Quantum tunneling and the universe

[Chalnoth]

I suggest looking into Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's work. A self-collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience.

Oh, well, that would be because that's pseudoscientific nonsense that has no place in any sort of serious discussion. It's really sad that Penrose has more or less gone off the deep end. But it does happen.

 

[audioloop]

No, it doesn't. Not by any of the imagination. No is required for collapse, as I already showed you earlier.

right,

Collapse of the State Vector
Steven Weinberg
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6462.pdf
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v85/i6/e062116

...the state vector of any system, large or small, undergoes a stochastic evolution. The general class of theories is described, in which the probability distribution of the state vector collapses to a sum of delta functions, one for each possible final state, with coefficients given by the Born rule...

 

[Rational T]

Oh, well, that would be because that's pseudoscientific nonsense that has no place in any sort of serious discussion. It's really sad that Penrose has more or less gone off the deep end. But it does happen.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

 

[audioloop]

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

I finally got an answer to my question by a poster on this site, and my thread gets removed. I broke no rules, so it seems some mod out there drunk with power. It is utterly pitiful, as I thought this was supposed to be a legitimate physics website, not one with corrupt mods.

be careful with your opinions, claims.

 

[Rational T]

be careful with your claims.

I am careful. Claiming something is "nonsense" without reasoning is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Anybody can hand wave something away and mock it. That says nothing with regards to it's validity.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am careful. Claiming something is "nonsense" without reasoning is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. Anybody can hand wave something away and mock it. That says nothing with regards to it's validity.

I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The Wikipedia article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism

 

[audioloop]

I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism

Chal do not lose your time.

 

[Rational T]

I ridicule the Orch-OR theory because it deserves to be ridiculed. It's really that bad. The Wikipedia article has a somewhat okay summary of why it's so bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR#Criticism

"Recently the debate has focused round papers by Reimers et al. and McKemmish et al. and Hameroff's replies to these, which is not regarded as being independently reviewed. The Reimers paper claimed that microtubules could only support 'weak' 8 MHz coherence, but that the Orch-OR proposals required a higher rate of coherence. Hameroff, however, claims that 8 MHz coherence is sufficient to support the Orch-OR proposal. McKemmish et al. makes two claims; firstly that aromatic molecules cannot switch states because they are delocalised. Hameroff, however, claims that he is referring to the behaviour of two or more electron clouds; secondly McKemmish shows that changes in tubulin conformation driven by GTP conversion would result in a prohibitive energy requirement. Against this, Hameroff claims that all that is required is switching in electron cloud dipole states produced by London forces.

You are right there are rebuttals. Too bad you neglect the fact that Hameroff answers all of them.

 

[Chalnoth]

You are right there are rebuttals. Too bad you neglect the fact that Hameroff answers all of them.

If only they were answered in a coherent manner that made any sense.

 

[audioloop]

None of that has to do with the fact that a -collapsing wave-function is a conscious experience. You admitted that the universal wave-function is self-collapsing, then this proves an ultimate consciousness. So, it seems science has proved what humans have known for thousands of years already. Thanks for your help!

self collapse comes from nonlinear quantum mechanics, nothing to do with conscious universe.

 

[Rational T]

If only they were answered in a coherent manner that made any sense.

What was incoherent about it?

 

[Chalnoth]

What was incoherent about it?

Honestly, it's not worth my time. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness. The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever.

 

[Rational T]

Honestly, it's not worth my time. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness. The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever.

"Honestly, it's not worth my time. "

So it is worth your time to call something "nonsense" without foundation, but not worth your time to actually support this assertion sufficiently. How convenient...

"It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness."

Fair enough, but it is relevant to quantum tunneling models. Quantum Tunneling relies on a wave-function that must collapse. If self-collapsing wave-functions are conscious experiences, then there are huge problems with quantum tunneling models if this fact is neglected. Basically, quantum tunneling models are trying to show that an Atheistic universe is possible. However, if a self-collapsing wave function if a conscious experience, then the model fails at its task.

"The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever."

Yes, you did, and I appreciate that. You have been very helpful in this thread and I cannot thank you enough. However, your response only works if Orch-Or is false. Since you do not wish to support this assertion, then I'm not sure how valid your response is.

 

[Rational T]

Honestly, it's not worth my time. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand anyway, as the topic at hand has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum nature (or lack thereof) of human consciousness. The question of whether or not observation is required to cause decoherence is a separate question, and I've already posted an observational demonstration of the fact that no conscious observer is required whatsoever.

Either way, I thank you. You have provided many answers that left me with more knowledge than before. So, I do not feel this conversation has been worthless.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Orch-Or, or any quantum conciousness hypothesis for that matter, is not accepted by mainstream neuroscience. At the moment such proposals are little more than speculation with no real evidence to back them up. The time to tentatively accept a hypothesis is after it has met it's burden of proof, not before.