A Third Choice (ID Hypothesis)
by MikeGene[Here is a guest post from TT member, Thought Provoker]
Front Loading is a popular hypothesis among the earnest ID scientists. Whether these scientists refer to it by name or just in general concepts, they are looking for the answer to ID's "innocuous question" by searching for biological solutions that presume later biological needs. A designer-centric term for this would be "planned". A mainstream scientific term would be "supernatural". For the Third Choice model I suggest "retrocausal" (a generalized observation of an action occurring before a cause.) While "retrocausal" normally implies time travel, we need a looser definition due to the lack of appropriate candidates in the English language. For example, a soft retrocasual example would be the action of someone taking an umbrella out of the closet and carrying it before it rains. This is the designer-centric 'planning". A hard retrocausual example would be precognition. This is mainstream's "supernatural".
Retrocausalty alone isn't enough to explain design. We also need an organizing process or agency. The designer-centric answer is "the designer did it". The mainstream answer is "nature selection did it". The Third Choice involves interconnected quantum effects.
Chapter 1 "“ Quantum Weirdness is real
Quantum mechanics is the foundation of all matter, living or not. It has been understood since the 1930s that quantum mechanics expresses "quantum weirdness" which is more formally known as the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paradox. In over 70 years and countless experiments science is forced to conclude something fundamental has to give. I feel the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states presents the fundamental issues the clearest.
Imagine we have three observers (Alice, Bob and Cecilia) ready to measure entangled photons that head out in three different directions; One to Alice, another to Bob and a third to Cecilia. Each observer has a choice of which polarized state to measure (linear or circular).
The first bit of weirdness is that if two circular measurements are made, the results will determine the linear polarization of the remaining photon. The two polarizations should be independent of each other but they are not. If Alice measures a clockwise (R) polarization and Bob also measures clockwise (R) polarization then Cecilia will ALWAYS measure a vertical (Y) polarization if she chooses to measure linear polarization. (RRY)
If Alice measures a clockwise (R) polarization and Bob measures a counterclockwise (L) polarization then Cecilia will measure a horizontal (X) polarization if she chooses to measure linear polarization. (RLX).
It doesn't matter which observer is the odd-man-out or in which order the observations are made. All of the mixed observations possibilities are"¦
RRY YRR RYR
RLX XRL RXL
LLY YLL LYL
LRX XLR LXR
XXL XLX LXX
XYR XRY RXY
YYL YLY LYY
YXR YRX RYX
So far this doesn't exhibit anything like retrocausual or superluminal weirdness. It could be explained classically (algorithmic and static states). But what happens if the first two observer's measurements are horizontal polarization (X) and the third observer chooses to also measure linear polarization?
Let's work with what we know. We know if the observer measured circular polarization the answer would be counterclockwise (L as in XXL). With that, we can figure out the circular polarizations of the other two photons (they would be R) because XRL and RXL are the only alternatives that fit.
Therefore, we have an RR? situation. Which forces RRY as the answer. Which means Y would be the expected linear polarization in the case of XX?.
Classically, the answer must be XXY.
Experimentally, the answer is XXX!
Quantum mechanics gives the opposite result of what classical physics would dictate. This is not a logic error. This is not an experimental error. This is a real paradox. There are only a limited number of answers to this paradox..,
1. Ignore it
2. Assume a metaphysical construct (Multi-world interpretation)
3. Assume retrocausality
4. Assume interconnected, non-local quantum effects
5. Assume both retrocausality and interconnected quantum effects
The tendency to reject retrocausality is due to a presumption of a casual paradox. What happens if you kill your ancestors? With quantum mechanics, that isn't a problem. The situation is too tightly controlled. Observation forces the issue. Casual paradoxes can't happen.
The difficulty with interconnected, non-local quantum effects is that is sounds too magical and occurs faster than the speed of light. Superluminality is a problem because it inherently implies retrocausality.
The Third Choice offers no benefit if it is just another metaphysical argument. Therefore, we will forge ahead and presume the quantum effects are really real.
But what is the reality if a quantum state is never observed? This get's into the Schrodinger's cat paradox. If the cat lives or dies based on a quantum state, is the cat both dead and alive (superposition) pending an observation? Penrose has a suggested answer for the paradox.
Chapter 2 "“ Penrose OR
The Penrose has a model is called OR (objective reduction)"¦
Penrose considered superposition as a separation in underlying reality at its most basic level, the Planck scale. Tying quantum superposition to general relativity, he identified superposition as spacetime curvatures in opposite directions, hence a separation in fundamental spacetime geometry. However, according to Penrose, such separations are unstable and will reduce at an objective threshold, hence avoiding multiple universes.
The threshold for Penrose OR is given by the indeterminacy principle E=ħ/t, where E is the gravitational self-energy (i.e. the degree of spacetime separation given by the superpositioned mass), ħ is Planck's constant over 2π, and t is the time until OR occurs. Thus the larger the superposition, the faster it will undergo OR, and vice versa. Small superpositions, e.g. an electron separated from itself, if isolated from environment would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold. An isolated one kilogram object (e.g. Schrodinger's cat) would reach OR threshold in only 10-37 seconds. Penrose OR is currently being tested.
Penrose's suggests that objective reduction does, in fact, create reality (at least as real as "reality" gets). While some physicists do not like this model because of what follows, it is the best game in town. The OR model is quantifiable and can be verified experimentally. So far, no experimental result has managed to falsify it.
So what forces quantum states to be what they objectively reduce to? One experimentally observable answer is consistency with multiple observers. Which quickly leads to the concept of universal consistency of all objective reductions. In other words, Orchestrated Objective Reduction or "Orch OR" for short.
Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems supports the possibility of non-algorithmic things existing in nature. IOW, there can be explanations that can't be explained. Penrose points to aperiodic tiling for his non-algorithmic explanation. Mathematically, it was shown that it is possible to completely cover a two dimensional plane with a distinct set of shapes ("tiles") and not end up with a repeating pattern ("aperiodic"). Penrose figured out two shapes that solved this puzzle. A solution that Penrose claims couldn't have been accomplished without the aid of a non-algorithmic process (pseudorandomness isn't sufficient).
It might be tempting to dismiss this as just a mathematical exercise and, therefore, not "reality". However, a decade after Penrose demonstrated his Penrose Tilings mineralogists discovered quasicrystals. Naturally occurring aperiodic crystals that matched Penrose Tilings.
