Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 6:58 AM
133 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 131 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Quantum physics: Copenhagen vs decoherence interpretations
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 46 of 57 (482348)
09-16-2008 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
09-15-2008 7:45 PM


Re: Freewill
Do the views of Roger Penrose regarding QM and it's relationship with consciousness, freewill etc. etc. have much support within the community of scientists working in QM and other areas of modern theoretical physics?

Penrose's idea required the brain to be quantum mechanical. In the past few years we've become much better at telling when a given system is influenced by quantum mechanics or not. From this the brain is known to be classical and Penrose's idea is falsified. Even more importantly neurologists say it doesn't hold up to what we know about the brain.
BTW - The Second Creation: Finally got round to reading it. Not yet finished but a great read so far. The copy I have is quite old (1988 I think) but the principles it explains and the historical narrative approach are just what I was looking for.

There is very little new in the second edition just some corrected typos and an afterword.

One of highlights of the book for me was the interview with Schwinger. Although I would be at odds with some physicists I think Schwinger and Feynman were the greatest physicists of the second half of the twentieth century.. Unfortunatly even though one can learn from Feynman's conception of physics through all he wrote, Schwinger rarely said anything or published texts, so it was good to see what he was like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 09-15-2008 7:45 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 6:34 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 47 of 57 (482360)
09-16-2008 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
09-15-2008 7:45 PM


Re: Freewill
Daniel Dubois, Robert Rosen, Karl Pribram, Stuart Kaufmann are several other scientists who have theory that supports free wil. I also see much comment that they perceive themselves as fighting the big mainstream reductionist group, with many issues having opposing free explanations and a reductionist explanation. For example red-shift by big bang according to reductionists, and redshift by newly formed galaxies according to the "decisionists". That is the big paradigm-shift in science that is waiting to happen since many decades.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 09-15-2008 7:45 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 2:21 PM Syamsu has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 57 (482410)
09-16-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Syamsu
09-16-2008 8:17 AM


Re: Freewill
Syamsu
Freewill, consciousness, determinism, many worlds interpretation of QM etc. etc. etc are fascinating topics. Maybe the people you mention have something intelligent to say on these matters. Or maybe they do not. I don't know. A serious thread on their conclusions may well be a valid and worthwhile opportunity for learning and debate.

However after our last discussion one thing I am certain of is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with regard to any of these matters. You have no idea what science actually involves. You have even less clue as to the implications of various interpretations of QM, or even of what QM actually relates to. Your incessant bleatings about GR, redshifts and other such things in the context of freewill and consciousness just confirm your woeful ignorance of all things scientific.

You have a preconceived faith based position and in your ignorance you leap upon whatever random theory you think supports this position. You seem to do this indiscriminately and with no regard to your ignorance or how irrelevant the theory in question may be to your point of view. Nor do you seem to have any self awareness as to how ridiculous you make yourself and your position look in the process of doing this. Decision making toothbrushes, benevolent coffee cups, evil planetary orbits, irrational chocolate bars and dead brainless mice "choosing" the manner in which they decompose are just a few choice examples of your insanity in action. I suspect that even your fellow creationists, as low as their standards of reason so often are, cringe with embarrassment when you start making these ridiculous assertions in contexts that you so obviously know nothing about. You are desperate to dress up your beliefs in scientific clothing to give them some sort of superficial validity but instead you just succeed in displaying your unbounded depths of ignorance and stupidity.

As if all of this were not frustrating enough you will also stubbornly insist that you are right even when quite evidently contradicting yourself, you don't listen to anything else anyone says, you point blank refuse to answer any questions or respond to any points and you have absolute unshakeable conviction that all your arguments are well founded, self evident and reasonable despite everyone around you demonstrating otherwise.

You are not the persecuted messenger of the great paradigm shift in science towards the creationist dream. You are a harbinger of nonsense, scourge of reasoned debate, destroyer of intelligent conversation and current bane of EvC forum.

This thread is discussing quantum interpretations. Son Goku is ably answering questions and explaining difficult concepts on this topic to those who genuinely want to know more. In my opinion we would be better off without your inane ill conceived ramblings cluttering things up.

Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and rant factor amendment


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2008 8:17 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2008 4:45 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 09-16-2008 5:13 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 49 of 57 (482437)
09-16-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
09-16-2008 2:21 PM


Re: Freewill
Well spoken, like an ideal atheist. You pressure science on people with such force, while at the same time you say it is depressingly nihilistic. I also wonder how for instance people will be ready to be a judge or juror, when they havent learned to differentiate free behaviour from forced behaviour.

Strange that you would object to weirdness of toothbrushes deciding in a thread about quantummechanics. Evidently you know very little about the weird findings of qm in regards to interrference, and whichway information.

And you are right that I loathe science, and scientists generally also. But even I can understand that fundamentally there is a generally free will paradigm, and a generally causal paradigm, since the scientists talk about these 2 fundamental paradigms commonly. You dismissed the free will paradigm, so nice going for getting nowhere at all in discussing quantum mechanics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 2:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 6:14 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 53 by ramoss, posted 09-16-2008 7:04 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 54 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2008 8:10 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 50 of 57 (482447)
09-16-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
09-16-2008 2:21 PM


Re: Freewill
Hi Straggler,

Nice post. I too have grown tired of Syamsu's ridiculous attempts to incorporate his non-sensical theories into true scientific fields.

