vkalan

I think this article stretches some terms and statements to say things that sound reasonable, but aren't quite right. I noticed the pattern a few times:

1) Yes, QM talks about observations making a difference. But to say that "objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go"? There's a lot of steps in between where the work isn't shown.

2) Yes, scientists who ignore QM are using "300 year old physics". But somehow mechanical engineers (and even electrical engineers) still manage to create things that work without ever thinking about physics beyond 1900. There's definitely an argument that could be made that brains need QM to be understood - but again, it's not immediately obvious that this should be the case.

3)Yes, an organism that sees only "fitness" can outcompete one that sees "reality". But that doesn't mean that there's no relationship between "fitness" and "reality".

I think the main argument of this article is mostly a philosophical point about consciousness and perception, and to be fair, that discussion is really important! But I think there's a huge step missing between the science of QM and the brain that's being discussed, and the conclusions that are being drawn.