"The Big Wow"
by JoyI have previously blogged about developments in the philosophy of science, per Nancy Cartwright's equation of "Laws of Nature" with "Laws of God." I have also blogged about the science of mind and Causal Consciousness - the current multidisciplinary quest to quantify the nature of consciousness.
Here I would like to introduce mathematical physicist Paola Zizzi's "Big Wow" theory, accessible from LANL's mirrors under General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology as Emergent Consciousness: From the Early Universe to Our Mind [pdf]. This paper, published in the journal NeuroQuantology in 2003, supports the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness.
Essentially, the "Big Wow" is about how the universe became conscious as a result of the OR collapse of universal wavefunction superpositions generated by early inflation, thereby linking consciousness itself to the information content of "qubits" at a certain threshold level in the specific systems under consideration. In this case, the universal awareness, which appears to coincide very precisely to the biological threshold [10^9 superpositional registers].
Is consciousness a fundamental parameter of the universe?
From the Introduction of Zizzi's paper:
What is consciousness? Everybody knows about his own consciousness, but it is impossible to communicate our subjective knowledge of it to others. Moreover, a complete scientific definition of consciousness is still missing. However, quite recently, it has been realized that the study of consciousness should not be restricted to the fields of cognitive science, philosophy and biology, but enlarged to physics, more precisely, to quantum physics.
Joy: Yes, those dratted physicists do want to intrude upon the mechanistic world of neuro-zombies - those reductionist materialistic types who believe minds are magical effects of neurons instead of causal agents in the world of physical manifestation. Physics, as the 'First Science' must belong to this quest [IMO] if the findings are to be useful to science's FAPP job description. More from Zizzi's intro -
The most popular (and conventional) description of consciousness is based on the classical computing activities in the brain's neural networks, correlated with mental states. In that picture, mind and brain are identified, and are compared to a classical computer. That approach… is called in various ways: physicalism, reductionism, materialism, functionalism, computationalism.
However, although the brain can actually support classical computation, there is an element of consciousness which is non-computable (in the classical sense), as it was shown by Penrose []. Moreover, the seminal paper by Stapp [] clarified why classical mechanics cannot accommodate consciousness, but quantum mechanics can. Finally, reductionism cannot explain the "hard problem" of consciousness, which deals with our "inner life", as it was illustrated by Chalmers [].
Joy: All this work by philosophers of science, physicists, cosmologists, etc. in the quest does not silence the reductionist critics, of course. However, there does seem to be something 'more' intuited about consciousness by most people, and reductionism can only reduce things so far before encountering the non-deterministic realities of QM. Which is, far as we are able to tell, the substrate of all classical reality. Continuing -
A quite different line of thought about consciousness is the one which comprises panpsychism, pan-experientalism, idealism, and funda-mentalism. Pan-experientalism states that consciousness (or better, proto-consciousness) is intrinsically unfold in the universe, and that our mind can grasp those proto-conscious experiences. [...]
More recently, Penrose interpreted the occasions of experience as the quantum state reductions occurring at the Planck scale, where spin networks [] encode protoconsciousneess. This is a pat-experiential approach to consciousness which is consistent with quantum gravity, and is called "Objective Reduction" [OR] []. A further development is the Penrose-Hameroff "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" [Orch-OR] [] which deals with the self-collapse of superposed tubulins in the brain. [...] Finally, Chalmers [] claimed that physical systems which share the same organization will lead to the same kind of conscious experience (Principle of Organizational Invariance). As physical systems which have the same organization (no matter what they are made of) encompass the same information, it follows, from the above principle, that information is the source of consciousness.
Joy: we are quite used to thinking of living organisms as high-level information processors, but Zizzi goes ahead and takes Chalmers' hypothesis to its logical extrapolated non-biological conclusion: the universe is conscious! To wit -
[...] At this point, a conjecture arises very naturally: the early universe had a conscious experience at the end of inflation, when the superposed quantum state of 10=n quantum gravity registers underwent Objective Reduction. The striking point is that this value of n equals the number of superposed tubulins-qubits in our brain, which undergo Orchestrated Objective Reduction, leading to a conscious event. Then, we make the conjecture that the early universe and our mind share the same organization, encompass the same quantum information, and undergo similar conscious experiences. In other words, consciousness might have a cosmic origin, with roots in the pre-conscious ingrained directly from the Planck time.
Joy: The paper is very entertaining for anyone interested. It explores the quantum gravity registers of the early inflationary universe (which also, as an added benefit IMO, tends to debunk the continually-proliferating multiverse scenarios so popular among reductionist materialists who can't wrap their heads around reality as-is). It goes on to explore the cybernetic principles these quantum gravity registers follow, it examines autopoiesis and self-reproduction together with the no-cloning theorem in terms of Chalmers' Principle of Organizational Invariance. From this examination Zizzi derives a "Principle of Alternating Computational Modes" which begets consciousness.
After more in-depth examination of the Penrose model as responsible for the actual [measured] entropy of the universe, Zizzi goes on to conclude that the "Boolean observer" is a necessary product of the postinflationary universe - concentrated dynamic consciousness. Life, intelligent enough to observe the universe and mind-travel along the past trajectory.
