Quantum Quackery

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Sat May 17, 2008 4:20 am

Ryan, whether or not something is actually happening "in the black" is not the issue. The problem is claiming something is not possible when the open-source evidence shows that is simply not the case -- too soon to know.

One problem I have observed here at RU appears to be an engineering bias on the part of the "resident skeptics."

That is a mostly a symptom of a classical way of thinking about the issues; however it is established fact that our universe is not classical in nature, but obeys quantum mechanical rules. There is no cause and effect at the bottom of quantum mechanics that can predict where any single electron will impact a screen in a double slit experiment; only a probability distribution can be determined. Shan Gao in Beijing has described this mysterious behavior as discontinuous motion; our minds are programmed to think in classical terms and are prejudiced to judge the quantum world based upon our everyday experience of reality. We expect an object to follow a trajectory in a continuous way. This is clearly wrong for the quantum world.

Asking whether or not something is possible for advanced technology based upon classical ways of thinking about what is or is not possible leaves one stuck inside a century old paradigm. It just isn't relevant for the new emerging technologies, just as Newtonian classical physics is irrelevant in the explanation of quantum tunneling in modern electronic devices.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am


Re: So, will the Info prove the rumours?

Postby ryguy » Sat May 17, 2008 4:21 pm

Gary wrote:That is a mostly a symptom of a classical way of thinking about the issues; however it is established fact that our universe is not classical in nature, but obeys quantum mechanical rules. There is no cause and effect at the bottom of quantum mechanics that can predict where any single electron will impact a screen in a double slit experiment; only a probability distribution can be determined.


No different than flipping a coin. There's nothing strange about that - and science has never claimed to be capable of predicting which side the coin will land on, only quack scientists make that claim.

Shan Gao in Beijing has described this mysterious behavior as discontinuous motion; our minds are programmed to think in classical terms and are prejudiced to judge the quantum world based upon our everyday experience of reality. We expect an object to follow a trajectory in a continuous way. This is clearly wrong for the quantum world.


The only thing mysterious about randomness is the human desire to discern patterns within it. There are certainly repeatable patterns in nature - but sometimes things are truly random. This is what the human mind has difficulty accepting.

Here's another example. Last year we had a visitor on this forum who claimed he had a guru who could "control" his refrigerator with his mind. He claimed he could "turn it on" with mere thought. I asked if the refrigerator was unplugged - he said no, he could make the refrigerator "turn on" simply by concentrating hard enough.

This is an interesting case where a person ignorant regarding the control system circuitry within a refrigerator comes to the premature conclusion that his concentration alone is what triggered the circulator pump. When in reality, it was simply the fact that at a fairly predictable interval (which his mind may have figured out even though he didn't consciously recognize it) - the refrigerator feedback temperature dropped below the lower control bandwidth and initialized the control output, the circulator pump. The control system was controlling the pump, independent of any perceived "effect" he thought his mind had on it.

Quack science comes from ignorance and arrogance. Ignorance regarding the scientific process and the importance of peer review (and throwing out hypothesis that simply don't hold up under fire - regardless of the supporting funding levels from insane believers). And so much arrogance that they actually believe they are today's equivalent of the truly great minds like Einstein.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: So, will the Info prove the rumours?

Postby Gary » Sat May 17, 2008 10:55 pm

Aha, no wonder Ryan does not understand!

There is no "there" there, that is no hidden unknown that determines quantum randomness. (Unless you want to formulate a hidden variables theory, another topic altogether.)

Now I understand your confusion. You are thinking in terms of classical probabilities, not quantum probabilities.

Quantum mechanics assumes that nature in and of itself is random, it is not a matter of our lack of knowledge about the quantum system in question.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/


Quantum theory introduced an element of randomness standing out against the previous deterministic worldview, in which randomness, if it occurred at all, simply indicated our ignorance of a more detailed description (as in statistical physics). In sharp contrast to such epistemic randomness, quantum randomness in processes such as spontaneous emission of light, radioactive decay, or other examples of state reduction was considered a fundamental feature of nature, independent of our ignorance or knowledge. To be precise, this feature refers to individual quantum events, whereas the behavior of ensembles of such events is statistically determined. The indeterminism of individual quantum events is constrained by statistical laws.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: So, will the Info prove the rumours?

Postby Gary » Sat May 17, 2008 11:08 pm

ryguy wrote:
Gary wrote:That is a mostly a symptom of a classical way of thinking about the issues; however it is established fact that our universe is not classical in nature, but obeys quantum mechanical rules. There is no cause and effect at the bottom of quantum mechanics that can predict where any single electron will impact a screen in a double slit experiment; only a probability distribution can be determined.


No different than flipping a coin. There's nothing strange about that - and science has never claimed to be capable of predicting which side the coin will land on, only quack scientists make that claim.


Nothing like a flip of a coin, since quantum probabilities exhibit interference and classical probabilities (coin flipping) do not.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

According to Richard Feynman, the two-slit experiment for electrons is (Feynman et al. 1963, p. 37-2) "a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." This experiment (Feynman 1967, p. 130) "has been designed to contain all of the mystery of quantum mechanics, to put you up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature one hundred per cent." As to the question (Feynman 1967, p. 145), "How does it really work? What machinery is actually producing this thing? Nobody knows any machinery. Nobody can give you a deeper explanation of this phenomenon than I have given; that is, a description of it."

Video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: So, will the Info prove the rumours?

Postby Access Denied » Sun May 18, 2008 12:30 am

Gary, you're sounding like a broken record... again, again, again.

In reality there is no deeper meaning to the indeterminism of a single quantum event no matter how much you, and other quacks like you, would like others to think there is… that’s just the way it is and it has no bearing on the macroscopic world we live in. The double-slit experiment is an artificial construct of a condition which doesn’t exist in nature… it only exists in isolation (under carefully controlled conditions) in the laboratory. In fact the quote you cited by Feynman above says the same thing is so many words…

“To be precise, this feature refers to individual quantum events, whereas the behavior of ensembles of such events is statistically determined. The indeterminism of individual quantum events is constrained by statistical laws.”

Whoosh…

By the way, it has been duly noted you still haven't responded to the points raised here…

Quantum Quackery
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

Quantum physics is claimed to support the mystical notion that the mind creates reality. However, an objective reality, with no special role for consciousness, human or cosmic, is consistent with all observations.

You know the drill…. provide some evidence that supports your claim that QM has a role in alleged paranormal activity (RV. ESP, etc.) and if you can’t then you need to retract your claim or you will be banned.

Also, this subject is off-topic for this thread/forum so you will need to respond elsewhere.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: So, will the Info prove the rumours?

Postby Gary » Sun May 18, 2008 4:48 am

Access Denied wrote:Gary, you're sounding like a broken record... again, again, again.

In reality there is no deeper meaning to the indeterminism of a single quantum event no matter how much you, and other quacks like you, would like others to think there is… that’s just the way it is and it has no bearing on the macroscopic world we live in. The double-slit experiment is an artificial construct of a condition which doesn’t exist in nature… it only exists in isolation (under carefully controlled conditions) in the laboratory. In fact the quote you cited by Feynman above says the same thing is so many words…

“To be precise, this feature refers to individual quantum events, whereas the behavior of ensembles of such events is statistically determined. The indeterminism of individual quantum events is constrained by statistical laws.”

Whoosh…

By the way, it has been duly noted you still haven't responded to the points raised here…

Quantum Quackery
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

Quantum physics is claimed to support the mystical notion that the mind creates reality. However, an objective reality, with no special role for consciousness, human or cosmic, is consistent with all observations.

You know the drill…. provide some evidence that supports your claim that QM has a role in alleged paranormal activity (RV. ESP, etc.) and if you can’t then you need to retract your claim or you will be banned.

Also, this subject is off-topic for this thread/forum so you will need to respond elsewhere.


I'll let AD as moderator determine where best to move this thread, since I am responding to Ryan's misunderstanding of probability in quantum theory.

Since AD has linked to Vic Stenger's statement, I should note for the record that I was involved in the 1990s in numerous email debates/discussions which included Vic Stenger (Jack Sarfatti/Stuart Hameroff and quantum mind list as I recall). I may even have some of the emails archived on an old Dell computer.

Stenger is correct. There seems to be misunderstanding of numerous issues re: the role of consciousness as a "metaphysical" observer required to collapse the wave function (required for an individual quantum event to register on a screen). It was Bohmian Mechanics and Many Worlds theory which exorcised quantum mechanics of the necessity of the metaphysical observer alluded to by the reference made by AD. This is 1970s/early 1980s quantum metaphysics, which is in no way related to the current concepts/theories proposed for quantum consciousness (for example, Sir Roger Penrose proposed that quantum gravity is responsible for wave function selection of a spacetime ; such selection acts like a quantum gravity 'transistor' in the Hameroff model of the microtubule interfacing quantum events to 'protein switches').

The issue of a preferred superluminal frame of reference remains a possibility, as shown by Valentini. His most recent work makes testable predictions for cosmology, from the prestigious publishing group NATURE:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/ ... 8.829.html

So far it’s been impossible to pick apart quantum mechanics from bohmian mechanics — both predict the same outcomes for experiments with quantum particles in the lab.


Written in the skies: why quantum mechanics might be wrong

Observations of the cosmic microwave background might deal blow to theory.

Zeeya Merali


The background patterns of space could help us focus on quantum
problems.NASA / ESA / Hubble Heritage Team

The question of whether quantum mechanics is correct could soon be
settled by observing the sky — and there are already tantalizing hints
that the theory could be wrong.

Antony Valentini, a physicist at Imperial College, London, wanted to
devise a test that could separate quantum mechanics from one of its
closest rivals — a theory called bohmian mechanics. Despite being one of
the most successful theories of physics, quantum mechanics creates
several paradoxes that still make some physicists uncomfortable, says
Valentini.


AD should take special note of this:

Almost all measurements of the cosmic microwave background seem to fit well with the predictions of quantum mechanics, says Valentini. But intriguingly, a distortion that fits one of Valentini’s proposed signatures for a failure of quantum mechanics was recently detected by Amit Yadav and Ben Wandelt at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (see 'Deflating inflation?'). That result has yet to be confirmed by independent analyses, but it is tantalizing, Valentini adds.

“It’s far too early to say that this is definite evidence of a breakdown in quantum mechanics — but it is a possibility,” he says.


Anyone interested in the historical background for this debate might wish to look at this on-line book (and for AD I strongly recommend reviewing section 5.2.2) ...

Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference
Authors: Guido Bacciagaluppi, Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 24 Sep 2006)

Abstract: We reconsider the crucial 1927 Solvay conference in the context of current research in the foundations of quantum theory. Contrary to folklore, the interpretation question was not settled at this conference and no consensus was reached; instead, a range of sharply conflicting views were presented and extensively discussed. Today, there is no longer an established or dominant interpretation of quantum theory, so it is important to re-evaluate the historical sources and keep the interpretation debate open. In this spirit, we provide a complete English translation of the original proceedings (lectures and discussions), and give background essays on the three main interpretations presented: de Broglie's pilot-wave theory, Born and Heisenberg's quantum mechanics, and Schroedinger's wave mechanics. We provide an extensive analysis of the lectures and discussions that took place, in the light of current debates about the meaning of quantum theory. The proceedings contain much unexpected material, including extensive discussions of de Broglie's pilot-wave theory (which de Broglie presented for a many-body system), and a "quantum mechanics" apparently lacking in wave function collapse or fundamental time evolution. We hope that the book will contribute to the ongoing revival of research in quantum foundations, as well as stimulate a reconsideration of the historical development of quantum physics. A more detailed description of the book may be found in the Preface. (Copyright by Cambridge University Press (ISBN: 9780521814218), expected publication date 2007.)

Comments: 553 pages, 33 figures. Draft of a book, to be published by Cambridge University Press


http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609184v1
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby ryguy » Sun May 18, 2008 10:59 pm

Gary - you haven't responded to anything. You simply claim other people are suffering from some sort of misunderstanding, and then you provide quotes that you appear to believe supports your argument - while it does nothing of the sort...lol

Half the time your quotes aren't even remotely related to the topic at hand. It's a very odd experience trying to hold a sane and intelligent conversation with you - as you seem to sometimes have the mind of a bipolar person in a manic state of delusional paranoia...

I've given up, long ago, trying to determine if you, yourself, even realize that your arguments are unconnected, repetitive, and disjointed...?

But you know...something else I've learned - if a particular psychosis appears to work for someone, and they can live a comfortable life that seems "normal" to them within that psychosis - then there's really no reason to show them the logic or evidence that contradicts those psychotic beliefs. First of all - they won't believe you anyway. And secondly - it really does them no good. They will continue with their unreasonable and illogical beliefs until they are properly medicated.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Mon May 19, 2008 1:48 am

Ryan, clearly you have NO understanding of the issues involved here.

I suggest you read my review of MIT's Professor MAX TEGMARK's recent paper, which was privately endorsed by Tegmark prior to publication.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/24386

You bring up classical statistics to address issues which are clearly based in quantum mechanics. You are probably not aware that I suggested an experiment in June of 2002, involving single electrons which normally produce a quantum probability distribution on a screen, which was addressed to Hal Puthoff, who then cc'd back to Dean Radin and Brenda Dunne at Princeton. This experiment would falsify conscious interaction (aka remote perturbation) for the distribution of single quantum events away from the quantum probability distribution, just as Valentini recently suggested (see the article in NATURE) might be observed in the cosmic microwave background "Mind of God" scale for the early universe.

I suggest that you first grasp the topic at hand before attempting to engage in a rational discussion of counter-intuitive concepts ;-)

Once again:

Subquantum Information and Computation
Authors: Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))

Abstract: It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).


http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/ ... 8.829.html

The cosmic microwave background contains hot and cold temperature spots that were generated by quantum fluctuations in the early Universe and then amplified when the Universe expanded. Using the principles of quantum mechanics, cosmologists have calculated how these spots should be distributed. However, Valentini’s calculations show that the hidden-variables theory might give a different answer.] [b]“Any violation of quantum mechanics in the early Universe would have a knock-on effect that we could see today,” says Valentini.

Almost all measurements of the cosmic microwave background seem to fit well with the predictions of quantum mechanics, says Valentini. But intriguingly, a distortion that fits one of Valentini’s proposed signatures for a failure of quantum mechanics was recently detected by Amit Yadav and Ben Wandelt at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (see 'Deflating inflation?').
Last edited by Gary on Mon May 19, 2008 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Mon May 19, 2008 2:54 am

Ryan, Valentini has explained the issue of statistics quite simply in the following excerpt from EDGE.org:

http://www.edge.org/discourse/information.html

But quantum theory is a statistical theory, and some (including myself) believe that there is a deeper theory that explains the occurrence of every seemingly-random quantum event. At least one such "hidden-variables theory" — the pilot-wave theory of de Broglie and Bohm — has been extensively studied. It reproduces quantum theory, whenever the hidden parameters are assumed to begin with a certain "quantum equilibrium" distribution.

Now such theories are nonlocal: we know from Bell's theorem that they have to be, in order to reproduce the "spooky" EPR correlations. In other words, in such theories, at the fundamental level there are instantaneous influences — propagating faster than light, indeed infinitely so. At the quantum level, these effects are hidden by the statistical noise inherent in the assumed "equilibrium" distribution. But I have proposed that the universe might have started out in a state of "quantum nonequilibrium", in which probabilities differed from those of quantum theory and superluminal signalling was possible. In this scenario, relaxation to quantum equilibrium occurred during the great violence of the big bang; but there might be exotic forms of matter left over from the very early universe that are still "out of equilibrium" today. If such matter could be found, it would violate quantum theory, and we could use it to trasmit information faster than the speed of light.

"Non-quantum matter" would revolutionise computation.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby ryguy » Mon May 19, 2008 3:02 pm

:BSFLG:

I agree with you Gary, it is a common ill among intellects to mistakenly believe that they fully comprehend a complex and abstract issue. However a much more serious affliction are those pseudo-intellects who actually take the extra step and constantly open their mouths over and over to comment on scientific matters that they clearly have little to no understanding about.

One only needs to read the many legitimate sources that AD has already pointed out to recognize that you don't have the first clue about the topics you are attempting to comment on.

But thanks for trying anyway. It's certainly entertaining.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Mon May 19, 2008 4:24 pm

Ryan,

In AD's defense, he is assuming the validity of 20th century quantum mechanics.

The work of Anthony Valentini et al assumes going beyond quantum mechanics as an effective tool of prediction, to a new and deeper understanding which is "subquantum" or at another level of description and prediction altogether.

AD's point-of-view is purely the engineering level "shut up and calculate" predictive use of quantum mechanics, which blatantly ignores (the suggested) cause and effect at the proposed deeper level.

You must keep in mind this very important point: there does NOT exist a working theory of quantum gravity, in spite of decades of research into string theory, loop gravity, etc. That leaves the door, if not wide open, substantially available for new and possibly radical proposals.

On the other hand there are tests which have been proposed which might falsify some of the new ideas of the past ten or so years -- unlike string theory, which is sometimes viewed by serious physicists as philosophy, not physics, due to lack of tests which might falsify the research.

For example, the radical proposal made by Sir Roger Penrose that explains quantum collapse as an Objective Reduction (OR) process.

Stuart Hameroff explains at EDGE.org:

The quantum gravity threshold is the "objective" criterion for self-collapse. According to Roger it comes into play for the following reason. In quantum superposition, mass (curvature in spacetime) apparently exists simultaneously in two location, or states. Roger takes this separation seriously, and observes that the underlying spacetime geometry down to the Planck scale of spin networks also separates — i.e. simultaneous curvatures in opposite directions. A critical degree of spacetime separation becomes unstable, and reduces, or collapses to a single geometry, or universe state. Roger claims the separation reduces ("chooses") non-computably, but only if it occurs by the OR quantum gravity process. If reduction occurs by environmental decoherence — loss of isolation — the classical states are chosen computably, as would generally be the case in a technological quantum computer ... Non-computable OR events are irreversible. A sequence of irreversible events "ratchet forward in time", creating a direction in spacetime, a subjective "flow" of time. Thus consciousness is a sequence of conscious events.


The OR (objective reduction) in Orchestrated (mental) OR is testable in principle, as explained in this experimental proposal from Penrose and a group of quantum computer theorists:

[b]Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror
Authors: William Marshall, Christoph Simon, Roger Penrose, Dik Bouwmeester
(Submitted on 30 Sep 2002)

We have performed a detailed study of the experimental requirements for the creation and observation of quantum superposition states of a mirror consisting of 10^14 atoms, approximately nine orders of magnitude more massive than any superposition observed to date. Our analysis suggests that, while very demanding, this goal appears to be in reach of current technology. It is remarkable that a tabletop experiment has the potential to test quantum mechanics in an entirely new regime.


Hameroff asked the question "If Penrose objective reduction chooses the underlying reality of human experience, how is that related to the human brain?"

Our model proposes that OR events are coupled to neurophysiological processes, specifically at the level of microtubules in the brain's neurons and glia. Microtubule-associated proteins "tune" the quantum states, so we refer to the proposed process as "orchestrated objective reduction — Orch OR". We have suggested that isolation and coherence are maintained by cycles of actin gelation (for example in concert with 40 Hz neural activity) and that macroscopic quantum coherence among microtubules in widely distributed neurons and glia occurs via gap junctions.

The proposed Orch OR conscious events resemble [Julian] Barbour's "time capsules", and both seem similar to events which the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead described as "occasions of experience". (Abner Shimony has observed that Whitehead "occasions" are suitable descriptions of quantum events.) Discreteness in consciousness may also account for reports by meditators of "flickerings" in their consciousness, and relate to what Rodolfo Llinas has characterized as 40 Hz "cognitive quanta".


Here is the link for the EDGE interviews:

http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge11.html
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Mon May 19, 2008 4:38 pm

BTW -- Anyone who is interested can listen to Sir Roger Penrose and view slides at this link (KITP Physics lectures on-line):

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/plecture/penrose/
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Mon May 19, 2008 5:27 pm

This is also relevant to overcoming AD's rigid point of view:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/kauffman08/ ... index.html

The reductionism derived from Galileo and his successors ultimately views reality as particles (or strings) in motion in space. Contemporary physics has two broad theories. The first is Einstein’s general relativity, which concerns spacetime and matter and how the two interact such that matter curves space, and curved space “tells” matter how to move. The second is the standard model of particle physics, based on fundamental subatomic particles such as quarks, which are bound to one another by gluons and which make up the complex subatomic particles that then comprise such familiar particles as protons and neutrons, atoms, molecules, and so on. Reductionism in its strongest form holds that all the rest of reality, from organisms to a couple in love on the banks of the Seine, is ultimately nothing but particles or strings in motion. It also holds that, in the end, when the science is done, the explanations for higher-order entities are to be found in lower-order entities. Societies are to be explained by laws about people, they in turn by laws about organs, then about cells, then about biochemistry, chemistry, and finally physics and particle physics.

This worldview has dominated our thinking since Newton’s time. Reductionism alone is not adequate, either as a way of doing science or as a way of understanding reality. It turns out that biological evolution by Darwin’s heritable variation and natural selection cannot be “reduced” to physics alone. It is emergent in two senses. The first is epistemological, meaning that we cannot from physics deduce upwards to the evolution of the biosphere. The second is ontological, concerning what entities are real in the universe. For the reductionist, only particles in motion are ontologically real entities. Everything else is to be explained by different complexities of particles in motion, hence are not real in their own ontological right. But organisms, whose evolution of organization of structures and processes, such as the human heart, cannot be deduced from physics, have causal powers of their own, and therefore are emergent real entities in the universe. So, too, are the biosphere, the human economy, human culture, human action.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby ryguy » Mon May 19, 2008 5:42 pm

Here Gary - maybe these will help:

http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~bukatin/reading_penrose.html

However, if quantum collapse is the ultimate low-level expression of free will (and the resulting distributions are basically the results of "census" of population of particles), then it is not surprising that we cannot find anything better than questionable probabilistic models without taking this free will into account. And if quantum gravity and unified quantum field theory are supposed to constitute "the general theory of everything", they should include the theory of consciousness, because the consciousness is part of that "everything".

So my take is different from the take of Penrose. It is not that we need quantum gravity for a decent theory of consciousness (although we might need it at some later stage of theory of consciosness). It is more likely that we will need a sufficiently general theory of consciousness to obtain a physically meaningful theory of quantum gravity.



http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-17-mcdermott.html

Penrose stakes everything on his analysis of Gödel's Theorem. This analysis is all wrong, but what's striking is how much he tries to hang on it. Penrose assumes that there is a single attribute called "consciousness" that accounts for insight, awareness, and free will. Hence, if he can show that computers lack a certain sort of insight, they must also lack all awareness and free will. (One wonders where this leaves five-year-old children.)


http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/penrose.htm

The argument Penrose unfolds has more facets than my summary can report, and it is unlikely that such an enterprise would succumb to a single, crashing oversight on the part of its creator--that the argument could be "refuted" by any simple objection. So I am reluctant to credit my observation that Penrose seems to make a fairly elementary error right at the beginning, and at any rate fails to notice or rebut what seems to me to be an obvious objection. Recall that the burden of the first part of the book is to establish that minds are not "algorithmic"--that there is something special that minds can do that cannot be done by any algorithm (i.e., computer program in the standard, Turing-machine sense). What minds can do, Penrose claims, is see or judge that certain mathematical propositions are true by "insight" rather than mechanical proof. And Penrose then goes to some length to argue that there could be no algorithm, or at any rate no practical algorithm, for insight.

But this ignores a possibility--an independently plausible possibility--that can be made obvious by a parallel argument. Chess is a finite game (since there are rules for terminating go-nowhere games as draws), so in principle there is an algorithm for either checkmate or a draw, one that follows the brute force procedure of tracing out the immense but finite decision tree for all possible games. This is surely not a practical algorithm, since the tree's branches outnumber the atoms in the universe. Probably there is no practical algorithm for checkmate. And yet programs--algorithms--that achieve checkmate with very impressive reliability in very short periods of time are abundant. The best of them will achieve checkmate almost always against almost any opponent, and the "almost" is sinking fast. You could safely bet your life, for instance, that the best of these programs would always beat me. But still there is no logical guarantee that the program will achieve checkmate, for it is not an algorithm for checkmate, but only an algorithm for playing legal chess--one of the many varieties of legal chess that does well in the most demanding environments.


Speaking of "black projects"...round...and round...and round we go - where we stop, only RV'ers trapped naked in an unlit room at the Monroe Institute must know...

Isn't that right Major General?

Freakin' quack science.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Quantum Quackery

Postby Gary » Mon May 19, 2008 6:31 pm

The algorithm argument for consciousness fails since it offers no explanation of self-reflection, i.e. "the experience of being."

Chalmers is probably best known for examining this "hard problem" generally thought to exist "outside of science."

Most of the refutations speak to a limited sector of Penrose' arguments without addressing the totality of the numerous, complex issues surrounding consciousness.

I generally agree with Stuart Kauffman that consciousness is an emergent phenomena; as to what elementary entities may input the contextual appearance of "anomalous mental phenomena" remains an open question. That AMP (anomalous mental phenomena) may be useful at the level of threat assessment should not be too controversial; this speaks largely to the source and power of the human imagination in assessing future events, for which there exists an historical database. Whether or not AMP sometimes appear to be unreasonably effective in predictive power is a matter of interpretation. When code names are given, as in the Pat Price NSA Sugar Grove remote viewing, one may well wonder about the effective source.

To the surprise of the OSI officer, he soon discovered a sensitive government installation a few miles from the vacation property. This discovery led to a request to have Price provide information concerning the interior workings of this particular site. All the data produced by the two subjects were reviewed in CIA and the Agency concerned.

Pat Price, who had no military or intelligence background, provided a list of project titles associated with current and past activities including one of extreme sensitivity. Also, the codename of the site was provided. Other information concerning the physical layout of the site was accurate.


-- http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... _kress.pdf

Should Valentini succeed in his quest for subquantum dynamics below quantum theory (ordinary quantum theory represents Valentini's quantum equilibrium) then it may become reasonable to investigate how superluminal quantum connections (which appear in the quantum pilot wave theories) might affect human perception and/or mental experience.

On the other hand Shan Gao in Beijing is convinced of superluminal connections in his discontinuous motion interpretation of quantum theory, and has proposed a test to determine if human consciousness can perceive a quantum superposition of two alternatives.

The most important point I am trying to communicate to AD and the RU gang is the difference between the old-school mind-creates-reality quantum metaphysics pop culture of the 1970s and 80s and the new, often falsifiable theories and ideas which have potential implications for new communication technologies, something which would be of interest to the NSA, for example.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Next

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron