It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does the material brain initiate the material brain?

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again no evidence at all. Your posts are full of bloviating without any scientific evidence to support anything you're saying. You said:

If evolution is responsible for creating consciousness then we should be able to create consciousness by simulating evolution with fast enough computers. How fast those computers need to be is irrelevant, what matters is that it can be done in principle with enough speed and time.

This is just pure nonsense!

WHY SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CREATE CONSCIOUSNESS?

Where's the evidence of this? A simulation is a copy of the real thing. How can evolution create consciousness that breaks the symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg when an observer observes their own reference frame? If this is produced by the material brain then show me the math that says this. All of the math says otherwise. Show me the scientific evidence that refutes this.

You said:

The process of seeing words on a sheet of paper and then thinking those words will produce a large variety of stimulus for your brain to recall events which are related to those words.

Okay, let's see some evidence.

When you read those words and start THINKING as you say and the neuronal activity associated with that memory is activated, how does the brain know that neuronal activity is associated with that memory?

I want to see brain scans and scientific studies to support what you're saying. Show me the evidence that shows what part of the brain starts THINKING and how does this part of the brain know which area of neuronal activity needs to be activated to recall those memories?

When I sit here and recall 3 memories back to back, how does my material brain know which parts of the brain to activate to recall those memories. As you say, THINKING. How does this THINKING part of the brain know which neuronal activity is associated with which memories? How does it know the difference between these memories? Where are the brain scans and the scientific evidence of this part of the brain you're talking about that THINKS and then how does the parts of the brain that's activated KNOW which memories you want to recall?




posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


When you read those words and start THINKING as you say and the neuronal activity associated with that memory is activated, how does the brain know that neuronal activity is associated with that memory?

You really need to study those algorithms I keep mentioning. The question you are asking doesn't even make sense. It's like asking "how does Google know what computations to do in order to retrieve documents relevant to the search terms". That question doesn't make sense, the computations happening are derived from the search terms. Your brain fires a specific way when you remember a certain event because it's doing computations which produce the required memory based on the stimulus. The stimulus is what causes the brain to fire in a specific way, just like the search terms given to Google cause it to do specific calculations. The brain doesn't "know" which neuronal activity corresponds to any given memory, the neural activity is a result of the algorithm attempting to locate memories related to the stimulus.


A simulation is a copy of the real thing.

Yes but a perfect simulation will behave exactly the same as the original thing. If I simulate the universe using a correct theory of everything it will behave exactly the same as our universe does. In fact we could be living in a simulation right now and not even know it. QM tells us that reality is digital and non-local, two very big hints we could be living inside of a computer simulation. The only way a simulation will fail to fulfill its intended task is if the thing it's trying to simulate is non-computable. Therefore you must be claiming evolution is non-computable or alternatively evolution is computable but consciousness isn't computable, therefore you're saying consciousness has nothing to do with evolution, and I'm sorry I just cannot accept such a notion without very strong proof, not just some highly abstract math founded on many questionable assumptions.
edit on 20/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again no evidence lol!!

You said the brain fires a specific way, how does it know which neuronal activity is associated with specific memories??

I have asked you this over and over again and you don't provide a SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

I can say I pick what I will eat for lunch like a google search engine and that means NOTHING. Provide some SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports your claim.

You said:

I'm sorry I just cannot accept such a notion without very strong proof, not just some highly abstract math founded on many questionable assumptions.

What abstract math are you talking about exactly??? What questionable assumptions are you talking about exactly? Is it quantum theory or Schrodinger and Heisenberg that's abstract math and exactly point out the math you're talking about?

You say all of these silly things and you don't provide any evidence.

You do realize you're posting on a Science forum and not a Fantasy forum?



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Again no evidence lol!!

If you want evidence that what I'm explaining actually works then research the god damn algorithms I have mentioned. I'm not going to hold a computer science seminar in this thread just so I can prove that these algorithms work. I will attempt to explain it on a basic level but if you refuse to accept my explanations that is not my problem. I know what I'm talking about and I know this stuff works.


You said the brain fires a specific way, how does it know which neuronal activity is associated with specific memories??

Once again you still didn't even understand what I just explained because you're still asking the same nonsensical question. The firing is a result of the search algorithm. Different pathways are triggered by different stimuli so it will look different depending on the stimuli. The purpose of the search process and the neural firing is to find the actual memories related to the stimulus, once found the conscious mind knows how to access those memories and there's no mystery of how it knows to locate and activate those memories.


What abstract math are you talking about exactly??? What questionable assumptions are you talking about exactly?

I'm talking about the IIT math and this nonsense with the "symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg". We don't even have a complete theory of QM yet, we don't even know which interpretation is the correct one, so it seems to me that reaching conclusions based on such a theoretical aspect of physics is not guaranteed to be true. And this IIT math describing consciousness seems to be based on several unproven assumptions also. I have my reasons for thinking that absolutely everything is computable and it will take much more than what you have presented so far for my opinion to change on the matter.

edit on 20/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

If you, or anyone else here, has any information on how the brain "bootstraps" itself and its thought processes, i would be more than interested.



There are some great, great links....but ill be spendig awhile going through them all.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again you say a bunch of nothing. I'm through responding to you until you provide some Scientific evidence. You said:


If you want evidence that what I'm explaining actually works then research the god damn algorithms I have mentioned.