Penrose claims that his ability, as a mathematician, to conceptualize non-algorithmic things is inconsistent with a computer only capable of algorithmic processing. Are Penrose's instincts correct that he solved the aperiodic tiling problem instinctually instead of algorithmically?
Chapter 3 - Penrose/Hameroff (Orch OR)
For the OR model, Penrose is pretty much in his element. If anyone could translate quantum weirdness into reality, it would be a man who models Black Holes for a living (along with Hawking). And his Penrose Tilings was just something he did as a hobby.
This chapter deals with subjects that Penrose admits could be totally wrong but, in his opinion, are more likely correct than not. However, the ideas are experimentally verifiable. And there have been experiments that have produced some intriguing results.
While he has made some mistakes, they were minor and the Penrose OR model is going strong, IMO. However, Penrose's ideas about consciousness are meeting fierce resistance. I find it ironic that people rationalize that Penrose's ideas about consciousness are totally disconnected from his brilliant work as a physicist. I just don't see a logical discontinuity here.
However, biology isn't Penrose's strong suit, so he teamed up with Dr. Hameroff to produce the Penrose/Hameroff model of consciousness (Orch OR). The first part on the Penrose/Hameroff model depends on Penrose's theories concerning objective reduction. The timing for objective reduction, T = ĥ/E, is something that can be tested and, undoubtedly, will be tested. Penrose has proposed an experiment FELIX in an attempt to test this hypothesis.
Even if Penrose is wrong about the details there is a threshold where quantum effects appear to give way to Newtonian physics. We don't see the same quantum weirdness with throwing baseballs around as we do with throwing electrons around.
While this simplifies the situation for Schrödinger's cat it has the potential of complicating things for smaller objects like Tubular Dimers. I found this 1999 presentation where Penrose explains his chain of logic from basic physics to microtubules. However, this presentation is old and Hameroff has mostly taken over explaining the biological explanation. www.hameroff.com is a good source for material on the Penrose/Hameroff model.
Here is a link to an experiment trying to verify Penrose/Hameroff"¦
In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models.
Chapter 4 - The Third Choice
Enstien once remarked "God doesn't play dice." TT's Joy has expanded that to "God does not play dice. God plays a particularly mean game of billiards."
God doesn't play dice because there are no dice.
Imaging playing a dice game on an algorithmic computer that uses a pseudorandom number generator to decide which numbers come up. Even though this game could still be enjoyed by humans incapable of calculating the next number, it is not really random. Pseudorandomness could be used to simulate anything from a dice game to an evolutionary process occurring over billions of years. It wouldn't be actually random, just a simulation of randomness.
Is there such a thing as "natural" randomness?
Leaving living things out of the picture for the moment, any inorganic randomness can be traced to quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics isn't random. It is just non-deterministic.
Quantum weirdness defies algorithmic explanation. Quantum effects are clearly interconnected in space-time to all other quantum effects. The universe is totally interconnected at the quantum level.
It is impossible for one observer to see Schrödinger's cat dead while another one sees it alive so the paradox is prevented from happening in the first place. How? Through non-deterministic NON-RANDOM quantum weirdness.
Don't living things act randomly?
That pool shooting hustler pulled a fast one there. When life needed a randomizer, where do you think she got one? Via quantum mechanics of course. Quantum mechanics has been sewn into the very fabric of what make living things appear to be acting randomly.
Observation doesn't cause "random" objective reduction. It is just quantum weirdness being consistent with itself. The observer isn't acting random.
God plays a particularly mean game of billiards. She uses an invisible cue stick inscribed with the words "quantum weirdness". Not only can't we verify the existence of either her or her cue stick, we aren't even allowed to see the balls until they "poof" into existence right before our eyes via objective reduction.
Dr. Dembski can talk about Universal Probability Bounds all he wants, but unless it is absolutely impossible, God can not only make the shot, she can do it in such a way you won't be able to tell she did it much less how.
And, oh yeah. time is just another dimension of space-time. Quantum consistency includes the past being consistent with the future. Past, present and future are all interconnected. If God needs to, she can reverse cause and effect, retrocausality.
Chapter 5 - DNA, RNA and Microtubules
Here is a Hameroff discussion titled Quantum Computing in DNA
Hypothesis: DNA utilizes quantum information and quantum computation for various functions. Superpositions of dipole states of base pairs consisting of purine (A,G) and pyrimidine (C,T) ring structures play the role of qubits, and quantum communication (coherence, entanglement, non-locality) occur in the "pi stack" region of the DNA molecule.
Whether we are talking about a theist's pool shooting God or an atheist's universe just forcing consistency. Penrose's Orch OR model is practically running DNA processing according to Hameroff.
Another point that transcends metaphysical interpretation. Life is a natural outcome of enabling quantum mechanics. Living things can satisfy the needs of quantum consistency in ways non-living things can't. OOL becomes easy to explain. The game is rigged. If it can be done, God or a mindless universe has all the tools it needs with quantum mechanics. There is no such thing as randomness just forced consistency.
Rocks aren't very efficient at doing whatever the universe need done. However, living organisms contain microtubules that are very active with quantum effects.
Here is a link to a film clip that is a compelling argument all by itself.
Here is a link to a film clip of a neuron.
Chapter 6 - NOMA or OMA?
Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria will always be a source of conflict. Can we separate the metaphysical from science? If we don't that we have to decide which version of the OMA Truth (capital "T") is reality. Personally, I think the Truth will be forever unknown and unknowable. Therefore, we can live with multiple Truths.
Sobottka made a good stab at presenting a verifiable, single OMA truth based on this model. It bothered me when I first read it. However, during the second read-through I figured out where he crossed the NOMA line. I'm not saying Sobottka did anything unethical or even that he is wrong, just that NOMA continues to live because there are still unknown and unknowable Truths.
If quantum mechanics is truly the embodiment of consciousness then EAM is the Truth by definition. Quantum mechanics is part of all matter that make up the universe. Personally, I am taking the more modest approach of assuming consciousness is just an artifact of quantum mechanics. I think of quantum mechanics as a non-deterministic, non-algorithmic, non-local process. A rock has little use for such a thing. It provides some value to quasicrystals. To wiggly, squiggly organic things it gives them an edge in the evolutionary process. To inorganic AI machines, it could cause a paradigm shift and probably will.
