Does science require a soul?

[grmorton]

This is an assumption. You are assuming that the arrangement of the atoms in the brain cannot be caused by the evidence pertaining to free will. It's an assumption that none of our brain states have a causal relationship with the world - that they're always disconnected.

From there just about everything else is wrong. It's so easy for me to pick out where theists go wrong.

Thinker, I don't think you followed the argument. My assumptions are labeled. What you are griping about is a conclusion that follows from the assumptions and conclusions above this point. Try starting at the beginning of the argument--with my assumptions.

It can be argued that reality can never be known because it is impossible to logically prove that you're not a brain in a vat.

Yes, so what? I did grad work in philosophy. Are you aware that philosophy NEVER answered the questions raised by 19th century idealists? G.E. Moore, who is credited with ending idealism, merely said, basically, you have to act like the world is reals so assume it is. He made an assumption to avoid that problem. He didn't actually find a way out of that philosophical issue.

Here is a sample of G. E. Moore's act of faith to solve the brain in a vat issue:
“We cease to perform them only while we are asleep, without dreaming; and even in sleep, so long as we dream, we are performing acts of consciousness. There are, therefore, in the Universe at any moment millions of different acts of consciousness being performed by millions of different men, and perhaps also by many kinds of animals. It is, I think, certainly Common Sense to believe all this.” G. E. Moore, “What is Philosophy?” in William Barrett and Henry D. Aiken, editors, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, vol. 2 (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 523

I say act of faith because it IS an act of faith-faith that he knows what is common sense--While I believe the world is out there, my belief, like my belief in God is not proof--it is faith. And upon this act of faith rests our observational knowledge which is the basis of our science. I doubt you have read much of the philosophical literature but this is widely known among philosophers of science (which is the area I did my grad work in).

The rest of your argument is lazy argument by hyperlink. Present your ideas; don't copy others like an unthinking robot.

[grmorton]

I think you're on the right track, grmorton, but you've some issues with your assumptions and conclusion. You've skipped a step and combined another, and I think this will change the outcome significantly.

Here are my suggested revisions in bold:

I think I could accept your two inserted assumptions. I do worry about the assumption 8. If I hit your head with a baseball bat, I have re-arranged the matter inside your skull! lol Barring that, the atoms are influenced by blood flow, nourishment etc. but if we keep the memory circuits out of the way of this and baseball bats, it would seem to work. Thanks

Now see how your set of conclusions hold up. I don't think they will, but I'm interested in your take.



Other comments of note:



You're hardly the first to suggest this, but the distinction of first to explain it is still open.

As Ecclesiastes says, it is very hard to do (or say) something new under the sun.

[The Pixie]

...
For the purposes of this discussion, free will is a voluntary intentional action. Intentional action requires an 'intender', something that intends the action to happen. That intender seems to be our conscious mind. When I leave my house, all my neighbors can observe my body getting in my car and starting to drive off. That is objective knowledge. But what they can't observe is my intentions about where I am going to go. My intention is subjective and known only to me. It is a real but unobservable thing. The neighbors can't see my intention to go to the store to buy habanero peppers. My intent to buy habaneros is not random in the sense that the thing I am going to buy changes every second on my trip to the store.
...
Conclusion 5. Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states. Therefore, actions have no free will. The mental state is caused by the arrangement of matter, and the action is caused by the mental state. The individual is forced to do, believe and experience what the patterns of atoms in his brain require, and those atoms, in turn, are required follow the laws of the universe.
...

This is the bit I disagree with. You are, effectively, saying that a purely material brain cannot causes actions that are both voluntary and intentional. Sure, they are based on the demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter, but that arrangement of matter is your mental state, as you admitted. If you are making actions based on your mental state, then those actions would seem to be both voluntary and intentional.

[TheLurch]

So with that as background, if I understand what you are saying then I must disagree strongly. Your comment "there's simply no telling what the outcome would be, and all possibilities become accessible." is irrelevant (I simplified the decisionmaker by using big bins rather than having all bins-I did this for those who don't understand quantum). I would agree that all possible outcomes are certainly possible, but that just means a bigger look up table (yes an infinite table). But ONLY ONE OUTPUT IS DECIDED UPON.

