I understand Bell's point and tend to agree, that Nature does exist without my observing it, but tend to side with Berkley's third alternative in that I as I now know myself may not be the totality of 'the observer'. - bg
I don't think Bell is saying this. Bell in actual fact was a critic of Quantum Mechanics and a proponent of a deterministic interpretation of Schrödinger's equation. –romansh
Sorry romansh, sometimes my thoughts jump around and I don’t explain well.
First, Einstien wrote in a letter to Schrondinger in suppoort of his thought experiment;
Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.- Einstien
So where Bell said;
Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less "measurement-like" processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time? –Belll
Without having read his work, but only from this quote, I’m thinking he is implying yes to his own question. From there I go this direction. Shcrondinger and Eistien are pointing out the inconsistancy between what the evidence shows of the micro when applying it to the macro. However;
but I don't understand that experimental evidence shows wavefunction collapse to be randomly occurring all the time. - bg
That being the case, and wave-function collapse giving rise if you will, to particle-function then I take it he is saying that myself as observer, nor the single celled, nor the multi-celled with a Ph.D, are the cause of wavefunction collapse. And then in adding some agreement with this statement of yours;
I would agree there is little understanding as to what constitutes an observer, but from my understanding it is when there is an exchange of energy. – romansh
And my own thought that all Nature is manifest simply of energy by, well by some change in that energy, and in not throwing out the experimental evidence, then I am agreeing with Bell (I think)and Einstien and Bishop Berkley’s third alternative in that Nature exists outside of my own observation of it. Berkley therefore postulates, and lack of futher evidence at this point leaves one free to sumise, what he terms Eternal Spirit, the same as I think Campbell terms Mind at Large, Einstien called Cosmic Religious Feeling, and I for the purpose of this conversation have called the Observer which may be the I that is more than I as I now know myself. Maybe that's a strech to lump all of those together be I am. So can that be the I of free will? I can’t really say, but it may be that if free will exists, it exists from there. Which then in my dry humoristic way, I kind of see Bell tripping over his own foot so to speak, in that determinism seems to me to have very little room for an unobservable, yet he at the same time he seems to me to postulate the need for just that. Just my opinion of course and I may be assuming a bit more than I should into Bell's view, perhaps he is just supporting another alternative explanation of the observed experimental results, but I hope that's clearer as to my thoughts.
In the end I have to agree with the direction of the conversation and say that I think that greater minds than I have puzzled over the question and the evidences, and at best it seems have redefined the parameters of what constitutes ‘free will’ to fit what can be said. I doubt if I have anything definitive to add to the question, and I guess I’m ok with it either way. But if the story is already written, I still just ask to learn it as I go, as opposed to knowing the whole story and being required to dryly read it anyway. That would be hell, if you ask me.
can you believe in love more than fear