![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chalmers quote in objections section Chalmers' own response to his quote is worth including from 'Consciousnes and It's Place in Nature' (2002). There is some irony in the fact that philosophers reject interactionism on largely physical grounds* (it is incompatible with physical theory), while physicists reject an interactionist interpretation of quantum mechanics on largely philosophical grounds (it is dualistic).
and in the footnote he directly responds to points he made in 1996:
His shift in perspective seems relevant, rather than simply presenting an immature view of his which he later rescinded. 151.229.113.253 ( talk) 11:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) JJBeer
I'm not sure how to modify the article but I invite you to refer to my work of precise formulation of this interpretation, arguments against other interpretations, and many references. Spoirier ( talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is so most of this article on objection? The objection section is so large despite simply amounting to "it is incompatible with materialism, which most physicists subscribe to." -- 140.32.16.52 ( talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As the article says, All interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically indistinguishable, as they all predict the same outcomes to quantum mechanical experiments.
So, experiments by parapsychologists such as Dean Radin, or by anyone else, are not relevant for this article. Even if they were, they would not belong in the section "The interpretation". I deleted that paragraph. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chalmers quote in objections section Chalmers' own response to his quote is worth including from 'Consciousnes and It's Place in Nature' (2002). There is some irony in the fact that philosophers reject interactionism on largely physical grounds* (it is incompatible with physical theory), while physicists reject an interactionist interpretation of quantum mechanics on largely philosophical grounds (it is dualistic).
and in the footnote he directly responds to points he made in 1996:
His shift in perspective seems relevant, rather than simply presenting an immature view of his which he later rescinded. 151.229.113.253 ( talk) 11:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) JJBeer
I'm not sure how to modify the article but I invite you to refer to my work of precise formulation of this interpretation, arguments against other interpretations, and many references. Spoirier ( talk) 12:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is so most of this article on objection? The objection section is so large despite simply amounting to "it is incompatible with materialism, which most physicists subscribe to." -- 140.32.16.52 ( talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
As the article says, All interpretations of quantum mechanics are empirically indistinguishable, as they all predict the same outcomes to quantum mechanical experiments.
So, experiments by parapsychologists such as Dean Radin, or by anyone else, are not relevant for this article. Even if they were, they would not belong in the section "The interpretation". I deleted that paragraph. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)