In other words I have no evidence to connect anything I'm saying to actual Scientific evidence. You said:

The firing is a result of the search algorithm. Different pathways are triggered by different stimuli so it will look different depending on the stimuli.

Again, NO EVIDENCE. I can say there's Hobbits on Kepler 22b but it means nothing if I don't provide any evidence to support my claim.

You said:

I'm talking about the IIT math and this nonsense with the "symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg".

First off, this has nothing to do with Integrated Information Theory. Do you even know what I mean when I say the symmetry is broken between Heisenberg and Schrodinger? Do you know what it mean and why they're equivalent? When an observer observes his own reference frame do you know these things become equivalent?

This has nothing to do with abstract math. Quantum Theory is one of the best scientific theories ever produced. Schrodinger and Heisenberg isn't talking about integrated information theory but the relationship between the observer and the observed.

So until you start quoting some actual scientific evidence instead of saying "our brain operates like a google search engine" and people should just accept what you're saying because you said, I'm done responding to any of your bloviating.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


The firing is a result of the search algorithm. Different pathways are triggered by different stimuli so it will look different depending on the stimuli.

Again, NO EVIDENCE. I can say there's Hobbits on Kepler 22b but it means nothing if I don't provide any evidence to support my claim.

So you need proof that the brain fires differently when presented with different stimuli? If you saw a picture of a cat do you think your brain would respond the same way it would if you saw a picture of a spider? I could present brain scans showing you the difference but I thought such a basic thing would be obvious.

Also the fact that we can emulate memory recall with algorithms shows it shouldn't be hard for evolution to give the brain that ability. If you bothered to understand how those algorithms work, particularly the neural network models, you would understand why different neural pathways are sensitive to different stimuli, how we reinforce different pathways, and how they are annealed as we grow.

For example facial recognition algorithms can be achieved with neural networks that use techniques such as sparse coding and feature learning. If you analyze those neural networks you can see exactly how different stimuli will cause different neural paths to fire. I know you're just going to say they aren't real brains and you want to see brain scans, but if we can create those algorithms it's naive to think evolution isn't capable of creating them.

I can admit there is definitely something quite mysterious about the way the brain works but memory recall isn't part of the mystery. Even describing how the memories are structured is harder than describing how the memories are located. Describing how we convert concepts into words and vice versa seems to be an even harder task.

Memory recall really isn't the best topic to focus on if you want to prove that the brain cannot be simulated. In my first post I gave some examples of what you should be focusing on, such as how we are able to construct sentences in our mind before we say them, or how we can form a partial sentence and then start speaking before we even know how it will end.


Do you even know what I mean when I say the symmetry is broken between Heisenberg and Schrodinger? Do you know what it mean and why they're equivalent?

No I don't know what that means and I don't know why they are equivalent, although I'm willing to read about it if you have sources. My interpretation of QM doesn't assign any special status to observers, planets in far off galaxies are the same whether a conscious observer is looking at the planet or not. The collapse of the wave function just boils down to decoherence imo. When we observe what the particle is doing we have to become entangled with the particle and therefore the wave function of the particle becomes entangled with our own high energy wave function, which causes the wave-particle duality to diminish to the point where the particle reverts back to acting like a classical billiard ball. There doesn't need to be any extra magical sauce to describe the observer or the affect the observer has on the world around him.

edit on 20/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


So until you start quoting some actual scientific evidence instead of saying "our brain operates like a google search engine" and people should just accept what you're saying because you said, I'm done responding to any of your bloviating.

I never said our brain operates like a search engine, I said the way memory recall works operates using algorithms very similar to the ones used by a search engine, but even more complicated. Of course the brain is going to have a way of retrieving information it has previously stored. There is no reason it couldn't use the types of algorithms that our search engines use. But that is just one aspect of how the brain works, it is capable of doing things much more complicated than memory retrieval, things that are much harder to replicate with algorithms.
edit on 20/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Many people believe this decisions are made in pineal gland. pineal gland is a huge mystery in our brain. All we know is that this gland is producing melatonin who was not so important few years ago. But now it is linked with many things.

Also some say that pineal gland is a center of soul. That why many spiritual people link it to the third eye. It is well known that fluoride water or industrial fluoride is calcifying your pineal gland. By that some speople say you get more prone to subliminal messages, aka you can not make a right decisions, aka decisions are made for you.

Now how this works:
Pineal gland is in the middle of brain, it is unique and really small. All the info from all other part of brains goes trough pineal gland and where decisions need to be made, pineal gland makes decision.

Now if your brain is on constant fear, aka your sympathetic nervous system is all the time on, you can not make a right decision, because this nervous system is figth or flight mode, it pumps you adrenaline up and you dont see things clearly. Now if you are rest and calm in parasympathetic system, then you will see a whole picture and restfully make a good decision without any fears.

About pineal gland:
Some say that fluoride in water is there to make people dumb and make more prone to mind control. Your questions, why did u go to NBC and then turn to HBO is actually mind control. Somewhere in your recent few days you were bombarded with some HBO commercial and your brain pick it up and it was planted somewhere inside your brain. Now pineal gland (good and evil) need to make decissionw hat program to turn on, so it got information about HBO commercial and tun it on.

