Yes, we need to be careful... but who exactly denies that we have found a non-separability of the 2 categories termed 'mind' and 'matter'? Does anyone question this anymore? This is not in the realm of speculation and philosophy, but empirical fact. This does not have to do with which interpretation of QM one wishes to believe.
There is all this bravado about following where the evidence leads us, but instead there is a profound stuckness in materialism still, and dualism still. On the one hand we talk about the need to move beyond the 17th century worldview of Newton and Descartes, and on the other hand there is fear at moving on. Why are we still attached to pictures of self and world that do not fit the facts? We no longer have the evidence to believe in determinism. Why should we believe that we are automatons without free will, and the world is a great big wind up clock? Time to move on.
Within us, thought has seen its limits, and that's just how it is... its not speculation or philosophy... now what? We can keep making more models, but they will *never* be complete. Even in principle, they can never be complete. The quest for knowledge through the exclusive use of the sensory and cognitive modes has come to an end. Now what? Should we just quit, or find something more within us to keep going?
These people are helping us move ahead... one will need to argue against them.
Anton Zeilinger in http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html
Q: So there is in fact something that exists independently of us. And the moon is also there when I'm not looking at it.
AZ: Something exists, but it is not directly accessible to us. Only indirectly. And whether this thing must really be called the "moon" is another question. That is also a construct.
Q: But there is something up there...
AZ: ... the word "there" is yet another construct. Space and time are concepts aimed at giving meaning to our world of appearances. So they are entirely reasonable constructs. By no means do I want to give the impression that I believe everything is just our imagination.
Q: The world as a huge theatre that only plays in our heads.
AZ: That is certainly not my view of things.
Q: Then what would you call it, this something that you can't call moon or space or time - this something that exists independently of us?
AZ: Wouldn't I be making another qualification if I tried to give it a name? Isn't it enough if I just say it exists? As soon as you use words like "world" or "universe", you start lugging about all that conceptual ballast again.
Q: But you defend the thesis that there is an "original matter of the universe": information.
AZ: Yes. For me the concept of "information" is at the basis of everything we call "nature". The moon, the chair, the equation of states, anything and everything, because we can't talk about anything without de facto speaking about the information we have of these things. In this sense the information is the basic building block of our world.
Q: But just now you spoke of a world that exists independently of us.
AZ: That's right. But this world is not directly ascertainable or describable. Because every description must be done in terms of the information, and so you inevitably get into circular reasoning. There's a limit we can't cross. And even a civilisation on Alpha Centauri can't cross it. For me that's something almost mystical.
I'm tired of believing in fairy tales, even if they are told by persons called "Scientists". If we don't like words like "Mysticism" or "Yoga", we don't have to use them.
Paul Davies: "the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
I think its an exciting time... time for a change, but we should move carefully... and discussions like these can be very helpful. Thanks.