Personally, I am still holding on to my multiple NOMA Truths that include a purposeless predetermined Universe and an Ultimate Engineer (or Science Fair project). I will explain both of these in the light of the new Third Choice.
A predetermined Universe would be like a cosmic Mandelbrot Set. A Mandelbrot Set appears to be chaotic and "random" yet exposes patterns and design. If you picture the universe from outside space-time you would see time as just another dimension, therefore the universe is unchanging. Past, present, future is all fixed and consistent with itself. There are no discontinuities because the non-algebraic "equations" don't provide for it. The past is interwoven with the future. Time travel/retrocausality can and does happen but it doesn't cause a conflict because the whole Mandelbrot picture is unchanging. The universe just is.
God is an equally valid as a metaphysical model, IMO"¦
I can easily hold the notion that the universe is the Ultimate Invention of the Ultimate Engineers. For this non-engineer, I sometimes refer to it as a Supernatural Science Fair Project. The more I understand the more I am impressed. Surely a creation like this is worth a blue ribbon. But I can't know since I have nothing to compare it to even if I did, I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate either. But what about the fine tuning argument? Do you still think chance has anything to do with this? There are no dice. At least none we can see. This universe may be the only Mandelbrot Set that works. It is also possible that a designer got to choose. Either way, we will never know.
I am content with understanding, and being impressed by, the invention. If there is an inventor, I think it is a reasonable assumption that this is the best way to show our appreciation.
July 1st, 2007 at 8:39 am
Great stuff, TP. We'll have to talk about the MT stuff, because it is a weak link. Then again, maybe my concerns have been addressed. But I have some ideas to help improve it.
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 8:39 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:42 am
TP
Thank you for such a decent look at this situation. your thoughts have helped me to get a bit further in my understanding of where science is going (as ive mentioned before science is not my strong field). i would only have a few comments (assuming that all your conclusions and what not are correct)….
what "evidence" or "preference" or whatever leads you to believe this statement? (also, unfortunatly, due to the cultural climate we now live in, Truth (cap T) will be expressed, as harris or dawkins do, as a public sphere thing to get us as a species forward with our goals, though they will try to pass it off as a real Truth of what is). Sam Harris even tries to do away with your statement (as a rortian statement) by saying, its a statement of what is, what the Truth is, and not all our statements can be compatible…i think harris is going about it in a rather freshmanly way but none the less people are listening, and i think thats were scientists and the like will go also.
would it ever be possible to sort out one of the three models (i believe you said God, the science project, or the multiverse) as the correct model or the most evidence based model? can we figure in the empirical obsevations made by prophets (of any religion) whom claim to have seen and spoken to a god? what about Jesus' claims of godhood (i find that he does claim so in the texts, however these are just texts with a tradition, and then the texts are backed by my own empirical observations, or what we may call the holy spirit (nephesh in hewbrew))? you must be finding some sort of "evidence" to prefer your choice of the science fair model over say any of the two. perhaps you are not all for saying "my preference must be everyones", but why is your preference what it is, and could we find any "universal" evidence to go one way or the other, or to prefer one over the other?
i am very interested in your answer.
durante.
Comment by dantedanti — July 1, 2007 @ 10:42 am
July 1st, 2007 at 10:47 am
Mike:
Hi, Mike. From what I've gathered, Orch-OR specifies MTs as mechanism. The amazing dynamics of MTs in living cells seem definitive of vitality itself. Not only are they big players in cellular mitosis, they also provide in-cell sensory processing, intracellular communications from membrane-in (signal transduction), transport, motility and cytoplasmic state control. Why, just yesterday another function of MT constructs was reported from Fox Chase Cancer Center researchers in the June 29 issue of Cell - cilia (MT constructs) as cellular "antenna", the loss of which leads to cancer.
The little You-Tube clip you posted (and TP links to) is a graphic highlight of cytoskeletal MT dynamics in action - from a distance that doesn't show us what they're actually doing. Scientists used to ignore MTs. It was just some structural stuff that was dismissible in favor of seemingly more 'important' specialized internal structures. But if Hameroff is right that MT constructs serve primary information processing functions, their further specialization and stability in neurons is very telling.
TP wants the mechanism (for expression/operation of attributes associated with consciousness in life forms) to be the whole story. I imagine all committed materialists wish for the same thing. That way we can just cut off the quest, declare it a done deal, and go back to our usual game of dueling metaphysics over interpretations. Science itself as a "science-stopper."
I'd like to hear your concerns about the MT link. I don't think it's a done deal yet!
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 10:47 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am
To Mike - Thank you for the guest post.
To DanteDanti - See Joy's comment about "dueling metaphysics".
To Joy - See DanteDanti's comment as evidence of your predictive powers.
This is a great start to this thread. I will respond more fully shortly, but first a couple addendums.
Here is a link to a 1999 Penrose presentation I wanted to include.
Here is a link to a 1998 Hameroff paper presenting Orch OR and its possible impact (Did it cause the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion?).
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:12 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hi Joy/TP,
Since I'll be doing that thought experiment shortly, I don't have the time to go into it much, but here's the deal. While I certainly agree about the importance of MTs on multiple-levels, and the mechanism angle is intriguing, the decision to focus on MTs seems arbitrary. More problematic is this: MTs are not biological universals.
But like I mentioned, I'm not a bomb-thrower, as I have ideas that may help (assuming I have nailed a serious problem, that is).
Comment by MikeGene — July 1, 2007 @ 11:19 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Thank you Mike. I am glad you liked it. It is tough trying to provide full explaination while not losing the audience due to the length of the post. I skimped on the microtubules part because I don't think of it as the weakest link in the logic chain.
At this point I would normally start explaining what I see as the weaknesses, but usually gets people confused when I do that.
So I will trust that this thread will get engender a critical comment or two or, maybe, even more than two.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:21 am
July 1st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hi DanteDanti,
You wrote…
I am glad it was helpful.
I had written…"Personally, I think the Truth will be forever unknown and unknowable. Therefore, we can live with multiple Truths."
You asked…
what "evidence" or "preference" or whatever leads you to believe this statement?
Philosophically, I embrace the concept that wisdom comes from knowing that you don't know.
