Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Orch-Or Theory

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 8:09:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many theists I see on the internet seem to point to a particular theory of consciousness by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff that apparently supports theism. I've done much research on this topic, and and seems that there are several problems with the science behind the Orch-Or theory which make it not very useful.

I'm just curious, how many other Atheist/ Agnostic people have came across this theory.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 9:12:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've never heard of that theory. Or, at least, under that name.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 9:38:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe the basic theistic argument, is that the wave function of the universe is self-collapsing, this collapsing wave function is either a mind (based on Orch-Or), or this is due to a particle outside the universe. Since there are no particles outside the universe, then it must be a mind. While this seems more in line with Pantheism, it can be compatible with Christian theism (I suppose).

This argument, while interesting, has serious flaws though.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 10:52:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 9:38:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe the basic theistic argument, is that the wave function of the universe is self-collapsing, this collapsing wave function is either a mind (based on Orch-Or), or this is due to a particle outside the universe. Since there are no particles outside the universe, then it must be a mind. While this seems more in line with Pantheism, it can be compatible with Christian theism (I suppose).

This argument, while interesting, has serious flaws though.

Pretty sure the universe is expanding.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 11:24:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 9:38:58 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe the basic theistic argument, is that the wave function of the universe is self-collapsing, this collapsing wave function is either a mind (based on Orch-Or), or this is due to a particle outside the universe. Since there are no particles outside the universe, then it must be a mind. While this seems more in line with Pantheism, it can be compatible with Christian theism (I suppose).

This argument, while interesting, has serious flaws though.

Seeing as how the general consensus is that the wave doesn't collapse in the first place, I'd have to agree that there are flaws.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 11:45:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 9:39:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Seriously, they never let him fully explain himself. I know that guy, and I know his arguments. At best they were able to say "We don't know for sure" to what he said anyway.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 11:48:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 11:45:22 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 9:39:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Seriously, they never let him fully explain himself. I know that guy, and I know his arguments. At best they were able to say "We don't know for sure" to what he said anyway.

Yeah, I'm watching it right now. They didnt let him finish his argument as of 9:37 and are just strawmanning him...big time "its the same as saying my cup is god"
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 12:00:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Take a look at Delayed Choice Experiments and Quantum Eraser Experiments for good reasons to think there is no collapse.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 2:53:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

What are "microtubials"? I think you mean, microtubules. Regardless, they have not detected quantum activity in microtubels in the brain. They have discovered quantum activity with regards to photosynthesis in plants and other biological systems which is supposedly used to support the Orch-Or Theory (which is a scientific blunder for Penrose). One problem is that, the coherence is way too fast (660 fs) for coherence to effect mictrotubels. Only a speed of around 25 ms would be sufficient for this.

"We find that the decoherence time scales (∼10^13 – 10^20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales (∼10^3 – 10^1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way." - Max Tegmark (Professor of Physics)

This is only one out of at least 25 problems I have discovered, which make Orch-Or a dud more or less. This theory, is not taken seriously in the physics community.


I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed

These particles do not need to be observed in order for a wave function to collapse though. Wavefunction collapse can and indeed does occur all the time without consciousness involved (or even observation). For example, you could used a photomultiplier tube to collapse wavefunctions. The photons whose wave functions which collapse would most likely never ever enter your own eyes for observation (that would be quite dangerous with the lasers you would have to use). This can even occur with regards to Quantum Eraser experiments (double-slit). In experiments like these some of the photons' wavefunctions were collapse using beam blocks. Those aren't even electronic, much less conscious.

Thus, conscious plays no special role in the collapse of a wave function.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 2:57:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, it's controversial whether there is even a wave function collapse or not. It's actually more commonly taught, that there isn't.

"The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right[2] or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence.[3] In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity and is commonly taught at the graduate level" - Wikipedia
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 6:52:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

*Yawn*

Rejecting the notion that consciousness plays a special role in the collapse of a wave function (assuming there even is one) does not lead one to dualism. In fact, acting like physical interactions with particles which involve consciousness are somehow more special or fundamental than physical interactions that don't, lead to dualism. Also, most Atheists I know are physicalists and not materialists.

"....term "physicalism" is preferable (to materialism) because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles." - Wikipedia

Even I would agree with you, that strict materialism is flawed.

Also, you have failed to respond to the fact that the quantum coherence found in biological systems is too fast for the Orch-Or to work with regards to microtubules. If you eliminate this issue, I have more.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 6:59:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

Also, it isn't even clear that there is a collapse of the wave function in reality. It is actually, commonly taught at the graduate level that there isn't.

"The so-called "collapse" of the wave function in quantum theory is often illustrated by the wave/particle duality. When a photon propagates through a double-slit apparatus, it behaves like a wave. Yet, if it is observed, the non-local wave is collapsed into a single localized particle. However, both theory and experiment show that this is not a clear-cut either/or distinction, as it is misleadingly presented in traditional discussions of the double slit experiment. The interference pattern is not simply there or not, but is gradually deteriorated as more information about which slit the particle went through can be extracted from the photon measurement. This suggests that, in general, there is never any discontinuous or sudden collapse of the wavefunction. All that is ever happening is that we're pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way." - Physicist Thomas McFarlane
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 7:00:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There is not other form of consciousness. LOL.. It would be no less falsibiable then there are monkeys dance at you house but only I could see it from my special consciousness.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 7:04:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 8:09:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Many theists I see on the internet seem to point to a particular theory of consciousness by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff that apparently supports theism. I've done much research on this topic, and and seems that there are several problems with the science behind the Orch-Or theory which make it not very useful.

I'm just curious, how many other Atheist/ Agnostic people have came across this theory.
The Fool: Have you noticed the problem anything sounds like it may make a case they jump on it. Anything against, they either reinterpret the Bible or deny its truth. Even to the point of making up Fake science. There is nothing Rational going on here, its a psychological problem. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but rather based on the best of my knowledge cognitive science and philosophy of mind.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 7:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 7:04:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/4/2012 8:09:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
EDIT wow my writing is really bad latley.

I'm just curious, how many other Atheist/ Agnostic people have came across this theory.

The Fool: There is no other form of consciousness. LOL.. It would be no less falsibiable then there are monkeys dance at youy house but only I could see it from my special consciousness.

Its something I call the univesal fallacy. In that The Universe is meant to mean all things that exist. But natural science reduced All things that exist into all things perceive through the five senses. But because of that we say there might other universes. Which makes no sense because it would be just another sub-universe in the original purpose of the word all things that exist.

The same fallacy is done here with Consciousness. Where Consciousness consist of all preceptions. So to claim ANOTHER Consiousness or HIGHER Consiousness is a linguistic fallacy. Because its already univeralized by all perceptions. Same with nature which was meant to mean the essential/necessary properties of an object. An in what is the nature of that thing? Natural philosophy was about the figuring out the nature of thinks observed. And of course a mythology comes around and claims that it is beyond nature. aka Supernatural. Illusions are created by language when people think that they can actually define things into existence.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2012 8:35:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

Yeah...maybe for undergrads with an intro to Philosophy of Science course it is.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 12:10:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 2:53:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

What are "microtubials"? I think you mean, microtubules.

Yeah. Forgot how to spell it.

Regardless, they have not detected quantum activity in microtubels in the brain. They have discovered quantum activity with regards to photosynthesis in plants and other biological systems which is supposedly used to support the Orch-Or Theory (which is a scientific blunder for Penrose).

Wait, wait, how? Showing that quantum activity is directly involved in abstract biological organisms [2] [3] [4] is good evidence for Orch-OR. I don't see any scientific blunder here.

One problem is that, the coherence is way too fast (660 fs) for coherence to effect mictrotubels. Only a speed of around 25 ms would be sufficient for this.

"We find that the decoherence time scales (∼10^13 – 10^20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales (∼10^3 – 10^1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way." - Max Tegmark (Professor of Physics)

You're quoting an outdated paper from August 2000, lol. Let me guess, you got it from wikipedia, right?

Claims like this have been falsified by the discovery of topological qubits in microtubules. [1] Next...

This is only one out of at least 25 problems I have discovered, which make Orch-Or a dud more or less. This theory, is not taken seriously in the physics community.

Were these 25 problems found on wikipedia by any chance?

