A challenge to show me wrong

[PolyHedral]

The universe is deterministic, causes do precede effects --we (conscious being) are the ones who determine what cause(s) came before what effect. We put the world in order, that's a faculty of our minds.

No, it's not; Whether a given event precedes another is an objective fact.

 

[Willamena]

No, it's not; Whether a given event precedes another is an objective fact.

Perhaps a topic for another thread.

 

[idav]

As far as I can tell, the burden of proof lies on anyone suggesting the brain isn't deterministic, because there's no evidence to suggest that the brain interacts with quantum noise, and that's the only non-deterministic element in current physics.

Why wouldn't it. It's part of this universe that we are supposedly deterministically stuck in. It seems that the whole very nature of existence and the universe would work at a quantum level and it has everything to do with cause and effect.

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.

 

[Koldo]

As far as I can tell, the burden of proof lies on anyone suggesting the brain isn't deterministic, because there's no evidence to suggest that the brain interacts with quantum noise, and that's the only non-deterministic element in current physics.

And even if the brain does so the existence of 'free will' still has to be proven to be true.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why wouldn't it. It's part of this universe that we are supposedly deterministically stuck in. It seems that the whole very nature of existence and the universe would work at a quantum level and it has everything to do with cause and effect.

Billards with ideal equipment is completely deterministic, despite the fact that quantum mechanics underlies it. The quantum randomness either cancels itself out or does not have any significant effect, because the balls are so massive compared to the realm of quantum. The same logic applies to the brain; Unless it is deliberately using quantum noise as part of random number generation, the random effects will be insignificant, and so the brain will be functionally deterministic.

Perhaps a topic for another thread.

Would you like to start one?

 

[idav]

Billards with ideal equipment is completely deterministic, despite the fact that quantum mechanics underlies it. The quantum randomness either cancels itself out or does not have any significant effect, because the balls are so massive compared to the realm of quantum. The same logic applies to the brain; Unless it is deliberately using quantum noise as part of random number generation, the random effects will be insignificant, and so the brain will be functionally deterministic.

It is more than just the level of the brain is working in. Given the assumption that the universe is deterministic then the future would be written in stone. The wave function doesn't agree with being deterministic until the observer gets involved which shows we are having an effect at the quantum level. If we can have multiple probabilities from a single cause then it is possible that we have a choice but I don't think we know enough about how and why we effect the wave function to make that determination. I've heard indications that we can actually choose where to collapse the wave function.
This video is interesting, some food for thought.
[youtube]4jO1gStcuEg[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪A brief understanding of Time within Quantum Mechanics‬‏

 

[PolyHedral]

The wave function doesn't agree with being deterministic until the observer gets involved which shows we are having an effect at the quantum level.

A geiger counter is a quantum observer. Consciousness does not matter one whit in QM.

Also, boom, deterministic quantum mechanics: De Broglie-Bohm theory

 

[idav]

A geiger counter is a quantum observer. Consciousness does not matter one whit in QM.

Also, boom, deterministic quantum mechanics: De Broglie-Bohm theory

Yes Bohm would agree with you about your statement that consciousness does not matter. You say it so matter of fact.

There are other theories.
Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penrose went on to consider what it was in the human brain that was not driven by algorithms. Given the algorithm-based nature of most of physics, he decided that the random choice of position etc. that occurs when a quantum wave collapses into a particle was the only possibility for a non-computable process. However, Penrose admitted that the randomness of the wave function collapse, although free from algorithms, is not a basis for any useful form of human understanding.
Penrose now proposed a second form of wave function collapse that could apply where quanta did not interact with the environment, but might collapse on their own accord. He suggests that each quantum superposition has its own piece of spacetime curvature, and when these become separated by more than the Planck length of 10−35 metres, they become unstable and collapse. Penrose called this form of collapse objective reduction.

 

[Skwim]

Yes Bohm would agree with you about your statement that consciousness does not matter. You say it so matter of fact.

There are other theories.
Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your linked source.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. Michael Price, for example, says that quantum effects rarely or never affect human decisions and that classical physics determines the behaviour of neurons."
​

 

[atanu]

Yes Bohm would agree with you about your statement that consciousness does not matter. You say it so matter of fact.

No. Bohm in fact postulates a Guiding Wave -- an implicate order, which is wholeness and Bohm himself likens it to indivisible consciousness. Bohm has formulated the concept of Implicate Order postulating a "hiddeness" reflective of a deeper dimension of reality.

Observer is not our eyes, surely. To Mind-Senses, the Universe is fully deterministic. But Mind-senses are not aware of the deeper reality always spoken about in eastern religions and now suggested by Bohm. Bohm conceives of consciousness as more than information and the brain; rather it is information that enters into consciousness. For Bohm consciousness "involves awareness, attention, perception, acts of understanding, and perhaps yet more." Further, Bohm parallels the activity of consciousness with that of the Implicate Order in general.

Geiger Counter is obviously not a quantum observer. It is fixed - "explicated" or "unfolded" out of the deeper reality, which always remains the Seer-Knower.

 

[idav]

From your linked source.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. Michael Price, for example, says that quantum effects rarely or never affect human decisions and that classical physics determines the behaviour of neurons."
​

It seems it is debatable.

Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition and entanglement are insignificant.

 

[atanu]

No. Bohm in fact postulates a Guiding Wave -- an implicate order. Bohm himself has formulated the concept of Implicate Order postulating a "hiddeness" reflective of a deeper dimension of reality, .

Observer is not our eyes, surely. To Mind-Senses, the Universe is fully deterministic.

Bohm conceives of consciousness as more than information and the brain; rather it is information that enters into consciousness. For Bohm consciousness "involves awareness, attention, perception, acts of understanding, and perhaps yet more." Further, Bohm parallels the activity of consciousness with that of the Implicate Order in general.

David Bohm has written extensively:

David Bohm, WHOLENESS AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER.
David Bohm and B.J. Hiley, THE UNDIVIDED UNIVERSE.
David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti, THE ENDING OF TIME.
David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti, THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY.
David Bohm and F. David Peat, SCIENCE, ORDER, AND CREATIVITY.

 

[idav]

David Bohm has written extensively:

Thanks. I may have mixed up that name with the theory mentioned earlier.

 

[idav]

A geiger counter is a quantum observer.

I've provided this link earlier in the thread.
Quantum mind

In the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics can only be used to predict the probabilities for different outcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system after observation is completely different than the usual behavior. During observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.

 

[Skwim]

From your linked source.

"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale, at which they could be useful for neural processing. Michael Price, for example, says that quantum effects rarely or never affect human decisions and that classical physics determines the behaviour of neurons."

It seems it is debatable.

Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition and entanglement are insignificant.
Reply With Quote

That "Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness" is fine. Price isn't addressing consciousness, merely neuron behavior.

 

[idav]

That "Price's position does not necessarily imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness" is fine. Price isn't addressing consciousness, merely neuron behavior.

Right the minds behavior which has something to do with us having consciousness. He isn't saying neurons don't work at the quantum level just that it is insignificant which is similar to the argument Polyhedral presented with billiards at a quantum level. Price used the term "very rarely" in reference to quantum noise altering the brain. The other argument is that quantum mechanics deep down really works at the level of classical physics which determinism relies on. The whole thing with the wave function makes me doubt it is classical physics.

 

[PolyHedral]

No. Bohm in fact postulates a Guiding Wave -- an implicate order. Bohm himself has formulated the concept of Implicate Order postulating a "hiddeness" reflective of a deeper dimension of reality, .

Observer is not our eyes, surely. To Mind-Senses, the Universe is fully deterministic.

Bohm conceives of consciousness as more than information and the brain; rather it is information that enters into consciousness. For Bohm consciousness "involves awareness, attention, perception, acts of understanding, and perhaps yet more." Further, Bohm parallels the activity of consciousness with that of the Implicate Order in general.

Bohm doesn't posit any such thing; he only shows that everything in the universe is connected to everything else. (i.e. that randomness only appears because you can't track everything in the universe at once.) He reduces the universe to an unchanging n-dimensional structure, with nothing deeper. There is no man behind the curtain.

And I do not follow your inference from the quote. Bohm does not appear to mention consciousness being anything more than the brain. He certainly does not compare it to the quantum wavefunction.

I've provided this link earlier in the thread.
Quantum mind

Your link seems to agree with me. As far as anyone can tell, minds are not special. It even uses the Geiger counter as an example:

Many of the alternative interpretations do not postulate that measurement in quantum mechanics requires consciousness in order to cause collapse (i.e. even a geiger counter would cause wave function collapse[34])

Right the minds behavior which has something to do with us having consciousness. He isn't saying neurons don't work at the quantum level just that it is insignificant which is similar to the argument Polyhedral presented with billiards at a quantum level. Price used the term "very rarely" in reference to quantum noise altering the brain. The other argument is that quantum mechanics deep down really works at the level of classical physics which determinism relies on. The whole thing with the wave function makes me doubt it is classical physics.

De Broglie-Bohm QM certainly isn't classical physics, but it is deterministic.

 

[idav]

As far as anyone can tell, minds are not special. It even uses the Geiger counter as an example:

Except that we are still unraveling how neurons produce consciousness so there is indeed something special about our brains. Also the link throws forward the idea that a conscious mind causes the collapses the function and the criticism being that the mind can't be special because we have identified everything as deterministic outside the mind.

 

[atanu]

Bohm doesn't posit any such thing; he only shows that everything in the universe is connected to everything else. (i.e. that randomness only appears because you can't track everything in the universe at once.) He reduces the universe to an unchanging n-dimensional structure, with nothing deeper. There is no man behind the curtain.

That is your bias speaking. Did I ever say of any man? But Bohm has written about an Implicate Order and frankly I will rather give credence to him than to you.

And I do not follow your inference from the quote. Bohm does not appear to mention consciousness being anything more than the brain. He certainly does not compare it to the quantum wavefunction.

All manifested particulate or localised objects, including material Brain, are what Bohm calls an "explicate" or "unfolded" order that are manifest in Implicate Order. While the consciousness is Implicate -- not localised at the deepest level but that gives rise to structures at local levels.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2517581-post27.html

I am not saying that David Bohm must be 100% correct. I am only contesting your careless assertions as below:

A geiger counter is a quantum observer. Consciousness does not matter one whit in QM.

Also, boom, deterministic quantum mechanics: De Broglie-Bohm theory

All of asserions are wrong.

• A Geiger Counter is observed and is not an observer
• Bohm does imply determinism at explicate level. But not at Implicate-wholeness level.
• Bohm has linked consciousness with Implicate order -- albeit the terms used may not be same. In fact, Bohm prefers to call 'Quantum Mechanics' as Quantum Organism' (kindly read the interview with patience).

I reiterate that I am not saying that Bohm must be correct. I am just pointing out that many hard core physicists do not say what you say.

I am sad that we seem to move in circles without ever coming to a common understanding and thus I consider it futile to continue any discussion on this topic with you -- at least for the time being. No offense meant.

 

[idav]

• A Geiger Counter is observed and is not an observer

To this point it is an argument against the Geiger Counter being what collapses the wave function since we have to in turn observe the measurements that were taken. If the counter is measuring it may be counted as an "observer" which in theory can be sufficient to cause the collapse but it is debatable. Either way the observer that is causing the collapse must work at a quantum level and leaves open the possibility that our brains do.