Does QM Shed Light on Teleology?

The bunny is hopping over to the Land of Edge once again. There are some thought provoking exchanges there which include comments of Stuart Hameroff arguing a concept mentioned at Telic Thoughts before. It's unusual to cite the last paragraph of a long page in an introduction but here is that paragraph from the Land Of Edge link.

There are interesting historical aspects to both sides of this physics/biology metaphor. Darwin provided a causal mechanism for seemingly teleological results. Similarly, quantum mechanics provides a causal mechanism for why the principle of least action works, a principle that smells teleological, the way it is formulated classically.- Piet

And there is this courtesy of Stuart Hameroff:

This is beautiful, but requires consciousness to *experience* the instant. What is consciousness?

The model which Roger Penrose and I have put forth ("orchestrated objective reduction - Orch OR") for brain microtubules predicts conscious events which are rearrangements of fundamental spacetime geometry — for example at the level of Planck scale quantum spin networks. If experience is a fundamental property of the universe, like mass, spin, charge (as proposed by Wheeler — "pre-geometry", Chalmers and others) then qualia, or proto-conscious experience must be embedded at the most basic level. Quantum spin networks (first described by Penrose in 1971, and elaborated e.g. by Rovelli and Smolin in 1995) are a representation of the most basic level of reality, and therefore provide a possible "site" for proto-conscious experience. If proto-conscious experience is indeed a "funda-mental" property, where else but the Planck scale could it be embedded? So consciousness, it is proposed, is a self-organizing process at the level of quantum spin networks.

and there is this sharp retort from John Baez:

"So biological systems may interact routinely with Planck scale quantum phenomena."

This is wrong. The Casimir effect we measure has no direct relation to Planck-scale physics, and there is no evidence that biological systems interact with Planck scale phenomena.

Perhaps it would help to recall what the Planck scale actually is. Max Planck cooked up a unit of length from 3 constants: the speed of light, the gravitational constant, and what we now call Planck's constant. These constants are crucial to relativity, gravity, and quantum mechanics, respectively. Thus it is natural to guess that Planck's unit of length is the distance scale at which quantum gravity effects become important. The Planck length is about 10^{-35} meters. For comparison, the radius of a proton is about 10^{-15} meters, and that of an atom is about 10^{-10} meters. No experiments have been done that yield direct information about Planck-scale physics.

The discussions cover much ground and are a tasty morsel for those who like a good bull session about some heady science topics.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 am and is filed under Intelligent Design, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/does-qm-shed-light-on-teleology/trackback/

41 Responses to “Does QM Shed Light on Teleology?”

Thought Provoker Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Let's see…

Stuart Hameroff and Quantum Mechanics…

I might be able to think up a comment or two to say on these subjects.

Here is another Stuart Hameroff quote to go with the ones you mntioned…

Consciousness and evolution

Has evolution favored consciousness? The functionalist view of consciousness as illusory epiphenomenon seems to offer few advantages for adaptation and survival. However Orch OR offers the following potential benefits: 1) Quantum computing (e.g. search algorithms) offers faster (near-infinitely parallel) processing than conventional computing, 2) Penrose non-computability would confer intuitive unpredictability, e.g. in predator-prey relationships, and 3) Backward time referral and near-instantaneous semantic perception and response would also be beneficial, e.g. in predator-prey relationships. Thus evolution would favor quantum isolation mechanisms for larger and larger superpositions, e.g. proteins, assemblies of proteins, assemblies of assemblies of proteins (neurons), assemblies of neurons/hyper-neurons"¦brains, resulting in faster and more useful times to OR.[lii] There is also the possibility that biology evolved and adapted to a pre-existing proto-consciousness.

