Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics & Consciousness Message Board › Can the Human Mind harness Quantum principles to engineer Synchronicity?

Can the Human Mind harness Quantum principles to engineer Synchronicity?

A former member
Post #: 153
I thought we'd already done that Ian, when you asserted that decoherence superseded wave collapse and then, in a series of exchanges I exposed ( to my satisfaction) the flaw in your thinking. You are welcome to open up a new thread on wave collapse and I will then again show where you seem to have got it wrong. I agree with Paul's comments and I repeat that I would like to see what Jazz has to say in defence of his indefensible views about 'synchronicity'.
A former member
Post #: 44
Wotcher Ian

"Obviously I don't wish to split our apparently unanimously-united informed-physics-personnel front."

Don’t worry, me old mucker. It is precisely because we can disagree that we are the unanimously-united informed-physics-personnel front.
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 238

Well I'm just wondering what exactly it is about the word "quantum" which attracts such attention from people who are fundamentally -- indeed, who are effectively only -- interested in disseminating and employing social relationship knowledge, techniques, and associated activities.

(I mean, why don't we instead attract hordes of interested onlookers from (e.g.) the cement industry?)

.. And in a sense as you might suspect the reason almost certainly lies with von Neumann and, later, with Wigner (and, to a lesser extent, with Pauli also).

The deliberate "leakage" of information -- often unfounded or even downright misleading -- has become part of the socialpsychology of the scientific research community in whichever field. Thus for instance whenever NASA or ESA need to drum upfunds for space probes to (in particular!) Mars or Europa they fee lobliged to mention -- irrelevantly within a clearly and exclusively geological context -- "the search for life" because we've all seen science fiction films and living creatures are supposedly a damn sight more fascinating than some mouldy old igneous rocks. Who cares that some particyular rock has been lying arounf essentially unchanged for the past 4 billion years or so? We want daleks, don't we? They're much more exciting!

Undeniably, Paul, Andrew, Will and myself each have different emphases and interests, and therefore there exists scope for mutual disagreement (which we've already generated!) ..

.. yet each of us sticks as conscientiously as possible either to actual physics or at least to the exploration of wider but relevant issues such as epistemology or the philosophy of science itself, and certainly not either would-be therapeutic techniques or arrant mysticism and obfuscation.

On the other hand, maybe I should just lighten up and take stuff with a pinch of salt like Will. Yes I know there'll never be any sort of genuine unanimously-united informed-physics-personnel front (that sounds reminiscent of Monty Python's Lfe of Brian more than anything, I readily admit).

However,I'm supposing that a condition which applies to myself also pertains to any memebers of any such would-be "front", and that, surely,is the attempt to anticipate accurately what will pass from speculative interpretation to the tried-and-tested facts of tomorrow's quantum mechanics textbooks.


lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 239

Apologies for the numerous typos in the immediately preceding mail. I'm pissed. Sorry again.

Ian

Trisha
user 10455453
Lehigh Acres, FL
Post #: 6
I am no expert either, but I suppose the question is asking if there is a way the human mind works on physical reality to create experience. It harkens back to many philosophical ideas, a more recent idea being that just by merely observing reality we are changing it...that we are inherently tied up with "objective" reality in the act of perception. I am not sure what quantum principles in particular could/would be involved in a way that could be harnessed though. Would quantum entanglement be a possible principle? I suppose that if the mind could engineer coincidences...they would cease to be coincidences and would at that point be ...conscious choices. I am not sure where the point of the "human mind" and quantum principles would interface however. The act of measurement /methods of observation?...quantum computers? I think I may go off now to research quantum computing...