Judging by his response it seems that your post fell on deaf ears. I guess Syamsus' ears have the freewill to ignore sound advice. I anticipate that he'll continue his incessant tirads about "Decision making toothbrushes, benevolent coffee cups, evil planetary orbits, irrational chocolate bars and dead brainless mice "choosing" the manner in which they decompose" and continue to show his ignorance here on EvC.

We can only hope that his computer shows the freewill to shut down and not allow him to respond on these threads...but, then again, that would only be proof that computers have freewill and we'd be right back where we started ;)


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 2:21 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 51 of 57 (482461)
09-16-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Syamsu
09-16-2008 4:45 PM


Re: Freewill
Strange that you would object to weirdness of toothbrushes deciding in a thread about quantummechanics.
Evidently you know very little about the weird findings of qm in regards to interrference, and whichway information.

You idiot. Listen to yourself.
I studied QM for three years. Even taking this into account the biggest difference between you and I in terms of our respective knowledge of the subject is that I know how little I know. You on the other hand know so little and think you know so much that you can take what you think you know and twist it to support whatever ridiculous assertion fits your latest dogmatic fantasy.

And you are right that I loathe science, and scientists generally also.

Your declared pride in your ignorance is even more depressingly astonishing than the alarming level of conceited ignorance that you actually display.

You dismissed the free will paradigm, so nice going for getting nowhere at all in discussing quantum mechanics.

If you had the remotest clue about anything whatsover you would realise that this is exactly what I was discussing. With someone who does actually know what they are talking about. Until you popped up with your uniquely absurd and relentlessly irksome brand of imbecilic drivel.

You carry on if you so wish. I shall not be responding to any more of your pointless rubbish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2008 4:45 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 57 (482462)
09-16-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Son Goku
09-16-2008 5:09 AM


Re: Freewill
Penrose's idea required the brain to be quantum mechanical. In the past few years we've become much better at telling when a given system is influenced by quantum mechanics or not.

That sounds intriguing. What recent developments have occurred that make this more possible/reliable? Are you talking technological, mathematical, conceptual....??

Even more importantly neurologists say it doesn't hold up to what we know about the brain.

Yes I had heard that regarding his theories.

Although I would be at odds with some physicists I think Schwinger and Feynman were the greatest physicists of the second half of the twentieth century..

I think Feynman is a bit of a hero for the vast majority of physics students of "my generation". Certainly inspired me to study the subject. Schwinger I guess was just less of a character and self publicist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Son Goku, posted 09-16-2008 5:09 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 09-19-2008 12:13 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 57 by Son Goku, posted 09-21-2008 7:54 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3099
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 53 of 57 (482468)
09-16-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Syamsu
09-16-2008 4:45 PM


Re: Freewill

Re: Freewill
Well spoken, like an ideal atheist. You pressure science on people with such force, while at the same time you say it is depressingly nihilistic. I also wonder how for instance people will be ready to be a judge or juror, when they havent learned to differentiate free behaviour from forced behaviour.

Strange that you would object to weirdness of toothbrushes deciding in a thread about quantummechanics. Evidently you know very little about the weird findings of qm in regards to interrference, and whichway information.

And you are right that I loathe science, and scientists generally also. But even I can understand that fundamentally there is a generally free will paradigm, and a generally causal paradigm, since the scientists talk about these 2 fundamental paradigms commonly. You dismissed the free will paradigm, so nice going for getting nowhere at all in discussing quantum mechanics.

You mean, he actually wants this thing known as 'evidence' and 'facts'??? I personally like evidence and facts on which to base my conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2008 4:45 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 54 of 57 (482489)
09-16-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Syamsu
09-16-2008 4:45 PM


Syamsu do not post here.
You do not fit in this thread. Do not post here again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Syamsu, posted 09-16-2008 4:45 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 55 of 57 (482985)
09-19-2008 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Straggler
09-16-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Freewill
Straggler writes:

That sounds intriguing. What recent developments have occurred that make this more possible/reliable? Are you talking technological, mathematical, conceptual....??

Hey Straggler I thought you might enjoy this read. Towards the bottom of the paper it gets into the topic of QM regarding brain funtions. Hope you enjoy it.

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 6:34 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 09-20-2008 4:37 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 57 (483188)
09-20-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by onifre
09-19-2008 12:13 PM


Re: Freewill
Good link. When I have moe time I might post some more qustions regarding this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 09-19-2008 12:13 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 57 of 57 (483262)
09-21-2008 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Straggler
09-16-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Freewill
Straggler writes:

That sounds intriguing. What recent developments have occurred that make this more possible/reliable? Are you talking technological, mathematical, conceptual....??


All three. The fields of quantum computation, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum measurement theory have provided the main advancements.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not the size of an object which determines if it is classical or not, but rather how "thermal" it is. Thermal meaning how much it interacts with its surroundings. Large objects are always interacting and hence are rarely quantum in nature. To help people in seeing this, one may view an interaction as a measurement. Big objects are always being measured and are thus "forced" by measurement to be in a definite state.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2008 6:34 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019