Why Quantum Theory is a bad host for Consciousness

Originally posted by tgidkp
is a disembodied "person" a coherent entity with which you can discuss?

Yes.

how?

Seance.
Or through a mental medium.

Or you can listen here.

Flint/Greene/Woods Recordings

Here is an expression of the Hameroff/Penrose perspective...

Link

Any thoughts?

reply to post by tgidkp


Your title states "Why Quantum Theory is a bad host for Consciousness," explain why?

I have been reading some books that disagree that quantum theory is a bad host for consciousness I will elaborate later as I am not at home to correctly source and cite some reading for you.

I will also commend you for this thread as your OP is easy to follow and has information I enjoy to read I have to admit I didn't read every post yet but I will as long as I dont wake up tomorrow with 58 more pages as this should be a good thread SnF

reply to post by tgidkp


I am having a hard time picturing your answers.

So far I've taken away this: Energy moves in an oscillating pattern and that motion (not the pattern/appearance of the motion, but the motion itself) works in a relationship with the motion of other energy to create compounded appearances/"Things".

Which is eigenstates?:
the motion
the force that creates the motion
both the force and the motion(if this please elaborate)

Again if you will: What forces are attributed to the oscillation/wells/frequency? [I am asking about the motion/force that creates the up/down of the oscillation] [Where are the forces from, and what are they called?]

Can you walk me through the visualization of scaling up from the eigenstate of a wave, up to the eigenstate of a particle (including the dynamics/controlling forces)?

I have more questions but that is enough for now.

reply to post by tgidkp


Ok, I see. I can simplify and generalize so easily the nature of nature. But I still have a hard time truly understanding what the heck it is and whats going on with it. Why it works as it does. What it is at its most fundamental and purest.

Reading your numbered posts in this reply, it made me think, in a simplified and general way, of waves, and or standing waves. As if the universe could be compared to an ocean, and each wave and ripple its own inherent quality, which produced other qualities when interacting with other quantities and qualities. The idea is also paralleled in music. You have many potential notes, as there are many potential particles. Notes are rarely a particle though, for it is hard to get a string to vibrate only once or a half a time. So pitch is a frequency, a wave. These waves interact with one another to create new examples of 'things that can exist', as particles can interact to create new phenomenon, substance, or material. The thing with the universe is that the source of the pitch, frequency, or notes, or rhythm, seems to be unending.

But we know things can be converted in so many ways. Music can be represented digitally, with electrons. Music can be represented symbolically by dots and lines on paper. Just as reality can be represented so many ways, as particles, analogously as music or a sea, symbolically as math, symbolically as dots and lines on paper as language. But how do references really encapsulate the true nature of the true nature. How can we really know what energy means, what the truest more primal and pure substance, and stuffness of reality is? How can we comprehend an electron, a field, space? How do we interpret the existence of quintilliontrillion standing wave patterns that can create a semi stable biology?

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Kashai

 

i am gonna fend off the counter-argument to the idea of "infinite resolution" in that quote. it is oft cited that the planck constant (hbar) is the physical limit of the universe. not quite true.

hbar is the physical limit on our ability to measure the universe.

that may or may not be the same thing.

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's tortoises all the way down!"
—Hawking, 1988

turtles....all the way down.

I disagree, but if you can argue my point I will consider your thought process. If you hold your hands palms facing, an inch apart from one another, you are saying there is an infinite amount of space between your hands? That would mean you would never be able to clap, because the atoms in your hand will have to travel infinitely far distance for an infinite amount of time. Nothing would ever happen if this were the case, no limits. There would be no interactions. It just doesnt make sense what you are describing. How can you imagine a manifold, an arena containing energy (finite amount of energy? infinite amount of energy?) and inside this arena, there are 'spaces' which go 'inward' infinitely? That makes no sense.

Also you say 'H bar is our limit to measure the universe'.. which is false. We have never even gotten close to zooming in that far 'inward'. It is actually a deduction. Based on what the smallest possible 'increment of space' could be, so that out measurements of more macro things that exist in greater numbers of incremental space, like subatomic particles, atoms, and em radiation, could interact with one another, and exhibit their specific discrete values, according to the physical variables and circumstances which led to their creation and subsequent interactions.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Ima do you realize that there can be an infinite amount of space between you hands if there is no real planks space-time?

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Explain how. What would the scenario be regarding the quality of space and energy that your statement would be true?

Check out this book:

Quantum Enigma
(physics encounters consciousness; from cover)
by:
Bruce Rosenblum
Fred Kuttner

This book is directly related to your thread and pretty much argues the exact opposite of what the title suggests.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Ima do you realize that there can be an infinite amount of space between you hands if there is no real planks space-time?

Any thoughts?

Explain how. What would the scenario be regarding the quality of space and energy that your statement would be true?

im wondering if youll ever answer. You must have some way in mind that it would be possible, you couldnt be just saying something, making it up could you? So you can definitely provide 1 way in which this may be possible, but if its not proven fact that that way is possible and must be true, perhaps there are multiple hypothetical and theoretical ways, so all im asking is you at least describe 1.

reply to post by ImaFungi


You felt a space manifold was impossible and you mentioned planks space-time and the issue of it being not validated by observation and could be incorrect.. So with respect to Fractal theory there can be an infinite amount of space time between your hands. with respect to planks space time being more a limit of our perceptions than an actual barrier.

Honestly you essentially answered your question and that by the way was very funny.

You make very little sense actually

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

You felt a space manifold was impossible and you mentioned planks space-time and the issue of it being not validated by observation and could be incorrect.. So with respect to Fractal theory there can be an infinite amount of space time between your hands.

with respect to planks space time being more a limit of our perceptions than an actual barrier.

Honestly you essentially answered your question and that by the way was very funny.

You make very little sense actually

Oh I get it. You must be speaking for and to yourself. I think I broke you.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Dream on