This is an entertaining and very detailed account of that odd view we've heard rumored coming from quantum circles, that future "emergent" observers consciously contemplating the past are themselves causal… (this can be mind-dizzying, but a fun ride). If, as I have long suspected, life and its directional evolution into ever more conscious states has always been a specified progression inherent to the nature of reality itself, ideas such as these cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the die-hard reductionists just because they don't like the philosophical implications. There's no religion here, but there might be superior "functor Futures" of some possible description to us here in a relative "functor Past." Which of course doesn't matter one bit to the science.
Intelligent design. Because according to these scientific models, there's not much random going on at all… 
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Thanks, Joy-
This bit, which I probably don't understand, bothers me:
This seems to be saying that the brain is the source of consciousness. If I understand the point correctly, he would be saying that a human with a human organization of brain will have a human experience, a dog a dog's experience, and so on. To me, this indicates that consciousness per se is impersonal and formless, and therefore independent of its particular receiver/transmitter. (I think consciousness precedes information.)
And remember, talk down to me.
Comment by onething — January 3, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:01 pm
onething:
Hi, onething. To tell you the truth, I've never quite figured out how to take Chalmers (and he was a prof for a class I once took!). Then again, I'm not sure I'm a 'property dualist' either, though he does claim to be. You might find the ISCID Discussion with him useful on this particular issue.
I tend to think of consciousness as fundamental to information, as it would have to be in order to represent a fundamental parameter of reality. Thus any identically organized processor should be able to 'realize' the same thing, given the same information.
Conversely, "intelligence" isn't the same thing as consciousness - it's a property or aspect thereof, not the thing itself. And intelligence would seem (given my observations) to be relative. A dog doesn't and can't be expected to be a "functor Past" doing the AHA! [revelatory experience] thing about universal beginnings, because it's a dog and isn't concerned with such things. But its consciousness is essentially of the same nature as ours, and its neural/physical correlates of consciousness are identical. There's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
My giant mutant mountain poodle who died the day before Christmas was way too smart to be a real dog, but not quite smart enough to be a real human. In fact, I don't think he ever quite figured out what he was, though his "feels" [a Chalmers reference] were much more accurately perceptive than my own, about many experiential things. Including things not yet in my awareness - or anyone else's. For instance, he always knew when my daughter was going to have a seizure (she's epileptic). Well before she did. She learned to trust him implicitly.
But I never expected him to understand Hamiltonians or even do simple addition - even though he did know how many people were present at any given time, thus who was missing. It was our sharing of life and experience - and yes, love - that has meaning. Both to us and to him. FWIW. That's not neurons firing or computers computing. It's 'feels'.
Per Chalmers', perhaps property dualism suggests there's something 'more' than mere computation, however the NCCs and neuronal wiring (quantum and classical computation) in brains process the information. There's also the experience - the 'feels'. We are highly concentrated consciousness, whereas the universe would represent a highly disperse one. Both quantitative and qualitative difference, yet ours couldn't exist without the substrate.
Our substrate (on the classical level) is evolutionary. Universal consciousness per this model occurred at the end of inflation, before there was any 'thing' here at all, much less life! And don't forget the time-loop involved. We really don't know much about time, and causation - if intentional/consciousness-based - may work backwards. As physical causation in the quantum substrate can (and apparently does).
Now, we could argue the relativities of inner-outer, higher-lower, substrate-superstrate, etc. until the cows come home. But I've always thought there was something universally wise in the concept that "The kingdom of God is within you." And that souls inhabit bodies like water inhabits a sponge. We are suffused. With all that counts as 'reality', physical and not physical. If there is intelligent design, I do not automatically assume it is exterior to/apart from my own manifestational being.
I'll try to answer what I can if you've got questions. But this is all very 'out-there' sort of stuff. I don't claim to grok it very well…
Comment by Joy — January 3, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Really enjoyed you discussion, Joy. Thanks Lots to think about.
Comment by Bert — January 3, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:51 pm
joy,
onething SPECIFICALLY asked that you "talk down" to him. I don't think you did, and, personally, I am rather disappointed and frustrated. I was hoping to actually be able to understand parts of what you wrote.
Comment by Douglas — January 3, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Joy,
You mustn't get me started on dogs. I consider them the most spiritually evolved beings on this planet, with us as a distant second.
I wonder if you could explain the bit about inventing multiverse theory to run from reality as it is. I have an intuitive, perhaps visceral, dislike of it. Furthermore, it seems impossible to me, physically.
Indeed, I've got a sort of essay on my computer about it. The whole world is going to understand this soon, I think. Science is discovering the inner worlds, and as we see from microbiology as well as subatomic and quantum physics, that's really where the action is, the substrate of reality. It only makes sense that if even on a physical level we need the ultra small as a scaffolding upon which to build our bodies, that inefffable substances such as spirit or consciousness or the mind of God exists deep within this causal realm.
Comment by onething — January 3, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Douglas - I'm not entirely clear on how you think I've failed to "talk down" enough per onething's particular question. Which was (if I understood it) about how a "computational" view of consciousness mechanics makes it look as if brains are responsible for consciousness. And that a dog would have a different conscious experience than a human, based on differences in brain size, organization and structure. Or something like that.
Zizzi's theory/hypothesis is specific to information - the ~10^9 superposed 'universes' present at the end of the inflationary stage experienced objective reduction to a single universal state, into which matter/energy then expanded. From, according to current cosmological model, what we call a "Big Bang." At the moment of OR - which would have been (if I read correctly) the moment before the bang - the universe that collapsed out of superpositional probabilities became 'aware' of itself.
