#### LilWabbit

##### Active Member

*a mathematical model*is mistaken for

*a physical observation or entity*. Due to this common philosophical confusion even amongst professional physicists, QM is frequently mystified especially by non-physicists.

The ‘strangeness’ of the probabilistic concepts of QM merely owe to physicists misconstruing them as actual physical entities, whereas to mathematicians there is nothing even remotely strange about statistical probabilities or probability amplitudes. These ‘strange’ notions are further erroneously used by non-physicists to account for various ‘spiritual’ claims. By saying this I am not implying that spiritual claims are automatically untrue. I am merely highlighting the bunkum in

*mis*interpreting quantum physics as

*meta*physics.

The quantum-mechanical statement that ‘measurement/observation causes a wave function collapse’ (reinforced by the Quantum Zeno effect), while

*mathematically*unproblematic, is

*physically*nonsensical due to the aforementioned fundamental philosophical confusion.

The Quantum Zeno effect, like the double-slit experiment, is just one of many examples of the entirely non-mystical fact that an essentially

*statistical probabilistic concept*(i.e. ’a wave function’, which in QM is often mislabelled ’observation’) is by definition

*not directly observable*. Hence, unsurprisingly, actual physical measurement/observation always shows something more definite and different from an abstract mathematical bundle of probabilities (i.e. wave function).

This, in turn, is a function of the current limited mathematical language used in QM – comprising simplistic notions such as ‘wave’, ‘particle’, ‘momentum’ and ‘position’ – to account for the sophistication of actual physical reality in the quantum scale. Less a function of quantum-scale reality being necessarily dependent on, or affected by, our mere awareness of it (i.e. phenomenalism) or our observation of it (i.e. observer effect). Due to these linguistic constraints affecting the setups of experiments, a measurement of the ‘wave’-like character of a quantum entity produces results that cannot be expected from its ‘particle’ nature, and vice versa (the double-slit experiment). Similarly, any accurate measurement of the ‘position’ of a particle loses precision in measuring its ‘momentum’, and vice versa (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle).

As weird as these effects may seem to some, they tell more about the inadequacy of our current

*concepts*in quantum physics than about the quantum reality they are employed to describe. Ironically both, materialist neuroscientists as well as non-materialist consciousness gurus, unscientifically read into these strange paradoxes produced by current linguistic limitations in QM. They read into them to justify their mutually contradictory ideological projects: To demonstrate that consciousness has a physical base, or to show that it is non-physical in nature. Both projects are bunk.

Thoughts?