Quantum Mechanics does not answer any questions regarding whether anything of a spiritual nature even exists.
This is a non-sequitur.
Well, you're right about this, QM does not answer any questions regarding blah, blah...however, the non-sequitur is from a misunderstanding. I'm talking about Wheeler and the 'It from Bit' theory of a participatory universe...meaning that "it" (matter in the universe) sprang into existence when information ("bit") of the universe was observed...the "participatory universe" where the universe adapts to us in the same way that we adapt to the universe, that our very presence makes the universe possible.
The "u" diagram with the eye on it represents the universe with the observer being the eye. The universe cannot exist without the observer...and, perhaps, vice versa.
As well there's this:
The founders of quantum mechanics debated the role of the observer, and of them, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg believed that it was the observer that produced collapse. This point of view, which was never fully endorsed by Niels Bohr, was denounced as mystical and anti-scientific by Albert Einstein. Pauli accepted the term, and described quantum mechanics as lucid mysticism.
Heisenberg and Bohr always described quantum mechanics in logical positivist terms. Bohr also took an active interest in the philosophical implications of quantum theories such as his complementarity, for example. He believed quantum theory offers a complete description of nature, albeit one that is simply ill suited for everyday experiences - which are better described by classical mechanics and probability. Bohr never specified a demarcation line above which objects cease to be quantum and become classical. He believed that it was not a question of physics, but one of philosophy.
Eugene Wigner reformulated the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. Commonly known as "consciousness causes collapse", this interpretation of quantum mechanics states that observation by a conscious observer is what makes the wave function collapse.
Some of this presages the Copenhagen interpretation that was the most popular interpretation...placing emphasis on the observer.
Some problems with it, IMHO, is that it may be too ego-centric as in every tribe through time were defined as "the people" and others not of the tribe were defined as "not the people". This popular ego-centric view has been in "the whiteman's burden"...Copernicus went up against it (Earth NOT the center of all)...Galileo...now we have 11 dimensions instead of 4, etc. In short, the Anthropic Principle.
One counter of this is the multiverse theory, "many worlds"...
Some problems with that, IMHO, appears to me to violate conservation of matter and energy...but what do I know?
What you seem to be saying is that quantum mechanics tells us that we cannot be certain of anything.
Therefore anyone's fairy tales are just as good as anything else.
I disagree.
Well, it is called the Heisenberg UNCERTAINTY Principle..I know this isn't what you meant but I couldn't resist the pun!
This has lead to every single physicists having profound questions regarding nature, reality, existence, god, et al. It is so profoundly unsettling that it prompted deterministic Einstein to state repeatedly that "God does not play with dice!"
I thought you seem to conclude that we're physical as if you know what that is. That is just as elusive for being defined as spiritual is, IMHO. Just look at the mental gymnastics of theories that abound due to it. Nobody knows...and there's a Noble prize for any who claim they do.
There's even theories that the universe is the inside of a black hole and the "reality" of it is a holographic projection from the distant sides.
Quite factually, under the "many worlds" view, anyone's fairy tales DO exist just as good as anything else. They are real per that theory.
Going back to what I was saying with the Greeks and their "perfect forms" that's the part Wheeler is attempting to answer with the "bit" portion of his theory...
...when we look at the moon, an atom, a galaxy, their essence is in the information stored within...springing into view when the "u"niverse observes itself. (Wheeler and much of this has been paraphrased)
Although that's not Wheeler attempting to answer the Greek question of the perfect form but it IS Wheeler attempting to answer why the form is there to begin with...where is the form...etc. That is right up the old Plato alley.
That's my understanding...life is like a box of chocolates and that's all I have to say about that.
Of course, I may very well be wrong in assuming that is what you meant.
As to what is the nature of the observer? This is what my entire post was directed at and is not non-sequitur, IMHO. I don't have the answer for this question but like the chicken and the egg and which came first many of the greatest physicists came to conclude that consciousness created the physical and not the other way around. Wheeler appears to me to infer that the universe is conscious.
Disclaimer: I am not a theoretical physicists.
)
