Quantum ethology and its philosophical aspects

[Linkey]

I have some knowledge of quantum mechanics, game theory and ethology, and I think that these sciences can be united into one.

The ethology and game theory are nice new sciences which answer many philosophycal questions now: what is the Good and Evil, how did they appear in the evolution, and how do they interact. I can write this later.

Roger Penrose has suggested that quantum effects are working in the nervous system of living organisms. Currently there is some experimental evidence in favour of this hypothesis:

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/3/1/6

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640

https://opg.optica.org/opn/abstract.cfm?uri=opn-30-4-42

 

If this is true, then we can assume that there is quantum entanglement between the brains of related individuals in nature; and then it is easy to assume that the evolution has "invented" quantum pseudo-telepathy which helps animals to survive and reproduce. Then a new science is needed to study this - quantum ethology. Has anyone proposed it?

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Roger Penrose has suggested that quantum effects are working in the nervous system of living organisms

Given that nervous systems are ultimately comprised of particles, which are subject to quantum mechanics, it’s impossible for this to be false.

The relevant issue is if any quantum effects survive in any measurable way. People diffract when they walk through a doorway, owing to the wave nature we know exists, but I don’t think anyone is foolish enough to assert that it has any measurable effect.

[Linkey]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Given that nervous systems are ultimately comprised of particles, which are subject to quantum mechanics, it’s impossible for this to be false.

All physical effects are quantum, but some are more quantum (c).

I think I can say more precisely: it is very probable that the evolution has "invented" some methonds to supress the decoherence for keeping the quantum entanglement constant.

Edited October 27 by Linkey

[TheVat]

5 minutes ago, Linkey said:

think I can say more precisely: it is very probable that the evolution has "invented" some methods to supress the decoherence for keeping the quantum entanglement constant.

So a Bose Einstein Condensate can exist in the hot wet noisy environment of the brain?  Any evidence for Hamerof's microtubule theory?  Haven't seen anything on this but conjecture and I tend towards Tegmark's objection - he determined the decoherence timescale of microtubule entanglement at brain temperatures to be on the order of femtoseconds, far too brief for neural processing. 

[Linkey]

23 minutes ago, TheVat said:

So a Bose Einstein Condensate can exist in the hot wet noisy environment of the brain?  Any evidence for Hamerof's microtubule theory?  Haven't seen anything on this but conjecture and I tend towards Tegmark's objection - he determined the decoherence timescale of microtubule entanglement at brain temperatures to be on the order of femtoseconds, far too brief for neural processing. 

The evolution is a "blind constructor", this means that the evolution is unable to "invent" many simple things because these inventions require series of subsequent steps, and these steps decrese the chances of survival of a specie. For example, the evolution was unable to invent a wheel because of this reason (not all but some animals could benefit of having something like a propeller). But at the same time, this constructor "knows" absolutely all laws of nature, including the laws the humanity haven't yet discovered, and I see quite probable that these unknown laws permit making a stable quantum entanglement.

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, Linkey said:

All physical effects are quantum, but some are more quantum (c).

More like QM is everywhere, but a lot of the time it doesn’t matter.

38 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I think I can say more precisely: it is very probable that the evolution has "invented" some methonds to supress the decoherence for keeping the quantum entanglement constant.

The issue I have with some of these QM in biology stories is that they’re built on multiply-stacked hypotheses, individually without experimental confirmation. And the top-level proposal, of course, also lacks such evidence. Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

[TheVat]

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

unknown laws

If they are unknown, how do you know of them and form opinions on their likelihood?  

[Linkey]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

I suppose, these effects are currently considered as pseudo-scientific now. Maybe the "usual" telepathy is that very quantum pseudo-telepathy?

[Luc Turpin]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

More like QM is everywhere, but a lot of the time it doesn’t matter.

The issue I have with some of these QM in biology stories is that they’re built on multiply-stacked hypotheses, individually without experimental confirmation. And the top-level proposal, of course, also lacks such evidence. 

We would not be contemplating quantum mechanical processes if classical ones were satisfactory at uncovering how the brain works.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

Circumstancal ; nothing conclusive; still fishing for answers

https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.110.024402

https://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/99/101

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/

I remain sceptical that QM can address all of the issues of the mind-brain conundrum.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

I suppose, these effects are currently considered as pseudo-scientific now. Maybe the "usual" telepathy is that very quantum pseudo-telepathy?

Quantum pseudo-telepathy suffers from the same problem as quantum teleportation: the name evokes an unfortunate response in lay audiences. p-t is not actual telepathy (which is pseudoscience, and unfortunately that actually exists)

Don’t hang your hat on the cute/quirky naming habits of physicists. Such names are not chosen to be literal, they are often puns or analogies. (A big one in my field is ‘“optical molasses” because the effect involves a large damping force, i.e. it appears viscous, not because it’s literally molasses or shares other properties of that substance)

 

19 hours ago, Linkey said:

The evolution is a "blind constructor", this means that the evolution is unable to "invent" many simple things because these inventions require series of subsequent steps, and these steps decrese the chances of survival of a specie. For example, the evolution was unable to invent a wheel because of this reason (not all but some animals could benefit of having something like a propeller). But at the same time, this constructor "knows" absolutely all laws of nature, including the laws the humanity haven't yet discovered, and I see quite probable that these unknown laws permit making a stable quantum entanglement.

I would also caution you to not get your biology info from creationist sources.

[Mordred]

My favorite is Penquinn diagrams for certain Feymann integrals.

[Linkey]

I am a fan of ethology, and I know that the ethology (a combination of the game theory with the theory of evolution) gives the answers to the questions about the nature of Good and Evil. Here are these answers in brief:

1) The altruism and the selfishness appear in situations with the games with non-zero sums;
2) The Good is altruism, the Evil is selfishness. More exactly, the Evil is a behavior that is beneficial for the one who commits it, and disadvantageous for others;
3) For each person it is beneficial to behave selfishly, but when everybody in the population behaves selfishly, this population suffers from that;
4) The altruism is unstable; this means, that if some people in the population behave selfishly, they live better than others and correspondingly they spread their genes or memes more efficiently, and their number increases;
5) The altruism can be supported by group selection together with the Simpson's paradox, but this requires certain conditions;
6) A more common way of suppressing the selfishness is the social contract ("Leviathan"); however this way has its own faults, in particular a new type of Evil can occur with it - authoritarian state. This is explained by the fact that the people who are chosen be in power for supressing the egoists, are egoists themselves.

How these principles should be reconsidered for the world where quantum effects play a big role?