Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Quantum can't model a mind using quantum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by grmorton View Post
    I'm through with this thread since discussing things with Shunya isn't really a discussion--either way I guess. Frank, I apologize for the ridicule, but I get very tired of people who just spout their opinions about things they don't understand and who want others to do the research they themselves could most assuredly do themselves. Theologyweb and all the other places are full of such self-important folk.


    In post 29 Shunya said:" The odd way you worded the opening title reflects this problems:Quantum can't model a mind using quantum Read this again and understand the circular nonsense here."

    The OP actually answered Shunya's complaint. Something inside that lab with the scientist can't be modeled by quantum. because if everything could be modeled, then they would not have gotten the contradictions they noted. They followed the rules of quantum and got inconsistencies. That only happens when one has two contradictory assumptions. By going through the 3 assumptions Frauchiger and Renner laid out, the most likely assumption which must be wrong is the one says that quantum can be applied universally. By universally, they mean absolutely everything from atoms to consciousness. But is that true?

    We surely think we know that the biology of the brain's atoms and molecules can be modeled by quantum. So if consciousness arises from the action of the quantum controlled atoms and molecules of the brain, then quantum should be able to model consciousness. As I have shown, quantum mechanics places the observer-the consciousness above and apart from matter. This would indicate that consciousness is not subject to the quantum math/system. The mathematics of quantum mechanics has no mechanism describing collapse to only one reality which we observe and this is why the observer was required to collapse the wavelet. No other area of science requires an observer which is apart from nature for the theory to work. Indeed in the OP I pointed out that Steven Weinberg thinks it very odd that humans are part of physical theory. He said science "shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature" But humans ARE at the beginning of the laws of Nature; quantum says so. As I showed in the OP the observer is above and apart from matter. Thus, I showed that the likely place where quantum breaks down is in its ability to use itself to model a conscious observer--the scientist. Yes, the scientists body can be modeled by QM but can his/her mind be modeled by QM? I think this is where the problem noted by Frauchiger and Renner arises. Assumption Q of Frauchiger's and Renner's paper is that QM is universally applicable--to everything. This would include the mind/consciousness. If the mind is not modelable by QM then my title is perfectly well explained.

    Nature magazine where the article was published entitled it: "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself". Let us ask who uses quantum theory? Only conscious beings use quantum. Atoms molecules etc FOLLOW quantum, but they don't USE the theory in the sense Frauchiger and Renner are saying. Consider the passage in the Absract:



    Notice that they themselves are questioning whether quantum has universal validity and whether quantum can model the agents (read that conscious beings using quantum). The agents have minds\conciousness--they are observers in the quantum world, and the authors found that the agents can't be modeled. Maybe a more acceptable title would be 'Can quantum mechanics model an observer?'. The answer seems to be no. Thus again the reason for the title of this thread. If someone has problems with that thinking it is 'circular' which it isn't, they should immediately contact Nature magazine to correct them. Take care. Shunya has stolen another thread of mine. Next thread I post I am specifically excluding his uselessness.
    As I previously indicated I was looking for other input from the Twebbers with some competence in science, but it was not forth coming.

    You apologized for your ridicule, but unfortunately continued to lay it on thicker and heavier than ever.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment

    Related Threads

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
    48 responses
    136 views
    0 likes
    Last Post Sparko
    by Sparko
     
    Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
    16 responses
    74 views
    0 likes
    Last Post shunyadragon  
    Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
    6 responses
    48 views
    0 likes
    Last Post shunyadragon  
    Working...
    X