I would also like to say that I came wondering into the forum looking for an interesting conversation. I do not see this "jazz" persons posts...has he fled the discussion or am I missing something? I will point out that this group is not just named "quantum physics" ..but also has consciousness in its title..as such I think that opens up the possibility of discussion into more philosophical realms than that of a pure evidence based discussion on physics. I appreciate it can be frustrating when pseudo science muddies the water, and I appreciate attempts to keep the conversation from straying into totally ridiculous realms...but I hate to see what to my mind is a rather complex and multifaceted and mysterious subject reduced to a rather simplistic science vs religion kind of argument. If we want to discuss just quantum physics and not enter into the fuzzy realm of "the mind"..perhaps the group should be renamed? Science is wonderful in that it asks questions rather than claiming to have all the answers; in this sense it is open ended and allows for curiosity and imagination. I am not suggesting we have meetups titled "can alien dolphins use crystal pyramids to capture quantum fairies"...but perhaps we can learn, debate and teach each other without so much hostility.
Trisha
user 10455453
Lehigh Acres, FL
Post #: 7
Just found Jazz's posts. They were located on another thread. I like to be open minded and see where conversations can go...even just for the fun of it and I feel it is wrong to censor people who are asking questions, but when people are making claims and definite assertions then we have another story. Perhaps he was/is trying to provoke? I don't need to point out all the ways in which his bold assertions didn't make sense..as its perfectly covered by others. Carry on...:)
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 240

>"I suppose the question is asking if there is a way the human mind works on physical reality to create experience. It harkens back to many philosophical ideas, a more recent idea being that just by merely observing reality we are changing it...that we are inherently tied up with "objective" reality in the act of perception."

Yes, well one could label the position either as Berkeleian idealism or (more simply) Buddhism. In both cases, the mere act of observing does ostensibly cause some change in the world, but it's not controllable (and neither of course is (e.g.) the position of the CCD registration of some incident photon which has traversed a 2-slit interferometer).

>"that we are inherently tied up with "objective" reality in the act of perception"

Why the scare quotes embracing the phrase objective reality? Obviously post-modernism as a school of thinking is as "allowed for debate" here as anything else, but I'm tempted to ask in turn whenever such a seeming-critical claim to the contrary is even implied rather than overtly stated: "Do you belive that you have posted a comment on a bulletin board? Do you believe that you are currently engaged in an exchange of views?" Only if the answers are "no" can the point as to the serious assertibility of doubt concerning the objectivity of reality remain standing.

>"Would quantum entanglement be a possible principle?"

I think almost certainly not. Although experiments using optic fibres under Lac Leman (and elsewhere) have established the reality of the maintenance of quantum non-locality over distances of several hundred km -- and in principle there's no reason why the distances involved shouldn't even be cosmological (except that we'd need to wait for billions of years before even finding ourselves in any position to begin the experiment!) it known that within warm, wet, or condensed matter systems such correlations break down very quickly; hence the distinct lack of progress during the past 25 years in establishing quantum computation as a technological reality concerning any problem more complicated than the integer factorisation of 15!

>"I am not sure where the point of the "human mind" and quantum principles would interface however."

Good. Nor have I ever been!

>"I will point out that this group is not just named "quantum physics" ..but also has consciousness in its title..as such I think that opens up the possibility of discussion into more philosophical realms than that of a pure evidence based discussion on physics."

By all means please be my guest. Separate threads containing "Consciousness" within the title were begun several months ago by both myself and Andrerw. No philosophical/epistemological holds barred! Check them out! Dive in!

>"I am not suggesting we have meetups titled "can alien dolphins use crystal pyramids to capture quantum fairies"..."

Why not? (Spoilsport.)

>"..but perhaps we can learn, debate and teach each other without so much hostility."

If I have created the impression of hostility then I assure you that it is unintentional. Sarcasm has its pedagogical place but aggression, never.





Trisha
user 10455453
Lehigh Acres, FL
Post #: 8
In my first paragraph I was trying to address Wills original questions as to how people interpreted the meet up title. I agree that the perceiver/perceived issue would seem to be uncontrollable. Its an intriguing concept to ponder though..not a definite closed book to my mind, but after reading Jazz's take on it I am a bit more alarmed at what is trying to be passed on as credible. I'm a fan of idealism, but not so much a fan of disingenuous or misleading confusion of facts. Even if we wanted to be incredible generous these considerations are but questions and things to ponder...by no means scientifically verifiable assertions!

I did not intend for my quotations marks to be scary. I think you were/are reading too much into that...and I am not a huge fan of post modernism. I was indicating that there are philosophical considerations as well as scientific ones.

