BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The Illusion of Quantum Reality
Trip like I do
post Mar 21, 2007, 09:55 AM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5156
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



The rules of physics postulate that we should have the ability to be in two places at the same time, so why do we never actually see it happen, or experience this phenomenon of fundamental reality?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Mar 21, 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You?

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Mar 21, 2007, 03:44 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5156
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



.... by this, do you mean that while submerged in the moment of experiencing, we view our experiential perceptions from an external (metaphorical) mental balcony?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blake
post Apr 12, 2007, 12:50 PM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Member No.: 9696



QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Mar 21, 2007, 12:55 PM) *

The rules of physics postulate that we should have the ability to be in two places at the same time, so why do we never actually see it happen, or experience this phenomenon of fundamental reality?


If we obey quantum mechanics the mere act of observation triggers or causes a wavefunction collapse
and the superimposed states in the mind collapse to a single state and the other states become unobservable or vaporize, depending on your taste in wavefunction collapse mechanisms (Copenhagen or Many Worlds/Universes).

If our brains or minds or our perceived realities are truly "classical" then you don't have free will, your a mechanical automaton. Classical physics died 75 years ago, the neuroscientists of today would be well advised to take heed that classical physics is a mere approximation to the reality of the quantum world that we live in.

Yes, I can elaborate if necessary if your interested.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Apr 12, 2007, 01:11 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



This very convenient collapse when observing reminds me of something - oh yes, the excuses of religions when evidence is lacking. Isn't it time we (I say we, but not including me as I'm too thick as a mere biologist) thought about this problem more (yes, more!) in order to circumvent the issue of hiding reality (whatever that is) by not being able to observe it. As with so many hidden mysteries, it will not be able to hide forever.

Re automata - remember survival for reproduction. Whether individual or species, life forms are evolutionary automata. Some of us can deal with that.

ps Nice to see you here blake. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blake
post Apr 12, 2007, 03:13 PM
Post #6


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Member No.: 9696



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Apr 12, 2007, 04:11 PM) *

This very convenient collapse when observing reminds me of something - oh yes, the excuses of religions when evidence is lacking. Isn't it time we (I say we, but not including me as I'm too thick as a mere biologist) thought about this problem more (yes, more!) in order to circumvent the issue of hiding reality (whatever that is) by not being able to observe it. As with so many hidden mysteries, it will not be able to hide forever.

Re automata - remember survival for reproduction. Whether individual or species, life forms are evolutionary automata. Some of us can deal with that.

ps Nice to see you here blake. I look forward to reading more of your posts.


Even if religion is not regarded as real, there is still a divide between those who treat it as definitive and entirely subjective, and those who are non-committal or agnostic about the subject. Most religions are non-falsifiable theories with a multitude of singular existential statements, and as such, are not scientifically interesting to me.

On the subject of automata, my point was that 'free choice' enters the picture for humans. Those that can make choices or pose questions to themselves or their enviornment would benefit more greatly in the natural selection process or an evolutionary process.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 12, 2007, 03:30 PM
Post #7


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



can anyone tell me what 'free will' or 'free choice' means? I have never seen a convincing definition for these.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blake
post Apr 12, 2007, 08:38 PM
Post #8


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Member No.: 9696



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 12, 2007, 06:30 PM) *

can anyone tell me what 'free will' or 'free choice' means? I have never seen a convincing definition for these.


Wikipedia has pages on the subject. My specific reference to free will discusses a human agent's
ability to trigger a type 1 event and the rate at which they fire, in the context of a orthodox quantum
theory postulated by John von Neumann.

smile.gif

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 12, 2007, 10:22 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(blake @ Apr 12, 2007, 09:38 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 12, 2007, 06:30 PM) *

can anyone tell me what 'free will' or 'free choice' means? I have never seen a convincing definition for these.


Wikipedia has pages on the subject. My specific reference to free will discusses a human agent's
ability to trigger a type 1 event and the rate at which they fire, in the context of a orthodox quantum
theory postulated by John von Neumann.

smile.gif


this is not a convincing definition as it fails to address many details, including those underlying a human agent's claimed ability to trigger events. Also, the wave function in QM is fully deterministic, and the randomness that is a part of 'observation' and wave function collapse according to the Copenhagen interpretation seems to have absolutely nothing to do with whether there exists a coherent and convincing definition of free will.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is worth looking at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Here's an excerpt you might find interesting:

A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent (Strawson 1986).

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blake
post Apr 13, 2007, 12:04 AM
Post #10


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Member No.: 9696



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 13, 2007, 01:22 AM) *

QUOTE(blake @ Apr 12, 2007, 09:38 PM) *

QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 12, 2007, 06:30 PM) *

can anyone tell me what 'free will' or 'free choice' means? I have never seen a convincing definition for these.


Wikipedia has pages on the subject. My specific reference to free will discusses a human agent's
ability to trigger a type 1 event and the rate at which they fire, in the context of a orthodox quantum
theory postulated by John von Neumann.

smile.gif


this is not a convincing definition as it fails to address many details, including those underlying a human agent's claimed ability to trigger events. Also, the wave function in QM is fully deterministic, and the randomness that is a part of 'observation' and wave function collapse according to the Copenhagen interpretation seems to have absolutely nothing to do with whether there exists a coherent and convincing definition of free will.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is worth looking at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Here's an excerpt you might find interesting:

A recent trend is to suppose that agent causation accounts capture, as well as possible, our prereflective idea of responsible, free action. But the failure of philosophers to work the account out in a fully satisfactory and intelligible form reveals that the very idea of free will (and so of responsibility) is incoherent (Strawson 1986).


Try these papers.
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 13, 2007, 12:27 AM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



I am familiar with some of Stapp's ideas and have read "The Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer" but it doesn't change the fact that QM contributes nothing to clarifying this chimera called 'free will'.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blake
post Apr 13, 2007, 12:54 AM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Member No.: 9696



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 13, 2007, 03:27 AM) *

I am familiar with some of Stapp's ideas and have read "The Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer" but it doesn't change the fact that QM contributes nothing to clarifying this chimera called 'free will'.


The choices via von Neumann’s "abstract ego" are not limited by the known rules of
quantum theory, same as Bohr’s "experimentor". These are the "free" choices and
are subjectively controllable input variables for process 1 actions.

Where are we not in synch, I feel like im failing to explain, which is different that
you are in synch and disagree. :/

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Apr 13, 2007, 01:01 AM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1711
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(blake @ Apr 13, 2007, 01:54 AM) *
The choices via von Neumann’s "abstract ego" are not limited by the known rules of quantum theory


That amounts to saying QM is not sufficient to explain biology.

What's wrong with avoiding Copenhagen references to an "observer" by having wave function collapse through decoherence? Or Bohm's deterministic interpretation which is in many ways superior to the Copenhagen interpretation?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
blake
post Apr 13, 2007, 01:39 AM
Post #14


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Member No.: 9696



QUOTE(lucid_dream @ Apr 13, 2007, 04:01 AM) *

QUOTE(blake @ Apr 13, 2007, 01:54 AM) *
The choices via von Neumann’s "abstract ego" are not limited by the known rules of quantum theory


That amounts to saying QM is not sufficient to explain biology.

What's wrong with avoiding Copenhagen references to an "observer" by having wave function collapse through decoherence? Or Bohm's deterministic interpretation which is in many ways superior to the Copenhagen interpretation?


I don't beleive that QM sufficiently explains the mind in whole, in fact quite frankly my personal opinon is that we operate in a "classical" sense almost all the time, this would be equivalent to "thinking" which I consider to be a passive process, concousiness kicks in in active, attention based mode when anomolies appear in the wave like interactions between our predicted inputs and our actually received inputs, which I beleive can be mathmatically described quite beautifully in a model I'm currently building, neuron spiking in my mind is simply the "wave crests" of these interactions as they occur and my model its biologically consistent with some minor changes to the "model" neuron, which begs for very small subtle changes which have tremendous impacts when considered on the whole, the ideas are strictly research based.

Decoherence is fine with me, in fact kill Copenhagen ( which in my estimation is quite subjective ) and use many worlds/universes, pick your collapse methodology, Neumann never specified between the yes and no choice at all in his writings. The choice being made by nature at large, his point was that the choice of which specific question would be posed what was in the hands of the agent, and that that the choice made "observes" a "quantum like probability rule".

I am a Bohm fan. His pilot waves are beautiful and well defined mathmatically, they are lost in his infinite tower and implicate order, and is less mathmatically appealing, perhaps I have a naive understanding of it.

In summary, I'm trying to integrate and model a system that exihibits mind/brain interaction in a testable way. Biological significance is important and a factor, but if someone asked me to built a locomotive device and the wheel did not exist, i wouldn't be upset if my rapidly moving 4 legged running robot failed, I beleive in a quantum like computer, I'm sure it can be modeled and created in software, and I don't feel the desire or necessity to approach absolute zero or flip atoms around to do it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th September 2017 - 11:48 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles