Free will?

[shawn001]

Very much worth watching this regarding "free will" which might surprise most people.

New science on the brain and how the subconcious controls every waking moment.

Through The Wormhole: Mysteries of the Subconscious

[youtube]KfRZc8oWkcY[/youtube]
Through The Wormhole S3E8 Mysteries of the Subconscious - YouTube

 

[Thief]

Very much worth watching this regarding "free will" which might surprise most people.

New science on the brain and how the subconcious controls every waking moment.

Through The Wormhole: Mysteries of the Subconscious

[youtube]KfRZc8oWkcY[/youtube]
Through The Wormhole S3E8 Mysteries of the Subconscious - YouTube

Love the series!...good stuff!

But the content only points to the complexity of reflex and the chemistry that makes it work.

It does not atcually address the residence and connection of mind and body.

Other documentaries attempt at length to note the connection.
The 'point' wherein your chemistry responds to YOU seems to be the elusive portion.

 

[Sapiens]

...


Life itself is a localized violation of the 2nd law of thermo - the law only applies invariably to closed systems. (Excepting the Poincaré recurrence theorem, but that's irrelevant on timescales we care about.) Since the future and past are defined in terms of the 2nd law of thermo, then if you make the second law not work then linear time similarly stops working. However, one can always infer a single chain of causality by the global behaviour of the entire universe. (Which is by definition a closed system.)
...

Here is, I believe, the end of the 2nd Law discussion: Statistical Physics of Self-Replication.

 

[crossfire]

Yes, I necromancing a thread. I'm wondering if this principle has been applied to how the neuron in our brains fire. (There seems to more interest in applying this to quantum gravity, but I'm finding the application to our thought processes and neuron firing to be much more intriguing:

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/amplituhedron-jewel-quantum-physics/

 

[idav]

Yes, I necromancing a thread.

Oh my, doesn't look like I have gained too much insight in this area in three years.

I'm wondering if this principle has been applied to how the neuron in our brains fire. (There seems to more interest in applying this to quantum gravity, but I'm finding the application to our thought processes and neuron firing to be much more intriguing:

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/amplituhedron-jewel-quantum-physics/

I am not really sure but I am very interested as well, the article describes a different way of looking at it which is likened to some sort of compatabilism.

As far as I know nature, in particular biology can and does utilize Quantum tricks. As far as the brain doing this, I feel the brain is a very good candidate for this but it seems as if perhaps it is illusory, as if the brain is mimicking this potentials found in nature due to its simultaneous processing. Though that may be enough, in that thoughts are in multiple places at the same time, similar to the quantum concept of photons being in multiple places simultaneously. Although @LegionOnomaMoi would have me believe that these potentials in neuron firing are not quite like I would like to describe, perhaps he might shed some light. I kinda went back and refreshed my memory on some my conversations with him in this thread.

 

[crossfire]

Oh my, doesn't look like I have gained too much insight in this area in three years.

I am not really sure but I am very interested as well, the article describes a different way of looking at it which is likened to some sort of compatabilism.

As far as I know nature, in particular biology can and does utilize Quantum tricks. As far as the brain doing this, I feel the brain is a very good candidate for this but it seems as if perhaps it is illusory, as if the brain is mimicking this potentials found in nature due to its simultaneous processing. Though that may be enough, in that thoughts are in multiple places at the same time, similar to the quantum concept of photons being in multiple places simultaneously. Although @LegionOnomaMoi would have me believe that these potentials in neuron firing are not quite like I would like to describe, perhaps he might shed some light. I kinda went back and refreshed my memory on some my conversations with him in this thread.

I don't remember if it was this thread or not where we talking about using Feynman diagrams in tracing neural activity, and how cause and effect become ambiguous because of the complexity of them. This simplifies things quite a bit.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, I necromancing a thread. I'm wondering if this principle has been applied to how the neuron in our brains fire. (There seems to more interest in applying this to quantum gravity, but I'm finding the application to our thought processes and neuron firing to be much more intriguing

Neuronal "firing" isn't really that important on its own. The "neural code" actually has more to do with the rates and/or timing of "firing" (or spikes), i.e., the nature of spike trains. There is no model of neuronal firing or the neural code or spike trains that incorporates much in the way of quantum mechanics, let alone quantum gravity (a notion that has no empirical support, doesn't exist in the standard model, and of its various incarnations there exists no agreement as to which one is even most likely, if any, to be real). From single neurons to neural populations, researchers use classical electrodynamics (as used in biophysics more generally) to describe the dynamics of neural spikes/firing. Quantum mechanical models of neural dynamics are based upon quantum chemistry but can't be shown to be really relevant to the neural code, let alone cognition. Quantum gravity is considered to be so negligible that the entirety of particle physics exists upon the assumption that this force is negligible at scales far, far, far less than any constituent parts of a single neurons relevant to neural firing. It is ridiculous to suppose that a theoretical notion lacking any empirical support or any single formulation that can't even be derived in some form so as to be indirectly detectable like quarks should somehow matter to the macroscopic synchronization that governs neural firing.
Far, far more important to understanding how neurons fire and the neural code is not the nature of fundamental interactions at subatomic levels but the nature of synchronization and complex systems. The neural code emerges from the patterns of dynamics interactions in and among neural populations, and these top-down structures govern the biochemical interactions that produce spike trains.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't remember if it was this thread or not where we talking about using Feynman diagrams in tracing neural activity, and how cause and effect become ambiguous because of the complexity of them. This simplifies things quite a bit.

Feynman diagrams are fundamentally 4-dimensional depictions of quasi- or virtual processes. Not only is time specified by orientation in these diagrams so as to single out the time-like component of these spacetime interactions, and not only are most diagrams descriptions of non-physical processes (by "most", I mean "all" in the sense that for any series of diagrams infinitely many can't be real), these depictions are factors in perturbation expansion series that are divergent. That is to say, they describe processes that can't happen. They are helpful because they allow one to select which infinite sets of diagrams in any interaction process to ignore.

 

[viole]

I don't remember if it was this thread or not where we talking about using Feynman diagrams in tracing neural activity, and how cause and effect become ambiguous because of the complexity of them. This simplifies things quite a bit.

The problem with cause/effect is that it is asymmetric. I don't see this asymmetry in any of the Feynman diagrams I am aware of.

I am not a physicist, but I believe that Feynman diagrams can be inverted in the time dimension and still allow you to determine that the time inverse process is a valid one.

If that is true, the asymmetry between causes and effects is reducible to a macroscopically originating asymmetric arrow of time, which is nowhere to be seen in a Feynman diagram.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The problem with cause/effect is that it is asymmetric. I don't see this asymmetry in any of the Feynman diagrams I am aware of.

I am not a physicist, but I believe that Feynman diagrams can be inverted in the time dimension and still allow you to determine that the time inverse process is a valid one.

If that is true, the asymmetry between causes and effects is reducible to a macroscopically originating asymmetric arrow of time, which is nowhere to be seen in a Feynman diagram.

Ciao

- viole

Because before the Big Bang, there may not have been, and there likely was no, arrow of time. Quantum entanglement indicates there is a timeless environment which is "external" (for lack of a better word) to our four dimensions.