Thats how things work.

Now, me, i dont bother my center of soul with NBC, HBO or whatever because i dont really care, my television is shut down. If i want to watch something then i go search the web and find whats interest me. I turn my television on when my program starts (thats very rarely because there is really nothing worth the watching on live TV), or i turn it on and go to youtube and watch some documentary. After im done i shut down TV.

Try it, see the difference. I know it is hard, since we are programed to have TV always on, and big companies use that to plant inside your brain messages that will make you BUY BUY, or news that will just make you more afraid and your pineal gland on more pressure when it will need to make a correct decision.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: saadad

Thanks for your post and I will look into some of the things you said.

Like I was saying, all the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE points to consciousness as being something more fundamental than something that emerges. Science can't even explain how we recall specific memories.

Here's an older video of Hameroff before the discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules.



Here's another good video by Amit Goswami.



He makes a good point when he says Quantum Mechanics doesn't describe consciousness. It doesn't and there's another huge assumption that has to be made that the material brain = consciousness so consciousness must be an emergent property. There's no evidence for this and most of the evidence points to consciousness as something more fundamental that interacts and operates the material brain so consciousness is non computable.

One more video by Daegene Song.



He makes some very profound remarks about what he calls the Subjective Universe. He shows through Quantum Theory that conscious isn't computable and doesn't emerge from the brain. In other places he talks about how another frame of reference is needed for Consciousness. He says it's the experience of observing the universe is what exists. He answers the question Does the Moon only exist when someone is looking at it.

Some good videos.
edit on 20-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


He answers the question Does the Moon only exist when someone is looking at it.

He says the moon does not exist separately from my own existence so in some sense his answer to that question seems to be 'yes'. He seems to be promoting an interpretation of QM where conscious observers are assigned a special status, but experiments such as the quantum eraser prove that view of QM is demonstrably wrong.


He also brings up the Halting Problem as an example of how self-referencing can be an incomputable problem which I did find interesting. The halting problem does show us that there are some problems which cannot be solved by computers but it doesn't say that those types of incomputable processes will occur in physical reality.

There is no reason the human brain needs to have a way of performing a perfect self-referencing process. The halting problem proves it's impossible to create a program which will determine whether or not another program will halt, but that doesn't prevent us from doing partial halt checks that work reasonably well.

The human thought process doesn't need to completely aware of it's own functioning. In fact the subconscious mind is proof that we are only consciously aware of a rather small percentage of what the brain is actually doing. Recursive algorithms such as thoughts-about-thoughts can provide the necessary level of partial self-awareness.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

First off the video you posted is nonsense. She said at the end of the video we don't know how measurement works but earlier she said there's nothing special about a conscious observer.

HOW CAN SHE KNOW THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS???

That clearly makes no sense and consciousness has been directly tied to the measurement problem. I never said only consciousness can collapse the wave function and that's if the wave function ever collapses. Another example of nonsense coming from the video.

She admits she doesn't know how measurement works so how does she know the wave function collapses? There's interpretations that say otherwise.

It comes down to this, THE CHOICE OF THE CONSCIOUS OBSERVER CREATES REALITY. I think CHOICE is directly connected to measurement and this is why you have a measurement problem.

How can the machine carry out a measurement if a conscious observer didn't make a choice to create the machine?

How was the experiment even carried out if the conscious observer didn't make a choice to carry out the experiment?

How can a conscious observer make the choice to go to Wendy's if Dave Thomas didn't make the choice to create Wendy's?

Conscious choice creates reality. Conscious choice is directly tied to measurement. This is also connected to the Free Will Theorem.


In mid-2004, John Conway and Simon Kochen of Princeton University proved the Free-will Theorem. This theorem states "If there exist experimenters with (some) free will, then elementary particles also have (some) free will." In other words, if some experimenters are able to behave in a way that is not completely predetermined, then the behavior of elementary particles is also not a function of their prior history. This is a very strong "no hidden variable" theorem.

The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements. As stated by Cator and Landsman regarding hidden variable theories:[3] "There has been a similar tension between the idea that the hidden variables (in the pertinent causal past) should on the one hand include all ontological information relevant to the experiment, but on the other hand should leave Alice and Bob free to choose any settings they like."


en.wikipedia.org...

There's that word CHOICE again.

It's the CHOICE of the conscious observer that creates reality. This leads us to Song and the Subjective Universe.

The main problem you have is you don't provide any Scientific evidence to refute or support anything you say. So I have to keep reminding you WE'RE ON A SCIENTIFIC FORUM NOT A FANTASY FORUM.

You said:

The halting problem does show us that there are some problems which cannot be solved by computers but it doesn't say that those types of incomputable processes will occur in physical reality.

Again, this is just a meaningless statement. Song showed you this is the case through the math of quantum theory one of the most powerful Scientific theories that has been produced. He's not saying this because it's something he wants to believe, he's saying this because it's what the math shows.

When an observer observes their own reference frame this fundamentally changes the math of quantum theory. There's a breakdown in symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg where there shouldn't be one. He ties the wave function to the reference frame of the observer which is very profound especially when you think about recent papers that say the wave function is a nonphysical reality.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography


Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

Again, if you have some evidence that refutes the math then let's see it. Here's more.


Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Oxford and now works at Chungbuk National University in Korea as an assistant professor. To learn more about Song's research, see his published work: D. Song, Non-computability of Consciousness, NeuroQuantology, Volume 5, pages 382~391 (2007). arxiv.org...


www.prnewswire.com...

So again, present evidence that refutes the math instead of just more hyperbole without a shred of evidence.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


HOW CAN SHE KNOW THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS???

Just because she doesn't answer that question in that video doesn't mean there's not an answer. I already explained to you how entanglement and decoherence can completely explain the question she posed at the end of the video. And it's not just my personal theory, there is loads of research out there showing how superposition will disappear when the complex environment becomes entangled with simple quantum systems.


How can the machine carry out a measurement if a conscious observer didn't make a choice to create the machine?

I don't think you really understood the point of the video. It is showing that non-conscious systems are capable of collapsing the wave function, not just "machines" as we define them. If non-conscious systems can collapse the wave function then the universe can easily exist without conscious observers to collapse the wave functions and make it exist. It proves that the moon really is there whether we are looking at it or not because conscious observers don't play an important role in making measurements which force reality to take on a specific state. When a rock collides with the moon and no one is looking, that rock is a machine and it can take a "measurement" of the moons position by impacting the moon.


In other words, if some experimenters are able to behave in a way that is not completely predetermined, then the behavior of elementary particles is also not a function of their prior history. This is a very strong "no hidden variable" theorem.

I have already made it clear that I am a strong believer in a non-deterministic universe. I believe that quantum mechanics can produce truly random events (aka events without a cause). Some people believe that there is a deterministic process happening behind the scenes (aka "hidden variables" that we don't know about), but I think the future is truly unpredictable. Experimenters are able to behave in a way that is not completely predetermined precisely because elementary particles also behave in a way that is not completely predetermined.

I have already explained to you why I think this is one of the key factors to creating a truly self-aware machine with free will. If the algorithm is capable of generating truly random numbers using a QRNG it will be able to exhibit truly unpredictable behavior and it will have the same type of free-will that humans have. Of course truly random numbers cannot be computed with an algorithm but we can collect random numbers from naturally occurring quantum events and there's nothing stopping us from creating truly non-casual artificial intelligence.


Again, this is just a meaningless statement. Song showed you this is the case through the math of quantum theory one of the most powerful Scientific theories that has been produced. He's not saying this because it's something he wants to believe, he's saying this because it's what the math shows.

Actually he is making the assumption that consciousness must be operating in the incomputable region of phase space. The halting problem actually says that it is impossible to create some algorithms because if they were able to exist it would cause a paradox. Those problems are intrinsically unsolvable, not just by machines, but by anything in existence, because if they could be solved it would lead to a paradox.

That strongly indicates to me that consciousness doesn't act like a so called impossible problem solver, there is always a reason our brain is able to solve the problems it can solve. It is not capable of perfect-self referencing and there's no reason to assume it must be when it doesn't need to be and all the evidence suggests otherwise. Our entire conscious experience really isn't that complicated when you think about it.

Our thought process is essentially just an emulation of all our senses. We can emulate auditory experiences inside our mind, allowing us to have an "inner voice". We can also emulate the visual experience, allowing us to imagine objects inside our "minds eye". We can also emulate the experience of smell, taste, and all the other senses we have. Combined together we can create entire virtual worlds inside of our imagination.

But beyond that there's really not much else we are conscious of, well I don't know about you but my conscious experience seems to be limited to real and emulated sensory experiences. I don't have the ability to observe the entirety of my own functioning, I'm not like a Turing machine which can be fed its own input and then perform incomputable calculations to analyze myself. I can analyze myself, but only partially and with definable algorithms.


When an observer observes their own reference frame this fundamentally changes the math of quantum theory.

I would like if Song could be much more specific about what this means. When he is talking in terms of Turing machines and the halting problem he is talking my language, but it's entirely unclear what it means to say "an observer observes their own reference frame". He tries to argue there is some physical interpretation of this idea but his explanation seemed extremely vague and didn't answer any of my questions.

edit on 21/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:

Just because she doesn't answer that question in that video doesn't mean there's not an answer. I already explained to you how entanglement and decoherence can completely explain the question she posed at the end of the video. And it's not just my personal theory, there is loads of research out there showing how superposition will disappear when the complex environment becomes entangled with simple quantum systems.

Again, NO EVIDENCE. Show me the evidence that supports what she's saying. Where is this LOADS OF RESEARCH? Again, how can she know that there's nothing special about consciousness when she doesn't know what measurement is. Show me this loads of research.

You said:


It is showing that non-conscious systems are capable of collapsing the wave function, not just "machines" as we define them. If non-conscious systems can collapse the wave function then the universe can easily exist without conscious observers to collapse the wave functions and make it exist.


Again, there's people who say there's no collapse of the wave function. Show me the scientific evidence that a non conscious observer collapses the wave function. Give me the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that describes what a non conscious observer is. How can there be a non consciouss observer if consciousness has effects that are on Planck scales ala Penrose-Hameroff? Show me the evidence that the wave function collapses.