Yes, only one output is decided upon, but if that output is selected from an infinite lookup table, where all outputs are equally probable, it's indeterminate. In other words, once the range of possibilities become large enough, it's not possible to map that situation onto anything resembling classical determinism.

The nature of whatever collapses the wave function is irrelevant to that.

Secondly what you describe is not how we make decisions. I don't decide to go to Moscow and the next second decide to go to Timbuktu, and then in the following second decide to go to the grocery store. A quantum system that outputs all possibilities would output random destinations when I want to go somewhere. Whatever is making the choice of destination, and I believe it has to be something outside of the physical, it isn't quantum mechanics.

This, unfortunately, is a giant misdirection. Nobody's claiming that this sort of quantum indeterminism extends all the way to decisions. Put another way, the precise location of a few protons in the brain doesn't make you consider options that you'd never be thinking about anyway. All it has to do, from the perspective of determinism, is skew probabilities of existing decisions slightly. In other words, if quantum effects mean you become 0.05% more likely to say "yes" than you were otherwise, things are still not deterministic.

To your point about the wave function collapsing without an observer, I already addressed that and rest my case on John von neuman.

No, you haven't. Your quote came from the 1930s, i believe. This may astonish you, but our understanding of quantum mechanics has advanced rather considerably since then. I'll say two specific things about this:

The "environment = observer" perspective is internally, mathematically consistent. If interactions with the environment collapse a wave function, then any sufficiently macroscopic object will never enter a quantum state - it can't be in a superposition. What von Neuman posited is a macroscopic object that can be completely isolated from environmental influences. As that's simply not possible, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.

The second is that we have done things like delayed-choice quantum experiments, where a quantum object passes through a set of possible interactions, and then, at random, a computer randomly chooses a specific measurement AFTER it's been through, but before it reaches the measuring equipment. These measurements determine whether a wave function existed in the past, with no conscious "decider" (to use your terminology) at the time the particle was passing through the apparatus - or indeed ever. And they work.

It's also worth giving a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for quantum observers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observ...antum_physics)

I don't use that because i assume it's authoritative, but just to point out that it's not just me saying that von Neuman is wrong - most quantum mechanics would say the same thing.


The other thing i want to comment on is that you seem to be slipping away from the actual underlying biology quite a bit. In your system, as soon as a ion in a superposition interacted with an ion channel, it would place that in a superposition as well, and so on. From your perspective, the entire brain would enter a superposition state unless we have a mysterious, non-material observer constantly checking in with it. From the "environment = observer" perspective, quantum effects remain limited by environmental interactions.

Which one is more in keeping with Occam's razor?

[The Thinker]

Thinker, I don't think you followed the argument. My assumptions are labeled. What you are griping about is a conclusion that follows from the assumptions and conclusions above this point. Try starting at the beginning of the argument--with my assumptions.

I read the whole argument. Your conclusion 6-1 is an assumption, not a conclusion. It doesn't logically and necessarily follow.

Yes, so what? I did grad work in philosophy. Are you aware that philosophy NEVER answered the questions raised by 19th century idealists? G.E. Moore, who is credited with ending idealism, merely said, basically, you have to act like the world is reals so assume it is. He made an assumption to avoid that problem. He didn't actually find a way out of that philosophical issue.

And so positing a soul isn't a way out either. It's just an assumption that your soul isn't being deceived -- or that you even have a soul. That idea could be fed into your brain in the vat.

Here is a sample of G. E. Moore's act of faith to solve the brain in a vat issue:
“We cease to perform them only while we are asleep, without dreaming; and even in sleep, so long as we dream, we are performing acts of consciousness. There are, therefore, in the Universe at any moment millions of different acts of consciousness being performed by millions of different men, and perhaps also by many kinds of animals. It is, I think, certainly Common Sense to believe all this.” G. E. Moore, “What is Philosophy?” in William Barrett and Henry D. Aiken, editors, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, vol. 2 (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 523

I say act of faith because it IS an act of faith-faith that he knows what is common sense--While I believe the world is out there, my belief, like my belief in God is not proof--it is faith. And upon this act of faith rests our observational knowledge which is the basis of our science. I doubt you have read much of the philosophical literature but this is widely known among philosophers of science (which is the area I did my grad work in).

Yes, everyone has to grant some basic beliefs -- that's my whole point. But what you're doing is just granting a soul that accurately interacts with reality.

The rest of your argument is lazy argument by hyperlink. Present your ideas; don't copy others like an unthinking robot.

No it isn't. The links are there just to provide evidence of my points -- which shows your argument here to be self-refuting. Your argument shows that you don't really know that much about science.

[The Thinker]

The other thing i want to comment on is that you seem to be slipping away from the actual underlying biology quite a bit. In your system, as soon as a ion in a superposition interacted with an ion channel, it would place that in a superposition as well, and so on. From your perspective, the entire brain would enter a superposition state unless we have a mysterious, non-material observer constantly checking in with it. From the "environment = observer" perspective, quantum effects remain limited by environmental interactions.

Which one is more in keeping with Occam's razor?

That whole idea sounds a bit ridiculous. Would the entire brain go into a superposition when we fall asleep? How come it doesn't go into a superposition the moment we die since the non-material observer soul has left the body?

[grmorton]

This is the bit I disagree with. You are, effectively, saying that a purely material brain cannot causes actions that are both voluntary and intentional. Sure, they are based on the demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter, but that arrangement of matter is your mental state, as you admitted. If you are making actions based on your mental state, then those actions would seem to be both voluntary and intentional.

If you accept the assumptions I laid out, that is what the logic says. which assumption do you disagree with. (A quick quibble voluntary may not be equivalent to the term free will.

[grmorton]

Yes, only one output is decided upon, but if that output is selected from an infinite lookup table, where all outputs are equally probable, it's indeterminate. In other words, once the range of possibilities become large enough, it's not possible to map that situation onto anything resembling classical determinism.

I think you are equating foreknowledge with determinism. I don't think those are the same thing. I don't have to know what a robot programmed by another guy will do next in order for his actions to be completely determined by his programmer.

The nature of whatever collapses the wave function is irrelevant to that.


This, unfortunately, is a giant misdirection. Nobody's claiming that this sort of quantum indeterminism extends all the way to decisions. Put another way, the precise location of a few protons in the brain doesn't make you consider options that you'd never be thinking about anyway.

Would you care to share with us what the actual observational evidence of this statement is? I can't think of any that would back up your statement.

All it has to do, from the perspective of determinism, is skew probabilities of existing decisions slightly. In other words, if quantum effects mean you become 0.05% more likely to say "yes" than you were otherwise, things are still not deterministic.

Again, I would say you have no evidence for such a statement that quantum only skews probabilities of the decision slightly. Maybe you are the world's expert on quantum brain function, but I doubt it, so present the observational evidence for this statement please.

No, you haven't. Your quote came from the 1930s, i believe.

You are wrong. go look again.

This may astonish you, but our understanding of quantum mechanics has advanced rather considerably since then. I'll say two specific things about this:

The "environment = observer" perspective is internally, mathematically consistent. If interactions with the environment collapse a wave function, then any sufficiently macroscopic object will never enter a quantum state - it can't be in a superposition. What von Neuman posited is a macroscopic object that can be completely isolated from environmental influences. As that's simply not possible, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.

All I can say is that you are not keeping up with quantum. A Squid device is a macroscopic thing, and it can be put in superposition:

Source: Friedman"Quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states" Nature 406, 43-46 (6 July 2000)

Here we present experimental evidence that a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) can be put into a superposition of two magnetic-flux states: one corresponding to a few microamperes of current flowing clockwise, the other corresponding to the same amount of current flowing anticlockwise.

© Copyright Original Source

And

Source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object

Physicists in California have observed true quantum behaviour in a macroscopic object big enough to be seen with the naked eye. This is the first time this feat has been achieved and it could shed light on the mysterious boundaries between the classical and quantum worlds. "

© Copyright Original Source

And one month ago in Nature:

Source: Kovachy et al, Nature Jan 4, 2016

Here we use light-pulse atom interferometry to realize quantum interference with wave packets separated by up to 54 centimetres on a timescale of 1 second. These results push quantum superposition into a new macroscopic regime,.."

© Copyright Original Source

They were using 10,000 rubidium atoms in a BEC.

The second is that we have done things like delayed-choice quantum experiments, where a quantum object passes through a set of possible interactions, and then, at random, a computer randomly chooses a specific measurement AFTER it's been through, but before it reaches the measuring equipment. These measurements determine whether a wave function existed in the past, with no conscious "decider" (to use your terminology) at the time the particle was passing through the apparatus - or indeed ever. And they work.

I will think on this issue. I don't think it actually impacts the argument I laid out, but I would say, a real life observer did program the thing--That in itself raises an interesting philosophical question.

I will look in my quantum mechanic books. I prefer them to Wiki.

I don't use that because i assume it's authoritative, but just to point out that it's not just me saying that von Neuman is wrong - most quantum mechanics would say the same thing.

Given that I just pointed out that 3 macroscopic things have been placed into superposition, I don't think von Neumann can be said to be wrong, by you or even 'most quantum mechanics', which argument is an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. the number of people who say something has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of what they say. You should read a logic book. Don't mean to be nasty here, but anytime you say 'everyone knows...' or 'everyone says..." in a logical discussion, you are committing a logical fallacy. See Irvin Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972, p. 79 for a discussion.



The other thing i want to comment on is that you seem to be slipping away from the actual underlying biology quite a bit. In your system, as soon as a ion in a superposition interacted with an ion channel, it would place that in a superposition as well, and so on. From your perspective, the entire brain would enter a superposition state unless we have a mysterious, non-material observer constantly checking in with it. From the "environment = observer" perspective, quantum effects remain limited by environmental interactions.

Which one is more in keeping with Occam's razor?[/QUOTE]

[grmorton]

[QUOTE=The Thinker;290635]I read the whole argument. Your conclusion 6-1 is an assumption, not a conclusion. It doesn't logically and necessarily follow. [quote]

Let me help you. It follows from assumption 6. which is our mental states are due to the arrangement of matter. Beliefs are mental states, or are you saying beliefs have nothing to do with our mental state. If beliefs are mental states and mental states are due to the arrangement of matter in the brain, then that follows quite clearly. Beliefs in science, religion, politics etc would not be held by examination of the data, if we are determined beings, they would be held because matter happens to be arranged in that fashion in our brains.

And so positing a soul isn't a way out either. It's just an assumption that your soul isn't being deceived -- or that you even have a soul. That idea could be fed into your brain in the vat.

Agreed, if our soul is being fooled, then science can't be true, shoot, nothing can be true. I know of no evidence that our souls are systematically fooled, but I could add such an assumption. Thanks.

Yes, everyone has to grant some basic beliefs -- that's my whole point. But what you're doing is just granting a soul that accurately interacts with reality.

Mostly I am agreeing here, but I am not just positing a soul that interacts truthfully with reality. I am saying that if we assume we are merely matter, lacking a soul, the consequences include the destruction of science. Science may not exist at all if the soul is fooled, but I know that if I start by saying we have no soul, science is utter crap, as is religion and everything else.

No it isn't. The links are there just to provide evidence of my points -- which shows your argument here to be self-refuting. Your argument shows that you don't really know that much about science.

Argument by hyperlink lacking any explanation is lazy. sorry, but it is.

[Truthseeker]

Won't Josephson junctions be better for exploring the boundary between microphysics and macrophysics?

[grmorton]

That whole idea sounds a bit ridiculous. Would the entire brain go into a superposition when we fall asleep? How come it doesn't go into a superposition the moment we die since the non-material observer soul has left the body?

don't be so quick to state what doesn't happen when one of the most radical materialist, multiverse advocating quantum mechanicists says that all quantum interactions are interactions with the other universes.