And from there, the postulated "Boolean observers" (which, apparently, are us or beings quite like us) became a necessity to complete the awareness. Over the course of ~14 billion years to now and into wherever consciousness goes from here. Per the universal time-loop as currently postulated. By us.
If living organisms are conscious (even though consciousness expresses along a relative quantitative scale), there must be physical mechanisms in cells and in brains that enable consciousness to express. I don't know if you or onething believe that "life" needs an organism (composed of cells, far as we know in these dimensions) to exist in experiential reality, but I do. I don't know if you believe a person (or a dog) needs a brain in order to express consciousness while embodied, but i do. I don't believe sprites or godlings "are" my consciousness - I believe my consciousness expresses through my physical equipment, which is well designed for that purpose.
The physical correlates (mechanisms) of consciousness are the same in all eukaryotic cells, per my understanding. Neurons are specialized cells that concentrate these mechanisms and make particularly complex use of them. So we call those the "neural correlates of consciousness" even though they are the same structures as are found in all eukaryote cells. There are associated structures that also appear to play a role, and these are ubiquitous to ALL life as-we-know-it (including prokaryote cells).
Consciousness may be entirely separable from bodies and/or brains. If the universe itself is conscious, that's a no-brainer. Many Eastern Yogis, Christian/Jewish/Muslim mystics (and at least one Yaqui shaman named Don Juan) insist embodied consciousness is separable, and some scientists believe them. Others don't. What I personally believe about that is irrelevant, as is what you personally believe. What Zizzi is postulating is that consciousness is not CAUSED by the matter or the mechanisms it expresses through. Even though the matter and the mechanisms are necessary for the fine-tuned concentration of [self]consciousness, to the substrate of reality that is conscious. The inevitable and necessary "Boolean observer."
I've admitted this stuff is out there, and that I don't fully understand it either. I offered it as a fun exercise in "what physical cosmologists are thinking." If you access the pdf there's plenty of equations (including Hamiltonians) if you've a mind to wade through them. And expanded discussion of each section only summarized in the intro.
Unless you are more specific about what bothers you, I'm afraid I can't help. I might not be able to help even if you are specific. Is it a religious issue? A scientific issue? You'll have to help me out here, as I don't understand your objection. Thanks.
Comment by Joy — January 3, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
onething:
Yes, but then there's cats. Who seem to be spiritually aware of as much as dogs, they just don't necessarily dislike the darkside as much as dogs do…
As I understand it, "Many Worlds" was originally invented [Everett] to get around the idea of wavefunction collapse altogether. Per the infamous Schrodinger's cat example, once the box is opened to let the observer see if the cat's alive or dead, the reality that isn't real here becomes real in some other universe. Max Tegmark has made a whole project of expanding on that thought for the purpose of getting around the apparent "fine-tuning" of universal parameters in this reality, that seem to be perfectly adjusted for the existence of life - us "Boolean observers" as Zizzi says are necessary.
I don't need to claim what's not real as counterfactual to what is real. I just deal with reality as I find it. To do otherwise seems mighty escapist to me.
If the universe is finite - and there is a God like the omni one postulated in monotheist tradition - He/She/It/They must be "greater-than" the subset we inhabit. I would suspect, anyway. But that could be wrong, of course. Maybe what the ancients considered "infinite" is really finite. They're not here to ask, if they'd understand the question from this point of view where the time-loop is ~14 billion years.
We don't understand time very well, though.
I would think that biological structures would have to be front-loaded if the universe is front-loaded for life. Thus evolution from the simple observer/experiencers to the "Boolean" ones would also have been front-loaded. In a single moment of Big Wow, just before the physical universe was born in a blaze of glory.
But then, I have mentioned several times over the years that I think the whole sheebang is intelligently designed.
Comment by Joy — January 3, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Joy,
A few questions for you.
1) The Copenhagen interpretation of QM requires conscious observation to collapse the wave function. Many Worlds does not. Neither does the Consistent Histories interpretation.
Interpretations are not separate theories, just alternative (and equivalent) mathematical formulations. These interpretations are really just ways to reconcile QM's predictions with human intuition. Whether one accepts or rejects Copenhagen generally comes down to whether one thinks that consciousness is material or not. If consciousness is a material phenomenon, then there can't be any difference between the protons in our heads and the ones in our accelerators, so we cannot accept an interpretation that relies on there being something special about consciousness. So isn't a model that begins from Copenhagen (like Zizzi's) implicitly positing non-material consciousness?
2) Do you hold that consciousness must be non-material in order to explain qualia?
I never understood this claim. If the mind were a material result of the brain, and all brains are different, and consciousness is the brain measuring itself, shouldn't we expect each brain to see itself in a unique way?
3) Penrose attempts to use Gödel's Theorem to show that the mind is not the result of a classical computer. Do you agree with his proof? If so, I would be interested seeing your explanation of it, since many people (including Marvin Minsky) think it's completely wrong.
4) What do you make of the calculations by Smolin, Tegmark and others that show that the brain cannot be a quantum computer?
As one of the aforementioned reductionist critics (
), I see nothing wrong with your entertaining speculation. Where there's no actual science, we scientists are as fanciful and whimsical as anyone else!
However, it would be a mistake for readers to take your post as an indication that there's scientific consensus about the non-material nature of the mind. As Zizzi says:
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 3, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Joy,
Sometimes you talk a little over our heads, that's all Doug was saying. So don't worry about being condescending, talk down to us.
When I said I wondered if frontloading could reach as far as biological structures, I meant that-
I think the universe is designed and frontloaded at the big bang so as to be able to produce a planet like earth ready for life,
but I can't envision the frontloading going from the big bang all the way to creating cells, and then flagella.
doctorlogic,
What does it mean when you say that the brain can't be a quantum computer? Can you elaborate. And what about consistent histories.
Comment by onething — January 3, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
January 4th, 2006 at 11:16 am
doctor(logic):
I understand that interpretations of "what it all means" are a philosophical extrapolation. I am not that familiar with "Consistent Histories," so if you could give a short synopsis or a link I'd appreciate it.
That said, the fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics is a very accurate application of some interesting mathematics describing a substrate we do not observe directly, but infer from its predictability (via the math) and specific effects that we can observe. The FAPP position as far as 'doing the science' is that wavefunctions collapse. Thus it's the default position in the empirical practice of science and as such does indeed represent a consensus view. Personal philosophies and metaphysics are irrelevant to the science.
You apparently believe consciousness is a material phenomenon. This suggests you believe there is such a thing as "living matter." Can you explain the difference between living matter and inert matter for me? Do you believe photons are conscious?
What Zizzi seems to be suggesting is that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. In her scenario the 'Big Wow' comes at collapse of inflation, which precedes or occurs simultaneously with the 'Big Bang' which launched the expansionary stage and donated energy to the dimensions (from which matter 'percolated' out some time later). That's a little tricky if time is a material phenomenon, as 'before' and 'after' have no real meaning in that case.
Bear in mind this is all occurring at Planck scale. The BB scenario has forces breaking symmetry at Planck time, but that's not something we can establish experimentally and it currently suffers the same unitary crisis as RQFT. Right now we cannot even establish gravity as a material phenomenon, much less attribute mass to matter! What Zizzi's model allows is for consciousness to appear at or just prior to the beginning of the material portions of the milieu (symmetry breaking at Planck, as this model is like Penroses' OR dependent upon quantum gravity). As the supervenient governor of matter/energy that we normally hypothesize 'force' to be. Thus consciousness would be something we could think of as supervenient force of some variety - with no more handle on cause for it than we have on cause for gravity.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2006 @ 11:16 am
January 4th, 2006 at 11:20 am
doctor(logic):
No, I do not believe the mind is a material result of the brain. But I don't believe in "living matter" either. It's just matter, governed by forces and energetically interacting. A just-dead brain is organized exactly the same as it was just prior to its death. But it doesn't express anything, and the matter is then set for 'normal' dissociation and recycling. Reading "mind" here as consciousness per this discussion. Personality would be more materially dependent.
Mind experiences 'feels'. Personality ruminates about them in the context of all the material attributes and deficits of the brain that generates internal dialogue, divvies time, stores memories, processes sensory data, etc. IMO.
Penrose is a genius at generating mathematical proofs. He even invents maths if he thinks he needs them to prove a point. I do not consider 'Fun With Math' to be big-T Truth or anything approaching absolute. That said, I see no reason why the primary mechanisms of consciousness expression must operate like a classical computer. Consciousness is a non-deterministic phenomenon. Non-determinism expresses from the quantum substrate, which we know to be non-deterministic.
I consider all life to be conscious, along a relative quantitative scale. It needs ~10^9 superpositions to collapse in order to generate a 'moment of consciousness' (mini-Big Wow), about equivalent to ~300 neurons neurating (thinking 12 Days of Christmas for that description
). Hameroff explains all this very well in Did Consciousness Cause the Cambrian Evolutionary Explosion? Simpler life just expresses the proto-consciousness necessary to qualify as life. It evolved to concentrate and experience more of this quality, thus became ever more complex and ever more conscious. Zizzi says this was inevitable and necessary. I kinda like that idea.
'Fun With Math'. I'm not fond of escapists and would-be metaphysicians who confuse their philosophy with science. But the quantum world is weird enough to allow for differing interpretations, so it does. FAPP, wavefunctions collapse. You can always find nay-sayers, but that doesn't mean much to me. I am a realist.
I could ask you the same question by citing Tuszynski, Penrose, Hagen, Aerts or any number of others who say Smolin, Tegmark and their 'others' are flat out wrong. Would that change your mind? Reductionist critics don't need to be silenced. They believe they're just meat puppets. I don't much care what meat puppets have to say.
In matters of philosophical preference, reductionists will just have to get used to the fact that they can't control anybody else's mind. Puppets are not puppeteers.
Ah, but there's plenty of 'Fun With Math' in Zizzi's speculations! Six of one, half a dozen of the other. At least Zizzi's using the FAPP variety that science uses in working with the quantum substrate.
I've never seen a complete scientific consensus about any theoretic dealing with non-observables. Have you?
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2006 @ 11:20 am
January 4th, 2006 at 11:52 am
onething:
I'd have to surmise that if consciousness is a fundamental parameter of our universe, it would probably be responsible for universal evolution - all the 'fine-tuned' constants and governance of forces that enable what we observe in the universe.
Per Zizzi's hypothesis, the consciousness required "Boolean observers," or conscious living beings like ourselves, to also evolve. Remember that 'in the beginning' of the material universe [matter/energy] there was light - photons. Photons do not experience time, so it doesn't really matter how long it takes to evolve "Boolean observers" so long as the necessary result is a foregone conclusion. The whole sheebang requires those "functor Past" observers in Zizzi's model, generated by the Big Wow "functor Future."
