Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: No Evidence for Idealism

Тип матеріалу: Стаття

Мова публікації: англійська

Випуск: 2018 №4

Сторінки: 95-105

Журнальна рубрикація: Philosophy of Mind

Abstract:

The article deals with the issue of whether quantum mechanics provides evidence for the view that ordinary matter is the product of the processes that essentially involve consciousness (in collapses, or reductions, of quantum-mechanical waves). It is pointed out that if this were the case, this would have tremendous consequences that anyone who takes science seriously can hardly welcome — it would make nonsense of the whole natural pre-animal history, and would also make it extremely difficult to make sense of animal evolution and human history. It is argued, however, that there is no good scientific evidence for the idealistic (consciousness-involving) construal of quantum-mechanical processes; moreover, unequivocal experimental refutations were produced but not made widely known. In the second part, the recent attempt to draw quantum mechanics in support of idealism by Bernardo Kastrup is discussed and found wanting, because in so far as his defense of idealism is successful, the resulting kind of idealism (cosmopsychism) stands to the results of quantum mechanical experiments in the same relations as common physical realism.

Keywords:

quantum mechanics, consciousness, matter, collapse, idealism, physical realism, cosmopsychism.

548

Постійна адреса матеріалу

http://journal.philosophy.ua/node/7783

Як цитувати

Сепетий Дмитро (2018). Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: No Evidence for Idealism . Філософська думка, №4. с. 95-105.

Завантажити:

fid2368.pdf

References:

D

Durr, S., Nonn, T, Rempe, G. (1998). Origin of quantum-mechanical complementarity probed by a which-way’ experiment in an atom interferometer. Nature, 395, 33-37.

Eichmann, U. et al. (1993). Young’s interference experiment with light scattered from two atoms. Physical Review Letters, 70, 2359-2362.

Feynman, R. (1965). The Character of Physical Law. London: The British Broadcasting Corporation. Feynman, R., Leighton, R., Sands, M. (1965). The Feynman Lectures on Physics (vol. 3). US: Addison-Wesley, 1965.

Goode, E. (2013). Paranormalism and Pseudoscience as Deviance. In Pigliucci, M., Boudry, M. (eds). Philosophy of pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 145-163). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kastrup, B. (2017a). On the Plausibility of Idealism: Refuting Criticisms. Disputatio,9 (44), 13-34.

Kartrup, B. (2017b). Making Sense of the Mental Universe. Philosophy and Cosmology, 19, 33-49.

London, F, Bauer, E. (1939) La theoriede l’observation en mecaniquequantique. Paris: Hermann & Cie. Mandel, L. (1999). Quantum effects in one-photon and two-photon interference. Review of Modern Physics,71, 274-282.

Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books.

Stapp, H. (1993). Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Stapp, H. (2007). Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Stapp, H. (2017). Quantum Theory and Free Will: How Mental Intentions Translate into Bodily Actions. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Weinberg, S. (1993). The First Three Minutes. Basic Books.

Wigner, E. (1961). Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, In Good, I. J. (ed.) The Scientist Speculates (pp. 284-302). London:

William Heinemann, Ltd.Wigner, E. (1964). Two Kinds of Reality. The Monist, 48 (2), 248-264.Yu, Sh., Nicolic, D. (2011). Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness. Annalen der Physik, 523 (11), 931-938.

Zeilinger, A. (1999). Experiment and the foundations of quantum physics. Review of Modern Physics,71, 288-297.

Zou, X. Y, Wang, L. J., Mandel, L. (1991). Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference. Physical Review Letters, 67, 318-321.