However, if you are tempted to ask me... I am tempted to answer you. Do I believe I am posting in a message board?...yes and no. It would seem that I am and in a very basic and simple sense I do believe I am. Belief however does not indicate truth, and to use a very cliche example..I could be dreaming that I am posting on a message board, and sincerely believe while dreaming that I am currently engaged in an exchange of views while it is in fact a product of a fever dream. I tend to see this extreme doubt about the nature of reality as interesting epistemologically and metaphysically. (I think therefore I am?) I put the quotation marks around objective, to indicate it was a philosophical consideration. If we do influence reality by our perceiving of it though and there is always some confounding variables of confirmation bias, tyranny of senses, etc....how can it ever be truly objective and complete to any persons understanding? Where does perception and interpretation end and universal truth emerge? Some things are easier to nail down than others on this score. Topics for another thread perhaps. I am not having a go at science though I assure you.

Thanks for the information on quantum computing. I had a brief look into quantum computing and found an article which would seem to speak on what you mentioned about warm dense material not being conducive. It is put in a fairly accessible language for the non expert like me :). Here is a link for those that might be interested:
http://www.theswartzf...­

There is a response to this article also, and it is also fairly readable:
http://scholar.google...­

Thanks for the welcome Ian.


lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 241

In my first paragraph I was trying to address Wills original questions as to how people interpreted the meet up title. I agree that the perceiver/perceived issue would seem to be uncontrollable. Its an intriguing concept to ponder though..not a definite closed book to my mind, but after reading Jazz's take on it I am a bit more alarmed at what is trying to be passed on as credible.

Yes. Sometimes, some people's expectations of other people's credulity are in turn incredible!

I'm a fan of idealism, but not so much a fan of disingenuous or misleading confusion of facts.

(I wasn't claiming that the one necessarily implies the other!)

Even if we wanted to be incredibly generous these considerations are but questions and things to ponder...by no means scientifically verifiable assertions!

No. As I'm beginning to be certain you appreciate, the latter themselves can only be accepted after acknowledging a host of epistemological caveats, although I consider the hype about some alleged special epistemic niche for scientific method -- an ideology which has ruled triumphant since the onslaught of science-bashing "anti-fundamentalist" philosophers of science such as Nancy Cartwright and Clarke Glymour around the early 1980s -- to be unfounded. Along with the venerable (indeed, the dead) J.B.S. Haldane, I take science just to be a distillation of certain aspects of everyday experience. In Haldane's words: "Science is self-conscious common sense".

I did not intend for my quotations marks to be scary. I think you were/are reading too much into that...and I am not a huge fan of post modernism. I was indicating that there are philosophical considerations as well as scientific ones.

OK.

However, if you are tempted to ask me... I am tempted to answer you. Do I believe I am posting in a message board?...yes and no. It would seem that I am and in a very basic and simple sense I do believe I am. Belief however does not indicate truth, and to use a very cliche example..I could be dreaming that I am posting on a message board, and sincerely believe while dreaming that I am currently engaged in an exchange of views while it is in fact a product of a fever dream. I tend to see this extreme doubt about the nature of reality as interesting epistemologically and metaphysically.

Indeed so. I would find it difficult to believe anyone who claims otherwise!

(I think therefore I am?)

.. But -- as I have droned previously on about this point somewhere or other within one of these threads (more than one?) -- Descartes got it wrong. Given his prior assertion: "There is thinking", it fails to follow that: "There is at least one thinker". Firstly, the earlier sentence is simply not an exact translation of the second one (and it therefore means something else). Secondly, in making the unwarranted transition, Descartes simply helps himself without deeper epistemic justification to everyday taken-as-uncontroversially-true knowledge about acts of thinking and the kinds of system -- i.e. thinkers who (thus far at least!) uniquely fulfil the "thinking" role.

I put the quotation marks around objective, to indicate it was a philosophical consideration. If we do influence reality by our perceiving of it though and there is always some confounding variables of confirmation bias, tyranny of senses, etc....how can it ever be truly objective and complete to any persons understanding? Where does perception and interpretation end and universal truth emerge? Some things are easier to nail down than others on this score. Topics for another thread perhaps. I am not having a go at science though I assure you.