[cite=Julian Brown, Minds, Machines, and the Multiverse, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), p. 36-37]"David Deutsch actually disagrees with those who ascribe the power of quantum computation to entanglement and instead sees interference as the crucial phenomenon. The reason is that in a many-universes perspective, entanglement is a natural by- product of having a system of parallel realities. The surprise is interference because it allows these different realities to overlap and collaborate. It is, indeed, interference that makes the notion of multiple realities conjured up by such stories as Borge's Garden of the Forking Paths' and, more recently, the movie Sliding Doors very different from the real thing." [/cite

Deutsch himself doesn't say it so succinctly in his book but see circa p. 44 and he says what is condensed in the above quotation.

And for consciousness he says this:

Source: David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality, p. 337-338

"...I expect the solution to the 'What is consciousness?" problem to depend on quantum theory. It will invoke no specific quantum-mechanical processes, but it will depend crucially on the quantu-mechanical and especially the multi-universe, world-picture."

© Copyright Original Source

[TheLurch]

This isn't going to be a thorough reply - short on time, but i wasn't clear in some of my phrasing (sorry about that), and have a few things i think i can clarify quickly.

I think you are equating foreknowledge with determinism. I don't think those are the same thing. I don't have to know what a robot programmed by another guy will do next in order for his actions to be completely determined by his programmer.

I don't think i am here. The wave function is inherently probabilistic. And there have been a number of papers in the last few years that indicate that the wave function is "real", in the sense that it's not just a mathematical construct that represents some underlying reality.

Would you care to share with us what the actual observational evidence of this statement is? I can't think of any that would back up your statement.

It wasn't meant to be empirical/evidence based. I was just pointing out that you jumped to the conclusion that i was arguing for quantum effects being sufficient to switch the nature of decisions (your example was a change in destination for the trip). I was just pointing out that the scope could be much much more modest, but things would still not be deterministic. Sorry if that was unclear.

You are wrong. go look again.

Poor phrasing on my part - the quote describes von Neumann's work in the 1930s. The key point is that the relevant work was done when quantum was in its infancy.

All I can say is that you are not keeping up with quantum. A Squid device is a macroscopic thing, and it can be put in superposition:

You're wrong, in that i have been keeping up with quantum, but right in your larger point. We have, in the last few years, been pushing the size of what we can entangle up to the edge of being visible with the naked eye (or at least a younger naked eye than mine). I believe the largest object yet is a mechanical oscillator. So, very poor phrasing on my part here.

But the larger point still stands - these things have to be kept near absolute zero, or environmental affects start to eliminate the entanglement before it can be measured. In fact, many of these systems have a very high failure rate even when kept at absolute zero - they only "work" because we can cycle the electronics fast enough to do thousands of tries an hour. Which means that an entire detection apparatus, such as the one in von Neumann's thought experiment, remains beyond our abilities to place in a quantum state.

I will think on this issue. I don't think it actually impacts the argument I laid out, but I would say, a real life observer did program the thing--That in itself raises an interesting philosophical question.

If you'd like to look at a paper that relies on delayed choice experiments, let me know and i'll try to dig out a reference.

I don't think von Neumann can be said to be wrong, by you or even 'most quantum mechanics', which argument is an argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. the number of people who say something has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of what they say. You should read a logic book. Don't mean to be nasty here, but anytime you say 'everyone knows...' or 'everyone says..." in a logical discussion, you are committing a logical fallacy. See Irvin Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972, p. 79 for a discussion.

I'm well aware of the logical fallacy. But it's clear that neither of us is an expert on quantum mechanics, and so there is value for both of us in deferring to the people who currently are experts. And it's worth seeing looking at the experiments that are currently done, and see how they're treating the concept of observers.

It doesn't mean they're necessarily right, but they are certainly more likely to be right than either of us or an 80 year old argument.

[The Pixie]

If you accept the assumptions I laid out, that is what the logic says. which assumption do you disagree with. (A quick quibble voluntary may not be equivalent to the term free will.

You stated "For the purposes of this discussion, free will is a voluntary intentional action." From this, I understand you to mean that if an action is voluntary and intentional then it is free will. Okay, that does not mean that "voluntary" is equivalent to "free will", but I never said it was. Could you therefore clarify what you mean here?

However, what I am really asking is how you get to: "Therefore, actions have no free will." If I accept your statement "For the purposes of this discussion, free will is a voluntary intentional action." , then:

"Therefore, actions have no free will."

... could be written:

"Therefore, no action is voluntary and intentional."

Would that be fair? The reason for doing this is to be sure there is no equivocation going on here. Free will is a nebulous term, as I am sure you know, and the last thing we want is for its meaning to change part way through an argument.

In your OP, you say:

Conclusion 5. Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states. Therefore, actions have no free will. The mental state is caused by the arrangement of matter, and the action is caused by the mental state. The individual is forced to do, believe and experience what the patterns of atoms in his brain require, and those atoms, in turn, are required follow the laws of the universe.

This seems to be two conclusions, firstly "Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states." and then a conclusion that supposedly follows from that: "Therefore, actions have no free will." The word "therefore" makes it appear that you are concluding the latter from the former. Is that right? I have to say, I find it suspicious that you have kind of hidden "Therefore, actions have no free will." inside another conclusion, and yet this is fundamental to your argument! Surely this should be conclusion 6 - unless you want to hide it away because you are aware the logic is not good? Let us hope that is not the case!

I accept your assumptions. Specifically I accept that: "Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states." But also I accept that "Beliefs are mental states and arise in the epiphenomenon of the matter in our brain from the particular arrangement of the atoms in the brain which follow the laws of the universe. Beliefs, memories, experience etc are entirely due to an arrangement of matter." I make my choices based on my mental states, and so based on the arrangements of atoms. My choices do therefore follow from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies my mental states. But they are still choices; I see no reason to suppose they are not voluntary, not intentional.

So again, I ask, please explain how you get from:

"Actions have no escape from the inexorable demands of the laws of physics and the arrangement of matter which underlies the mental states."

to:

"Therefore, no action is voluntary and intentional."

Is this an argument that you hope will convince metaphysical naturalists? If it is, then, speaking as a metaphysical naturalist myself, this is the step that is contentious, this is the step that needs to be clearest, and brushing off objections with "that is what the logic says" is really not going to cut. On the other hand, if you merely want to impress your fellow theists please feel free to ignore this post.

[The Pixie]

...

To put some backing to the above paragraph, that Quantum requires an intender/observer, let us cite John von Neumann's work on Quantum. He showed that physical systems obeying the laws of physics should form an almost infinite chain of superposed states--in other words matter can't collapse the wave function of matter. Rosenblum and Kuttner say:

Source: Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 184

"In his rigorous 1932 treatment, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann showed that quantum theory makes physics' encounter with consciousness inevitable. He considered a measuring apparatus, a Geiger counter, for example. It is isolated from the rest of the world but makes contact with a quantum system, say, an atom simultaneously in two boxes. This Geiger counter is set to fire if the atom is in the top box and to remain unfired if the atom is in the bottom box. Von Neumann showed that if the Geiger counter is a physical system governed by quantum mechanics, it would enter a superposition state with the atom and be, simultaneously, in a fired and an un fired state. (We saw this situation in the case of Schrodinger's cat.)"

"Should a second isolated measuring apparatus come into contact with the Geiger counter-for example, an electronic device recording whether the Geiger counter has fired-it joins the superposition state and records both situations existing simultaneously. This so-called "von Neumann chain" can continue indefinitely. Von Neumann showed that no physical system obeying the laws of physics (i.e., quantum theory) could collapse a superposition state wavefunction to yield a particular result."

"However, when we look at the Geiger counter, we will always see a particular result, not a superposition. Von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer doing something that is not presently encompassed by physics can collapse a wavefunction. Though for all practical purposes one can consider the wavefunction collapsed at any macroscopic stage of the von Neumann chain, von Neumann concluded that only a conscious observer can actually make an observation."

© Copyright Original Source

Quantum cries out for the soul. If the observer arises solely from the arrangement of matter in our brain, then it too should be governed by the laws of physics and go into that infinite chain of quantum entanglement von Neumann speaks of. Something must exist outside of the laws of physics for the laws of quantum physics to have collapsed wave functions.