It all boils down to the true nature of time, and we honestly don't know much about it. To a consciousness that backgrounds or doesn't 'experience' time, it's irrelevant whether the functor Pasts take 100 billion years or 6,000 years or any other designation we care to give it (local time) to appear and do their 'job'.
As for the PCC/NCCs [Physical/Neural correlates of consciousness] that allow for concentrated consciousness to express in life forms, Margulis thinks these were spirochete symbionts early cells incorporated to augment their already-existent actin networks (a paper this week identifies a geodesic structure for these!). The spirochetes are microtubules composed of tubulin dimers (associated with MAPs and actin networks) that form cellular cytoskeletons, centrioles, and other structures. They are multi-dynamic, assembling and disassembling moment-to-moment, or can be extremely stable (depending on function). They provide form, transport, sensors, data processing, and replication functions for the cells. They also form cillia and flagella, providing cells with motility.
According to the Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction [Orch-OR] model, information processing occurs in MTs [microtubules] in a quantum computational manner as the dimers maintain superpositions of at least 2 configurations. They are insulated from decoherence by ordered water and actin gel states surrounding and inside them (enabling superconductivity for transductive functions, these are Bose-Einstein condensate states).
Now, these could have been spare virus littering the earth that cells incorporated 'accidentally' and got all these nifty benefits of increased consciousness. Or maybe they were seeds - planted by some natural process we don't yet know of in stars or elsewhere governed by the consciousness force. I don't know, but nobody else does either. The universe manages to construct some nifty things (like buckyballs and organic precursors, for instance). If life was 'necessary' and had to evolve into consciousness-concentrating "Boolean observers," it could well have been frontloaded to be just what it is, right from the beginning.
…which is why I don't rule out the possibility that life is ubiquitous in the universe. Though I don't know if there are any other "Boolean observers" besides us.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2006 @ 11:52 am
January 4th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Ah well, so much for positivism and the end of metaphysics.
Comment by Deuce — January 4, 2006 @ 11:59 am
January 4th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Deuce:
Metaphysics is alive and well in physical science, Deuce. They actually argue these things in the journals, on the pre-print servers, and in major publications like Science and Nature. Witness: Max's Multiverses. It's just biologists who want to ignore reality (and what it means) on the substrate level. Because it tends to falsify their smug assumptions and imposed dogma about biological nature and evolution.
I Googled "Consistent Histories" to get a feel for it. As doctor(logic) mentioned, it is another version of the 'no-collapse' scenario. Which specifically denies the Schrodinger LD implication of superpositional states. Which must be 'real' in order for the Penrose OR model and the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR consciousness model to operate (via superpositional protein configuration states for quantum computational purposes).
Thus believers-in either of the 'no-collapse' interpretations - Many Worlds and Consistent Histories - must deny the possibility of quantum computation on principle. Which, not so oddly, runs them directly afoul of "where the money is" these days, which is being amply invested in the multidisciplinary consciousness quest: The AI Guys (who hope someday to create a conscious machine or cyborg). There is a reason that nanotubes are designed just as they are designed - they copy designs already known from biology, associated with the Orch-OR computational theory.
Aside: *Sort of makes me wonder why they bother to offer any funding at all to the reductionist nay-sayers whose only job in the quest appears to be complaining that it's all pointless because consciousness doesn't actually exist.*
Anyway, doing the science doesn't pay any attention to individual scientists' philosophical extrapolations on 'what it all means', or on their arbitrarily-imposed limitations on what science can be done BASED on their philosophical extrapolations. The AI Guys are very busy funding research on the physics and engineering the various material mechanisms that will enable quantum computation. And they already know that superpositional states are 'real', along with coherent states of matter (superconductors, superfluids, superplamas, B-E condensates, etc.). Worse, they work with entanglement every day.
Consistent Histories would deny the existence of states already known to exist. Worse, it's contradicted by the well known split-beam 2-slit experiment. Basil Hiley and Owen Maroney point out one contradiction:
"When coherence between the two beams is destroyed it is possible to make meaningful inferences about trajectories in CH [Consistent Histories]. These trajectories imply that any particle reflected from the mirror M[1] must end up in detector C. In the Bohm approach exactly the same conclusion is reached so that where the two approaches can be compared they predict exactly the same results.
"When the coherence between the two beams is preserved then CH must use the consistent histories described by equation [6]. These histories do not allow any inferences about trajectories to be drawn. Although the consistent histories described by equation [3] enable us to make inferences about particle trajectories because, as we have shown, they lead to disagreement with experiment. [...] Thus the claim by Griffiths, namely, that the CH gives a more reasonable account of the behavior of particle trajectories interference experiment [...] than that provided by the Bohm approach cannot be sustained." [bolding mine]
Griffiths' [inadequate, IMO] response to Bassi and Ghirardi (more critics, pointing out a framework inconsistency) can be accessed as pdf from the arXiv mirror as quant-ph/0001093. The Bassi-Gherardi criticism is quant-ph/9912031.
Anyone is entitled to hold to any philosophy or ideology they like (so long as it does not pose a threat of harm to others), including scientists. Philosophies and ideologies need not be internally consistent, or even particularly rational. So don't believe in wavefunction collapse if you don't want to, just don't expect quantum physicists, biophysicists, astrophysicists, AI Guys, et. al. to stop doing the science because you choose not to believe-in its theoretical basis or explanations for empirically observable effects. Criticism is useful to science. Orthodoxies, dogmas, tenets and Grand Inquisitors are not.
Griffiths calls himself a 'realist', but his quest is to turn quantum reality into classical reality in a deterministic manner. Can't be done (though it's not like some of the greatest minds humanity ever produced didn't try really, really hard to do just that).
The most important thing I learned about dealing with the wacky world of QM was not to take it too seriously. It isn't required to make classical sense to us, because it's not a classical realm. Nobody needs to believe-in Max's Multiverses or try to abrogate uncertainty (as Griffiths does by claiming his model allows one to track trajectories - something soundly falsified by the EPR experiment) in order to simply do the science.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
January 4th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Joy,
Consistent Histories (CH) is not in conflict with superposition, and is in total agreement with experiment (as is Many Worlds). The computations are the same, as Hiley and Maroney agree from your own quote:
You say
Oops!
Quantum computers work just as well in every interpretation of QM. In CH, decoherence occurs at the classical limits, as with all quantum theories, so quantum computation works just fine. The difference is that CH gives a quantitative description of decoherence.
Again, the requirement that consciousness collapse the wave function is considered highly speculative and unnecessary. It's the kind of thing you read about in New Age books like the Tao of Physics. Like I say, speculation is a good thing, but claiming that highly speculative ideas are the core of mainstream scientific thought is misleading.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 4, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
January 4th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
joy,
"Unless you are more specific about what bothers you, I'm afraid I can't help. I might not be able to help even if you are specific. Is it a religious issue? A scientific issue? You'll have to help me out here, as I don't understand your objection. Thanks."
It was a stupidity issue, as in I need more pictures, and less words and things that I don't understand. I was joking about your talking "over my head".
Comment by Douglas — January 4, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 11:36 am
doctor(logic:
Ah, so. As I said, I'm not that familiar with all the latest interpretations that have nothing to do with the science. Which works fine even if it's not interpreted at all. Google didn't return Wiki, which has demonstrated itself to be a less than reliable source. So I went to the actual source (Griffiths) and his in-house arguments with Hiley, Maroney, Bassi and Ghirardi. No 'consensus' here.
A proposed 'new' theoretic that uses the same methods and tools to reach exactly the same conclusions is entirely interpretational. Interpretations of "what it all means" are philosophical beliefs - science should not pretend to arbitrate or to impose. It was never authorized to do so.
I remain a little confused as to how the several interpretations would affect quantum computation, which requires that a measurement be made, and that measurement must present a definitive result. In THIS universe.
…but I'm not an AI Guy. I'll let them figure it out.
I think all the interpretations are highly speculative and unnecessary so long as we can make the science work, FAPP. Physics - which has far more speculative interpretations than biology allows - has never tried to use sociopolitical processes to declare any one of them absolute, or to forbid mention of alternative interpretations, or to make it a violation of law to criticize the current favorite. I think it's a shame that desperate neodarwinist die-hards (primarily evangelical atheists with a not-so hidden sociopolitical agenda) have been allowed to thoroughly corrupt biology by doing just this. It threatens the whole endeavor of science far more seriously than an ID perspective on the evidence ever could have.
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2006 @ 11:36 am
January 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Joy,
Here we are in agreement.
Generic ID isn't remotely like a speculative string theory. It's not a scientific theory at all. It makes no predictions, or rather, it refuses to.
IDists ridicule demands for predictive theories of ID as putting the cart before the horse. They say that design has to be detected before such a theory is constructed. This is flat-out wrong!
You don't detect theories. You detect patterns in data. What counts is whether what you detect is what you predicted!
You explain patterns by claiming a rule that dictates a cause and effect relationship among them. That rule is called a predictive theory. If your putative theory doesn't predict anything, then you have no explanation, and you're back at looking at observations. There's no difference between saying that you don't have an explanation, and saying that you have a rule of explanation that depends exclusively on wholly undetectable factors.
We all know that there are two reasons why ID wants to avoid having an actual theory. First, there's currently no evidence of anything that would validate a proper design theory. Second, the designer is usually identified as God, and a proper theory of God is impossible by definition (as if God could even be explanatory of anything in the first place).
So, it's not a corruption of science to bar non-theories of ID from the scientific sphere. Rather, it is a corruption of science to weaken the standards for what counts as scientific theory to the point that stories of the supernatural would count as scientific.
I generally contain my emotions in these forums, but watching supernaturalists accuse scientists of corrupting science is something I'm happy to let off a little steam about.
Scientists have been bullied, tortured, murdered, and generally abused by religion for centuries. God forbid that scientists should contradict the pronouncements of dictators, emperors and popes! So, where science couldn't be silenced it would be controlled.
Now, having had its domain of necessity whittled down from an oak tree to an acorn, religion makes one last stab at science by trying to get the supernatural admitted as scientific theory. Ain't gonna happen.
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 5, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
January 5th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
doctor(logic):
Excuse me? I will allow this post to stand, primarily for its educational value as well as because I offered an opinion to which your post was a response. But any further such broad-brush outbursts are going straight into the Memory Hole. I am not "ID," the "ID Movement," anybody's school board member, or the charismatic leader of any church.
This blog is about Paola Zizzi's speculative theory of how consciousness became a fundamental parameter of the universe, according to further speculative (but evidentially and mathematically sound) theories about how consciousness operates through the mechanisms of biological organisms - life. Which can relate directly to the issue of intelligent design in nature and in life.
Zizzi is a well known and respected academic and scientist. So is Roger Penrose, and so is Stuart Hameroff. So are Henry Stapp, Basil Hiley, Diedrick Aerts, Mae-Wan Ho, Dorien Sagan, etc., etc., etc. These are all scientists doing science. They are not "supernaturalists," "dictators," "emperors" or "popes." They won't bully, torture, murder or abuse you. Neither will I or any other contributor to this blog.
My support of an ID inference is based upon what I see to be sound scientific and evidential grounds. I've consistently said it's not ready for prime-time, and do not support the teaching of ID in conscriptive settings. But I certainly see that desperate neodarwinist die-hards have corrupted science [evolutionary biology in its several guises] with their ideology, and I think that's a shame. I also think their overreaching will come back to bite science on its collective ass sooner rather than later. That's purely a sociopolitical prediction.
No interpretation of evidence in any field should be forbidden by law in a "free country," and while things politically are a bit questionable of late, this is still not the USSR. The whole idea of "Forbidden Science" is anathema to me. It will soon become anathema to science as well, I predict.
Now, what if (for the sake of discussion), it does turn out that a sort of proto-consciousness is fundamental to this universe, from the very instant of its completed inflation? Do you think it's possible that biological organisms are able to concentrate and express this fundamental parameter?
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 1:17 am
If I understand Penrose, he claims that collapsing superpositions are a necessary ingredient of consciousness. This mechanism works independently of any proto-consciousness (whatever that may be).
I would say that consciousness is a form of self awareness. If so, what is one great collapse during inflation aware of? Especially, given that there's nothing external to the universe to be externally aware of. If the proto-consciousness had anything to convey to us, what would that be?
I really think this idea has travelled well beyond the meaning of the words that purport to express it.
Let me ask you this. Can your ideas be expressed in terms of a classical model of consciousness? Just suppose consciousness is classical (for argument's sake). If the entire universe were classically conscious for an instant at its birth, what would that mean? Feel free to postulate some classical mechanism for connecting the two "minds."
Okay, let get down to brass tacks. What are you trying to explain with this idea?
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 6, 2006 @ 1:17 am
January 6th, 2006 at 4:04 am
doctor(logic):
No, the claim made for computational function in microtubule assemblies is Hameroff's. He made it back in the '80s. Stu was doing some hefty research as far back as his grad days in the '70s attempting to identify the physical/neural correlates (mechanisms) of consciousness. He was in a unique position to do so as an MD, a psychologist and an anesthesiologist attached to a teaching hospital [UA] and being curious enough about consciousness to have devoted his life to working with it directly.
He identified MTs early on as likely suspects based on the specific actions of various anesthetic agents employed in his 'day job' - which is to make consciousness go away enough not to feel it when surgeons slice into your body, but not completely enough to die.
Penrose, at the end of a long and distinguished career as a theoretical mathematician/physicist, was developing his "Theory of Everything" [ToE], which is sort of an expected thing even if it goes down in flames eventually. It gets the youngsters' blood going, and that's a good legacy for any great scientist to leave to the endeavor. When Hameroff read of Penrose's work he recognized that his own crafted model of consciousness was the same concept "brought to life," so to speak, and contacted Penrose. The rest, as they say, is history (and a full trilogy plus a revelation of the whole concept of quantum computing, which the AI Guys would probably not have dreamed up on their own).
The adage in theoretical physics is that any ToE that can't apply its mechanisms to the mind of the conscious being who conceived it isn't a ToE.
You can get a FREE download of Hameroff's 1987 book Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular consciousness and nanotechnology [Hameroff calls it his "pre-quantum ode to microtubules"] at his website - The New Frontier. It comes in both pdf and html, and is a pretty good introduction.
Penrose's trilogy - The Emperor's New Mind, Shadow of the Mind, and The Large, the Small and the Human Mind are all available from Amazon in paperback. I liked them a lot, but you don't actually need all three. The last two are a fair wrap-up of the developed theoretics plus mathematics.
I'm not trying to explain much of anything, because I'm not very good at that (witness onething and Douglas complaining about that shortcoming in comments to this very blog). I linked Zizzi's paper, cited some parts of the introduction, and commented on those. You can access the paper too, all you need is Adobe Acrobat (free download). She's probably not much better than I am at "talking down" to people who are trying to understand, but the paper's quite entertaining, as I said.
I can't make Penrose's mathematics easy to understand, nor can I explain Hameroff's computational model in a hundred words or less. Sometimes you've got to make the effort to understand, because nobody else can do that for you. I think they're onto something, though I've more confidence in MTs/actin constructs as PCCs/NCCs than I do in quantum gravity (by any description). Penrose won't specify the vector of this particular massless extremal, and I've got another pet ToE that does (with only 8 dimensions, but using a math based on p-adic primes). Still, it's the right direction, and work is ongoing to refine things further.
This has been hot stuff for more than a decade. Evidence is strong and building in this direction, technology is advancing even more rapidly to put it to work. Most people will think it all happened overnight when the consensus comes in, but that's never been true of any revolutionary idea in science. It usually takes decades, sometimes a century or more. Scientists can be as die-hard conservative (and protective of their 'orthodoxies') as anybody else.
About five years ago I got invoved in these debates because I was amazed and disgusted by the outrageous slanders, devious tactics and outright lies being told by self-professed "scientists" in cyberspace. Defending a theoretic that has been known to be entirely inadequate since the 1950s (and seriously doubted for a century and a half). It's come to the point where those die-hards have succeeded in getting a federal judge to declare criticisms of that inadequate theoretic (and mention of any alternative in public schools) unconstitutional. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of "science" doing, and it harms science way more than it's ever going to harm schoolchildren (who will be much more interested in ID now than they would have been, just making the inevitable happen faster). This will become apparent as time goes on, because the revolution's already underway while the die-hards were busy protecting their egotistical and ideological turf.
Teleological design is not an unscientific concept. It is not religious dogma (you and I have established so far that interpretations don't count). It is actively being researched. The theoretical framework is already proposed, and thousands of scientists are filling gaps as we speak. This was fated to happen the moment "Modern Science" decided it should studiously avoid the phenomenon of consciousness, when it couldn't do so and claim to explain reality. The AI Guys got the idea they could maybe create a machine consciousness. They've got money to make it happen, too.
Zizzi's not the first theorist to have dreamed up a scenario where the Alpha and Omega of consciousness both fine-tunes its own parameters and creates its own necessary observers, who in turn create the creator (and everything in between). A time phenomenon, and time is not what we like to think it is. I know you've probably heard of such concepts, as they've been floating for years as side-effects of quantum theory. These aren't things we're capable of establishing as fact at this point, but then, neither are multiverses. Or even wavefunction collapse. But they do establish a baseline upon which a true theory of teleological [purposeful, intelligent] design can be built. And it will be science.
All the complaining and whining and ranting and raving in the world won't stop it from happening. I have tried to be a steady voice from this edge of science, attempting to keep the combatants who claim science as their position from doing real damage with their ideological zeal. I have not been successful, and now the damage is done. The ramifications will not become apparent for a few years, but they're there, predictable as clockwork. And THAT is indeed a very big shame.
Science has moved on. You can either try to keep up or stay to protect your turf-hole until it's passed you by altogether. Your choice, not mine. I made my choices long ago.
Comment by Joy — January 6, 2006 @ 4:04 am
January 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Joy,
Are you referring to quantum consciousness or something else? There isn't any evidence for quantum consciousness, as yet. Penrose thinks it's a necessity, but only a tiny minority of AI research is aimed at quantum computing.
Penrose's argument from Gödel's incompleteness theorem is really quite pathetic. The theorem applies equally well to humans as to deterministic machines. Even if Penrose was right, his claim has nothing to do with intelligence because Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't limit intelligence.
How do you know NDE is entirely inadequate? There's no evidence of this.
High-level predictions of NDE mechanisms have been confirmed. Just because some elements of the theory are difficult to calculate with today's technology is not negative evidence against the theory. If it were, we would have to discard quantum chromodynamics because we cannot compute low energy its low-energy consequences.
No one is locking up IDists or forbidding them from finding positive evidence for their "theory." What we're doing is stopping them from using a wedge issue to divide America, and inject religion into the public schools.
It's not the job of school boards to use science class to inform children that the scientific consensus contradicts the faith of their board members. That's blatantly unconstitutional religious interference in public schools. And neither you nor me nor the school board have the authority to say what the scientific consensus is. That's for the scientific community to do, and they have clearly spoken in this case.
But you don't need any New Age concepts to make this happen. Why not claim that we're living in a simulation? That works just as well.
Why not claim that a god created the universe yesterday, or created the universe at the Big Bang, knowing that we would be created by natural processes? You could claim just as much support for these views.
There's proof of teleology in this forum, but its the teleology of IDists for whom design is a foregone conclusion.
I'm not here to stop science from happening. I'm here to stop politics and religion from corrupting science with pseudoscience.
There are smart people like you, MikeGene, Omar and others here at TT. I don't think you're all part of a conspiracy to overthrow enlightenment thought. However, I do think that you've lost sight of what constitutes explanatory theory, scientific inference, and, sometimes, established scientific fact.
We all have our pet beliefs that give us hope for the future. Some people say we humans need to believe in God. Rather, I would say that we need something to believe in, something to be optimistic about. This desire blinds every one of us to more objective assessments of our theories. Where our visions of life conflict, we inevitably see conspiracies in the theories of others. But this is why we have scientific institutions - to establish processes that insulate our works from our spiritual beliefs and Earthly rewards.
Scientists are just people, but they live in a world where ideas need to pass peer review, and where there's a price to be paid for making claims you can't back up with evidence. I think this is a healthy situation, not a defect.
If you think that consensus will eventually go your way, why are you worried? What do you think will be the negative repercussions of what I regard as "science as usual"
Comment by doctor(logic) — January 6, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
January 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
doctor(logic):
I'm not worried. Humanity has survived just fine for ~150K years without imposed scientistic beliefs, apart from a few short digressions here and there. If science (in the hands of professional death-dealers and corporate environment-rapers) doesn't make us extinct, we'll continue to survive just fine. I don't have a problem with all this going away tomorrow. My life won't change.
And if you regard judicial fiat as "science as usual," perhaps it should go away. Most people won't miss it.
I think we've reached the impasse at the bottom of our abilities to grok one another's positions. Thanks for the discussion.
Comment by Joy — January 6, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
August 13th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Comment by razer — August 13, 2006 @ 12:09 pm