IX. Conclusion

The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR theory "goes out on a limb" to address the puzzling facets of consciousness. It has engendered criticism because 1) it differs markedly from conventional wisdom, and 2) significant quantum processes seem unlikely in the warm brain milieu. But conventional wisdom fails to address puzzling facets of consciousness, and evidence suggests that biology has evolved mechanisms for brain-temperature quantum processes. Orch OR is consistent with all known neuroscience, cognitive science, biology and physics although it extends these disciplines theoretically. Moreover, unlike conventional theories Orch OR is testable and falsifiable. Spanning neurobiology, physics and philosophy, it is the most complete theory of consciousness.

link

Here is a Stuart Hameroff quote that mentions "Intelligent Design" by name…

The evolutionary origin of centrioles, cilia and flagella (which have the same basic structure of nine microtubule doublets or triplets arranged in a larger cylinder, but with additional motor proteins) is unclear. According to the endosymbiotic theory,57 our eukaryotic cells arose from symbiosis, an invasion of simple bacteria-like prokaryotes by mitochondria which supplied energy, and by flagellates (e.g. spirochetes) which brought cytoskeletal proteins providing structural support, compartmentalization and internal organization, movement and perhaps intelligence and eventually consciousness. The origin of flagellates is unknown.

There is some question as to whether centrioles, cilia and flagella (i.e. flagellates) could have evolved purely by natural selection, as they are said to exhibit "irreducible complexity".58 Darwin said in The Origin of Species:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Innumerable small, randomly chosen steps of incremental changes in proteins to form tubulin, and tubulin to form microtubules, and microtubules to form centrioles, cilia and flagella would seem to offer no advantages "along the way". Consequently centrioles, cilia and flagella have been suggested as examples of "intelligent design".58 Designed by what, or by whom? This question leads some to "Creationism". But there is also the view that intelligent design reflects the type of Platonic information embedded in the Planck scale suggested by Roger Penrose.59,60 If so, then via quantum states living systems are in touch with a deeper reality. Does this imply that quantum information devices, for example, would also be "alive"? Not necessarily, as only organic molecules and cytoskeletal protein lattices may have the inherent flexibility to harness ambient energy for quantum coherent states, interact with the Planck scale via quantum gravity processes, and utilize photons as phase-ordered matter.

link (warning, this has a long download time)

From your counter argument quote…
"…there is no evidence that biological systems interact with Planck scale phenomena."

BTW, my compliments to Bradford for offering a balanced presentation in the opening post.

It is very bold statement to say there is NO evidence of something. Evidence exists for just about anything you could imagine, including UFOs. The argument is over how much and how compelling is the evidence.

For example, Here is something from Berkeley Labs…
"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis," said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. "This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one."

I have more, but I must get back to work.

Thank you Bradford for putting up this thread.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 22, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Moderation help please, thank you

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 22, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Doug Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
You call the guy a puppet (pretty much) and now you're asking for help.

Comment by Doug — January 22, 2008 @ 2:04 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Hi Doug,

I am assuming that comment was directed at me.

Do you want me to guess at the details of your complaint, or do you want to provide more specifics so I can address them properly?

Please note, Bradford asked me "Are you being coached?" here.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 22, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

Doug Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
It was supposed to have been a light-hearted jab. I thought I included an emoticon with my post…. but it appears I didn't.
Let me addend my previous post with this:

Comment by Doug — January 22, 2008 @ 2:50 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hi Doug,

Thanks and excuse me for taking it wrong.

As Raevmo noted, I have been engaged in some intense discussions over at After the Bar Closes. Let's say AtBC's atmosphere is less… tolerant… compared to Telic Thoughts. Over there, I feel I have to respond in kind to get my message across.

Sometimes I have a little difficulty in making the transition.

As FMM would say… "Peace"

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 22, 2008 @ 3:13 pm

Bradford Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
TP quoting Hameroff:

Innumerable small, randomly chosen steps of incremental changes in proteins to form tubulin, and tubulin to form microtubules, and microtubules to form centrioles, cilia and flagella would seem to offer no advantages "along the way". Consequently centrioles, cilia and flagella have been suggested as examples of "intelligent design".

Of course this is hotly disputed by opponents of intelligent design. However, opponents rest their case largely on conceptual pathways and hypothetical scenarios. At the very least the question of pathways to irreducibly complex structures raises issues that are open ended with respect to possible answers; some of which are at odds with each other.

Comment by Bradford — January 22, 2008 @ 7:52 pm

Stephen Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 am
Not only have Penrose and Hameroff connected QM to mind, Johnjoe McFadden has related QM to biological evolution in "Quantum Evolution." Morever, I doubt that quantum effects can be restricted to the Planck scale (removing a previous objection to this proposal). For example, non-locality is well beyond the Planck scale. The butterfly effects imples that QM is beyond the Planck scale. Our own technology is beyond the Planck scale. So yes, Kauffman's speculation is very reasobable to me, given that teleolgical effects are also suggested by life processes.

A better treatment of QM is called for, however. The principle of excluded middle (that is part of classical logic) should be dropped when describing QM. Therefore, the particle-wave duality implies a middle term that is neither a wave or a particle.

Comment by Stephen — January 23, 2008 @ 12:49 am

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
TP quoting Hameroff:

Has evolution favored consciousness? The functionalist view of consciousness as illusory epiphenomenon seems to offer few advantages for adaptation and survival. However Orch OR offers the following potential benefits: 1) Quantum computing (e.g. search algorithms) offers faster (near-infinitely parallel) processing than conventional computing, 2) Penrose non-computability would confer intuitive unpredictability, e.g. in predator-prey relationships, and 3) Backward time referral and near-instantaneous semantic perception and response would also be beneficial, e.g. in predator-prey relationships. Thus evolution would favor quantum isolation mechanisms for larger and larger superpositions, e.g. proteins, assemblies of proteins, assemblies of assemblies of proteins (neurons), assemblies of neurons/hyper-neurons"¦brains, resulting in faster and more useful times to OR.[lii] There is also the possibility that biology evolved and adapted to a pre-existing proto-consciousness.

One of the more interesting ideas that Hameroff has put forth, IMO, is the emergence of consciousness during the so called "Cambrian Explosion." He seems to be arguing himself that consciousness is the cause of sudden explosion diversity that we find during this period. Even if you don't accept Orch OR this concept does make sense. The creatures during this period at least appear to be the kind of creatures (comparing them with similar modern kinds) which possessed rudimentary consciousness. If nothing else natural selection became much robust during and after the CE than before. But that then leaves us with a deeper mystery: What caused consciousness and the Cambrian Explosion in the first place? "¦A non robust kind of natural selection?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 23, 2008 @ 1:39 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I think it is unfortunate that this thread didn't engender more discussion. However, I share some of the blame since I was being distracted with real life and my discussions on After the Bar Closes. In a thread there, we had strayed off-topic to an old debate between Keiths and I (Zachriel too). Keiths attempted select a quote from Penrose to argue against my thoughts concerning how Special Relativity and the Twin Paradox should be viewed. Here is a comment from the middle of that discussion…

Hi Keiths,

Thank you for your response. I think it helped me with my presentation, a lot.

The difference between you and Zachriel is that Zachriel approaches his discussions like he would a military maneuver. He is careful not to over-extend.

You may yet win the battle of convincing people I made a semantic mistake in my use of the term "General Relativity" but it may cost you the war in that you end up demonstrating that my efforts are honest and rational.

Page 422 of The Road to Reality is part of Chapter 18 which is titled "Minkowskian geometry".

Starting at the top of Page 420…
"In passing from [Euclidean geometry] to [Minkowskian geometry], there are also changes that relate to inequalities. The most dramatic of these contains the essence of the so-called 'clock paradox' (or 'twin paradox') of special relativity. … if we accept that the passage of time, as registered by a moving clock, is really a kind of 'arc length' measured along a world line, then the phenomenon is not more puzzling than the path along which this distance is measured. Both are measured by the same formula, namely [integral of ds], but in the Euclidian case, the straight path represents the minimizing of the measured distance between two fixed end-points, whereas in the Minkowski case, it turns out that the straight, i.e. inertial, path represents the maximizing of the measured time between two fixed end events (see also 17.9)." [emphasis Penrose's]

Penrose goes on to explain how in the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean geometry is a straight line and how that is not true for Minkowskian geometry.

This is why I say the traveling twin took a short cut.

Page 421 has some pictures explaining all of this. Penrose also explains why this is NOT due to accelerations and is purely a geometry problem.

Continuing on page 422…

"It is frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong. The answer for the clock times is obtained using the formula [integral of ds] (with ds>0) in both theories. The astronaut is allowed to accelerate in special relativity, just as in general relativity."

Penrose was trying to explain a concept using terms people understand. I was focused on Penrose's concept. If you want to claim victory over semantics, be my guest.

The discussion went on with the typical AtBC attempt at gang tackling through insults. I ended up starting a new thread. Here is the opening post to the thread The Traveling Twin takes a Short Cut.

In the other thread it was pointed out that I had strayed completely off topic. There was even an implicit remark that this was dishonest. Therefore, I am starting this thread.

For those that haven't been following the situation, allow me a quick recap…

I had presented my thoughts on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of Mike Gene's and Dembski's methods for inferring design (I feel Mike Gene's is a more honest attempt even if it is weak).

This, of course, engendered pejorative remarks about me personally and repeated inquiries about things like who I am (Mike Gene?), my definitions, my opinions and what books I have read.

I eventually acquiesced to these requests by indicating Penrose's The Road to Reality is the type of book I like to read and explained some of my general thoughts. One of which is that I consider the Twin Paradox to be a geometry problem that is explained by understanding the traveling twin takes a short cut.

The last comment (from Doc Bill) was questioning the relationship of this topic to a Biology Forum. It is at this point that I decided to start this thread and answer that.

As some of you know, I am of the opinion that it is possible life is the result of an evolution of living organisms making direct use of interconnected quantum effects be it for photosynthesis (see recent Berkeley Lab discoveries), DNA processing (see A. Patel) or quantum consciousness (see S. Hameroff).

The reason I feel quantum effects are interconnected is generally based on the Copenhagen quantum interpretation concerning waveforms and specifically due to Penrose's derivative interpretation called Objective Reduction (OR).

And one of the things that ties it all together is the geometry of our universe. If the distance in four dimensional space-time is appropriately described by the Minkowskian geometry equation"¦

dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 "“ dt^2

or in a rotated complex dimension view"¦

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Then it becomes apparent there are different path lengths between two points in four dimensional space-time and the shortest distance is NOT a straight line.

The homebody twin takes the straight line path along the time dimension (2 years)"¦

ds = SQRT(2^2 "“ 0^2 "“ 0^2 "“ 0^2)

ds = 2

The traveling twin takes a path out and back (1 year, 0.8 light-years both ways)"¦

ds = SQRT(1^2 "“ 0.8^2 "“ 0^2 "“ 0^2)
+ SQRT(1^2 "“ (-0.8)^2 "“ 0^2 "“ 0^2)

ds = 1.2 [Edited to correct mistake made in rush]

The traveling twin path is shorter.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

Things that travel at the speed of light take the ultimate short cut in space-time, the path length is always ZERO.

This trivializes the explanation of quantum experiments involving Bell's inequality and Greenberger"“Horne"“Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states, at least for light. The quantum effects are interconnected because the space-time path length between them is zero.

To me, this starts to tie everything together, as in "life, universe and everything".

And, yes, that includes Biology.

I thought this effort might help some at Telic Thoughts understand my Quantum Quackery.

And Joy, please feel free to add caveats and corrections to my obviously over simplification of the situation. In fact, I hope you (and/or others) do.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 27, 2008 @ 1:37 am

Bradford Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:15 am
TP: As some of you know, I am of the opinion that it is possible life is the result of an evolution of living organisms making direct use of interconnected quantum effects be it for photosynthesis (see recent Berkeley Lab discoveries), DNA processing (see A. Patel) or quantum consciousness (see S. Hameroff).

Here are some references related to the photosynthesis research discovery:

Fleming is the Deputy Director of Berkeley Lab, a professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley, and an internationally acclaimed leader in spectroscopic studies of the photosynthetic process. In a paper entitled, Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems, he and his collaborators report the detection of "quantum beating" signals, coherent electronic oscillations in both donor and acceptor molecules, generated by light-induced energy excitations, like the ripples formed when stones are tossed into a pond.

"From our investigation, we conclude that the protein environment in the reaction center works collectively to keep the fluctuations of excited electronics states of pigment molecules in phase, and therefore protects quantum coherence," says Hohjai Lee, a member of Fleming's research group and co-author of a recent paper in Science describing their work. "This is a brand-new function of the protein in the reaction center."

"To observe the quantum beats, 2-D spectra were taken at 33 population times, ranging from 0 to 660 femtoseconds," explained co-researcher Gregory Engel. "In these spectra, the lowest-energy exciton (a bound electron-hole pair formed when an incoming photon boosts an electron out of the valence energy band into the conduction band) gives rise to a diagonal peak near 825 nanometers that clearly oscillates. The associated cross-peak amplitude also appears to oscillate. Surprisingly, this quantum beating lasted the entire 660 femtoseconds." The duration of the quantum beating signals was unexpected because the general scientific assumption had been that the electronic coherences responsible for such oscillations are rapidly destroyed.

Comment by Bradford — January 27, 2008 @ 10:15 am

Thought Provoker Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Thank You Bradford.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 27, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Some more stuff from AtBC. It is amusing, there was an admission that I SEEM to know what I am talking about mixed in with accusations of cluelessness.

Starting with standard Minkowskian geometry…

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Converting Cartesian to polar
( dx to r*dÎ¸ and dy to r*sinÎ¸*dÎ¦ and dz to dr)

ds^2 = dt^2 - (r*dÎ¸)^2 - (r*sinÎ¸*dÎ¦)^2 - dr^2

Allowing for curved space…

ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*dÎ¸)^2 - (r*sinÎ¸*dÎ¦)^2 - Grr*dr^2

In flat space, Gtt = Grr = 1

In generalized curved space, Gtt = 1/Grr, therefore…

ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*dÎ¸)^2 - (r*sinÎ¸*dÎ¦)^2 - dr^2 / Gtt

The sharper the curve, the smaller the Gtt.

In my crude, incorrect semantic way of looking at things, I would have called this curved Minkowskian geometry.

However, if Gtt is calculated to be equal to…

Gtt = 1 - 2 * G * M / r

…where M is mass and G is the gravitational constant I understand this becomes known as Schwarzschild Geometry.

ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*dÎ¸)^2 - (r*sinÎ¸*dÎ¦)^2 - dr^2 / Gtt

I offer that this equation combines aspects of General Relativity (gravity) with aspects of Special Relativity (flat Minkowskian geometry) in one equation.

And we are still calculating paths through four dimensional space-time.

So, even if it involves gravity and acceleration, the traveling twin still takes a short cut.

Once again, please feel free to correct, challenge or even ask questions. I want my understanding tested.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 27, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

valerie Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Thought Provoker wrote:

Some more stuff from AtBC. It is amusing, there was an admission that I SEEM to know what I am talking about mixed in with accusations of cluelessness.

That's some desperate spinning on your part, Thought Provoker. The actual quote from Jim Wynne:

Amongst a good portion of the ignorant masses your grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon make it seem like you know what you're talking about, but it's a thin disguise when you're spouting off to people who know better.

Not quite so flattering in the original, is it?

Comment by valerie — January 29, 2008 @ 11:27 am

Thought Provoker Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hi Valerie,

Thank you for keeping me honest. However, I am comfortable that few, if any, were misled into thinking the folks at AtBC were singing me praises. The exact quote would have served the purpose that I intended but I thought it would detract from the meat of the comment, which is my working out the transition from Minkowskian geometry to Schwarzschild geometry.

Could you provide some insight into what I got wrong, if anything, in my analysis?

Or are you part of the "ignorant masses" I am supposedly swaying with my "grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon"

Feel free to ask questions if you need, but chances are my answers will include misspelled words like "Rodger" and other fancy jargon that are allegedly all I am interested in.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 29, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

Doug Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
That's some desperate spinning on your part, Thought Provoker.

Desperate spinning from TP? If there's anything that can be said about TP is that he's honest.
However, what is confusing about the word 'SEEM' to you? Also, he stated (which you quoted) 'accusations of cluelessness'. But you think that he's just desperately spinning away.

The actual quote from Jim Wynne

Actual quote? Have you read anywhere here where TP distorts a quote from Wynne?

Not quite so flattering in the original, is it?

Original compared to what? TP's admission of SEEM or their perceptions of cluelessness. What exactly did you find 'flattering' in the portion you quoted from him?

My bad, this is an election year - smearing via distortion of actual claims is permissible.

Comment by Doug — January 29, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Hi Doug,

If there's anything that can be said about TP is that he's honest.

Thanks for your kind words.

However, you don't have to worry since the comment was more damaging to Valerie than to me. There aren't that many people with that kind of animosity towards me and almost all of those are ID proponents. "Valerie" tipped his hand over a minor side comment in an all-but-forgotten thread. Not an overly astute move.

Thank you again for your support.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 29, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

Bradford Says:
January 29th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
TP: "Valerie" tipped his hand over a minor side comment in an all-but-forgotten thread. Not an overly astute move.

Valerie is a male? How do you know TP?

Comment by Bradford — January 29, 2008 @ 9:40 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Hi Bradford,

I don't "know".

It is just "less likely, than not" that Valerie is who "she" appears to be.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 30, 2008 @ 12:45 am

valerie Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Thought Provoker wrote:

However, you don't have to worry since the comment was more damaging to Valerie than to me. There aren't that many people with that kind of animosity towards me and almost all of those are ID proponents. "Valerie" tipped his hand over a minor side comment in an all-but-forgotten thread. Not an overly astute move.

Now this is interesting. Who do you think I am? And what is this "minor side comment in an all-but-forgotten thread" you're talking about? The Jim Wynne comment I quoted isn't even two days old.

Bradford:

Valerie is a male? How do you know TP?

Thought Provoker:

I don't "know".

And so TP goes off half-cocked, asserting something without knowing whether it's true. Funny, but that's exactly what they were complaining about in the two threads at ATBC.

Comment by valerie — January 30, 2008 @ 2:15 am

valerie Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Doug wrote:

However, what is confusing about the word 'SEEM' to you?

Nothing. It's the word 'admission' that is telling:

Thought Provoker wrote:

Some more stuff from AtBC. It is amusing, there was an admission that I SEEM to know what I am talking about mixed in with accusations of cluelessness.

TP wants you to believe that his critics reluctantly conceded — admitted — that he seemed to know what he was talking about. The reality is quite different, as you can see from the Jim Wynne quote.

Comment by valerie — January 30, 2008 @ 2:33 am

RogerRabbitt Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 5:54 am
If there's anything that can be said about TP is that he's honest.

Now THAT'S spin.

Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 30, 2008 @ 5:54 am

Bradford Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Refrain from further personal comments on this thread.

Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2008 @ 11:16 am

Thought Provoker Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Hi Valerie and Roger,

It's nice to see it is possible for people on opposite sides of the culture war agreeing on something.

EDITED: removed off-topic discussion seeing Bradford's appropriate moderation.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 30, 2008 @ 11:26 am

Doug Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Now THAT'S spin

I have no reason to spin for TP.

TP wants you to believe that his critics reluctantly conceded "” admitted "” that he seemed to know what he was talking about. The reality is quite different, as you can see from the Jim Wynne quote.

He wants me to believe that? I didn't read half of that into his original post.
How about his ending too:

Once again, please feel free to correct, challenge or even ask questions. I want my understanding tested.

Sure doesn't sound like one intent on misleading nor one more interested in self-flattery.
But here's your opportunity without falling back on Wynne. TP initially gave the floor, why don't you correct him or challenge him?

Comment by Doug — January 30, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

valerie Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Doug wrote:

He wants me to believe that? I didn't read half of that into his original post.

Thought Provoker wrote:

It is amusing, there was an admission that I SEEM to know what I am talking about mixed in with accusations of cluelessness.

Doug,

What do you think 'admission' refers to in that sentence, if not a concession?

Would you say that Ted Kennedy 'admitted' his support for Barack Obama yesterday?

Comment by valerie — January 30, 2008 @ 2:07 pm

Bradford Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Valerie quoting:

Amongst a good portion of the ignorant masses your grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon make it seem like you know what you're talking about, but it's a thin disguise when you're spouting off to people who know better.

The expertise of TP or the character who authored this quote is irrelevant to the underlying issue. Are Penrose and Hameroff numbered among the ignorant masses? Unless you have something more than the paucity of evidence now existing to support origin of life theories a respectful critique of the ideas of Penrose and Hameroff is a better approach than the juvenile smash mouth tactics typical of ID critics.

Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

Bradford Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Bradford:

Valerie is a male? How do you know TP?

Thought Provoker:

I don't "know".

Valerie: And so TP goes off half-cocked, asserting something without knowing whether it's true.

But you know whether or not it is true. You have an oppportunity to assert the truth.

Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

Joy Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Bradford:

But you know whether or not it is true. You have an oppportunity to assert the truth.

Don't hold your breath. Val's just another internet pseud so scared of ideas he can't control that he follows TP from there to here believing (for some completely unfathomable reason) that his fear of ideas matters here. It does not.

You may hole this comment, I just wanted to note the obvious.

Comment by Joy — January 30, 2008 @ 4:35 pm

valerie Says:
January 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Bradford:

But you know whether or not it is true. You have an oppportunity to assert the truth.

So does Mike Gene. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Don't hold your breath. Val's just another internet pseud so scared of ideas he can't control that he follows TP from there to here believing (for some completely unfathomable reason) that his fear of ideas matters here. It does not.

What a strange thing to say. How does reading TP's comments on two blogs indicate a "fear of ideas"

Comment by valerie — January 30, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

Bradford Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 12:51 am
So does Mike Gene. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Fine. Then we can't assess TP's credibility one way or the other.

Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2008 @ 12:51 am

MikeGene Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 12:54 am
So does Mike Gene. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

Huh? How did I get dragged into this?

Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2008 @ 12:54 am

Joy Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 1:00 am
valerie forgot to tell you that you're the real target? Wow, Mike. S/He/It has been pretty obvious… Â§;o)

Comment by Joy — January 31, 2008 @ 1:00 am

valerie Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 2:39 am
Bradford wrote:

Fine. Then we can't assess TP's credibility one way or the other.

Sure we can. TP said I was male, then admitted (i.e. conceded — see how that works, Doug?) that he didn't know whether it was true. When you go off half-cocked, asserting things without knowing whether they're true, you lose credibility.

Mike Gene asked:

Huh? How did I get dragged into this?

Because I agree with you that identity is irrelevant to the validity of one's ideas. If Bradford respects your right to privacy, he should respect mine as well.

Comment by valerie — January 31, 2008 @ 2:39 am

RogerRabbitt Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 5:45 am
I'm still confused. Who's on first?

Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 31, 2008 @ 5:45 am

MikeGene Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hi valerie,

Because I agree with you that identity is irrelevant to the validity of one's ideas.

Okay, that makes sense now.

Comment by MikeGene — January 31, 2008 @ 8:02 am

Doug Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 9:44 am
Sure we can. TP said I was male, then admitted (i.e. conceded "” see how that works, Doug?) that he didn't know whether it was true. When you go off half-cocked, asserting things without knowing whether they're true, you lose credibility.

See how what works? How you read things into the original to prove a point that didn't need to be proved? Sure, I see how you work valerie.
You're a hyperanalytical person, more interested in word games than actually addressing the point. All the while selectively ignoring certain parts of the post that alone prove your point as being flawed.
Hey….. great job.

Comment by Doug — January 31, 2008 @ 9:44 am

valerie Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Doug,

What you call hyperanalysis, I call paying attention. TP's use of the word 'admission' was significant.

Comment by valerie — January 31, 2008 @ 1:30 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Hi "Valerie",

You really ought to take some lessons from Zachriel and pick your battles more carefully. This really wasn't worth it.

I don't "know" you are really Keiths either, but you have a pretty recognizable pattern in your attacks.

As for you "paying attention". Jim_Wynne was responding to my comment to him where I explained I was an engineer and wrote…

"I will tell you what I am looking for. I am looking for the weaknesses in the basic understanding I do have. "

And in the paragraph before Jim highlighted the word "seem" he wrote…

I'm an engineer too, and I know enough physics to be able to apply what I need in my work, but my knowledge is far from comprehensive. I understand what I don't know, and don't pretend I know more because I read mass-market books. I'm not interested in trying to solve problems I'm not qualified to understand.