You said:


I would like if Song could be much more specific about what this means. When he is talking in terms of Turing machines and the halting problem he is talking my language, but it's entirely unclear what it means to say "an observer observes their own reference frame". He tries to argue there is some physical interpretation of this idea but his explanation seemed extremely vague and didn't answer any of my questions.


He explains exactly what he means and he goes over the math. It's not unclear at all. He goes over the equivalence between Schrodinger and Heisenberg and how the symmetry breaks down. It wasn't vague at all and he has published papers on the subject.

Anyone can watch the video and it's easy to understand and he isn't vague at all.



Here's his papers:

fqxi.org...

arxiv.org...

YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL SOMEONE VAGUE?????

You haven't provided one shred of evidence to support anything you have said. Just say you don't understand what he's saying because you don't understand the math. The fact that you can't admit that you don't understand it just shows that you're married to the FANTASY of your beliefs.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Again, NO EVIDENCE. Show me the evidence that supports what she's saying. Where is this LOADS OF RESEARCH?

What she is saying in that video and what I mentioned about entanglement and decoherence are two different things. I was explaining why elementary particles will change when measured. She is explaining why the quantum eraser experiment proves that non-conscious systems can collapse the wave function of other low energy systems (eg a large detector can collapse the wave function of a photon without requiring a conscious observer). This is an accepted fact in quantum mechanics and widely accepted among physicists. The number of qualified physicists who actually believe conscious observers should be assigned a special status in quantum mechanics is far lower than those who think we are just made of the same particles that everything else is made of and there is nothing special about the measurements we make compared to the measurements made by machines.

Further information on why the collapse-by-consciousness hypothesis is invalid:

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness

It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of these predictions. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the implications of these conclusions on the role of the human observer for quantum mechanics and on the role of quantum mechanics for the observer’s consciousness


Further information on why entanglement and decoherence explain the collapse:


Why decoherence solves the measurement problem

Although the solution, within standard quantum physics, of the problem of outcomes has been published several times, many authors continue to treat measurement as an unsolved fundamental dilemma. The solution lies in the formation of entangled subsystems, the non-local nature of the measurement state, and the resulting distinction between mixed-state local outcomes and the pure-state global outcome. Upon "measurement" (i.e. entanglement), the quantum system and its measurement apparatus both decohere and collapse into local mixed states while the unitarily-evolving global state remains coherent and un-collapsed. The states we observe are the local, collapsed states. Considerable experimental evidence supports this conclusion. Theoretical objections to this conclusion are rebutted, and a new perspective on measurement and entanglement is noted.

edit on 21/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

First, show me the evidence that says the wave function collapses. This is quote from one of the papers you cited:

Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable.

Show me the evidence that says the wave function collapses. Secondly where did I say consciousness cause the wave function to collapse? Where did I even say the wave function collapses?

Whether consciousness causes the wave function to collapse if wave function collapse even occurs has NOTHING TO DO with the math that says CONSCIOUSNESS IS NON COMPUTABLE.

Show me the math that refutes the evidence.

Secondly, Decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem and that's why Scientist still debate the measurement problem. That's why you still have debates about 4 or 5 different interpretations of QM surrounding the measurement problem. There have been Scientist coming out every other year since the discovery of decoherence claiming Decoherence solves the measurement problem and Scientist just move on and they keep debating these issues.

Decoherence tells you that when a measurement occurs it's thermodynamically irreversable but it doesn't tell you how or why a measurement occurs. It doesn't solve the measurement problem at all.

Also, you're contradicting yourself. You talk about wave function collapse when decoherence tells you the wave function just appears to collapse. That's why I asked for evidence that shows the wave function collapses.

IF THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM IS SOLVED SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSES?


In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. One consequence of this dephasing is classical or probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse, which is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer. It justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary[citation needed]. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the total system's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence was first introduced 1970 by the German physicist H. Dieter Zeh and has been a subject of active research since the 1980s.[1]

Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath),[2] since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings. Viewed in isolation, the system's dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).[3] Thus the dynamics of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment. These have the effect of sharing quantum information with—or transferring it to—the surroundings.

Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".


en.wikipedia.org...

If the measurement problem were solved, then there wouldn't be the need for these interpretational issues that are still hotly debated today.

One of the key papers that destroys this nonsense that decoherence explains measurement is here:

Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem: A Response to P. W. Anderson

arxiv.org...

Again, these claims are made every other year and they just come and go. Here's more from the paper.


These striking statements to the contrary, I do not believe that either detailed theoretical calculations or recent experimental results show that decoherence has resolved the difficulties associated with quantum measurement theory. This will not be a surprise to many workers in the field of decoherence; for example, in their seminal paper on decoherence as a source of spatial localization, Joos and Zeh (1985) state “Of course no unitary treatment of the time dependence can explain why only one of these dynamically independent components is experienced.” And in a recent review on decoherence, Joos (1999) states “Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us is that certain objects appear classical when observed. But what is an observation? At some stage we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.” Going back a few years, an informative and lively debate on these issues can be found in the Letters column of the April 1993 Physics Today (starting on page 13 of that issue and continuing over many pages), in response to an earlier article in that journal by Zurek (1991). An enlightening discussion of the measurement problem has been given by Bell (1990), and there also are extensive discussions of both the measurement problem and the role of decoherence in the philosophy of physics literature. A careful analysis of the measurement problem has been given by Brown (1986), who reviews earlier work of Fine (1969) and others. Rebuttals to the claim that decoherence solves the measurement problem have been given in the books of Albert (1992), Barrett (1999) and Bub (1997), with Bub’s treatment closet in spirit to the formulation given below. A detailed analysis of decoherence within the consistent histories approach has been given by Kent and McElwaine (1997), and discussions of decoherence in the context of the many-worlds approach can be found in Bacciagaluppi (2001) (who gives an extensive bibliography on decoherence as it relates to the measurement problem) and in Butterfield (2001). Despite the existence of these and other prior discussions, I think it worthwhile to revisit the substantive issues, particularly in the light of recent claims that decoherence resolves the measurement problem.


A key thing that was said was you still have to apply the probability rules of quantum theory.
edit on 21-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Show me the evidence that says the wave function collapses. Secondly where did I say consciousness cause the wave function to collapse? Where did I even say the wave function collapses?

Have you not heard of the double-slit experiment? Elementary particles clearly have a wave-particle duality, and that superposition can be collapsed into a single state via a measurement, and that measurement can be made by man or machine, the interference pattern will still disappear in both cases. You haven't directly said that consciousness causes the wave function to collapse but remarks made by Song imply he's using an interpretation of QM where the moon doesn't exist when we don't look at it, which is demonstrably wrong because the moon doesn't require conscious observers to collapse it into a determined state.


Secondly, Decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem and that's why Scientist still debate the measurement problem. That's why you still have debates about 4 or 5 different interpretations of QM surrounding the measurement problem.

Well for a start that paper I referenced was much newer than any of the papers you just referenced and it contains rebuttals to the common arguments against decoherence. I know that this is a hotly debated issue and so I'm not going to claim my answer is the correct answer but I feel it has the most experimental evidence backing it. Also the fact that consciousness doesn't play a role in the collapse of the wave functions dictates that we need a mechanism such as decoherence to explain how the collapse works.


Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment.

I believe you have misinterpreted this statement. It's saying that decoherence can explain why we observe wave function collapse but it does not cause the actual collapse. As we know measurement is what causes the collapse to initiate, then decoherence comes into play and explains why the system looses it's quantum nature and becomes classical.


And in a recent review on decoherence, Joos (1999) states “Does decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us is that certain objects appear classical when observed. But what is an observation? At some stage we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.”

Well thanks to experiments such as the quantum eraser we now have a pretty good idea of what constitutes an observation/measurement. We know that measurements can be done by conscious systems and non-conscious systems. When the observation is made the collapse will occur and the system must randomly collapse into a rigid state which can be measured. We have to apply the usual rules of probability but there is nothing wrong with that unless one wants to believe in determinism and hidden variable theories such as DeBroglie's pilot wave theory (which is demonstrably wrong). I see no reason to force QM to be classical.

The Wikipedia page you referenced says:

While decoherence explains why a quantum system begins to obey classical probability rules after interacting with its environment (due to the suppression of the interference terms when applying Born's probability rules to the system), it does not explain what an observation actually is. Thus, it does not explain why the environment is seen to be in one definite state rather than in a superposition of states.

The problem once again is defining an observation. But we can define an observation as one high energy system (machine, human, etc) interacting with a low energy system in superposition (elementary particle, qubit, etc). There is no way to make a measurement of an elementary particle without interacting with the particle and becoming entangled with the particle. The particle will then take on properties of the high energy system because the entanglement will cause the wave function of each subsystem to merge. Large objects don't exhibit weird quantum behavior because they have an extremely high energy wave function.

It is extremely hard to make quantum computers because the qubits become entangled with their environment and the decoherence causes them to start acting in a classical way. The qubit will start to take on the classical properties of its environment the longer it is allowed to interact with the environment because its wave function will leak out and merge with the surrounding systems. If a human tries to measure the state of the qubit it will also start exhibiting classical behavior because humans are high energy objects and we are well defined in reality.

I like the phrase "well defined in reality" because that's how I really like to think of decoherence. Very small and simple systems such as elementary particles are not well defined and therefore they exhibit particle-wave duality. But if we try to interact with those ill defined systems we force them to become well defined. Another way to think of it is in terms of entropy. The structure of a human is highly complex and requires a lot of information to describe, but an elementary particle requires much less information to be described and so it's definition is much less specific.

In some sense a low entropy system is "less real" because it's ill defined and it's existence is not even certain. But high entropy system such as humans don't question their own existence, reality seems very solid and static from our frame of reference, it seems to be very well defined, we don't see large objects assuming states of superposition. When a low entropy system such as an elementary particle becomes entangled with a high entropy system such as a machine or human they become part of the same system and share the same level of entropy.

In other words the process of entanglement allows the particle to acquire some of the "realness" of the high entropy system it has become entangled with and thus it begins to act like a classical particle instead of a wave of probability. Or to put it another way, the observer leaks "realness" into the particle by becoming entangled with it. I know that's probably not the best terminology but that's the easiest way of explaining it and I think it's actually very close to the truth. I have yet to find any other mechanism which explains more than the mechanism I just explained.
edit on 22/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Another long winded post without a shred of evidence presented.

You said:

You haven't directly said that consciousness causes the wave function to collapse

Exactly, so this whole argument is meaningless and has nothing to do with consciousness being non computable. When Song was talking about the moon he was talking about the subjective universe and the math of quantum theory. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLAPSE OR APPARENT COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION.

Here's the Song video again.



The whole reason you're trying to debate collapse is because you can't refute the math and sadly for you, you don't even understand things like wave function collapse and decoherence.

Again, you don't understand what decoherence is or is not. When Decoherence occurs you still have a quantum ensemble.

Say you have a particle that has a 60/40 for up/down. In a pure state, it would be in superposition and interference terms will be present. When decoherence occurs it goes to a mixed state and the interference terms will not be present but you still will have a quantum ensemble of probable states.

When a measurement occurs and a single outcome is observed, you don't see an ensemble of states. WHY? If decoherence solved the measurement problem then observation should look mathematically like a mixed state but it doesn't. It goes from a wave function to a Dirac delta function when a measurement occurs and we perceive a single state. This is the measurement problem and it's why Decoherence doesn't solve it AT ALL.

If decoherence solves the measurement problem, why is there any uncertainty as to which measurement will occur? When a system goes from a pure to a mixed state, why doesn't decoherence tells us where an observables position will be localized? It's because in a mixed state it's still a QUANTUM ENSEMBLE. Only when a measurement occurs and a single outcome is observed you find it in the eigenbasis for that observable and not in a quantum ensemble?

THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM REMAINS AND YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.

Again, if the measurement problem was solved you wouldn't have most Physicist still accepting Copenhagen.

The rest of what you said is just gobbledy gook without any evidence and has nothing to do with consciousness being non computable and your silly self aware androids.

You come with these long winded posts without a shred of evidence to support your claims.

For instance you said:

In some sense a low entropy system is "less real" because it's ill defined and it's existence is not even certain. But high entropy system such as humans don't question their own existence,

Do you even know the difference between low/high entropy? Why are humans high entropy systems. Show me your Scientific sources that support this claim. Can I get a published paper or experiment that supports this?

Just nonsense on top of nonsense.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Again, you don't understand what decoherence is or is not.

I understand that the process of decoherence will cause a system to take on classical behavior. The wiki page you quoted says that decoherence is "probabilistically additive behavior", which is exactly what I described, it is the merging of probability waves in two different systems when they become entangled.


If decoherence solves the measurement problem, why is there any uncertainty as to which measurement will occur?

Because reality is non-deterministic and it's impossible to predict exactly how the wave function will collapse when it becomes entangled with an observer trying to measure it. The process of decoherence doesn't need to be a deterministic process, it just needs to describe why quantum systems take on classical behavior when they decohere.


Again, if the measurement problem was solved you wouldn't have most Physicist still accepting Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen interpretation doesn't preclude a mechanism which can explain how superposition effects are diminished by the process of decoherence. In fact I tend to lean towards the Copenhagen interpretation and other collapse theories derived from it. The only real alternatives to collapse theories is hidden variable theories and many world theories, but both are completely deterministic theories which say nothing truly random can happen (aka ell events must have a cause).

I have a strong distaste for deterministic theories because they indicate my future is predetermined and there's nothing I can do to change it, in other words if the laws of physics are not capable of producing truly random events, then it means I don't have free will, I merely have the illusion of free will. Therefore I argue if QM cannot be interpreted with a wave collapse theory, then we are pushed to accept a deterministic theory which undermines the free-will theorem.


Do you even know the difference between low/high entropy? Why are humans high entropy systems.

Obviously I know the difference but clearly you don't know the difference if you have to ask why humans are a high entropy system compared to something like an elementary particle. The level of entropy a system has is equivalent to how much information is required to describe the system. For example this string:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Has a much lower level of entropy than this string:

_(*q4&*#f30=]r9n&^#$

The first string can be recreated with a simple algorithm which repeats the same letter 20 times but the second string is entirely random and the information required to reproduce the string is much larger even though it also contains 20 characters, therefore is has a higher level of entropy. The difference can be seen if you run a compression algorithm on both strings. A perfectly random string cannot be compressed and so we say that it has the maximum possible level of entropy.

A human being has a "high" level of entropy because our physical structure is highly complex and the information required to reconstruct a human is not arbitrary. Even a small rock has a huge number of particles and one requires a large amount of information to describe the exact layout of all those particles. That is why an object with more mass has a higher level of entropy than an object with less mass.

And that is why objects start acting weird when they have a very small amount of mass, they have a very low entropy because the information required to recreate them is very small. They can pop in and out of existence and can exist in many places at the same time because they are ill defined low entropy systems. When they become entangled with a high energy/entropy system they inherit the classical behavior of that system.

The high entropy system acts as the observer and when it interacts with the lower entropy system it makes a measurement which forces that system to take on a more rigid definition (aka forces the wave function to collapse randomly), leading to a diminishing of the superposition effect as both systems merge into a single system. A qubit will decohere and become entangled with its high entropy environment unless carefully isolated.

The wiki page on quantum computers mentions "One of the greatest challenges is controlling or removing quantum decoherence. This usually means isolating the system from its environment as interactions with the external world cause the system to decohere". A qubit is a very pure and simple system. It must be simple because large objects don't like to be in a state of superposition for reasons I have explained.

But if you allow the qubit to interact with the messy and complicated environment it will become entangled with the environment and start behaving in a classical way instead of doing the weird stuff you need it to do in order for the quantum computer to function. Clearly the high entropy environment is interacting with the qubit and causing it to collapse into a well defined state, once again proving that nature does measurements without us.
edit on 22/5/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You're just all over the place lol!

You're talking about things that have nothing to do with whether conscious is non computable. You haven't presented in evidence to refute the math of Song or Penrose.

You have jumped to Decoherence and you don't understand it. If Decoherence solved the measurement problem there wouldn't still be a debate about the measurement problem with most Physicist understanding that decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem.

When you have decoherence, you still have a quantum ensemble.


A mixed state cannot be described as a ket vector. Instead, it is described by its associated density matrix (or density operator), usually denoted ρ. Note that density matrices can describe both mixed and pure states, treating them on the same footing. Moreover, a mixed quantum state on a given quantum system described by a Hilbert space H can be always represented as the partial trace of a pure quantum state (called a purification) on a larger bipartite system H otimes K for a sufficiently large Hilbert space K.


en.wikipedia.org...

There you have it. It's the same thing I said earlier. In a mixed state you have a quantum ensemble described by a Hilbert space. When a measurement occurs and single state is observed in localized space you have a Dirac Delta function. Decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem and that's why Physicist still debate.....THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM. It's like I said earlier.


Say you have a particle that has a 60/40 for up/down. In a pure state, it would be in superposition and interference terms will be present. When decoherence occurs it goes to a mixed state and the interference terms will not be present but you still will have a quantum ensemble of probable states.

When a measurement occurs and a single outcome is observed, you don't see an ensemble of states. WHY? If decoherence solved the measurement problem then observation should look mathematically like a mixed state but it doesn't. It goes from a wave function to a Dirac delta function when a measurement occurs and we perceive a single state. This is the measurement problem and it's why Decoherence doesn't solve it AT ALL.


Tell me, how does Decoherence take a mixed state described in Hilbert space to a Dirac Delta functon localized in space and the observer perceives a single outcome instead of a quantum ensemble?

Please, no more of your long winded bloviating about nothing. Let's see some evidence.

You just say stuff that's PURE NONSENSE! You just make stuff up without understanding anything you're talking about. You said:


The high entropy system acts as the observer and when it interacts with the lower entropy system it makes a measurement which forces that system to take on a more rigid definition (aka forces the wave function to collapse randomly), leading to a diminishing of the superposition effect as both systems merge into a single system.


Show me the Scientific paper or experiment that says a high entropy system acts as an observer when it interacts with a low entropy system which forces THE WAVE FUNCTION TO COLLAPSE!!

UTTER NONSENSE!!

You need to notify every Physicist in the world that this cause the wave function to collapse. We can stop all of the debates about the measurement problem and you can get a Nobel Prize for science.

This is just idiotic for lack of a better word. You say these silly things and provide no evidence to support anything you're saying. Again, we're on a Scientific forum and not a FANTASY FORUM where you can just say things without presenting a shred of evidence.

You know nothing about statistical thermodynamics when you say this:

For example this string:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Has a much lower level of entropy than this string:

_(*q4&*#f30=]r9n&^#$


WHAT?????????????

You have read about entropy but you don't understand what you're talking about so you say these asinine things WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to support anything that you're saying.

A human would be a low entropy system. A simple reading of Boltzmann, Shannon or even Schrodinger and his book What is Life? will tell you this. There's debates today as to why the universe began in a low entropy state. Of course you will tell us why this occurred WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE LOL!


Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings. In his influential 1944 monograph “What Is Life?” the eminent quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that this is what living things must do. A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure.


A human being is a low entropy system. You said this:

A human being has a "high" level of entropy because our physical structure is highly complex and the information required to reconstruct a human is not arbitrary.

More nonsense.

A human has a low level of entropy and can do so because we're in an open system. This means humans can move further from equilibrium and lower entropy locally as the overall entropy of the universe increases. If humans had a high level of entropy how could they have a complex internal structure as Schrodinger explained so eloquently in his book.

You have it mixed up. You think a high level of entropy means there's a high level complexity and information. This is just EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG. A system that has a higher level of complexity and information is in a low entropy state as it's further away from equilibrium.

So a high entropy systems can be an observer when they interact with low entropy systems and cause wave function collapse??????????????

Again, you say these things without providing a published paper or experiment to support any of this gibberish. You should call up Nature and a couple of other Journals and tell them to stop publishing papers on the wave function and measurement in physics because HIGH ENTROPY SYSTEMS INTERACT WITH LOW ENTROPY SYSTEMS AND CAUSE THE WAVE FUNCTION TO COLLAPSE.

That's it, let's end all Scientific exploration.

Most theories that involve decoherence have no wave function collapse just an appearance of wave function collapse. This is because there's no explanation as to how a mixed state described in Hilbert space becomes a Dirac Delta function in localized space when measured. Physicist recognize that decoherence can't explain this so they say the "collapse" is apparent.


edit on 22-5-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join