Page 1 of 1

Copenhagen Interpretation is WHAT?

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:33 am
by Trickfox
This came from :?: so I'm passing to :arrow: anyone.
******************locality begins************

Werner Heisenberg, "Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics", p. 97:

"Pure Being contracted to a point, but it could repeat itself any number of times; it became indivisible and indestructible and hence it was called 'atom'. The world was reduced to atoms and the empty space between them."

Niels Bohr, "Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature", p. 98:

"...In particular, the apparent contrast between the continuous outward flow of associative thinking and the preservation of the unity of personality exhibits a suggestive analogy with the relation between the wave description of the motions of material particles, governed by the superposition principle, and their indestructible individuality."

These two quotes together, from the two principal founders of quantum theory, establish beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is profoundly ontological and metaphysical in character. The physical world comprised of aggregates of atomic particles cannot be primary, because the atomic particles are not primary. Rather they come into being by a descending process of emanation from a non-physical realm of "Pure Being". They can also, therefore, pass out of being, which means that the creation and destruction operators of quantum field theory describe real processes of unfolding and enfolding, as David Bohm has claimed. This is nothing new, however - it was precisely the view of the founders.

The second quote, from Niels Bohr, makes clear that the material particles are not just figments of our imagination - they possess, in contrast to our description of them an "indestructible individuality", which is like Kant's noumenon insofar as it is essentially unknowable, and yet the implicit basis for what we can know. Similarly, we are not figments of our own imagination. Our "unity of personality" is in contrast to "the continuous outward flow of associative thinking", which is precisely our "stream of consciousness". Although our unity of personality can become a content of the stream of consciousness, insofar as we can know who we are and insofar as all of our perceptions have a self-referential possiblity, the unity of personality is *in contrast* to the outward flow of the "stream of consciousness" and it cannot therefore be reduced to it or to a content of it.

Henry Stapp, who was an intimate student of both Heisenberg and Pauli, argues against the crystal clear logic presented here, and by his tortured logic claims that neither the unity of personality of the observer or the indestructible individuality of the observed are anything but features of the stream of consciousness, on the one hand, and the wave description of the motions of material particles, on the other hand. Such is the distortion practiced by one of the greatest of living physicists, to say nothing of the hacks, who haven't even got a clue.
Stapp has for years been teaching that the Copenhagen Interpretation is non-ontological and merely pragmatic. This confusion stems from an unfamiliarity with modern phenomenology, ala Descartes and Husserl, wherein the foundation of all existence is found in absolute self-existent consciousness, rather that in a self-existent material or physical world. More profoundly, the confusion stems from ignorance due to lack of experience of absolute self-existent consciousness. Bohr's denial of the existence of a self-existent material or physical world is by no means a "non-ontological" stance - rather it is the profound affirmation of the only ontological system that passes muster, namely that associated with the phenomenological philosophy of Descartes and Husserl. Bohr's actual words only make sense in that context - they do not make sense in the context of the tortured logic that Stapp attempts to apply to them.

What is at stake is not just the correct interpretation of the present quantum theory, but what the founders felt to be the key to the next generation of quantum theory, which will be stillborn unless the truth comes out about what the Copenhagen Interpretation really is:

****************locality ends************************


empty space between

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:32 pm
by Elizabeth Helen Drake

Oh, Jeez .... wish I had paid more attention in my science classes. I was the kid, hiding in the back, how many of you were right back there with me? But hold on. This isn't impossible to look at. Just will take some time.

If you all haven't figured already I rely heavily on intuition. So join me for a moment looking at this subject (and then please join me with your comments ... even if you don't entirely understand what is presented .. we can still talk about it!) Operating here on what was earlier called that "subtle communication" (maybe that little voice that we all hear should have a stronger voice.)

Anyway ... the first thing I notice is that Hiesenberg in the quote Trickfox mentions ( The Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics ... page 97) is that the SPACE BETWEEN ATOMS IS EMPTY.

MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE TRUE? Back- of- the -class- physics- student that I was ... daring to comment on the great Heisenberg? Sure! why not? I'm just listening to that little voice. Comments?

Mystically people have felt for centuries that there is SOMETHING there. And slowly with the advanced study of quantum physics perhaps this will be proven. What was it that Luke was told about the FORCE? Elizabeth

Separated by Words

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:49 pm
by Victoria Steele
Trickfox and Elizabeth,

Here a problem I think has been world wide and age old. Our own words get in the way. All due respect to you Trickfox, you obviously know what you are talking about, but how is that helping the rest of us when we can't wade through those words and phrases? My head exploded halfway through about the second paragraph. Those words served more to confound.

Anyone know the biblical story of the tower of Babel? Apparently humans decided to build this tower , to get closer to God. They made serious mistakes and God "confused their words" so that they would never be able to communicate like that again ... and the tribes dispersed, each speaking different languages. But the deal is the same in this case. Our words have turned to Babble. (no insult to you trickfox, but you have to see what I am talking about.)

And so, if anything maybe Paul can learn from this. Use the old standard saying . The KISS principle. "Keep it Simple Stupid". Victoria

Holes in space

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:44 pm
by Mark Culpepper
On this discussion on Heisenberg regarding space being empty.