Jim admitted that amongst "a good portion of the ignorant masses your grand pronouncements and liberal use of jargon make it seem like you know what you're talking about" while declaring he was not qualified to understand enough to explain where I was wrong.

After which Jim pretty much dropped out of the conversation.

In the environment that After the Bar Closes engenders that is as close to an admission you are going to get.

While I welcome the scrutiny, I am not as you sure you really want people paying attention to who you are or why you are pressing this attack.

Your comment didn't benefit AtBC, TT or any proposal. It wasn't even very relevant in arguing against Orch OR or Intelligent Design. The only purpose it appeared to serve was for dissing me and putting some salve on a bruised male ego.

Comment by Thought Provoker — January 31, 2008 @ 3:58 pm

Bradford Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
TP: I don't "know" you are really Keiths either, but you have a pretty recognizable pattern in your attacks.

There are parallels. Also noted is the rarity of substantive comments directed at blog entries themselves. Instead they are carping criticism focused on personalities.

Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2008 @ 4:25 pm

Robert Says:
February 13th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I am new to the study of consciousness and may not be as versed as others here, but never the less I present these thoughts.

In QM there exists configuration space. In the light of Wheeler's delayed observation experment, it would appear that for example a photon exists in a real configuration space untill detected, at which time it becomes "physical" as we know it, in one form or another.

In physical reality, no info can be transmitted faster than light.

However, how does the 1/2 photon traveling to the right know that it's twin traveling to the left has flipped , (changed polarity) instantly, and thus know to change poarity itself? It must do so else conservation laws would be violated and it is observed to be the case.

Einstein didn't believe such a thing really happened, but Bell showed that it really does. It's a very special case and only exists between entangled particles at the quantum level.

No signal no information can be sent from one observer to another using such a thing. Thus causality is preserved.

Non local space like exchanges require entangled particles, i.e, that they be in the same quantum state. It does not fit into realtivity very nicely.

It would seem that conaciousness is a non local space like wave function , how do the bozons (electrons) achieve identical quantum states?

Read the part about consciousness, and that is what they are saying. That consciousness is a macro spacelike wave between N (10 to the 18) or so, bozons. No other known configuration can transmitt information, just noise.

A spacelike wave would exist in "configuration" space, the same as the particle/wave limbo state, before it decides to be a particle or a wave by being observed. Likewise it might be said that consciousness exists in the "limbo" state, or configuration space untill it is observed by one or more of the bozons we call grey matter.

After that I would not know where to go with it, other than to observe that configuration space is everywhere in the universe simultaniously. For example, a photon before detection see's the universe as a dimensionless dot. It is literally at every point in the universe

You can see that by applying Lorentz length contraction to a photon. The universe shrinks down to nothing when v=c. The photon says, I didn't go anywhere. It only chooses to be a photon (particle) or a wave, becasue it is observed.

So for the entangled photon, it says, no I didn't violate the light speed information transfeer rule, becasue the info never went anywhere. It does not violate causality because the info cannot be known by anyone else other than the photons themselves. i.e. we can't use it to send signals back and forth to each other.

Configuration space is real, it exists, but is hidden from us in any direct way. You have to become non-physical in anyway we can dream of physical being. Things can happen there that can't happen in what we call reality.

Relativity deals with our 4 dimensional reality, where as configuration space is one might say outside it. So the rules are not the same. It is quite possable that configuration space brings in extra dimensions, it remains to be seen.

Now if I'm allowed to speculate just a little bit. Assume that this paper is correct. Then consciousness being a non local space like wave, existing in configration space then it exists in and outside of the 4D universe, which we know had a begining. However, configuration space being spacelike opperates outside the time dimension and thus had no begining. We can certainly say that objective reality (the universe) comes from configuration space. We have thus tied pre-universe and the existence of conaciousness together. They have properties in common or have I made a mistake?

http://www.qedcorp.com/APS/Nov...

Comment by Robert — February 13, 2008 @ 12:13 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Does QM Shed Light on Teleology?

41 Responses to “Does QM Shed Light on Teleology?”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books