory. These days, the "no collapse" versions of QM are most influential. Quantum decoherence, for example, gives the appearance of a collapse. The basic idea is that interaction with the environment prevents different elements in the the total system's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence explains the appearance of wavefunction collapse, as information disappears (for all practical purposes) into the environment. The key point is that a total superposition of the universal wavefunction still exists.
But even if we accept the collapse of the wavefunction for specific observations, I'm not convinced that the existence of a cosmic consciousness would cause all possible wavefunctions to collapse. The problem is that we don't really have a consensus explanation of the measurement problem. Without knowing exactly how or why the wavefunction collapses, we can't simply assume that a "cosmic consciousness" would totally collapse the universal wavefunction. The other major problem, of course, is that 'consciousness' itself is not a technical term in physics. Without knowing what consciousness is, in operational terms, we can't simply assume that a cosmic version of it would collapse the universal wavefunction.
I have not read any of Chopra's books, so I don't know exactly what he means by consciousness. So even if we did all agree that observation collapses wavefunctions, we still could not assume that consciousness collapses wavefunctions. I think we can reasonably rule out the idea of a god who consciously observes every event in the universe (i.e., the "all knowing" god), but there are many conceptions of "cosmic consciousness" that do not imply the property of being omniscient. Again I don't know much about Chopra, but my impression is that he takes more of an Eastern mysticism approach to the idea of cosmic consciousness - not a traditional Western theistic approach.
Wavefunction collapse is the mathematical operation that (statistically) describes the result of an interaction that has irreversible consequences. Decoherence is the label applied to the physical event that is associated with wavefunction collapse. The nature of the physical event is still mysterious of course. (Bohmian physics assigns physical significance to the wavefunction itself but that is another story.) ‘Observation’ is shorthand for a man-made setup that yields irreversible consequences as in the two slit experiment. The several terms often get swapped around but they are technically distinct.
It is not actually necessary for a human to be aware of each and every interaction. In the two slit experiment for example, the presence of detector(s) in the slits is sufficient to cause wavefunction collapse and the loss of interference patterns. It is not necessary to even make any record of which quantum went through which slit, much less have a human see the records. Spontaneous decoherence is simply irreversible interactions that happen in ‘nature’ outside of human arranged circumstances. Observation of an interaction event by a human will of course be irreversible and necessarily cause wavefunction collapse. But it is not the only source of irreversible interactions.
We are actually on the same page here. The big point is that decoherence is a perfectly natural physical event that does not require consciousness to be involved. Conscious observation is simply another source of an irreversible interaction and is nothing special. IMHO the metaphysical meanderings of certain physicists unqualified in that field are just silly, if not nearly as silly as the meanderings of those unqualified in physics.
Chopra’s view of human consciousness is that it is simply participation in a Cosmic Consciousness which permeates the universe. If CC did not exist then human consciousness would not exist because the two are really the same. If human consciousness of an event causes decoherence then a universal CC will necessarily cause universal decoherence. And we know that is not the case. If there is anything comparable to a cosmic consciousness, it is not of the human type. There are various philosophical traditions that have the universe be a thought in the mind of some supernatural entity (*) but that would make human consciousness be a logical consequence of the environment and not anything special. There are mystical traditions that connect the two but they are too imprecise to be analyzed in terms of physics or (rigorous) metaphysics.
(*) I mean ‘supernatural’ in a descriptive sense, above the natural world we know, and not in any pejorative sense.
It is not quite accurate to say that the wavefunction collapse is a basic principle of quantum theory. These days, the "no collapse" versions of QM are most influential. Quantum decoherence, for example, gives the appearance of a collapse. The basic idea is that interaction with the environment prevents different elements in the the total system's wave function from interfering with each other. Decoherence explains the appearance of wavefunction collapse, as information disappears (for all practical purposes) into the environment. The key point is that a total superposition of the universal wave function still exists.
But even if we accept the collapse of the wavefunction for specific observations, I'm not convinced that the existence of a cosmic consciousness would cause all possible wavefunctions to collapse. The problem is that we don't really have a consensus explanation of the measurement problem. Without knowing exactly how or why the wavefunction collapses, we can't simply assume that a "cosmic consciousness" would totally collapse the universal wavefunction. The other major problem, of course, is that 'consciousness' itself is not a technical term in physics. Without knowing what consciousness is, in operational terms, we can't simply assume that a cosmic version of it would collapse the universal wavefunction.
I have not read any of Chopra's books, so I don't know exactly what he means by consciousness. So even if we did all agree that observation collapses wavefunctions, we still could not assume that cosmic consciousness collapses all wavefunctions prior to the experimental data-gathering of a human being. I think we can reasonably rule out the idea of a god who simultaneously observes every event in the universe (i.e., the "all knowing" god), but there are many conceptions of "cosmic consciousness" that do not imply the property of being omniscient. Again I don't know much about Chopra, but my impression is that he takes more of an Eastern mysticism approach to the idea of cosmic consciousness - not a traditional Western theistic approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I'm confused about what, exactly, it would take to earn the million dollar prize. Listening to the podcast, etc., I had the impression that you just needed to prove that Chopra's interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, but when I watched Chopra's video challengewhere he offered the prize, he said that, to win the prize, you have to "solve the hard problem of consciousness." That's a totally different type of challenge. If winning the prize means that you need to solve the hard problem by using the conceptual tools of current physics (or the "hard science" more generally), then I think that Chopra's money is safe. If I had a million dollar to bring to the table, I'd happily offer the same challenge. There is also this version of the challenge: Getting Zombies Excited (It Takes a Million-Dollar Challenge)
Chopra's video challenge.
Notice I'm not saying that science cannot someday solve the hard problem. Those of you who are familiar with my ramblings in other threads know that I believe that a naturalist explanation can be found; I just think that a couple of new fundamental principles will need to be adopted by physics in order for this to happen.
I think it would help if I filled you in on what I think was the sequence of events that led to the podcast.
I have been vaguely following the story so it is possible I might have the chronology wrong, but it basically goes like this:
Chopra has for many years been promoting his ideas on 'quantum healing'. The basic premise is that he believes intelligence exists everywhere in our bodies, in each of our 50 trillion cells, and that each cell knows how to heal itself. He calls this ability to cure disease from within 'quantum healing'.
In 2013 Chopra was interviewed on the street by Richard Dawkins who questioned him and asked him to explain what he meant when he used the word 'quantum'.
Chopra admits in the interview, that he is just using the word as a metaphor, whereas Dawkins clearly feels that the application of the word, in the way Chopra uses it is inappropriate (I'm summing that up in my own words) as it has no real science behind it.
Chopra is clearly very put out by the episode - he goes on the Bill O'Reilly show and complains about Dawkins after which Chopra then makes a very public apology and admits he said things he shouldn't have said as he feels his worldview is more aligned with Dawkins than O'Reilly.
But then obviously still feeling irritated at the attempts to debunk his theories, he puts out his million dollar challenge.
Brian Cox ridicules his comment on 'cosmic consciousness' on twitter and the rest you know.
Sorry for the brief summary, I'm rather busy this week but I will be back in a few days to add some of my own comments. It's a subject I find endlessly fascinating and even though Brian Cox is one of my all time heroes, I don't entirely disagree with everything Chopra says. In many ways he talks a lot of sense. I do think there are many scientists who are not open minded enough and don't take enough time to see the whole picture. Roger Penrose in my view is one of the most underrated scientists alive because he is one of those rare people who is able to see outside the box.
It's a subject I find endlessly fascinating and even though Brian Cox is one of my all time heroes, I don't entirely disagree with everything Chopra says. In many ways he talks a lot of sense. I do think there are many scientists who are not open minded enough and don't take enough time to see the whole picture. Roger Penrose in my view is one of the most underrated scientists alive because he is one of those rare people who is able to see outside the box.
