Big Bang Theory Question.

Originally posted by inimalist
Seeing as I have written another really long post, I'll try to summarize. It isn't that the math wouldn't work in the theories they are proposing, it is just that, as a student of neuroscience, I know why those phenomena are impossible based on simple physical properties of the brain. Based principally on the inaccessibility of quantum science, those within the field seem to be overstepping their bounds by using quantum phenomena to explain neurological experiences.

Lastly, a very strong take home message of the show was that even the idea of a quantum computer was still untestable. We simply don't know enough, and the vast majority of quantum theory and computing is based on whiteboard equations rather than observation.

I am reminded of a prominent physicist who, at the turn of the century [lol, 1900] predicted that within 40 years physics would be a complete field and that there would be nothing left to discover, only read in textbooks. This was prior to the discovery of special relativity.
🙂

As a "transempiricist," I find it very grounding when I read something from a neurologist or a behaviorist. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by inimalist
So, I just recently went to a talk about quantum computing (/w Gilles Brassard , David Cory, Anthony Leggett, Peter Shor) at the Institute for Quantum Computing (www.iqc.ca, which is down right now...) and to be honest, I got a very weird impression of the field. [/brag]

For instance, they introduced themselves and explained how they had come study q-computing, and they all had stories that revolved around the same people or each other. The community seemed, as a whole, very small and tight nit, regardless of how many labs there are world wide (which I think is a very small number). I think the sheer esoteric nature of the field does not lend itself to a thorough enough peer review process, which can be exemplified by a conversation I had with Mr Brassard after the panel about pseudo-telepathy. He explained a game experiment to me, which I understood well enough, but afterward he began talking about how quantum mechanics could be responsible for why two people get the same feeling at the same time if they had entangled stimuli input, with no direct communication being passed between the brains. There is also the Nobel prize winner in physics that said it should be possible for our brains to receive information from the future.

Seeing as I have written another really long post, I'll try to summarize. It isn't that the math wouldn't work in the theories they are proposing, it is just that, as a student of neuroscience, I know why those phenomena are impossible based on simple physical properties of the brain. Based principally on the inaccessibility of quantum science, those within the field seem to be overstepping their bounds by using quantum phenomena to explain neurological experiences.

Lastly, a very strong take home message of the show was that even the idea of a quantum computer was still untestable. We simply don't know enough, and the vast majority of quantum theory and computing is based on whiteboard equations rather than observation.

I am reminded of a prominent physicist who, at the turn of the century [lol, 1900] predicted that within 40 years physics would be a complete field and that there would be nothing left to discover, only read in textbooks. This was prior to the discovery of special relativity.

🙂

Quantum mechanics is not a esoteric field. It is a complex field and to understand it completely you have to be very familiarized with it. Another thing is that today many physicists are using another kind of language to talk to people. All this publicity Quantum Mechanics have can lead some people to have wrong impressions about it. I particularly don't like the way this publicity is made. Unfortunately, there is some physicists who do more publicity about the field than explain something about it. In the other hand, there is many people who can't see how some conclusions were draw, and take precipitated conclusions about the field.

What I think particularly got your attention is that talk about pseudo-telepathy as you referred to. Perhaps they should have presented their theories in another way. Particularly, I would focus attention on the main problem which is the possibility of the brain working as a quantum computer. Since we don't know how the brain process information, that is a possibility. There is nothing that makes the processes in the brain involved with conscious experience entirely defined by action potentials. We don't know how the information is coded on the brain and how it is processed. Even saying that the information is coded in the brain is an assumption.

What I am saying is that what we know about the brain is not working against the possibility of the brain working like a quantum computer. Now, that "telepathy" thing is a different thing. For something like that to happen the brain must work in a very specific way, and obviously we don't know if the brain work in that specific way.

the brain has nothing to do with quantum physics

Well, there is no way to know.

Actually they think the quantum processing would happen at the level of the microtubules. There is some papers published about the subject, but the theory is still in its infancy.

there is a way to know, its called 100 years of neurological research.

For quantum mechanics to have any functional role in the way the brain works, it would overturn a century worth of research and we would be all the way back at square one.

There is little, if any way, to combine quantum mechanics and neurological processing

Why not link some of the papers YOU have read on the matter, and I'll link some of the papers that I have read on the matter.

That's not what the Big Bang theory says....

It was not an explosion. It was an expansion of space. It didn't come from anywhere, it was everything expanding. It "ended" depends on how you define it, because as the universe expanded, things cooled off, and now the universe is much cooler than it used to be, but it is still expanding.

Also it did not create life. Life came much later. In fact there was about 3 times as much time between the Big Bang and the first life as there was between the first life and today. I suppose there could have been life earlier or even right after the Big Bang, but if there was we have no evidence of it.

The universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is actually increasing. So far we have seen nothing that indicates that it will slow down. So it will go on forever.

As far as we know, nothing is beyond the universe, because beyond the universe there is no space. There is not only nothing, but no space for anything to even be in.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a way to know, its called 100 years of neurological research.

For quantum mechanics to have any functional role in the way the brain works, it would overturn a century worth of research and we would be all the way back at square one.

There is little, if any way, to combine quantum mechanics and neurological processing

Why not link some of the papers YOU have read on the matter, and I'll link some of the papers that I have read on the matter.

The possibility of the brain using quantum mechanics to process information does not contradict neurology. You can't prove a negative, so you can't say that 'The brain does not use quantum mechanics to process information'. You must also know quantum mechanics to support the view that it is not used in the brain. There is also medics and neurologists who support the theory.

But if it contradicts as you say, then please specify what exactly does not allow the possibility.

I don't remember which specific references I have read, but there is some of them here.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html

Originally posted by Atlantis001
The possibility of the brain using quantum mechanics to process information does not contradict neurology. You can't prove a negative, so you can't say that 'The brain does not use quantum mechanics to process information'. You must also know quantum mechanics to support the view that it is not used in the brain. There is also medics and neurologists who support the theory.

But if it contradicts as you say, then please specify what exactly does not allow the possibility.

I don't remember which specific references I have read, but there is some of them here.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/publications.html

interesting, i'll look at that

Thanks for the site Atlantis.

My only answer is that the whole idea is based upon the concept that there is a "hard problem" of consciousness.

There is no evidence that there is, and the majority of "consciousness" can be explained through neuronal mechanisms.

Some stuff that I found about informations storage seemed interesting, but scientists recently imaged the forming of memories in the brain, and long term potentiation explains memory as well.

The whole site is, what I as someone who studies the brain and not physics, would point to as evidence of the insular nature of quantum. If not insular the only better word for it is arrogant.

It all comes back to the fact that we experience the world as dualists, but we aren't, experiences of the "mind" are related directly to the function of systems in the brain. Someone who is only versed in their personal experience with quantum physics doesn't have the intellectual history or perspective in neuroscience to make such bold claims.

If it pans out, fine, let them do some studies. I'll stick with the fMRI and stuff that, you know, we have seen and done successfully for a long time now.

Originally posted by inimalist
interesting, i'll look at that

Originally posted by debbiejo
Thanks for the site Atlantis.

np.

The principle is that it happens at the level of the proteins called microtubules that exist in the membranes of neurons.

Microtubules assume two different molecular configurations depending on if an electric current pass throught it or not. The 0's and 1's would be represented in those same molecular configurations.

Originally posted by inimalist
My only answer is that the whole idea is based upon the concept that there is a "hard problem" of consciousness.

There is no evidence that there is, and the majority of "consciousness" can be explained through neuronal mechanisms.

Some stuff that I found about informations storage seemed interesting, but scientists recently imaged the forming of memories in the brain, and long term potentiation explains memory as well.

The whole site is, what I as someone who studies the brain and not physics, would point to as evidence of the insular nature of quantum. If not insular the only better word for it is arrogant.

It all comes back to the fact that we experience the world as dualists, but we aren't, experiences of the "mind" are related directly to the function of systems in the brain. Someone who is only versed in their personal experience with quantum physics doesn't have the intellectual history or perspective in neuroscience to make such bold claims.

If it pans out, fine, let them do some studies. I'll stick with the fMRI and stuff that, you know, we have seen and done successfully for a long time now.

I believe there is a "hard problem" of consciousness.

In a quick summarized way this theory can explain some aspects of our consciousness like our so called "free will" for example. If information processing of the brain was like an ordinary computer there would be no way to do it. There are other things too but I am not entering in the details.

Another reason involves the fact that the collapse of the wavefunction needs awareness/conscious experience. Since the brain is also involved with conscious experience it makes sense the phenomena of consciousness to need a quantum mechanical background. That is something that requires some understanding of quantum mechanics.

Personally I don't find the possibility unreasonable. We already need chemistry to explain the biological processes of the brain. I don't think chemists are arrongant because of this. Anyway, my view is that we are not going agaisnt what it is currently understood about neurology with this theory. There are neurologists who support the theory.

Anyway, like you said studies need to be made. The main problem revolves around consciousness and that needs to be better explored.

the first i'd heard of a connection between consciousness and q mechanics was a couple years back. the idea of consciousness stemming from quantum mechanical processes is pretty fascinating. the notion of q-computing is also amazing. at least part of the coolness of q-computing stems from the hypothesis that says it may lead to proof of the many-worlds theory. wild stuff. 🙂