Scientifically, Penrose refers to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems as mathimatical proof that somethings in nature can, forever, be non-deterministic (non-algorithmic).
I like this part of Penrose's model. I call it a definable NOMA wall that will prevent us from ever knowing the Truth. Is this the Truth? Well, I am wise enough to know I don't know the Truth.
Did you happen to see my review of Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot? link
Davies offered seven different versions (A through G).
My proprosed predetermined universe would be a combination of "B. The Unique Universe" and "F. The Self Explaining Universe".
My Ultimate Engineer (also Science Fair Project) proposal is "D. Intelligent Design".
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:54 am
July 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pm
TP:
How can you possibly claim EAM is "the Truth" (big-t) about evolution, by definition, if consciousness and its operative attributes are merely artifacts of quantum mechanics? The top-down control functions of consciousness in maintaining biochemical and biophysical processes in the various organ systems is unconscious, yet even unconscious control processes governed by the mechanisms qualify to fall under the general heading of "consciousness." IOW, none of it is accidental, though some of it's habitual.
Blarney. Matter is matter, whether it's in a rock or a human. Most of the observable, measurable nature of matter is habit - the habit of matter to be in a following moment what it was in a past moment. The cumulative history of an elemental atom is an impetus toward the future of that atom, providing us with highly predictable states in everything apart from unstable isotopes. Unstable isotopes decay by means of quantum processes that seek stability despite the atom being inherently unstable.
…but… but… You're really going to hate this. Remember me telling you I got to take a class in genetics back in college lectured by Isaac Asimov? Which I took only because I was his biggest sci-fi fan and could get in based on my then-current classes? Do you recall WHY I was allowed to take that course, even though my major wasn't (strict) biology? …it was because I was current in crystallography. Which, when applied to technologies dealing with certain biological constructs (DNA, MTs, proteins, etc.), revealed something I thought very interesting indeed. Though it was mostly ignored by those I thought it should intrigue the most.
While quasicrystals weren't a big item until the 1980s, there were some hints of something 'more' going on from X-ray crystallography of biomolecules even back before the wayward '70s. We were seeing fractal-like patterning in the diffraction symmetries even then. Took awhile before it started to come together in the mainstream, but the implications were fairly clear to a few.
I made a crazy off-the-wall projection to a few of my classmates (most were still kids who were not working day-jobs that required the regular use of germanium-lithium photospectrometers, wouldn't have appreciated it). Oddly enough [shockingly, to me], my projection predicted the very same crazy findings Ilya Prigogine had produced from a completely different physical direction of approach (I call it the +1 approach, since his operator was time). And for which he won the Nobel Prize that year.
The shock was that the same prediction could apply to life from such oppositionally tangental angles of approach confirmed for me a situation that caused some hefty cognitive dissonance. Whoa! More really *is* going on!!!
…my approach wasn't related to non-equillibrium thermodynamics or time as a function of life and its delicate balancing act. It was related to the diffraction patterns in bio-crystallography that had no apparent 3D explanation, strongly suggesting the extension of these structures beyond 3 spatial dimensions. Later confirmed, of course. I wasn't there for that (walked away in '79), but it's pretty standard by now.
What I'm trying to tell you - because you seem open to it, not because it will convince other die-hard 3D materialists - is that if life's balancing act is merely a 3D projection of structures existing in 8 or more dimensions, we cannot scientifically or metaphysically limit reality to 3+1. And if indeed - as is strongly suggested by evidence - there are more than 3+1 dimensions operating causally and effectively in reality, we can say nothing whatsoever definitive of "soul" or "spirit" or "gods/God" or "higher selves" or any of that stuff. None of it is ruled out. Extra dimensions may well influence the quantum realm with impunity.
IOW, it may not be as 'automatic' as you'd like.
Check Section 5. here for diffraction patterns.
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
What was "later confirmed" and is "standard by now" I know it wasn't "the extension of these structures beyond 3 spatial dimensions", because anyone who actually proved the existence of more than three spatial dimensions would have garnered headlines around the world and probably a Nobel.
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
keiths:
Ignorance is no excuse. You're obviously not familiar with the inverse Joy transform. You should try it some time when you need to make sense of a diffraction pattern. Guaranteed >3D structures.
Back to my Tibetan monastery now…
Comment by Raevmo — July 1, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
What's the Fourth Choice?
Comment by Rock — July 1, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
TP - You may of course ignore any and all references to n-D lattices necessary to translate 8, 10, 12-fold or more symmetries required to describe quasicrystals, as keiths and Raevmo insist you must. Since these two critics obviously know more about magic poof-dom than you or I will ever know, who am I to suggest they don't know sh*t?
I have no Tibetan monastery to retreat to, I've just got ripe blackberries on the knob, at the high field and down at the swimming hole that need pickin' before da bear gets 'em. So I'm organizing some small dogs and teenage boys for super-secret "Project Cobbler" (sssshhhh… if keiths and Raevmo hear of this they'll turn us in to DHS or CNN for sure!), zero hour this evening at around 7, complete with French Vanilla. It's an anti-global warming project, or maybe just a cure for hunger…
I can see that any contributions I might make to this thread will be immediately short-circuited by my obsessive anti-fans. So good luck with it. Without me, you might get more said with less distraction.
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I understand, but please keep contributing.
I think we share an understanding of priorities. I just spent the afternoon on a very critical project that dwarfed anything Penrose et al have done. We needed to pick out the perfect bicycle for my five-year old granddaughter in order to deal with impossibilities of balance and coordination enabling her to traverse the complicated bike trails at the local park. It even involved a magic invention, training wheels.
It will be a day she and I will remember for the rest of our lives.
BTW, I love fresh blackberry cobbler with French Vanilla ice-cream. I hope that was an invitation. If it was, do you mind if I bring a very happy five-year old along too?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Hi Rock,
You wrote…
lol
I can empathize. Do you think I LIKE the implications of all of this?
Please, please come up with a better answer.
If all else fails, we can fall back on my teenage son's solution… Don't ask the stupid questions in the first place!
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Raevmo wrote:
I think I'll try it on my clothes dryer, to see if I can get my lost socks back into "3+1".
Joy wrote:
No, just the ones in which you claim to have demonstrated the existence of extra spatial dimensions, or of a vast conspiracy to cover up the evidence of superconductivity in human bodies.