I, too, find it endlessly fascinating. You and I are on pretty much the same page with this. Actually, as I watched the Dawkins/Chopra interview, I found myself agreeing a lot with Chopra. I'm thinking now that I might want to read some of his books. Here are a few parts of the interview (indicated by the minute marks in the video) where I thought Chopra made some good points:
3:26 - 4:18 - Chopra points out that science has limited itself to objective facts, whereas reality is both objective and subjective. Reality is both the observable stuff, and the process of observation. I think Chopra is on target here, although I would add a couple of nuances. I would say that physics has limited itself to objective facts, but some higher-level sciences like psychology and neuroscience do incorporate subjective/qualitative data into their method. You cannot, for example, seek to identify a "neural correlate" of a qualitative experience without referencing the qualitative aspects of the experience. If you stimulate a neuron and the patient says "I feel a cold draft" this qualitative language is taken as data. The spoken words are objective data, but we should not ignore the fact that the meaning of the sentence is ultimately grounded in the subjective experience of the patient. You can only fully understand the meaning of "I feel a cold draft" if you, yourself, have had your own subjective experiences of "cold drafts" - or, at least, something roughly similar. I've also argued that, although physics is currently limited to objective facts insofar as the technical meanings of its terms are concerned, I do not think that future physics will always have to be limited in this way. In other threads, I've tried to suggest some ways in which the subjective/qualitative data of neuroscience could be used to introduce qualitative terms into physics.
5:50 - Here Chopra points out the powerful role played by placebos. I have argued(page 2, #15) that placebos are the tip of a deep mystery concerning the nature of mind. To say, for example, that "the placebo effect" is responsible for the remission of someone's cancer is to say, in effect, that the "power of the mind" - or "belief" - cured the cancer. The placebo effect taps into a genuine power implicit in the nature of mind.
6:22 - Chopra suggests that future medical science should do controlled studies that take states of consciousness into account. Again I think Chopra is right about this. I'd also add that, thanks to advancements in brain scanning technology, this is becoming possible now, in a way that would have difficult in previous generations.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-17-2015 at 02:30 PM..
Focusing more closely on the "quantum" part of the quantum woo, I'd like to point out this exchange at 14 minutes into the video:
14:00 - 14:39 - I like what Dawkins says about scientists feeling confident that they have the best ways of answering questions. The scientific method is, indeed, amazingly powerful. But I also like Chopra's response. He basically points out that science is good at dealing with the observed, but not so good at dealing with the process of observation. This is where I think Chopra wants to say that the "quantum" in "quantum healing" might be more than just a metaphor. In the QM formalism, the observer is outside of the theory. The projection postulate loosely implies an "observer" - the "waveform collapses" upon observation/measurement - but nothing in in the current formalism addresses the nature of the observer, or the process of observation. In Chopra's metaphysics (from what I've seen in the video), the observer is not a purely abstract assumption of a mathematical theory. For Chopra, the observer is the center of subjective experience - a real aspect of being - and it is this being who accounts for the process of observation. The process of observation is what is going on behind the scene, so to speak, insofar as the QM formalism is concerned. Chopra seems to be claiming that the observer is a "self-healing" type of process. I'm not sure what to say about that, at the moment, but I find it interesting.
19:40 - Chopra says "Believe the diagnosis, not the prognosis." As a piece of medical advice, this is excellent. I think it is a concept that can literally save lives. The noceboeffect is well documented.
21:00 - I also agree that the emotional/spiritual aspects of disease and treatment should be of great importance to medical practitioners. From a scientific point of view it is highly speculative to suggest that the "observer" that is loosely implied by the QM formalism has "self-healing" powers, but from a purely practical point of view when dealing with a sick person, I think it is legitimate to point out that this metaphysics does not contradict science. QM does not address the observer, but it does leave logical room for an observer, so if - through meditation or mystical experiences - someone like Chopra believes that he knows something about this observer that science does not yet know, then I'd say he has every right to refer to "quantum healing." It's an idea that goes beyond science, but it is not an idea that contradicts science, so far as I can see. It seems a bit cheesy to talk of "quantum healing" but I don't think it is fraudulent.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-17-2015 at 03:22 PM..
I think it would help if I filled you in on what I think was the sequence of events that led to the podcast.
I have been vaguely following the story so it is possible I might have the chronology wrong, but it basically goes like this:
Chopra has for many years been promoting his ideas on 'quantum healing'. The basic premise is that he believes intelligence exists everywhere in our bodies, in each of our 50 trillion cells, and that each cell knows how to heal itself. He calls this ability to cure disease from within 'quantum healing'.
In 2013 Chopra was interviewed on the street by Richard Dawkins who questioned him and asked him to explain what he meant when he used the word 'quantum'.
Chopra admits in the interview, that he is just using the word as a metaphor, whereas Dawkins clearly feels that the application of the word, in the way Chopra uses it is inappropriate (I'm summing that up in my own words) as it has no real science behind it.
Chopra is clearly very put out by the episode - he goes on the Bill O'Reilly show and complains about Dawkins after which Chopra then makes a very public apology and admits he said things he shouldn't have said as he feels his worldview is more aligned with Dawkins than O'Reilly.
But then obviously still feeling irritated at the attempts to debunk his theories, he puts out his million dollar challenge.
Brian Cox ridicules his comment on 'cosmic consciousness' on twitter and the rest you know.
Sorry for the brief summary, I'm rather busy this week but I will be back in a few days to add some of my own comments. It's a subject I find endlessly fascinating and even though Brian Cox is one of my all time heroes, I don't entirely disagree with everything Chopra says. In many ways he talks a lot of sense. I do think there are many scientists who are not open minded enough and don't take enough time to see the whole picture. Roger Penrose in my view is one of the most underrated scientists alive because he is one of those rare people who is able to see outside the box.
Back soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I, too, find it endlessly fascinating. You and I are on pretty much the same page with this. Actually, as I watched the Dawkins/Chopra interview, I found myself agreeing a lot with Chopra. I'm thinking now that I might want to read some of his books. Here are a few parts of the interview (indicated by the minute marks in the video) where I thought Chopra made some good points: 3:26 - 4:18 - Chopra points out that science has limited itself to objective facts, whereas reality is both objective and subjective. Reality is both the observable stuff, and the process of observation. I think Chopra is on target here, although I would add a couple of nuances. I would say that physics has limited itself to objective facts, but some higher-level sciences like psychology and neuroscience do incorporate subjective/qualitative data into their method. You cannot, for example, seek to identify a "neural correlate" of a qualitative experience without referencing the qualitative aspects of the experience. If you stimulate a neuron and the patient says "I feel a cold draft" this qualitative language is taken as data. The spoken words are objective data, but we should not ignore the fact that the meaning of the sentence is ultimately grounded in the subjective experience of the patient. You can only fully understand the meaning of "I feel a cold draft" if you, yourself, have had your own subjective experiences of "cold drafts" - or, at least, something roughly similar. I've also argued that, although physics is currently limited to objective facts insofar as the technical meanings of its terms are concerned, I do not think that future physics will always have to be limited in this way. In other threads, I've tried to suggest some ways in which the subjective/qualitative data of neuroscience could be used to introduce qualitative terms into physics. 5:50 - Here Chopra points out the powerful role played by placebos. I have argued(page 2, #15) that placebos are the tip of a deep mystery concerning the nature of mind. To say, for example, that "the placebo effect" is responsible for the remission of someone's cancer is to say, in effect, that the "power of the mind" - or "belief" - cured the cancer. The placebo effect taps into a genuine power implicit in the nature of mind. 6:22 - Chopra suggests that future medical science should do controlled studies that take states of consciousness into account. Again I think Chopra is right about this. I'd also add that, thanks to advancements in brain scanning technology, this is becoming possible now, in a way that would have difficult in previous generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Focusing more closely on the "quantum" part of the quantum woo, I'd like to point out this exchange at 14 minutes into the video: 14:00 - 14:39 - I like what Dawkins says about scientists feeling confident that they have the best ways of answering questions. The scientific method is, indeed, amazingly powerful. But I also like Chopra's response. He basically points out that science is good at dealing with the observed, but not so good at dealing with the process of observation. This is where I think Chopra wants to say that the "quantum" in "quantum healing" might be more than just a metaphor. In the QM formalism, the observer is outside of the theory. The projection postulate loosely implies an "observer" - the "waveform collapses" upon observation/measurement - but nothing in in the current formalism addresses the nature of the observer, or the process of observation. In Chopra's metaphysics (from what I've seen in the video), the observer is not a purely abstract assumption of a mathematical theory. For Chopra, the observer is the center of subjective experience - a real aspect of being - and it is this being who accounts for the process of observation. The process of observation is what is going on behind the scene, so to speak, insofar as the QM formalism is concerned. Chopra seems to be claiming that the observer is a "self-healing" type of process. I'm not sure what to say about that, at the moment, but I find it interesting. 19:40 - Chopra says "Believe the diagnosis, not the prognosis." As a piece of medical advice, this is excellent. I think it is a concept that can literally save lives. The noceboeffect is well documented. 21:00 - I also agree that the emotional/spiritual aspects of disease and treatment should be of great importance to medical practitioners. From a scientific point of view it is highly speculative to suggest that the "observer" that is loosely implied by the QM formalism has "self-healing" powers, but from a purely practical point of view when dealing with a sick person, I think it is legitimate to point out that this metaphysics does not contradict science. QM does not address the observer, but it does leave logical room for an observer, so if - through meditation or mystical experiences - someone like Chopra believes that he knows something about this observer that science does not yet know, then I'd say he has every right to refer to "quantum healing." It's an idea that goes beyond science, but it is not an idea that contradicts science, so far as I can see. It seems a bit cheesy to talk of "quantum healing" but I don't think it is fraudulent.
I am happy to see two of my favorite atheists embracing some Woo! It is only by this kind of open-minded investigation that real progress will be possible. I dislike the term "quantum healing" and what will be its automatically invoked associations with "flim-flam-ery." But there are anecdotal instances in my own life that confirm TO ME the power of truly expecting, believing and acting on a "given" that is not otherwise deemed possible. The key seems to be an ACTUAL deep belief . . . NOT dependent upon our conscious acceptance . . . and definitely NOT a willful, or wished for or forced one.
You are correct. Those who explain what the brain is doing (or whatever) in terms of quantum effects are forgetting that quantum phenomena are physical and a part of this world. In the 19th century electricity and magnetism were the explanations offered for anything spooky. Why? Because most people had heard of them but had little understanding of them, if any.
It is interesting that those who believe in souls and have some knowledge of quantum theory often reject it as the final answer, claiming that there must be a more 'God friendly' explanation not yet uncovered. (Who knows, they may be right.)
If you (generic you) want to talk about souls, do it from a theological point of view.
A physical explanation of the soul that pretends to connect with the supernatural is self defeating.
I don't have a clue what your talking about in the third paragraph.
I am happy to see two of my favorite atheists embracing some Woo! It is only by this kind of open-minded investigation that real progress will be possible. I dislike the term "quantum healing" and what will be its automatically invoked associations with "flim-flam-ery." But there are anecdotal instances in my own life that confirm TO ME the power of truly expecting, believing and acting on a "given" that is not otherwise deemed possible. The key seems to be an ACTUAL deep belief . . . NOT dependent upon our conscious acceptance . . . and definitely NOT a willful, or wished for or forced one.
I remember going down to the library about 15 years ago for something to do and checking out all the older writings in the reference area for this topic.
the expert yogis are said to have been able to control and heal specific organs in the body, even take poison apparently or even burying for a few days.
Hatha yoga, the real hatha yoga gets into this including the meditation. These things have to do with breathing and getting away from disordered breathing habits alongside the natural healing in the body. The older books are very good. Its got to do with control, focus and getting the mind body working the way it is supposed to, its difficult to know what you guys are talking about.
Last edited by Sophronius; 02-18-2015 at 01:19 AM..
I remember going down to the library about 15 years ago for something to do and checking out all the older writings in the reference area for this topic.
the expert yogis are said to have been able to control and heal specific organs in the body, even take poison apparently or even burying for a few days.
Hatha yoga, the real hatha yoga gets into this including the meditation. These things have to do with breathing and getting away from disordered breathing habits alongside the natural healing in the body. The older books are very good. Its got to do with control, focus and getting the mind body working the way it is supposed to, its difficult to know what you guys are talking about.
The idea was brought to the general public in the mid-60s.
Star Trek got me interested in this idea of the body healing itself.
it was routine for Spock to heal himself this way.
Part of the process included eliminating as many tasks of bodily function as possible so the body could concentrate on this .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is only by this kind of open-minded investigation that real progress will be possible. I dislike the term "quantum healing" and what will be its automatically invoked associations with "flim-flam-ery." But there are anecdotal instances in my own life that confirm TO ME the power of truly expecting, believing and acting on a "given" that is not otherwise deemed possible. The key seems to be an ACTUAL deep belief . . . NOT dependent upon our conscious acceptance . . . and definitely NOT a willful, or wished for or forced one.