Actually an observer is any device capable of measuring.

In quantum mechanics, "observation" is synonymous with quantum measurement and "observer" with a measurement apparatus and "observable" with what can be measured. Thus the quantum mechanical observer does not have to necessarily present or solve any problems over and above the (admittedly difficult) issue of measurement in quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanical observer is also intimately tied to the issue of observer effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observ...tum_physics%29

Certainly one interpretation is that the observer must be a conscious mind, but that is merely one interpretation. The resolution to Schrödinger's cat is to note tha the detector is an observer.

Analysis of an actual experiment found that measurement alone (for example by a Geiger counter) is sufficient to collapse a quantum wave function before there is any conscious observation of the measurement.[14] The view that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector can be developed into objective collapse theories. The thought experiment requires an "unconscious observation" by the detector in order for magnification to occur. In contrast, the many worlds approach denies that collapse ever occurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

See also:

The notion that the interpretation of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is rooted, I believe, in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of a) the quantum wavefunction ψ, and b) the quantum measurement process. This misunderstanding originated with the work of John von Neumann (1932) on the foundations of quantum mechanics, and afterwards it was spread by some prominent physicists like Eugene Wigner (1984); by now it has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless discussions on this subject, as shown by the articles in the Journal of Cosmology (see volumes 3 and 14).

http://cosmology.com/Consciousness139.html

No need for a soul in QM.

[The Thinker]

I read the whole argument. Your conclusion 6-1 is an assumption, not a conclusion. It doesn't logically and necessarily follow.

Let me help you. It follows from assumption 6. which is our mental states are due to the arrangement of matter. Beliefs are mental states, or are you saying beliefs have nothing to do with our mental state. If beliefs are mental states and mental states are due to the arrangement of matter in the brain, then that follows quite clearly. Beliefs in science, religion, politics etc would not be held by examination of the data, if we are determined beings, they would be held because matter happens to be arranged in that fashion in our brains.

Beliefs are mental states, and mental states are due to an arrangement of matter in the brain, but it does not logically and necessarily follow from this that beliefs are not due to evidence. You are assuming that the arrangement of atoms in the brain is not due to the evidence and that there is no logical or physical connection between them. From there you whole argument falls apart.

Agreed, if our soul is being fooled, then science can't be true, shoot, nothing can be true. I know of no evidence that our souls are systematically fooled, but I could add such an assumption. Thanks.

If the soul is getting data from the senses and the senses can sometimes be fooled then the soul can be fooled. If not, then you need to explain why we sometimes get things wrong and are fooled on your view, because it would seem that on your view the soul can't be fooled. I see no reason to think that.

Mostly I am agreeing here, but I am not just positing a soul that interacts truthfully with reality. I am saying that if we assume we are merely matter, lacking a soul, the consequences include the destruction of science. Science may not exist at all if the soul is fooled, but I know that if I start by saying we have no soul, science is utter crap, as is religion and everything else.

And I am saying that this assumption, or "conclusion" as you call it, is totally unjustified. There is no logic that necessarily rules out the possibility that purely physical beings interact rationally with their environment via their sense data. You seem to rule out even that possibility, but you've made no argument doing so.

Argument by hyperlink lacking any explanation is lazy. sorry, but it is.

I did provide an explanation. Here it was:

And this is totally false. If it is the case that we have a soul, science would have confirmed it. What you don't realize is that dark matter - whatever it is - is too weakly interacting to have any effect on our atoms. So if a soul is like it, it cannot affect our bodies in a way that wouldn't have been detected already or that is undetectable. If you knew quantum field theory you would know this. And we've completed the standard model of physics such that there are no forces out there unaccounted for that can have any effect on our atoms. They would have been found already. A soul that injects energy into the universe would violate the law of the conservation of energy too. So if we're assuming that we have a soul under your description that is required for science then science would disprove it. That means it is self contradictory.

I don't see how much more of an explanation do you want. Your position is self contradictory. You're just not dealing with the evidence and you know you can't because it refutes your entire view.