dhw; My hope is that through these discussions, we shall gain a clearer vision both of Ruth's interpretation and, through that, of the nature of reality. It IS exciting! But maybe it doesn't have to be quite as confusing as it seems!-Confusion has been part of the game. What you are finally seeing is the puzzlement as the great experts were dragged kicking and screaming into the realization of how counterintuative was the subject they were studying. The copenhagen convention was a tool that got us where we are. There is a well done play on the subject that my wife and I saw in London. Confusing, but it worked. The formulas give usable results.-That is why I was so excited when I spottted Ruth's blog through Musser on Sci. Am.

rek:I'm not sure, can you give me more specifics about what this theory involves?-I'm not trying to take us off point of understanding your 'new' modification of QM theory, but as dhw notes in his current dicussions, we do have the bigger picture of seeing if QM leads us to some more inclusive conclusions about the origin of our reality, God, chance, or otherwise.-What I am referring to is the study of Near to Death episodes and the conclusions reached by recent authors that that a quantum level causes retention of consciousness during a period of documented total inactivity of the brain. The studies by Pim van Lommel, a cardiologist, and the autobiographical book by Eben Alexander, an academic neurosurgeon, who experienced a week of severe infectious meningoencephalitis and retained a memory of what he feels is a journey to Heaven: "Proof of Heaven", 2112, by E.A., M.D. Speaking as a retired internist, this guy is no kook, and the medically scientific underpinnings of his story are valid.-As I sort out your theory in my brain, I'm trying to see if your role a philosopher carries over to the wider implications this website delves into. I hope you will remain patient. Do you see the possibility of your theory opening up any road to understanding a theory of the source of consciousness?


> REK: Also, I've noted that QM seems to be telling us there are layers to reality, all of which one can think of as 'real,' but at subtler levels. One could think of the mental realm as a subtler level of the QM realm, which would mean it is more fundamental but less manifest in a physical sense. I'm not endorsing that view but it's certainly a possibility.-From what you have noted before, how do you feel about the theory that consciousness is at a quantum reality level in the brain?


> dhw: Theoretically, though, given all the necessary information, I suppose any outcome is predictable, even for concepts and subjective feelings. The question is whether we have all the necessary information. 
> I do hope you can understand why I still find your original statement and subsequent explanations concerning the reality of quantum potentials confusing, and I hope my confusion is not making too many demands on your patience!-I may have memory trouble at my age, but I understand your confusion. Yes, I did read all of Ruth's material and forgot absorption, but I can't learn now like I did in medical school, snapping everything up like a sponge.-What I understand and it is amazing: Heisenberg described the quantum level as potentialities and probabilities. Yet the equations they use work! They are averages of the probabilities of all the potential particles ( which are particles by the Coppenhagen convention), even though they are really not particles but disturbances in fields. Feynman invented renormalization by crossing out all the infinities. Like taking a meat ax to complex math (!), but it works. -In a sense your confusion is everyone's confusion. Ruth's approach is exciting to me because it makes sense as a new way to try and understand the quantum level in a more reasonable way.

rek: Creation and destruction takes place at the relativistic level. So no, individual quanta certainly are not eternal; they are created and destroyed. For example, photons are created in the sun and destroyed at the earth (e.g., absorbed by a leaf). -As much as I read I get confused, and forgot about absorption.-Yet photons can be very long-lived:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/photons-last-quintillion-years-light-particles_n_3677220.html