Comment by keiths — July 1, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
What is there to hate? I have gotten used to struggling with nearly impossible concepts that cause me headaches from all the synapses firing just to reach a point where you are comfortable with dropping the next breadcrumb for me to follow. So I can start the whole process over again until the next breadcrumb.
Believe it or not, I am grateful for your patience and efforts. I would like to think I am above average in solving riddles. You said something about me being quick on the uptake. I did pick up on your various hints about your past. There is a reason I use a anonymous pseudonym. You may be beyond caring what certain government and quasi-government agencies think of you, but I am not to that point yet.
I think I am getting to the point of understanding why Penrose doesn't like the various string theories, and I think I am getting a hint as to where the 8 dimensions come from (real and imaginary components of a single property is something I grok).
My turn to suggest you might be being a little impatient. I will get there. You don't have to worry about that. But, I can't zip through and understand Penrose's Road to Reality in a single sitting. I don't have enough background to do this.
I am already hooked. I am not going to stop now. However, I am taking a little detour. I want to drag a couple of other people along with me on this journey. It may be a fool's errand, but I got to try.
At some point we may want to revert to something a little less public. "Thought Provoker" has a hotmail account. He also has a blog nobody pays attention to. For now, I hope to stay on Telic Thoughts even if it means ignoring some unpleasant and ignorant comments.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi, Rock,
How about none of the above? To be fair, I would also include 'none of the above' to all materialistic philosophies. Of course, if you just want something to believe in that passes your smell test for common sense and which makes you feel smart and witty, well, you have your choices. If they all seem to suck for one reason or another, then try this:
1. While in the safety of your study, assume that any theory of matter that attempts to describe reality is false. There are no exceptions. It will be good if you are not interrupted by something or someone while assuming this.
2. Now say to yourself, "I think, therefore I am." From there, try to logically deduce why you think that, bearing in mind number 1.
Later, when you are in your car, or crossing the street, or are otherwise out and about, deal with what you perceive just like you always have. You should bear in mind, however, that while you are perceiving objects through your senses, you are not perceiving reality. That does not mean, however, that you still can't enjoy your sensibly perceived things, much like a child having a blast playing with his legos.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — July 1, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Hi Joy,
Time to get down to some arguing…
Ok, so I was attempting some appeasement to the OMA crowd and you caught me. I'm afraid I can't offer much of a good counter-argument since, if I understand what you are saying, I agree with you.
I said "A rock has little use for such a thing. It provides some value to quasicrystals."
You resonded with…
At the risk of sounding stupid, let me attempt an "Ah Ha"…
Most of us understand that we can get order out of chaos, but few see how chaos can come from order.
Quantum processes are predictable and ordered until interactions with things outside the quantum realm cause inherent paradoxes. These paradoxes in a ordered system results in chaos. Thus, chaos from order.
Ergo, a stable rock is no more "natural" than an unstable isotope. We rely on the "habits" of these objects because we have no other choice and historically it has worked for us.
Am I close?
This is a little bit preaching to the choir. Yes, I accept that there are more than 3+1 dimensions. I think these "extra dimensions" are real even if we call them "imaginary" components of complex properties.
As an electrical engineer I understand e ** jwt (we use j instead of i for the square-root of -1). To me, understanding implies reality. It is real to me.
[Looks around for Stunney in hopes he didn't hear this]
The link you provided was great. Here was something of interest concerning multiple dimensions…
I understand this to mean we have to assume nD-reciprocal space to make sense of quasicrystals.
It might weaken Penrose's non-algorithmic argument, but it strengthens the multidimensional argument.
I agree, one, or both, of these pragmatic beliefs have to be given up by the 3+1 materialist in order to explain the evidence.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Not to worry, TP. There are no governmental or quasi-governmentals I need to care about. That was worked out long ago, once they could no longer keep a lid on "The Void at the Center of the Core." Some of us are even still alive to thumb our noses in their direction from gated enclaves in the deep woods (where they like to stash inconvenient truths). You may have thought those Virginia Farm Boys were tough… they're nothin' to No'Cackalackie 'Shine-Runners! How do you think NASCAR got its start???!!!
That said, I am pleased to report that "Project Cobbler" was a complete success despite a couple of low fly-overs by black helicopters and one large C-5A that I suspect still belongs to an old friend of Franklin Graham's. No, they didn't drop medicine or teddy bears, which might have smushed thousands of low-leaning blackberries or even angered ursula da bear into attacking Imogene the Coyote-dog or Ultimately Loyal Lucille, who picks low-to-the-ground blackberries carefully with her lips (I kid you not). Usually she goes ahead and eats them herself, though…
That's two quarts of hard-earned berries mixed with a big tablespoon of blackstrap molasses, 1/3 cup of white sugar, 1/4 cup fruit brandy (advise blackberry but pear or peach works okay), 1 tbsp lemon juice and 1/4 cup flour. Spread evenly in a 9×12 cake pan and top with dough: 1 cup flour, 1/2 cup rolled oats, 4 tbsp cold butter cut in. Add 1 tbsp molasses, 1/3 cup sugar, 1/2 tsp baking soda, 1 tsp baking powder, 1/2 cup milk, and 1/2 tsp vanilla. Spoon the crust mix on top, try to spread semi-evenly with a fork (or not) and bake at 375º until crust is golden and berries are bubbly. Cool 20 minutes on the windowsill and serve topped with ice cream, provide fresh watermelon on the side to wash it down.
Goes well with barbeque chicken or rainbow trout (wrapped in fresh green sassafras leaves and slow-smoked in foil), whole celeriac roots with baby potatoes or Jerusalem 'chokes in foil with a side of flame-broiled mushroom-pepper-Vidalia-green tomato kabobs. Also works well with cajun boiled shrimp and crab (or crayfish if you've got kids you wish to keep really busy for a couple of days in the creek flipping rocks and collecting critters).
You and any kith/kin you care to expose to copperhead country are welcome! Lucille's a pretty good kid-herder as well as a trustworthy snake-dog. You just have to pay attention to what she's telling you. City kids don't do too well with that, in my experience.
Happy Independence Week!
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Hi Joy and MikeGene,
For what it is worth, if I was moderating this thread I would hole these two comments.
Raevmo's comment
Keith's second comment.
I will respond to Keiths first comment.
If you hole the two comments, please delete this comment too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Hi Keiths,
You wrote…
Did you know that neither Hawking nor Penrose has received the Nobel Prize for their work?
Black holes are "standard by now" and most people would say their existance has been confirmed. But this kind of physics is very close to metaphysics. It is hard to tell a thought model from reality.
Multidimensional theories are the same, if not worse.
Did you read the part of Joy's link where the author explained exactly what Joy was talking about? I have yet to catch Joy in an assertion that isn't shared by knowledgeable scientists (and I have looked). While she doesn't usually provide links to support what she knows, it is foolish to assume no such support exists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Hi TP,
So we are continuing the "QM magical mystery tour". I've read over your model"¦ AGAIN; and there are a number of issues that continue to bother me. I guess the primary one focuses on retro-causality. What exactly do you think the you think appeal to retro-causality really explains? Does it explain the origin of the universe? The universes "fine-tuned-ness"? The origin of information? The origin of life? You claim that you have a mechanism, but what good is such a claim if it can't explain anything? My reading of Hameroff is that he only appealed to retro-causality to explain some of the short-term characteristics of conscious thought. Furthermore, if you have OR do you really need retro-causality? I would expect you would need retro-causality only in a world where you have only SR?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 1, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Mike:
Well, I suppose we could then argue about how "conscious" prokaryotes are. But since both cilia and flagella are MT structures, maybe the pertinent questions would be more related to whether or not prokaryotes are elder siblings or devo-mutants. Since that question currently looms large (long after they THOUGHT they'd answered it), perhaps we should withhold judgment at present.
Obviously, eukaryotes have employed MTs in a host of useful functions prokaryotes never thought of (or maybe forgot). That they can serve such nifty functions is rather a spectacular feat, I think. I'm not saying they're a be-all or end-all - their MAPs (including actin filaments) look to be much more specified, and multi-tasking as well. Still, it's an intriguing direction in which to seek mechanism. We do presume there must be mechanism, don't we?
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:11 pm
John A.:
Retrocausality can, IMU, only apply to the moment-to-moment collapse of wavefunction, and then only in the minds of people who accept that reality is real. FAPP. In all geometries of spacetimes (however-dimensional) I've encountered in the strange world of mathematics, 'history' is considered to BE 'history', even when time is orthogonal. In quantum terms, this is considered to be the accumulation of past "irreversible" events, or - if you're not a multiverser with a bad case of Woo - T-H-E past. Recorded in reality somewhere, even if only a single probability's past-tense.
I honestly do not believe that the opinions of those who do not consider reality to be real need be a sticking point in anyone's examination of the real. IOW, they've made themselves irrelevant.
Retrocausality beyond moments is only necessary in models that don't count both history and habit as ongoing and recursive causal factors. I don't think modern man (or our future intelligently designed clone-kin) is the cause of the universe or its fine-tuned specificity or any gods/God that may or may not influence things here in 3+1 reality. Time may bend and warp most amazingly when relativistically factored into more than 3 spatial dimensions, but only if we don't factor it as a naturally orthogonal modifier to all of them. No matter how many of them there are.
We do not have a good handle on what - exactly - time *is*. Hardly anyone is bothering to ponder the question. Just as gravity was always and for everything a simple 'given' that didn't need definition until astrologers came along, time is that now. It's always been that, and Einstein's the only one who even bothered to try and reckon with it. His reckoning isn't clear enough for us to take further, so we're stuck right now.
Funny how one has to use time qualifiers to even attempt to describe the situation, isn't it? Then - now - in the future… it might all be the same thing.
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
To JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
You wrote…
I appreciate your continued interest in this. I am sorry this is a rehash for you. May I suggest you treat it as a continuation of a thread that got too long.
Is it that retrocausality can't explain "anything" or that it can't explain "everything"
Retrocausality can explain experimental results in GHZ states. Retrocausality can explain how professional tennis players aren't helpless observers of a tennis ball going too fast for them to react.
Retrocausality may also explain some of MikeGene's Front Loading evidence. However, I admit this is a weak stretch beyond what Penrose and Hameroff are willing to suggest at this time. There is some popular scientific support for stretching retrocausality across millennia and outside strict quantum effects (e.g. Paul Davies, magazine features, newspaper articles, etc). I consider it brainstorming material pending more supportive evidence.
For the listening audience, SR means "Subjective Reduction" which is what Penrose/Hameroff indicates is the assumption in the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (aka "waveform collapse").
With OR, you still need either non-locality or retrocausality to explain GHZ states (or both). Retrocausality isn't magical if casual paradoxes can be avoided. I argue that quantum effects can and do avoid paradoxes by enforcing consistency.
The purpose of this teleological universe is to be consistent, by design. The design could be the result of an Intelligent Designer or it could be the result of a pre-determined, unintelligent process. This Third Choice hypothesis doesn't need to delve into which of these metaphysical choices is the Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:46 pm
This alone is enough to earn it a place in the rubber science trash bin.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — July 1, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hi TP,
Good thread…thanks for putting in the time and effort to try to communicate a very difficult concept.
Now I know why I could never hit a fastball….somehow I missed out on the retrocausality lottery
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — July 1, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Vlad:
Tell me… is it Godel's theorem(s) that bug you most, or the term "non-deterministic?" Would it help if we substituted the word "unpredictable?"
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Hi Joy and others,
It is my impression that Penrose and Hameroff went a little bit futher on retrocausality than your comment implied (at least as I read it).
From Consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics: The case for a connection…
[emphasis mine]
P.S. Upon rereading this, I am emboldened to suggest that Penrose/Hameroff does lend some support to unconscious Front Loading.
This one is a keeper…
"Nonconscious backward referral of quantum information/quanglement which modifies existing information in the brain (e.g. adding qualia to primary evoked potentials, influencing choices) would not violate causality because the effects are unobservable before they occur."
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Hi Vladimir Krondan,
You wrote…
I look forward to hearing your reply to Joy's request.
I will add that this is a minor side issue of the Hypothesis. While I would be saddened by the loss of my NOMA wall, everything else would still stand.
It just isn't a key link in the Penrose/Hameroff model.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hi Vividbleau,
You wrote…
Thank you for the compliment. I am glad you found it interesting.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Generally, when Godel's theorem is invoked in this kind of context (biology, physics, etc), the simplest and most appropriate responses are scorn, derision, and cries of not even wrong!!. A most useful book is Godel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse by the great Torkel Franzen. Sadly, Franzen died not long ago, but you can peruse his Godel-related posts on usenet.
It would help if you left Godel out of it.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — July 1, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Joy wrote:
The definition I have heard about time is that 'it is that which keeps everything from happening all at once.'
Seriously, we can't define time or space or matter and energy for that matter (pardon pun) because we consider them to be ontologically basic. Why not consider consciousness and mind to be ontologically basic? Of course as a theist that is how I approach the problem. Mind, an eternally existing transcendent intelligence, is the fundamental starting point to explaining all reality; including of course the uniformity of natural causes that science studies.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 1, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
TP:
Well, I'm not sure I buy it, TP. They're going to have to separate nonconscious processes from conscious ones first, and I'm not so sure they're different phenomena at all. I'm thinking levels here, organized by priority. (Why does that sound a lot like my Mac's filing system?)
Perhaps it's because my mind is supposedly "wired" differently from other people's minds (something I also don't buy, I just think I've reserved more of what came standard with the model), but qualia are for me not the same as qualia for 'normal' people. Who learned early in life to section off processing quadrants, thereby ignoring crossover frequencies. For some of my perceptions a neurologist doing a real-time MRI would swear by all that's holy (to neuroscience) that I'm completely unconscious. As in not awake, because of drastic anomalies in blood flow.
…but I wouldn't be unconscious, I'd just be processing overlapping qualia in some area of the brain they're not looking at. Because they believe with all their hearts and minds it MUST happen *here* (so they can quantify and control it). I'm a regular anarchist for cog-sci guys, for sure!
In 'normal' operations it doesn't seem so odd to me that conscious awareness would lag autonomous awareness (qualia, processing, reaction) by some measure. Haven't you ever started at some stimulus that was unexpected? Didn't it seem to take an eternal moment? Do you really expect your autonomous functions weren't trying like hell to categorize it reasonably before it fed you the startle response?
IOW, we rely heavily on autonomous functions of sensation and analysis. Or, our "higher" brain control center does. Maybe not so much in a modern city, but that's only because we've managed to autonomize modern city-stuff. We're quite handy that way.
When your brain feeds you an anomaly after all its pre-processing, do you tend to ignore it? Do you query your autonomous system to see if it erred? Re-analyze the situation from top-down? Do you assume it's a computational glitch, and ignore it? Do you ever send immediate "look sharp" (fight or flight) orders to the system just in case it's a real threat?
I don't think there's a real time anomaly here. I think it's just the 'normal' hierarchy of our control system and its sub-units. MOST of what we sense and react to on a moment-to-moment level is sub-conscious (a step above unconscious). This allows us control of our focused awareness function, which is very much top-down. We mostly use it automatically. What is she saying to me? What does it mean, and what does she want from me? How does that relate to X (that may have happened long ago)? Can I get laid if I play this right?
[The last is a nod to that 'other brain' the males of our species often use to think with.]
Lord knows our conscious awareness has plenty to keep it occupied at any given moment in time. Unconscious can become subconscious which can assert itself fully onto consciousness if it's needful enough. Sans such situations, the delay time will probably keep you from saying something stupid, thus get you laid before the night is out… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I wish I could wrap my mind around all these words. It's like trying to dry off a humpback whale with a sheet of Kleenex. While it's still submerged.
When I read the word "retrocausality", it looks like a way to inject intelligence into design, but doing it backwards, so that we created the universe. Or have created it. Or perhaps our future selves did. Or will do so.
What's that thumping? Oh, that's the artery ballooning in my cranium. Same as always.
Anyway, that concept - humans (or superhumans… or whatever) creating the universe so they can have a place to exist - reminds me of the U'wa people of Colombia. They say that the name they call themselves means "the thinking people", and they believe that they sing the world into existence every morning.
Of course, this sounds like so much superstitious nonsense, like some here have declared all theism to be. I wonder what the geologists working for Occidental Oil (Oxy) think about superstition now:
Just a bit of bad luck. Coincidence maybe. Like all of the other coincidences that superstitious people celebrate as non-coincidence. Except this particular one is costing a business - one that depends heavily on predictable science - several billion dollars.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 1, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:22 pm
TP:
I thought hitting tennis balls, baseballs etc. had been explained by physiologists as something known as reflexes.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 1, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Yeah, but that's not good enough. I bet you thought you could easily explain why your telephone book is incomplete too (no recipe for swedish cream puffs)… but now we know it's because of Godel's theorem and quantum whatever.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — July 1, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Hi Joy,
Hameroff wrote…
"Nonconscious backward referral of quantum information/quanglement which modifies existing information in the brain (e.g. adding qualia to primary evoked potentials, influencing choices) would not violate causality because the effects are unobservable before they occur."
You wrote…
I am bordering on ecstatic here. I was right!
I am not saying that you are wrong. It is just that I was right in my understanding of Penrose/Hameroff. I got worried when you seem to disagree with what I was saying. But it turns out I understood correctly, you just disagree with Penrose/Hameroff on this point.
I only wish I had the understanding to argue against the likes of Penrose and Hameroff. I am working at it. For now, I will be content with just being the messenger/editor of other people's ideas.
At this point, I believe the "Third Choice" hypothesis is coming close to fitting together as Penrose/Hameroff would have it.
Here is why I am biased towards Retrocausality…
1. Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is compelling evidence for retrocausality.
2. Non-locality isn't better supported than retrocausality (GHZ forces either/or)
3. Non-locality probably causes retrocausality anyway (superluminal)
4. It explains MikeGene's Front Loading evidence
5. It is too easy for a telic universe to avoid casual paradoxes.
Now I still haven't come up to speed on the multidimensional aspect you are already comfortable with. But I don't think I am getting so far afield that I can't adjust the model as I learn more.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
To JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
You wrote…
Are reflexes the result of our conscious will?
If not, then we are helpless observers watching our reflexes perform.
This doesn't seem to match what happens in activities like playing tennis.
Consciousness experiments like Libet put the time lag around a half a second.
That is too slow for playing tennis. I don't believe neurologists and/or psychologists have an answer.
The major critics against Penrose/Hameroff generally accuse them of employing Quantum-in-the-gap (similar to God-in-the-gap). Therefore, there is a recognized gap here, otherwise the critics would be using Occam's razor.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Hi angryoldfatman,
You wrote…
I empathize. I have had to endure a lot of headaches to pull this hypothesis together.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
July 1st, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Hi Vladimir Krondan,
You wrote…
I think we all get the fact that you don't like Penrose's use of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems. It is a minor side issue.
Presume Godel is left out.
Do you have any other constructive critisism?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 1, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:08 am
Joy:
The fact that an N-dimensional model is the most economic way to describe some aspect of reality (such as quasi-periodic crystals) doesn't imply that space is N-dimensional. Observe any N variables that are not fully correlated and you can summarize the information in an N by N correlation matrix which has N orthogonal real eigenvectors.
I'm open to the idea that space has more dimensions than we can "see", but so far they haven't been "seen" in any reproducable way as far as I know, even if string theorists feel they need those extra dimensions to make their speculative models work.
Go ahead and throw this retrocausally in the hole if you like.
Comment by Raevmo — July 2, 2007 @ 1:08 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:40 am
Thought Provoker, in that previous thread, no, I did not mean 'qualia'. I meant what I typed, 'quanta'. Is this the right thread to pursue the discussion, starting, say, from this post, concerning retrocausality, gravitational energy, 'n' stuff?
Also, I think this quote from Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware and author of a very fine book published in 2003, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, originally at this post seems quite relevant in several ways to this thread:
Comment by stunney — July 2, 2007 @ 1:40 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Behe passingly (and not very directly) mentioned the third choice in one of his essays. See: True Acid Test, Reponse to Ken Miller
He cites a paper on Quantum Evolution in relation to Adaptive Mutagenesis. (the pre-cursor idea to Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis).
I now have McFadden's book, Quantum Evolution which is a retrocausal, non-Darwinian approach to evolution.
PS
I do think there is some retrocausality in evolution, definitely cosmological, and partially biological.
Nevertheless, I'm confident the YECs will have the best scientific model in the end.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 2, 2007 @ 10:05 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 am
Hi Stunney,
I have some errands to do after which I will get back to this. Meanwhile let me point this out (I said earlier)"¦
I would be interested in your reaction.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 2, 2007 @ 10:23 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:55 am
Raevmo, to Joy:
It's ironic that Joy is confusing a mathematical space with real space, since it was she who did a post on the mapping of the Lie group E8, stating:
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 10:55 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
TP wrote:
TP,
You've got it exactly backwards. Libet's gap is a problem for Hameroff, who wants to see consciousness as the initiator of willed actions. This forces Hameroff to invoke retrocausality to explain why the neural activity associated with a decision to act precedes the conscious awareness of that decision.
For folks like Wegner and Dennett, who see the conscious will as an after-the-fact reconstruction, Libet's gap presents no problem, and is in fact expected.
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 11:13 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 am
Hi Keiths,
So professional tennis players ARE helpless spectators watching their bodies perform? (they are just fooling themselves with "after-the-fact reconstruction")
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 2, 2007 @ 11:43 am
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
TP wrote:
I'm curious about what you are saying here. Please elaborate and give us a few more details. I'm still struggling to understand the true scope of your model.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 2, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Hi, Thought Provoker,
What I take from this experiment is that the thoughts of the testee actually begins to express itself when the electrical activity begins, and that there is a time lag before the thought gets translated into thought-words. In other words, the thought-word (the conscious awareness of the thought) is not the thought. Instead, the thought is the activity. What is really being seen here, I think, is that it takes time for the thought to be expressed in language.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — July 2, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:
Their will is real, and the brain is initiating their actions; it is the conscious perception of the will that lags behind and amounts to a reconstruction.
This is mind-boggling stuff, when you first encounter it. If you're interested, I recommend Wegner's book The Illusion of Conscious Will.
Comment by keiths — July 2, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
To JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
I wrote…"Retrocausality may also explain some of MikeGene's Front Loading evidence. However, I admit this is a weak stretch beyond what Penrose and Hameroff are willing to suggest at this time."
You responded with…
Welcome to the club. I, too, am struggling to understand the true scope of this model.
I recoil somewhat at the notion of this being MY model. It is more of a compilation of other people's hard work that I am presenting.
Trust me, this isn't false humility. I am more than arrogant enough to attempt to reach beyond my grasp, but even I have my limits.
With that caveat in place, I will continue my role as the opinionated blogger offering his guesses as potential pearls of wisdom.
Looking at the big picture, it looks like we have only a select number of uncomfortable choices to embrace scientifically…
1. Retrocausality is real
2. Metaphysics is real (God or Multi-world)
3. We aren't smart enough to figure out decoherence, yet
A humble and patient person would naturally pick number 3. Since I am neither, I pick number 1. Number 2 is a scientific cop-out and, frankly, I am surprised by how many multi-world proponents there are that don't see that.
Retrocausaulity is no more magical than Newton's F = MA with the only difference being the possibility of casual paradox (note: both are pretty "magical", it is just that F=MA has been accepted). Retrocausaul quantum effects don't have a problem with casual paradoxes, because they can't happen under quantum theory.
For this, and many other reasons, I believe retrocausality is really real at least at the quantum level. Note quantum retrocausality isn't inherently limited to short times. Some photon experiments have extended the time delta to milliseconds. Some Bell inequality experiments have taken place over kilometers with reason to believe the same results would happen for distances measured in light years.
Therefore, retrocausality can happen over Millions, even Billions, of years.
In this universe, it appears that if something can happen it does.
As to the "scope of the model". I believe the scope is "limited" to the interactions of quantum effects that do not risk casual paradoxes but can extend over Billions of year.
And, yes, I am proposing this as a "humble" scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 2, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Hi AnaxagorasRules.
You wrote…
I am not sure why you added the qualifier "in language". Because the same process is observed for thought expressed as motion.
I think everyone agrees that it takes time for thought to be expressed. The simple interpretation is that conscious thought takes time, period. How much time? Hundreds of milliseconds. Too much time to explain certain abilities and behaviors.
Keiths appears to be trying to spin this as a non-problem for those who need to invent theories (e.g. "after-the-fact reconstruction") to avoid embracing retrocausality. With retrocausality, the explanation is simple with no risk of casual paradoxes.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 2, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
TP wrote: