Most theories of quantum physics (including the 'standard' Copenhagen interpretation) require the existence of an observer or consciousness of some kind in order to work. Such an observer would logically be something more than simply material, given that it is perception itself which seems to produce these effects. Some of the theories which require this sort of non-material presence include the Copenhagen interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_… the deBroglie-Bohm theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%… and Relational quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_… The rest, such as the Many-Worlds theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds… and the Transactional interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction… have their own conflicts with Occam's Razor (with the Many World theory predicting the existence of an infinite number of alternate universes in order to explain events occurring within the boundaries of this universe, and the Transactional interpretation requiring that quantum phenomena occur both forward and backward in time simultaneously).
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul), the soul is "A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing...The soul has often been deemed integral or essential to consciousness and personality, and soul sometimes functions as a synonym for spirit, mind or self..."
This seems to be a fairly basic definition agreed upon generally in both religious and philosophical traditions. Given that definition, then assuming that one of these 'consciousness' theories are true, does that imply that the soul can be said to exist based on objective and logical grounds?
NOTE: Previous question was deleted, edited slightly, and reposted because apparently opening my description with the words 'According to wikipedia' in order to establish a common language somehow invalidated my entire question according to at least 5 people.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul), the soul is "A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing...The soul has often been deemed integral or essential to consciousness and personality, and soul sometimes functions as a synonym for spirit, mind or self..."
This seems to be a fairly basic definition agreed upon generally in both religious and philosophical traditions. Given that definition, then assuming that one of these 'consciousness' theories are true, does that imply that the soul can be said to exist based on objective and logical grounds?
NOTE: Previous question was deleted, edited slightly, and reposted because apparently opening my description with the words 'According to wikipedia' in order to establish a common language somehow invalidated my entire question according to at least 5 people.