I had a student walk up to me and out of the blue ask me ...

If there is nothing in space ...... How can there be a hole in it?

I just blinked at her because my brain had stopped.


Re: Separated by Words

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:27 pm
by Trickfox
Victoria Steele wrote: Use the old standard saying . The KISS principle. "Keep it Simple Stupid". Victoria

Ok Victoria but, you will still have to answer the pole. Your stuck with "I don't know if this has anything to do with TTBrown.

OK here is a kiss :oops: for you, and it's because your strength is in "historical context" I'd say you are fitting in just right as the Dr. Daniel Jackson equivalent of our SG1 team. Just look in the literature for the key words and forget about anyone younger than 200 years old.

:arrow: You are stuck in a milk universe. Everything is white around you and you have never seen space, Black does not exist, Empty Space does not exist. :?
All of a sudden the big bang occures and all the white stuff separates and forms into separate things "objects" (something you never even conceived before). :shock:
You decide to call it "matter" and lo, and behold everything becomes separated by this brand new event called empty space. Again space (empty space) is a concept that never occured to you until the big bang. :?

Now Science tells us that in the past there was an enormous big bang and matter came into being. I ask you Who decided this? God? :twisted:

Victoria, just read the survey and look for strange loops and past uses of words and phrases in you own research. It's in the stuff you allready found and then told me about. You made another link here so don't sell yourself Short.

Elizabeth is catching my drift but her questions are challenging. Remember I am in download mode here I have to go back and re-read everything to see if I understand what I wrote myself. :roll:


white cow in a snowstorm

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:23 am
by Trickfox ... htm?csp=34

So it turns out that Mather Smoot decides what the big bang really is.

A white cow in a snow storm.
Kitselman was right about his "hello stupid" book.

getting the drift

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 5:13 pm
by Mark Culpepper
Trickfox: How can I answer your poll when I don't even know yet what that all actually says! Give me more than a few moments to ponder on this!

I am amazed though that you were able to cobble together what you did. The messages from March 6th I had completely forgotten about!

WE seem to be making some sort of common language sense. Am I the only one to see that? Between you and Elizabeth, and Victoria of course we seem to be on some sort of mental journey together and the strange thing is that I can understand , I think what is being grasped at. Let me ponder on this some more.

And I am sure Elizabeth would say to all of you too ..... for those of you who are simply reading this and havent posted your thoughts yet I encourage you to raise your hand in this class. You probably feel like the student in the back of the class (I could just see you there Elizabeth, I used to particularly count on calling on those in the back, thinking they were going to hide out. Never works you know. We are on to you guys. But what is always true is that some very good answers come from those that hide out like that in the back row. Those students sometimes know stuff they never would even believe they would be capable of knowing. So I say again to the rest of you out there. Come on! join us! Don't let these big words put you off . Thats not what this is all about! Join Us! This is a grand journey! MarkC

from another posting

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:06 pm
by grinder
I just "happened" to find this on another post and thought that it belonged here.

And especially this quote from Paul :

Lots of physicists today say that the quantum void is filled with energy. Kozyrev (a Russian counterpart to TTBrown --I'll find the link) said the quantum void is filled with "conscious energy."

This communications system... what Morgan first observed, what was disclosed in a patent that is now mostly missing, what is left out of certain other reports: that's how you communicate with that conscious energy.

I don't have all the pieces lined up yet, I can't finish that though technically, but I'm pretty sure that's where it goes. "


more from the past thoughts

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:07 am
by grinder
Just mentally thumbing through the old posts and I found this, which I thought was pretty interesting. Funny how we seem to have been circling around the same subject ... 3a5b64#312

As you can see this is Victorias post and look how old it was! And how current the thought train is! Its amazing how we keep coming back to this stuff! Around and around and around. Is it because we didn't get it the first time?

From Victoria:

"Are you at all familiar with the work of Teilhard De Chardin? I think you probably are .... but for others out there where the name is a mystery, De Chardin was a Roman Catholic Priest (1888- April 1955) Though shackled severely by the church he was considered a mystic, visionary and prophet..... He believed that the human race was still evolving, his vision was that humanity as a "union of free persons" was "BEING PROPELLED" toward what he called the "God- ahead" The SINGLEPOINT of convergence ... where mankind would learn its consummate meaning"

(And then this is back to the subject that Mikado mentioned again, that maybe LOVE was the most important element of this story. Did he say that? If not, maybe I should. Anyway look at the quote from Victoria.)

"Teilhard warned however that this new society could never be valid unless it was underpinned by love. "The world cannot endure, advance or realize itself without the action of a power that is a species of love."

then she continues with her own question, which is a great one!

"Somebody tell me what he meant by "Power that is a species of Love" because I think thats what we have been talking about here ... this unseen energy that Townsend Brown knew somehow existed. This Intelligent ether? Am I on the right track? Maybe? Comments? Victoria "

See? We are right back around to that main thread. Isn't that amazing? Victoria posted the above on March 6th ........ eight months ago folks! grinder