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed

These particles do not need to be observed in order for a wave function to collapse though. Wavefunction collapse can and indeed does occur all the time without consciousness involved (or even observation). For example, you could used a photomultiplier tube to collapse wavefunctions. The photons whose wave functions which collapse would most likely never ever enter your own eyes for observation (that would be quite dangerous with the lasers you would have to use). This can even occur with regards to Quantum Eraser experiments (double-slit). In experiments like these some of the photons' wavefunctions were collapse using beam blocks. Those aren't even electronic, much less conscious.

I'm actually having a hard time seeing how this logically follows. The photons and/or effect of the photons exist in a state of superposition until perceived. The fact that you don't directly perceive the photons themselves doesn't mean that you're not collapsing a wavefunction that involves the effect of those photons.

Remember the Double-Slit experiment? When you perceived the *effect*, if you will, of the light particles, we saw the light particles behaving as particles. But when we perceived the particles themselves we saw them behaving as waves (might have been the other way around, it's been a while). It's just a matter of what wavefunction you're collapsing and how.

[1]
[2] http://www.popsci.com...
[3] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 12:38:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 12:10:43 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 2:53:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

What are "microtubials"? I think you mean, microtubules.

Yeah. Forgot how to spell it.

Regardless, they have not detected quantum activity in microtubels in the brain. They have discovered quantum activity with regards to photosynthesis in plants and other biological systems which is supposedly used to support the Orch-Or Theory (which is a scientific blunder for Penrose).

Wait, wait, how? Showing that quantum activity is directly involved in abstract biological organisms [2] [3] [4] is good evidence for Orch-OR. I don't see any scientific blunder here.

One problem is that, the coherence is way too fast (660 fs) for coherence to effect mictrotubels. Only a speed of around 25 ms would be sufficient for this.

"We find that the decoherence time scales (∼10^13 – 10^20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales (∼10^3 – 10^1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way." - Max Tegmark (Professor of Physics)

You're quoting an outdated paper from August 2000, lol. Let me guess, you got it from wikipedia, right?

Claims like this have been falsified by the discovery of topological qubits in microtubules. [1] Next...

This is only one out of at least 25 problems I have discovered, which make Orch-Or a dud more or less. This theory, is not taken seriously in the physics community.

Were these 25 problems found on wikipedia by any chance?

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed

These particles do not need to be observed in order for a wave function to collapse though. Wavefunction collapse can and indeed does occur all the time without consciousness involved (or even observation). For example, you could used a photomultiplier tube to collapse wavefunctions. The photons whose wave functions which collapse would most likely never ever enter your own eyes for observation (that would be quite dangerous with the lasers you would have to use). This can even occur with regards to Quantum Eraser experiments (double-slit). In experiments like these some of the photons' wavefunctions were collapse using beam blocks. Those aren't even electronic, much less conscious.

I'm actually having a hard time seeing how this logically follows. The photons and/or effect of the photons exist in a state of superposition until perceived. The fact that you don't directly perceive the photons themselves doesn't mean that you're not collapsing a wavefunction that involves the effect of those photons.

Remember the Double-Slit experiment? When you perceived the *effect*, if you will, of the light particles, we saw the light particles behaving as particles. But when we perceived the particles themselves we saw them behaving as waves (might have been the other way around, it's been a while). It's just a matter of what wavefunction you're collapsing and how.

[1]
[2] http://www.popsci.com...
[3] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com...

It's actually a common fallacy to talk about a double-slit as though the detector is able to tell us "which slit the electron went through."

That's not quite what happens. The electron remains in a superposition state until the DECTECTOR forces an eigenstate to project. This is entanglement. Consciousness is not involved past an agent making the decision of where to place the detector.

If YOU were right, then retrocausality is possible since Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_delayed_choice_experiment
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 3:29:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 12:10:43 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 2:53:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

What are "microtubials"? I think you mean, microtubules.

Yeah. Forgot how to spell it.

Fair enough.

Regardless, they have not detected quantum activity in microtubels in the brain. They have discovered quantum activity with regards to photosynthesis in plants and other biological systems which is supposedly used to support the Orch-Or Theory (which is a scientific blunder for Penrose).

Wait, wait, how? Showing that quantum activity is directly involved in abstract biological organisms [2] [3] [4] is good evidence for Orch-OR. I don't see any scientific blunder here.

It's not good evidence, when the timing of the quantum activity involved with these biological systems is completely off by a large margin. The quantum activiry would have to last much longer to account for any interactions with mictotubules.


One problem is that, the coherence is way too fast (660 fs) for coherence to effect mictrotubels. Only a speed of around 25 ms would be sufficient for this.

"We find that the decoherence time scales (∼10^13 – 10^20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales (∼10^3 – 10^1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way." - Max Tegmark (Professor of Physics)

You're quoting an outdated paper from August 2000, lol. Let me guess, you got it from wikipedia, right?

Actually, the quote is from Max Tegmark's blog. Also, the timing has been known as a huge problem since 1996 when the theory first originated. The age of the problem is irrelevant. Not even Hammeroff's 2011 paper sufficiently addresses it. Once more, this is only one problem with the theory in general.

Claims like this have been falsified by the discovery of topological qubits in microtubules. [1] Next...

I do not feel like watching a 40 minute video. If you have a website you can source with this information I would be happy to look at it. However, all your other links involve quantum effects which happen way to fast in biological systems to account for the 25 ms required by Orch-Or. If you can show me a peer-reviewed paper which confirms these topological qubits in microtubules I would appreciate it. Also, you would have to show the 25 ms required by Orch-Or as well. Then, I will take this theory much more seriously. However, quantum events playing a role in warm biological systems like plants at the speeds they do, does not support Orch-Or like advocates think.

This is only one out of at least 25 problems I have discovered, which make Orch-Or a dud more or less. This theory, is not taken seriously in the physics community.

Were these 25 problems found on wikipedia by any chance?

No, actually. Wikipedia only shared a handful of problems with Orch-Or.


I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed

These particles do not need to be observed in order for a wave function to collapse though. Wavefunction collapse can and indeed does occur all the time without consciousness involved (or even observation). For example, you could used a photomultiplier tube to collapse wavefunctions. The photons whose wave functions which collapse would most likely never ever enter your own eyes for observation (that would be quite dangerous with the lasers you would have to use). This can even occur with regards to Quantum Eraser experiments (double-slit). In experiments like these some of the photons' wavefunctions were collapse using beam blocks. Those aren't even electronic, much less conscious.

I'm actually having a hard time seeing how this logically follows. The photons and/or effect of the photons exist in a state of superposition until perceived.

False. It's the measurement that causes the collapse (assuming the collapse is a reality). This could be done by a non-conscious robot who cannot perceive anything. Next..

The fact that you don't directly perceive the photons themselves doesn't mean that you're not collapsing a wavefunction that involves the effect of those photons.

Exactly, perceiving anything is not required. Consciousness plays no special role of the collapse of a wave function.

Remember the Double-Slit experiment? When you perceived the *effect*, if you will, of the light particles, we saw the light particles behaving as particles. But when we perceived the particles themselves we saw them behaving as waves (might have been the other way around, it's been a while). It's just a matter of what wavefunction you're collapsing and how.

Once more, it's the measurement and interaction with the particles which cause the collapse (assuming there actually are collapses). Observation or a mind is not required for this at all. People simply equate the measurement with the observation. Also, what kind of "observer" is required? Can a monkey collapse a wave function? A beetle? lol

[1]
[2] http://www.popsci.com...
[3] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:19:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 6:52:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

*Yawn*

Rejecting the notion that consciousness plays a special role in the collapse of a wave function (assuming there even is one) does not lead one to dualism. In fact, acting like physical interactions with particles which involve consciousness are somehow more special or fundamental than physical interactions that don't, lead to dualism. Also, most Atheists I know are physicalists and not materialists.

Actually, I think I got a bit confused from a previous post. You see, I'm not actually positing that there's anything inherently special about consciousness collapsing the wavefunction and unconsciousness collapsing the wavefunction.

The fact that conscious wavefunction collapses are ontologically the same as physical observation shows that both must reduce to a neutral substance, that is, a protophenonemal state, or, observation. Essentially, observation is fundamental to reality. But the problem is: That's Monism for you, bro.

So yes, photodetectors can collapse wavefunctions.

"....term "physicalism" is preferable (to materialism) because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles." - Wikipedia

Even I would agree with you, that strict materialism is flawed.

Physicalism and materialism have been experimentally falsified by Zeilinger and Aspelmeyer's test of Leggett's inequalities in 2007:

http://www.facebook.com...
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:30:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 6:59:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

Also, it isn't even clear that there is a collapse of the wave function in reality. It is actually, commonly taught at the graduate level that there isn't.

"The so-called "collapse" of the wave function in quantum theory is often illustrated by the wave/particle duality. When a photon propagates through a double-slit apparatus, it behaves like a wave. Yet, if it is observed, the non-local wave is collapsed into a single localized particle. However, both theory and experiment show that this is not a clear-cut either/or distinction, as it is misleadingly presented in traditional discussions of the double slit experiment. The interference pattern is not simply there or not, but is gradually deteriorated as more information about which slit the particle went through can be extracted from the photon measurement. This suggests that, in general, there is never any discontinuous or sudden collapse of the wavefunction. All that is ever happening is that we're pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way." - Physicist Thomas McFarlane

Wavefunction collapses are a real phenomena. Ever hear of the Quantum Zero effect? An unstable particle will never deteriorate if continuously observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, all that guy is saying is that the collapse is never fully complete. Which is true, but it doesn't address the fact that a collapse does occur.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:48:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/4/2012 12:00:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Take a look at Delayed Choice Experiments and Quantum Eraser Experiments for good reasons to think there is no collapse.

Those are the experiments that convinced me there is a collapse and that reality is based on observation... So, I have no idea what you're getting at.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:51:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 1:19:43 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:52:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

*Yawn*

Rejecting the notion that consciousness plays a special role in the collapse of a wave function (assuming there even is one) does not lead one to dualism. In fact, acting like physical interactions with particles which involve consciousness are somehow more special or fundamental than physical interactions that don't, lead to dualism. Also, most Atheists I know are physicalists and not materialists.

Actually, I think I got a bit confused from a previous post. You see, I'm not actually positing that there's anything inherently special about consciousness collapsing the wavefunction and unconsciousness collapsing the wavefunction.

Then what's all the fuss about? If conscious plays no special role in the collapse in the wave function, then...


The fact that conscious wavefunction collapses are ontologically the same as physical observation shows that both must reduce to a neutral substance, that is, a protophenonemal state, or, observation. Essentially, observation is fundamental to reality. But the problem is: That's Monism for you, bro.

What do you mean by "observation" though? The "observer" is the non-sentient measurement tool beings used. There need not be any consciousness involved at all.


So yes, photodetectors can collapse wavefunctions.


"....term "physicalism" is preferable (to materialism) because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles." - Wikipedia

Even I would agree with you, that strict materialism is flawed.

Physicalism and materialism have been experimentally falsified by Zeilinger and Aspelmeyer's test of Leggett's inequalities in 2007:

http://www.facebook.com...

How exactly does that debunk physicalism? lol
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:52:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 1:30:45 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:59:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

Also, it isn't even clear that there is a collapse of the wave function in reality. It is actually, commonly taught at the graduate level that there isn't.

"The so-called "collapse" of the wave function in quantum theory is often illustrated by the wave/particle duality. When a photon propagates through a double-slit apparatus, it behaves like a wave. Yet, if it is observed, the non-local wave is collapsed into a single localized particle. However, both theory and experiment show that this is not a clear-cut either/or distinction, as it is misleadingly presented in traditional discussions of the double slit experiment. The interference pattern is not simply there or not, but is gradually deteriorated as more information about which slit the particle went through can be extracted from the photon measurement. This suggests that, in general, there is never any discontinuous or sudden collapse of the wavefunction. All that is ever happening is that we're pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way." - Physicist Thomas McFarlane

Wavefunction collapses are a real phenomena. Ever hear of the Quantum Zero effect? An unstable particle will never deteriorate if continuously observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, all that guy is saying is that the collapse is never fully complete. Which is true, but it doesn't address the fact that a collapse does occur.

Remember by "observed" they mean that constant measurements and other forms of entanglement are what is "freezing" the decay of the atom. It has nothing to do with a conscious being looking at stuff.

Again, if you would like to argue that there is a wave collapse, how do you explain Wheelers Delayed Choice Experiment without admitting to retrocasuality (that is, a wave can be made to un-collapse depending on your actions after the sending photons through a double slit)?

Decoherence creates the appearance of wave collapse without actually doing so.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:53:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 1:30:45 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:59:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

Also, it isn't even clear that there is a collapse of the wave function in reality. It is actually, commonly taught at the graduate level that there isn't.

"The so-called "collapse" of the wave function in quantum theory is often illustrated by the wave/particle duality. When a photon propagates through a double-slit apparatus, it behaves like a wave. Yet, if it is observed, the non-local wave is collapsed into a single localized particle. However, both theory and experiment show that this is not a clear-cut either/or distinction, as it is misleadingly presented in traditional discussions of the double slit experiment. The interference pattern is not simply there or not, but is gradually deteriorated as more information about which slit the particle went through can be extracted from the photon measurement. This suggests that, in general, there is never any discontinuous or sudden collapse of the wavefunction. All that is ever happening is that we're pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way." - Physicist Thomas McFarlane

Wavefunction collapses are a real phenomena. Ever hear of the Quantum Zero effect? An unstable particle will never deteriorate if continuously observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, all that guy is saying is that the collapse is never fully complete. Which is true, but it doesn't address the fact that a collapse does occur.

"The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence. In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity and is commonly taught at the graduate level (e.g. Cohen-Tannoudji's standard textbook)." - Wikipedia
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 1:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 1:30:45 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:59:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2012 6:43:39 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:49:44 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/4/2012 11:43:49 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
I'm curious, Rational, what flaws do you see? I remember you pointing out the warm-brain problem before. But quantum activity has been detected in the microtubials of the brain, so, I'm not sure what you have left.

I also remember you using the double-slit experiment to rebut the Orch-Or model xD Even though it unequivocally proves that particles behave differently when observed, and completely disproves materialism, since it's impossible for a material field to exist between the particle and the camera for which communication could take place, changing the behavior of that particle, since that communication would have to travel faster then the speed of light.

You're using a rather old understanding of QM.

The act of "measurement" is effectively just another form of entanglement (Decoherence Theory, Quantum Information Theory). It has NOTHING to do with consciousness or the like.

Entanglement itself is not faster-than-light travel. We can't "change" how one particle acts and expect to see the counterpart change similarly. What happens is that measurement entangles particles, making it so that the particles cannot be described the same way they would be if the particles were described before entanglement. If you move entangled particles far apart geographically (supposedly even lightyears) they may still be entangled.

Measurement/collapse at bottom is the fundamental basis of physical interaction so unless you want to posit substance dualism you're going to have to accept that a fundamental physical interaction is also a menal interaction.

Also, it isn't even clear that there is a collapse of the wave function in reality. It is actually, commonly taught at the graduate level that there isn't.

"The so-called "collapse" of the wave function in quantum theory is often illustrated by the wave/particle duality. When a photon propagates through a double-slit apparatus, it behaves like a wave. Yet, if it is observed, the non-local wave is collapsed into a single localized particle. However, both theory and experiment show that this is not a clear-cut either/or distinction, as it is misleadingly presented in traditional discussions of the double slit experiment. The interference pattern is not simply there or not, but is gradually deteriorated as more information about which slit the particle went through can be extracted from the photon measurement. This suggests that, in general, there is never any discontinuous or sudden collapse of the wavefunction. All that is ever happening is that we're pushing information around with measurement interactions in a completely continuous (unitary) way." - Physicist Thomas McFarlane

Wavefunction collapses are a real phenomena. Ever hear of the Quantum Zero effect? An unstable particle will never deteriorate if continuously observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, all that guy is saying is that the collapse is never fully complete. Which is true, but it doesn't address the fact that a collapse does occur.

Also, even if wave-function collapses are real, they can happen spontaneously (Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory). Thus, the whole "it's either a mind, or particle outside the universe" argument is a false dichotomy. The wave-function of the universe self-collapsing, could be uncaused.