Don't worry you certainly had not created any such impression. More significantly at least from my own perspective is the fact that smuggled into much contemporary epistemological debate is the tacit assumption that "persons" somehow do not require any explanation or epistemic justificatory preamble whereas non-personal, physical states of affairs mysteriously (and asymmetrically) do; hence the strnuous thrashing around within conmtempoaray Phil of Sci about the allegedly question-beggong nature of science itself. Despite the warning lessons of epistemology, such Phil of Sci seems to take "everyday knowledge" as some soort of known quantity, a secure beach-head from which to launch somehow more tentative (i.e. scientific) claims which must always be indexed to the apparently unquestioned "certainty" attending the assumed realities of personhood and society.

Just to alienate you for a moment (!) I feel obliged to point out that Berkeleian idealism itself is IMHO a cardinal sinner in precisely this respect: whilst masquerading as epistemologically speaking utterly fearless, questioning our most basic assumptions about physical reality, it (on the other hand!) blandly assumes that persons exist! Why? .. Merely because there seems to be at least one person? (I.e. the thinker in question?) .. Adopting the allegedly stringent standards of epistemic scepticism belonging to the Berkeleian idealist, a double standard is immediately brought into play that it is nevertheless possible for the thinker "who" poses the question to calmly steer clear of inevitably looming solipsism, but s/he quite clearly can't.

Even if we bite the bullet and slide into solipsism -- ("we"?) -- we/I/it encounters yet another tacit assumption lurking in the casually taken-for-granted undergrowth, and that is that the notion "person" has itself ever been formalised. It hasn't. Perhaps the most renowned effort during recent years was Peter Strawson's effort in or around 1959, Individuals, containing a chapter On Persons. One could take an extreme empiricist, Humean tack, and observe that every time one seeks to verify the existence of oneself -- say, by looking -- all that one can ever in principle perceive at any time is simply "a bundle of sensations", and, unfortunately, in the absence of any background embedding theory of spacetime and the possibility of the physical individuation of objects, the notion of the person -- as opposed merely to some global, undifferentiated set of unattached, unlocated percepts -- becomes impossible to maintain.

[ ..Continued in following posting .. ]


Thanks for the information on quantum computing. I had a brief look into quantum computing and found an article which would seem to speak on what you mentioned about warm dense material not being conducive. It is put in a fairly accessible language for the non expert like me :). Here is a link for those that might be interested:
http://www.theswartzf...­.

There is a response to this article also, and it is also fairly readable:
http://scholar.google...­.

Thanks for the welcome Ian

Better late than never?


lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 242

[ .. Continued .. ]

No space to defend the contention here, but my claim is that without the assumption of the existence of the external world, we can have no concept of personhood -- and conversely! -- and so solipsism and hence Berkeleian idealism itself fails also.

I'd be interested to read your or indeed anyone else's thoughts on this.

Regarding quantum computation, Andrew unearthed an interesting reference a few months ago that non-local quantum correlations can persist intra-cellularly for as long as 10^-7 seconds! This still doesn't seem long enough to achieve any sort of biologically significant role, and so IMO this precludes any role for it in subserving consciousness either.

Not too certain about the intent lying behind your use of the phrase "universal truth" either, Trisha. If anything, surely the laws of physics are the only fare which could qualify as universal physical truths -- although, ironically, if true, this fact could never be verified! -- but otherwise, the rules of logic and mathematics are of course abstractly, formally true. I.e. they're true by definition, because we're following rules in employing them. (Wittgenstein.)

For what it's worth, I'm an adherent of the correspoindence theory of truth. A truth is a truth if and only if ("iff", in philosophese) the state of affairs to which some affirmative or negating sentence or coherent set of mutually supporting sentences refers is the case. (This is not an epistemic matter, but a metaphysical one, although as a supposedly discredited logical positivist myself I'm distinctly chary even of using the word "metaphysics".

Thanks for the references.

L8ers, as some of us sloppily write in colloquial London English.




Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy