PaulBounce v MTCandela1 - Rebuttal Match LIVE in WA! Rumble in the Jungle
Last Update: Feb 2, 2023
Let's get ready to Rumble. In the left corner, we have Maria (Iron) MTC. In the right corner, we have Paul (no balls unless they are observed***) Bounce.
*** Tennis balls silly.
The judges are WA members and Jeff is the ref. The cornermen are the blog dogs in Paul's corner and Kitty the cat in Maria's corner. Jeff wants a clean fight - ear bitting is not allowed and Evander Hollyfield is at ringside to ensure this. So is Tyson but he'll look the other way. Hang on Tyson has just legged it - the taxman has just come in and chased him off.
So let's just very gently kick it off. Maria - I may not answer immediately as I have a busy week. I will though address your answers. It would be interesting to hear Frank's view and anyone else who jumps in. I hope you had a good B'day yesterday Maria and hubby bought you some nice flowers and dinner out. If not you can knock him out - you won't KO me. Let's see ;-)
'If I show a ball, then hide it behind my back, the ball still exists (although you can't see it anymore), is not right. His argument is that the ball doesn't exist when you put it behind your back - it only exists when it's being observed'
The Wigner's Friend experiment would suggest differently. Let's up the game from Schrodinders cat so here's my personal take (Devil's advocate). The universe is consciousness and could not exist without it. Your brain is just a receiver of this consciousness. It's like a TV - the picture does not exist in the television - it's just a receiver of a signal. Unless the tennis ball is observed it doesn't exist. To confuse the issue the ball could be in two places at once - only if it's observed though. If your consciousness is not created within the brain but exists outside it this is possible. The tennis ball exists when you observe it with your eyes but not when you hide it behind your back. That is unless, of course, you have an out-of-body experience and observe it from outside your body. NDEs prove that consciousness can exist outside the body, and I challenge anyone to disprove this. All the materialist arguments can be torn into shreds.
Dualism is king.
Observation is king.
Consciousness is king.
Without consciousness and observation, nothing exists. The new kid on the block is the multiverse theory. It's possible but only when the universes are observed. Each universe has a different outcome to any given event. It's possible that there are trillions of universes and trillions of you. Sometimes you don't put the tennis ball behind your back - sometimes you do in the other universes. This opens up the possibility that trillions of the tennis ball exist at the same time when they are observed.
Consciousness is the keyword here. I suggest that Orch OR theory will prove this and consciousness is stored in microtubules. NDEs (some would claim DMT) are triggers for it to be released. The multiverse theory would support both of our arguments. Your consciousness might be able to travel to another universe to observe the tennis ball there. Here it doesn't exist behind your back - there it does when you observe it.
Maria & Paul
Thank you for providing your dual out. It is a great stress relief after a long day.
Paul you are in for a big challenge. Maria is a force to be reckoned with. Don't mess with Ms. Philippines.
Just a reminder.
She has WA clout👍
This is a compelling round, Paul…I eagerly await Maria’s response. Shall be fun to see judge Jeff’s ruling.
By virtue of "Object permanence," (Jean Piaget's concept which our modern scientists is basing their experiment on AI) which is the understanding that an object continue to exist EVEN when they cannot be sensed, DEFIES Paul's argument that a ball is non existence if it cannot be seen.
Allow meet bring the Quantum Superposition which defines the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states.
So there is really no argument as to the NON-EXISTENCE of the ball, when it is not seen, IF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A BALL.
Hi Maria. Welcome to the ring.
Jean Piaget's theory holds no water for me. It simply says that a baby knows a toy is located in a certain place. I know that there are some unwashed dishes in my kitchen sink. I am now in the living room and won't observe them until I wash them. They may not exist (I wish).
I feel it's a hiding to-nothing scientists basing their experiments on AI - AI does not have consciousness. Or does it? I'll throw in the pot that a rock has consciousness
I think Superposition supports my argument. If the ball is in different states until it is observed then surely the tennis ball is no longer the same ball as when you observed it. Sure you can still feel it but if it's in multiple states at the same time this doesn't make sense. I don't know if I explained that very well but hope you understand my point.
Paul, you cannot diminish the Jean Piaget's concept as it is one of the areas that AI scientists are considering. Quantum Superposition strongly supports my argument basing on the contention of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time.
The UNWASHED DISHES IN THE SINK is in EXISTENCE! It is a fact!
But if you hide in the notion of the Schroedinger equation which was an imaginary experiment to philosophically strengthen your contention , it does not hold water!
Superposition does not support your argument. As SUPERPOSITION is the ability of a quantum system TO BE IN MULTIPLE STATES AT THE SAME TIME. Meaning the unwashed dishes in the sink exist whether you see it or not.
The idea that without its consciousness and observation, nothing exists IS A CONCEPT THAT is TOTALLY DEBUNK
Unfortunately, you are correct about the unwashed dishes - I bet they'll still be there when I go back in.
I didn't hide behind Schroedinger - in fact, I suggested we upped the game from that one in my OP. I feel that consciousness holds something unique for us as observers of the world. The observer effect is shown and proven in the double-split experiment. Would you say this is debunked? That can only be answered by a yes or no. If the answer is no then you must acknowledge that observing something plays a role in how the object behaves otherwise you are engaging in a fallacy.
I ought to have prepared a bit more for this one - as you know I've been working on my tax returns. I'm going to dig deeper - I think we both should. There's no hurry as the blog post will still be here when it's observed. I am starting to lag a little now so let's say round 1 is a draw.
Enjoy your evening - I look forward to round 2.
This rebuttal is not going anywhere if the challenger is also the same person to call it a “draw”
Pardon me Paul! It s not a draw! I won on the 1st round in all angles.
How about I call this a TKO on the first round.🌹🎉🎊🎉🎊🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹🌹😀😎
Your argument is weak and you keep on pulling high sounding words that does not stand on anything!
So let me declare the WINNER AND CHAMPION on the 1st WA Debate of 2023 : MTCANDELA1 🌹 by TKO against PaulBounce
Congratulations to the winner!!!🎉🎊🎸😎🕺💃🏽
Heheh Maria - you can't declare yourself the winner. Jeff is the ref so he must decide if you are the winner or not. If not we go to round two - I'm just getting warmed up. I didn't say the fight was a draw - only the first round.
We'll wait to hear from the ref and the judges before the winner is declared.
Come on ref - is Maria the winner or do we fight on???
Have a lovely evening.
You make some very interesting arguments here.
Since you asked for my opinion, I'll speak non-philosophically and without regard to "consciousness."
Regarding Schrodinder's cat and Wigner's Friend, the mathematics for these thought experiments refer to quantum states that are in superposition and then undergo quantum decoherence when observed.
This holds true with the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the most accepted model. There may be some interesting inclusions and exceptions in the "other worlds" interpretation, and you alluded to these in relation to a multiverse, but to my knowledge, there is no quantum mechanical model that satisfies the concept of universality.
Dimensionality of space and time are defined very differently in the quantum world. There could be a number of iterations that approach infinity (or even possibly infinite) between one quantum state and another, which could explain why quantum decoherence is based on "real world" observation.
That's all I have to say, based on my understanding of the science of the current state of quantum mechanics, which doesn't apply to tennis balls. You can take it for what it's worth from a Rock and Roll guitar player. 😎
The Copenhagen interpretation is indeed of interest. You are correct, there is not a quantum model that answers all of these questions.
Quantum physics though questions the traditional physics model quite considerably. In fact, it proves some of our understanding to be incorrect. As for time and space - I would wager in a quantum world time doesn't exist. Serious academics suggest that entering a black hole would distort time - it doesn't exist there. If a person (unlikely I know) were to be sucked in and survived a second would become a million years. It is also mooted that if it were possible to travel faster than the speed of light time would stand still and you would not age. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Or can it?
Enter quantum entanglement. Two photons at different corners of the universe that are entangled react instantly - that's faster than the speed of light. Black matter is also of interest - our universe is made up of a third of it. Who's to say there are not other universes in the black matter? We don't know. It raises the possibility that another universe could exist in the room I am typing this now. It sounds silly I know - however, it can't be ruled out.
See more comments
Good morning Maria.
I will refer to John Bell's argument from 1964. It supports my point that the tennis ball does not exist unless it is observed. He questioned Einstein's theory and stated that 'Einstien's argument broke down if you carried out a more complicated combination of different measurements of particles'.
Bell proved that if two observers are picked to measure one particular property of a particle (eg velocity) then no theory can show pre-existing properties.
'Bell's correlations' prove Bohr was right and that physical properties cannot exist unless they are measured. I could strongly support this argument.
I submit that nothing can be measured unless it is observed. That is my personal conclusion. To apply this to our debate so far - my unwashed dishes last night didn't exist until I observed them.
They certainly don't exist now because I did the washing this morning heheh.
Maria - let's not rush with responses as it takes time to research. I'm sure we are both busy so if you wish to continue the 'fight' let's just do it at our own pace. It is certainly an interesting topic and worthy of debate.
Have a great day.