Is it pointless attempting to conceive the notion of higher dimensions?

[User 301X/5.1]

Why would the special properties which bring about consciousness be confined to the only the additional dimensions?

If you are describing consciousness as a universal connection of all things then surely it is spread throughout all (or actually just "is") all of the dimensions in the universe.

Just chucking something special you can't explain into somewhere else that we can't explain because we can't see it/test it etc is not logical.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well I have no idea what a 'batural' fact is, but you clearly need to go back and read Greek philosophy about the Logos and mind/body duality with regard to human consciousness, because that's what your theory boils down to - there is no clear reason why we exist the way we do in this Reality, therefore there must be Other than explains how it works.

3000 years old, and the last 400 years of progress in science and philosophy have been trying to get away from it. It's also the basis of all religion (your extra-dimensional Causal Effect would be God to a theist), and finally it's a Dwyerism - remember the 'Rational Proof Of Gods Existance'? He was making EXACTLY the same argument as you are.

 

[merlin wood]

Well I have no idea what a 'batural' fact.

OIh for fuck's sake, kyser_soze is your mockery of an argument to be reduces to this? Well look, I've edited it out now, satisfied?

... but you clearly need to go back and read Greek philosophy about the Logos and mind/body duality with regard to human consciousness, because that's what your theory boils down to - there is no clear reason why we exist the way we do in this Reality, therefore there must be Other than explains how it works.


But then my argument relies solely on the natural facts that are supported just by the available experimental facts of quantum physics so I don't actually need to refer back to Ancient Greek or any other philosophy. It's just handy that Aristotle had this idea of the mind as a universal cause and that in modern philosophy Descarte conceived of the mind as and immaterial substance. And both of these ideas wer knocked down fairly effectively by subsequent philoophers.

... 3000 years old, and the last 400 years of progress in science and philosophy have been trying to get away from it. It's also the basis of all religion (your extra-dimensional Causal Effect would be God to a theist), Well it's inter3esting that you mention Theists because their God was ome of nop religion as well. and finally it's a Dwyerism - remember the 'Rational Proof Of Gods Existance'? He was making EXACTLY the same argument as you are.

'ome of nop religion'? um...tut tut

And you should note that this argument on my blog is by no means a 'Rational Proof Of Gods Existance' but a rational/scientific deduction just from enough consistently confirmed empirical evidence of its effects for an invisible universally acting cause with certain general properties. So in this respect, anyway, this cause is just like one of the forces.

While people may or may not choose call this further universal cause a god, just as they like, of course.

 

[merlin wood]

And especially having heard the latest news from Iraq, I should add that the account on my blog is not just an intellectual game or, indeed, an argument against atheism.

But if you'd noticed - and perhaps above all these days anyway - this account is a scientific argument against the most dangerous delusion in any religion, which is that there exists some elsewhere world that one goes to after death.

So that reasons can be found just from the natural facts to consider that there's no eternal afterllife existence of any kind in any heaven, paradise, land of milk and honey, hell, inferno, purgatory or limbo. Nor any place where one is punished or rewarded for one's earthly beliefs or actions, including murdering or maiming people in a so-called 'holy war'.

But instead, in virtue of the minds, selves, souls or subjects of human beings and othere living organisms being parts of a single species form conserving cause, for all human beings it is our human identity and experience that survives death. And so that one need not have any memores of any past lives because one's identity is ultimately collective for the whole human species.

While unlearned or instinctive actions of any organism can be regarded as resulting from species memories or recognition, rather than resulting somehow directly as the result of any genetic material..

 

[Crispy]

Except that what produces consciousness needs to be extradimensional

I'm sorry, this is still a major stumbling block for me. I don't see the the 'need' for extra dimensions. The interaction of the various parts of the body and the brain account for all the behaviours of the mind, as far as I can see.

So that reasons can be found just from the natural facts to consider that there's no eternal afterllife existence of any kind in any heaven, paradise, land of milk and honey, hell, inferno, purgatory or limbo. Nor any place where one is punished or rewarded for one's earthly beliefs or actions, including murdering or maiming people in a so-called 'holy war'.

Agreed. There is no evidence for the afterlife.

But instead, in virtue of the minds, selves, souls or subjects of human beings and othere living organisms being parts of a single species form conserving cause, for all human beings it is our human identity and experience that survives death. And so that one need not have any memores of any past lives because one's identity is ultimately collective for the whole human species.

But what is the evidence for this?

 

[merlin wood]

I'm sorry, this is still a major stumbling block for me. I don't see the the 'need' for extra dimensions. The interaction of the various parts of the body and the brain account for all the behaviours of the mind, as far as I can see.

But then I've aleady been through all this Crispy!

It's not the "behaviours of the mind" that I've been talking about but the existence of the mind and consciousness.

Because you can ask how is it, as a matter if natural fact, that any experience of the world or consciousness in general is at all possible?

So these days science can say all your thoughts, dreams, fealings and experience of the world are the result of the hugely intricate stucture and functioning of the brain and nervous system.

But then you can think things like: my body can be examined by all the most sophistcated observing and detecting instuments in the world but nowhere will they observe or directly detect my thoughts, feelings, preceptions etc themselves? How is that?

So where is my consciousness anyway?

And then again, how is it that all this structure and functioning of my brain and nervous system results in my experiencing anything at all?

So how does all this cerebral and neural anatomy and electrochemical activity in my body transform or translate into all my thoughts and experiences?

And I propose that, just as you need an extra-dimensional answer to how matter can be and remain in any form as atoms, molecules and living organisms, so do you need such an explanation for the existence of the mind and consciousness.

Agreed. There is no evidence for the afterlife.

But what is the evidence for this?

And this is what my blog is all about. So you basically have to consider certain aspects of the mind in relation to the evidence of quantum physics and matter in general as observed and found by experiment to sufficiently justify and describe enough details of a cause as this acts universally, constantly and extradimensionally in addition to the forces.

And then probably, no prominent physicist anyway would be satisfied with any such account of quantum objects through to human beings without the costruction of a sufficiently detailed extradimensional and nonlocal causal cosmological theory as well.

 

[kyser_soze]

But then you can think things like: my body can be examined by all the most sophistcated observing and detecting instuments in the world but nowhere will they observe or directly detect my thoughts, feelings, preceptions etc themselves? How is that?

Recently been done in a rat - scientists observed new neural linkages being created when it learned a new way of getting food. And while MRI and similar scanners are advanced and sophisticated, in tech terms they're still really new and developing so historically we're probably at about the stage medcine was at the turn of the C20th when it comes to this stuff.

What's REALLY interesting are the MIT experiments which involve a person wearing an ECG band with a black box recorder and digicam attached to them all day, every day so it's possible to match up brain patterns with actions, reactions etc.

but the existence of the mind and consciousness.

And once again, we're back to Plato - the idea that mind (or consciousness) and body are separate entities, and that the place where our thoughts appear HAS to be elsewhere to our bodies.

 

[Crispy]

But then you can think things like: my body can be examined by all the most sophistcated observing and detecting instuments in the world but nowhere will they observe or directly detect my thoughts, feelings, preceptions etc themselves? How is that?

Because we do not yet know enough about the brain, nor do we have sensitive enough equipment.

As kyser says, your argument rests on the assumption that the mind and the body are fundamentally differnet and seperate. I contend that there is no evidence for this. Science based on blind assumption is not science.

 

[merlin wood]

Recently been done in a rat - scientists observed new neural linkages being created when it learned a new way of getting food. And while MRI and similar scanners are advanced and sophisticated, in tech terms they're still really new and developing so historically we're probably at about the stage medcine was at the turn of the C20th when it comes to this stuff.

What's REALLY interesting are the MIT experiments which involve a person wearing an ECG band with a black box recorder and digicam attached to them all day, every day so it's possible to match up brain patterns with actions, reactions etc.



And once again, we're back to Plato - the idea that mind (or consciousness) and body are separate entities, and that the place where our thoughts appear HAS to be elsewhere to our bodies.

Arseholes once again, to you soze and to Plato. How can you explain by any physiological research, how the mind and consciousness exists if you can't find out where the hell these things are anyway?

 

[Crispy]

Because we can't now, doesn't mean we never will, does it?

Besides, there is plenty of evidence to show that the mind is dependant on the physical structure of the brain - people with brain damage in certain areas show consistent changes of personality and function.

 

[merlin wood]

Because we do not yet know enough about the brain, nor do we have sensitive enough equipment.

As kyser says, your argument rests on the assumption that the mind and the body are fundamentally differnet and seperate. I contend that there is no evidence for this. Science based on blind assumption is not science.

My science is not based on blind assumptions!!

So like all existing proper science it is based on initial justified assumptions that are then supported just by the observable or directly detected natural evidence and other scientific theory that is also supported by such evidence.

 

[kyser_soze]

How can you explain by any physiological research, how the mind and consciousness exists if you can't find out where the hell these things are anyway?

The brain is a piece of wetware that reconfigures itself as it goes on - hence my reference to the recent rat experiment, and the black box studies at MIT. You also seem to be giving a huge and special role to consciousness, something that many behavioural and physiological research is now showing to be something that is more an interpretive and impulse control agent, and that much, if not most, of the processing and response work happens without our being aware of it - so from the get go you're assigning the same special qualities to something that increasingly looks like a piece of electrochemical smoke and mirrors that was, and is, evolutionarily useful to us as a species for our survival.

 

[kyser_soze]

My science is not based on blind assumptions!!

You're assuming that physical body and consciousness are separate, and that consciousness exists in a separate dimension to the physical body which has NO empirical evidence to support it. I'd call that a blind assumption.

 

[Crispy]

My science is not based on blind assumptions!!

Yes it is! You assume the mind is seperate and qualatively different from the body/brain. There is no evidence for this - you assume it.

 

[merlin wood]

Yes it is! You assume the mind is seperate and qualatively different from the body/brain. There is no evidence for this - you assume it.

Look, I'm sorry but you willl see I initially assume absolutely no such thing about the mind in my blog paper. So here's a copy and paste of its contents:

1. Initial argument for a non-locally acting cause….3

2 A diagrammatic causal hypothesis of the
quantum evidence………………………………...................8

2.1 Composite quantum organisation….…….........8

2.2 The quantum wave.……………………..,,...............14

3 Astronomical evidence……………………………...........19

3.1 The early universe: an alternative to
cosmic inflation?…….……………………………............19

3.2 Non-local causation as an alternative to
dark matter?………………………………...................21

3.3 The formation of cosmic voids and
galaxy clusters………………………………...............21

3.4 Galaxy, star, stellar and planetary
system formation………………………………............24

3.5 Non-local causation and stellar energy…27

4 Evidence of living organisms………………....…30

5 Conclusions………………………………................36

6 References……………………………….................37


And you will actually find absolutely no mention at all of the mind or consciousness until the section 4 on the "Evidence of living organisms" on page 30.

 

[Crispy]

You said it right here (post 231):

Except that what produces consciousness needs to be extradimensional

and here (post 225):

the mind or subject of experience as a distinct and immaterial entity could relate to the body so as to produce consiousness.

That sounds to me like a clear assumption that the mind is seperate from, and of a different nature to, the body.

 

[merlin wood]

You said it right here (post 231):


and here (post 225):


That sounds to me like a clear assumption that the mind is seperate from, and of a different nature to, the body.

Now look Crispy I'm talking here just about my blog hypothesiswhere the extra-dimensional nature of the mind and how it thus produces consciousness is deduced just from my initial quantum hypothesis and that's why I call this a scientific document. So stop messing around will you?

 

[Crispy]

beg your pardon. I'll stop bothering, because despite all this effort, I'm still no closer to understanding the fundamentals of your theory, nor its scientific basis. you're getting wound up. no point in continuing really. good luck with your idea - maybe in the future you'll find a scientist who can get the maths involved.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Now look Crispy I'm talking here just about my blog hypothesiswhere the extra-dimensional nature of the mind and how it thus produces consciousness is deduced just from my initial quantum hypothesis and that's why I call this a scientific document.

I read your blog, didn't follow everything but I think I get the general gist of it.

Can you explain this:

Why does the universe still "need" to present us with the measurement problem?

If you wanted a really complete answer your theory should work but without the need for an observer (within 4D space-time) to observe a sub-atomic particle in order to determine it'sproperties.

In other words:

the non-local universal cause you describe is effectively the net conciousness of everthing in the universe which resides in it's completeness or "oneness" in additional dimensions.......BUT to obtain the facts about particles in the 4D space time around us the measurement problem requires that just one part of this net conciousness which is a part of the net conciosness projected onto the 4D spacetime realm, actually makes an observation before reality can be desribed.

If the net conciousness is "causing" everything, why does it need a part of itself to observe it's "effect" in order to make the "cause?

How could you explain that even if your theory were fully developed and proven?

 

[gurrier]

But then you can think things like: my body can be examined by all the most sophistcated observing and detecting instuments in the world but nowhere will they observe or directly detect my thoughts, feelings, preceptions etc themselves? How is that?

Em, because you haven't bothered reading any of the findings of modern neuroscientific research? If you had, you would know that there is a vast and rapidly growing body of published results which demonstrate direct observation of neuronal correlates of all sorts of complex percepts. For example, in [1] a neuron apparently encoding Bill Clinton was directly observed.

The reasons that all of this research is so new and incomplete are several, including:
a) the large number of neurons
b) their tiny size
c) the even larger number of synapses
d) their even tinier size
e) the complexity of the chemical mix which makes up the inter-synaptic medium
f) the difficulty of directly observing single neuron activity given the fact that it requires one to insert micro-electrodes into a conscious subject's cranium.

Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, there is an astonishing amount of evidence linking particular perceptions to specific neuronal activity.

Oh, and by the way, your theory is silly and you are a crank. People who aren't cranks don't develop theories about the mind without bothering to investigate the first thing about the state of research in the field.

[1] Kreiman, G. Koch, C., and Fried, I. "Single neuron correlates of subjective vision in the human medial temporal lobe," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 99:8378-8383 (2002).

 

[merlin wood]

I read your blog, didn't follow everything but I think I get the general gist of it.

Can you explain this:

Why does the universe still "need" to present us with the measurement problem?

If you wanted a really complete answer your theory should work but without the need for an observer (within 4D space-time) to observe a sub-atomic particle in order to determine it'sproperties.

In other words:

the non-local universal cause you describe is effectively the net conciousness of everthing in the universe which resides in it's completeness or "oneness" in additional dimensions.......BUT to obtain the facts about particles in the 4D space time around us the measurement problem requires that just one part of this net conciousness which is a part of the net conciosness projected onto the 4D spacetime realm, actually makes an observation before reality can be desribed.

If the net conciousness is "causing" everything, why does it need a part of itself to observe it's "effect" in order to make the "cause?

How could you explain that even if your theory were fully developed and proven?

But then if you had read my blog carefully enough you would have found that I start by assuming that a de Broglie-Bohm or Bohmian type interpetation (BI) of the experimental findings of quantum physics is correct. And thus not any kind of indeterminate Copenhagen type interpretation (CI) (nor any other kind of quantum account eg. many worlds, stochastic etc.).

This assumption then enables me to develop a nonlocal causal quantum hypothesis that I find can be supported by considering the large scale natural evidence of where it is thought a nonlocally acting cause could also act.

So in complete contrast to CI, BI finds that an account can be given of quantum objects in motion can be given whereby they are both extended waves and particles with definite positions and momentum at all times. While the Uncertainty Principle just describes a systematic and unavoidable limitation in measurement of quantum behaviour from the results of any quantum experiment.

BI thus finds that there need be no superposition of states nor any 'Schrodinger's Cat' problem while the quantum wave has real causal properties that thus produces quantum interference and diffraction.

So in the double slit experiment the quantum particle travels through one or other of the openings in the barrier while at the same time the quantum wave passes through both slits. And this wave and particle behaviour has been visualised in diagrams based on the calculations in Bohmian mechanics.

So this is the Bohmian wave interference in the double slit experiment:

And these are the particle trajectories produced by this wave:

 

[User 301X/5.1]

This assumption then enables me to develop a nonlocal causal quantum hypothesis that I find can be supported by considering the large scale natural evidence of where it is thought a nonlocally acting cause could also act.

i don't understand this bit. Please explain.

 

[merlin wood]

i don't understand this bit. Please explain.

This bit is basically what my blog is about.

So it follows from Bohm's account of wave/particle duality that the quantum wave has real effects by causing quantum interference and diffraction as it deflects the paths or trajectories of quantum particles.

Therefore the Bhomian wave can be described as a non-local cause because it cannot be described as surrounding objects in 3D space and acting locally to objects like the forces that act at a distance.

The initial quantum hypothesis in my blog provides diagrams that indirectly represent the action of a nonlocal cause as this would produce effects from extra spatial dimensions and as a material form and organisation maintaining or conserving cause.

Then I consider large scale natural evidence of where such a cause could act in addition to the forces and thus supporting the initial nonlocal causal hypothesis.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

This bit is basically what my blog is about.

So it follows from Bohm's account of wave/particle duality that the quantum wave has real effects by causing quantum interference and diffraction as it deflects the paths or trajectories of quantum particles.

Therefore the Bhomian wave can be described as a non-local cause because it cannot be described as surrounding objects in 3D space and acting locally to objects like the forces that act at a distance.

The initial quantum hypothesis in my blog provides diagrams that indirectly represent the action of a nonlocal cause as this would produce effects from extra spatial dimensions and as a material form and organisation maintaining or conserving cause.

Then I consider large scale natural evidence of where such a cause could act in addition to the forces and thus supporting the initial nonlocal causal hypothesis.

I still don't get it. For me there seems to be rather too many leaps of understanding in just one assumption.

Perhaps you could direct me to some recommendations for some back-ground material regarding Bohm's theory.

cheers..

 

[merlin wood]

I still don't get it. For me there seems to be rather too many leaps of understanding in just one assumption.

Perhaps you could direct me to some recommendations for some back-ground material regarding Bohm's theory.

cheers..

Well I could never for the life of me get the Copenhagen interpretation. So what is a "superposition of states" really anyway? And who can show it's not just a sophisticated way of covering up one's ignorance?

Here's a Bohmian link that puts you on to other links at the bottom of the page.

But actually I have yet to find a really decent site on Bohm on the internet. The best and most straightforward account I've come across is on pp 207-216 of the book Beyond Measure by Jim Baggott.

But then again, David Bohm himself could be quite confusing and obscure in his books about his own interpretation.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Well I could never for the life of me get the Copenhagen interpretation. So what is a "superposition of states" really anyway? And who can show it's not just a sophisticated way of covering up one's ignorance?

Here's a Bohmian link that puts you on to other links at the bottom of the page.

But actually I have yet to find a really decent site on Bohm on the internet. The best and most straightforward account I've come across is on pp 207-216 of the book Beyond Measure by Jim Baggott.

But then again, David Bohm himself could be quite confusing and obscure in his books about his own interpretation.

Yea...I read around that stuff a little.

Maybe I am missing something but this theory just seems like some clever description to get around the measurement problem.

I don't see how it solves it at all.

What is the difference between a particle chosing a path because it is being guided by a wave.....and........measuring that a particle chose a particular path which was probabilistically defined by a wave???

I think its just a load of words which is probably why it has not been taken on board by the majority of the sceintific community scince it's publication some 70 years ago.

Your theory is heavily exprapolated from this unpopular and unproven theory.

 

[merlin wood]

Yea...I read around that stuff a little.

Maybe I am missing something but this theory just seem like some clever description to get around the measurement problem.

I don't see how it solves it at all.

Well, of course, bohmian mechanics by itself doesn't solve it all.

What is the difference between a particle chosing a path because it is being guided by a wave and measuring that a particle chose a particular path which was probabilistically defined by a wave???

How could particles choose anything any more than the moon can choose to orbit around the Earth?

I think its just a load of words which is probably why it has not been taken on board by the majority of the sceintific community scince it's publication some 70 years ago.

Actually Bohm's account was published 55 years ago and certainly did not merely involve a load of words but also quite a lot of calculations. This is a key point, whereas the Copenhagen Interpretation was just a load of words.

And Pauli, Bohr, Born and other founding fathers of quantum mehanics actually rejected Bohm's interpretation for no scientific reasons at all, while the majority of other physicists followed these leaders like a load of sheep. And if the leaders had accepted Bohm's account then they would have had to admit that their Copenhagen Interpretation had been completely wrong for the previous 25 years.

Your theory is heavily exprapolated from this unpopular and unproven theory.

That's my point. I insist the quantum hypothesis at http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ clearly supports a Bohmian nonlocal causal interpretation by considering the large scale ordinary observable natural evidence.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Well, of course, bohmian mechanics by itself doesn't solve it all.

What I meant was that bohemian mechanics doesn't really seem to solve the measurement problem.

How could particles choose anything any more than the moon can coose to orbit around the Earth?

How does this statement prove or even say anything.......We can all find nonsence comparisons when comparing sub-atomic particles with massive objects. Thats the main problem at the heart of today's understanding of physics.

Actually Bohm's account was published 55 years ago and certainly did not merely involve a load of words but also quite a lot of calculations. This the point, whereas the Copenhagen Interpretation was just a load of words.

The link you provided above says this theory was first established in 1927.

And Pauli, Bohr, Born and other founding fathers of quantum mehanics actually rejected Bohm's interpretation for no scientific reasons at all while majority of other physicists followed these leaders like a load of sheep. While if the leaders had accepted this account then they would have had to admit that their Copenhagen Interpretation been completely wrong for the previous 25 years.

I have also followed this like a sheep, because its the most popular interpretation. I never even heard of bohm's interpretation until you raised it. You even refer to it as obscure in your post above.


I don't see how anything could be proven to set this apart from the wave/particle duality type theories. What it boils down to for me is as follows:

- the measurement problem need an observer (local) for the wave function to collapse into an answer.

OR AS YOUR THEORY:
- something else (non-local) makes the wave function collapse into an answer.

they are fundamentally the same thing really.

But what you have done is to take advantage by developing a theory assuming the non-local solution is corrent just because other things in the universe also appear to be non-local.

But.....we really can't explain the difference between the conciousness of a local observer and a non-local cause. once again they are probably the same thing - just different words.

So they are the same thing unless you can define a difference of disprove a concious local observer.

 

[merlin wood]

What I meant was that bohemian mechanics doesn't really seem to solve the measurement problem.

But then, in theoryat least, Bohm's account does solve the measurement problem created By the Copenhagen Interpretation. So CI insisted that the behaviour quantum objects was indeterminate until a measurement is made. And hence Schrodinger's proverbial cat could be both dead and alive or neither dead nor alive until it is observed.

Whereas Bohm's account showed in mathematical detail how such indeterminacy of quantum behaviour need not be the case.

So if you still say that there is a measurement problem then this is justthe quite different practical problem in not being able to accurayely measure or predict quantum behaviour from any experiment and therefore not in the actual inderminacy of this behaviour in quantum objects themselves.

How does this statement prove or even say anything.......We can all find nonsence comparisons when comparing sub-atomic particles with massive objects. Thats the main problem at the heart of today's understanding of physics.

Well my blog resolves the problem of quantum behaviour by justifying and representing details of a cause acting addition to the forces and in quite different way to the forces ie nonlocally, extradimensionally and without pushing or pulling objects.

The link you provided above says this theory was first established in 1927.

.

The Copenhagen Intrerpretation was first proposed by Neils Bohr in 1927. De Broglie's pilot wave interpretation was developed at about the same time but was found to be inadequate. Louis de Broglie then admitted this and accepted CI.

Bohm's account, published in 1952, was the first hidden variables account that was not found to have any faults and was consistent with a wide range of experimental results.

I have also followed this like a sheep, because its the most popular interpretation. I never even heard of bohm's interpretation until you raised it. You even refer to it as obscure in your post above..

.

I'm saying the subsequent books that Bohm wrote about his interpretation were quite obscure but his initial two papers published in 1952 was not so or, at least, no so much so. Although you could wonder about the quantum wave as a cause since there was no apparent evidence elsewhere of such a nonlocally acting cause.

I don't see how anything could be proven to set this apart from the wave/particle duality type theories. What it boils down to for me is as follows:

- the measurement problem need an observer (local) for the wave function to collapse into an answer.

OR AS YOUR THEORY:
- something else (non-local) makes the wave function collapse into an answer.

they are fundamentally the same thing really..[/QUOTE]

No they are most funamentally and profoundly different because only Bohm's account says there's a real cause out there in the world that produces the quantum wave/particle behaviour (as well as spin and entanglement)

But what you have done is to take advantage by developing a theory assuming the non-local solution is corrent just because other things in the universe also appear to be non-local.

But.....we really can't explain the difference between the conciousness of a local observer and a non-local cause. once again they are probably the same thing - just different words.

So they are the same thing unless you can define a difference of disprove a concious local observer.

Another key point about Bohm's quantum mechanics is that it can and has been called a theory without observers and because it justifies and decribes details of both a quantum wave and particles in motion beyond the measured or observed results of any experiment. The difference is that of a detailed enough theory developed from Bohmian mechanics will clearly show that and how a cause acts universally, nonlolocally and extra-dimensionally in addition to the forces.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

But then, in theoryat least, Bohm's account does solve the measurement problem created By the Copenhagen Interpretation. So CI insisted that the behaviour quantum objects was indeterminate until a measurement is made. And hence Schrodinger's proverbial cat could be both dead and alive or neither dead nor alive until it is observed

Whereas Bohm's account showed in mathematical detail how such indeterminacy of quantum behaviour need not be the case.

So could Bohm actually calculate if the cat is alive or dead??

So if you still say that there is a measurement problem then this is justthe quite different practical problem in not being able to accurayely measure or predict quantum behaviour from any experiment and therefore not in the actual inderminacy of this behaviour in quantum objects themselves.

You are saying there is no measurement problem (I think)?? So can you calculate the outcome from first principles??? Please clarify.

Well my blog resolves the problem of quantum behaviour by justifying and representing details of a cause acting addition to the forces and in quite different way to the forces ie nonlocally, extradimensionally and without pushing or pulling objects.

In understand you blog insofar as a 3dimensional "slice" of an extradimensional (>3dimensional) cause could be oberseved as being "non-local" by observers within the 3 spacial dimensions. But so what??? It doesnt really mean anything.

No they are most funamentally and profoundly different because only Bohm's account says there's a real cause out there in the world that produces the quantum wave/particle behaviour (as well as spin and entanglement)

Why is an non-local extradimensional cause any more real than an observer within the 3 spacial dimensions???

If you apply your own logic to this then why cant an observer within the 3 spacial dimensions be described as a "3dimensional" slice of an extradimensional cause (which can also be described as the net conciousness of the universe "as one").

Do you see the similarities? I think these two descriptions are far from "fundamentally and profoundly different".