Towards a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause?

[merlin wood]

No, he does not need to "prove" anything. He only has to highlight the shortcomings of your approach - it is up to you to either show how they are not in fact shortcomings, or fix them. If you can do neither then the hypothesis has pretty much failed.

 

Well maybe, given half the chance, I'll get to that. It's just the blind contention that my argument is not worth considering from the outset that gets me.

 

But think, for one thing, how could any mathematical calculations describe the smell of coffee or the feeling of being tickled or fed up or the fact that there are or could be such things?

[Klaynos]

Chemical reactions can be modelled mathematically, that's all you've described above. They cause electrical signals to the brain which can be modelled and then the brains method of interpretation could be modelled. Coffee is just arbitrary, but we could (and can) create similar systems that detect chemicals in the air and that's all the smell of coffee is a chemical mix.

[bascule]

Many physicists and others have suggested that quantum physics could provide insights into the nature of mind and consciousness.

 

There's not really that many physicists arguing for quantum consciousness, and to my knowledge the only ones who have published a paper on the matter are Penrose and Hameroff (and Hameroff is not a physicist). Their paper, which argues for microtubules in neurons exhibiting quantum mechanical behavior, has been roundly criticizes and effectively discredited by other physicists like Max Tegmark. To the best of our knowledge the brain is a classical system which does not exhibit behaviors which can only be explained by quantum mechanics.

 

That said, modern cognitive science focuses on the mind as a symbolic, connectionist, or dynamical system. Only the latter leaves room for quantum mechanical behavior.

[Sayonara]

Well maybe, given half the chance, I'll get to that.

 

You might have given it some thought before you started writing, to be quite frank.

[merlin wood]

Chemical reactions can be modelled mathematically, that's all you've described above. They cause electrical signals to the brain which can be modelled and then the brains method of interpretation could be modelled.

 

But this would not describe the smell of coffee just as such or demonstrate as fact that anyone is smelling such a thing, so maybe it's just something happening in the brain that makes someone say that they smell coffee.

Edited June 30, 2008 by merlin wood
typo

[Royston]

But this would not describe the smell of coffee just as suchof demonstrate as fact that anyone is smelling such a thing, so maybe it's just something happening in the brain that makes someone say that they smell coffee.

 

Esters bind to certain receptors, what's your point, and how does this relate to your hypothesis.

[merlin wood]

You might have given it some thought before you started writing, to be quite frank.

 

But who knows what the future might bring?

[Royston]

But who knows what the future might bring?

 

Death

[merlin wood]

Death

 

Well OK but then what comes after death? And I was just thinking of the unpredictability of human beings and what could be said on any forum thread.

 

There's not really that many physicists arguing for quantum consciousness, and to my knowledge the only ones who have published a paper on the matter are Penrose and Hameroff (and Hameroff is not a physicist). Their paper, which argues for microtubules in neurons exhibiting quantum mechanical behavior, has been roundly criticizes and effectively discredited by other physicists like Max Tegmark. To the best of our knowledge the brain is a classical system which does not exhibit behaviors which can only be explained by quantum mechanics.

 

That said, modern cognitive science focuses on the mind as a symbolic, connectionist, or dynamical system. Only the latter leaves room for quantum mechanical behavior.

 

But then there are aspects of mind one could imagine might be simply described in a causal theory. So what if an invisible cause of quantum entanglement was essentially the same thing as an invisible something that mskes consciousness possible and in addition to what can be found in the brain or anything else in the body?

Edited June 30, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[Sayonara]

But who knows what the future might bring?

 

That is beside the point. You either have a hypothesis which is ready to be critiqued, or you do not.

[bascule]

But then there are aspects of mind one could imagine might be simply described in a causal theory.

 

I don't forsee the description being simple. However, the overwhelming number of descriptions which are either of a symbolic or connectionist nature will be driven by discrete events and may therefore be considered causal / deterministic.

 

So what if an invisible cause of quantum entanglement was essentially the same thing as an invisible something that mskes consciousness possible

 

There's no reason to assume quantum mechanical behavior is behind consciousness. For starters, consciousness is a metaphysical system whereas quantum mechanics describes physical behavior.

 

To begin to link consciousness to quantum mechanics you must first demonstrate that the brain exhibits behavior inexplicable by classical mechanics. Then you must demonstrate how brain activity and the content of consciousness relate.

 

So far there's little reason to believe the brain demonstrates expressly quantum mechanical behavior, short of Penrose's papers on the matter.

[merlin wood]

That is beside the point. You either have a hypothesis which is ready to be critiqued, or you do not.

 

Well I do have such a hypothesis on my blog, Sayonara, which I've linked to several times on this thread. But no one seems prepared to consider what it says except for the fact that it contains no mathematical calculations.

 

But this is an 18,000 word paper that considers the findings of quantum physics as well as an existng, mathematically justified causal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then the paper justifies and then postulates visual diagrams representing a nonlocally acting cause from its effects that would produce quantum entanglement and the quantum wave property. A universal verbally desribed nonlocal causal property is then also justified and described. And such a cause of quantum entanglement would not, in any case, have any properties that could be described by calculation to definitely show that the cause acts in the world at all. For, unlike those of all the forces, the effects of quantum entanglement can't be measured and calculated to have any strength. The causal diagrams are thus an essential key to the whole theoretical argument.

 

The causal diagrams in the quantum interpretation or hypothesis are then related to evidence of living organisms with respect to certain basic properties that could be descibed of the mind and consciousness and which have been much discussed in modern academic philosophy. And the verbally described causal property is related to certain general characteristics of the behaviour of living organisms, and both these aspects could apply to the nature and behaviour of human beings.

 

I then consider the quantum wave property in relation to a possible Big Bang cosmological theory and postulate and then diagramatically represent a more detailed nonlocal cause of the quantum wave. This causal representation is then considered in relation to the formation and form of galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmic voids and how the nonlocal cause could act together with gravity. And it is considered how the spiral structure of galaxies and their rotation curves could be a nonlocal effect, rather than the yet to be directly detected WIMP dark matter. I've also thought how the cause could assist in the formation of stars and planetary systems and contribute to stellar energy output (so, in particular, there can still be considered a problem in explaining the extreme heat of the sun's corona in present theory).

 

I also propose a possible experiment that might more sensitively detect neutrinos to see whether there could be a shortfall in solar output at lower energies than have so far been detected. This could indicate that not all the sun's energy is caused by nuclear fusion.

 

This paper is the briefest possible summary I could manage of what a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause could be like. And I have since considered other arguments that could support a nonlocal theory of living organisms. I have also read about other astronomical evidence that could support the cosmological theory.

 

The whole theory could easily be of book length but I could not possibly write it alone especially since, for one thing, I don't have the mathematical skills to develop the cosmology (and I'm really too old to start learning the appropriate maths, having not been particularly good at it at school, anyway). But I can conceive the general theory could generate whole new branches of science.

 

My blog account really needs to be seriously considered as a whole to assess the empirical validity of its argument, that's why I'm reluctant to have just parts of it pulled to bits on a forum thread.

 

But the whole argument could be summarised by the folowing thought:

 

The universe has been found to be of a particular organised form on the small scale as the various atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds and then the species of living organisms; then on the astronomical scale there are the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and galaxy walls and filamentary clusters around vast cosmic voids. So why assume that all this natural organisation is just the result of the push or pull causes that are the known forces?

 

Then, however, there's the problem that all the evidence indicates that the cosmos, as perceived in three dimensions of space, only contains the known forces as these act universally...

Edited July 1, 2008 by merlin wood
typos + added clarifications

[Sayonara]

Well, this is your problem in a nutshell:

 

18,000 words is 1/4 of your average paperback novel. There is no research scientist with enough time on their hands to carefully read 18,000 words on a topic with a vague title. The usual approach is to go straight to the maths, which should aptly summarise the thoughts behind the work and indicate whether investing a day in reading the whole thing is worth it... but you don't provide any. This is so contrary to convention that it does not engender much faith in the rest of the content.

 

Secondly, a blog is not the format in which we expect to read a theory. It's newest material at the top (i.e. it doesn't read chronologically) so does that mean we have to fish about in the archives for the start of your articles, then read backwards?

Where is the abstract, if any? That would really help. I am still not sure what the "nonlocally acting cause" is, what it does, or why we need one.

 

I think in your case, collaboration with someone who is well versed in maths and publishing conventions would be a good idea. It's difficult to get any idea across if you don't use the expected protocols.

[merlin wood]

I've now changed the format on the Blog page with the abstract at the top (as it was originally in fact).

 

But then, having re-read the cosmological argument for the first time after a year or so, I think it could do with a bit of an overhaul...

[Sayonara]

It's good when something positive comes out of being criticised!

[merlin wood]

It's good when something positive comes out of being criticised!

 

For a change.

 

---------

[edit]

 

One can say that, on the one hand, there are physiological, biochemical and electrochemical states of the brain which can be observed or directly detected, and on the other hand there are states of mind as thoughts, emotions, sensations and perceptions which, just as subjectively experienced, can't be observed or directly detect by examining anything in the body at all. Although, from the physiological evidence of the brain, it could be assumed that for every mental state there is a corresponding brain or bodily state that produces it.

 

But then you can ask how do brain states get to being mental states? So how can any brain process that may produce the smell of coffee be transformed or translated into the smell of coffee itself? And also while you may able to detect and identify the brain process that produces the coffee smell you can ask where in the body is this smell that one has of coffee, just as a mental state? Or where is the experience of the colour red, the pain in the foot, the feeling of optimism or despair and so on?

 

So for such reasons that neither mental states nor, indeed, anything the may be called the mind, self or experiencing subject that may possess these states, can be observed or directly detected anywhere in the body, it can be the thought that there at least needs to be something invisible and immaterial that makes the states of mind possible, and so is not itself a bodily state.

 

There is, however, a quite simple argument against any idea that there is anything invisible and immaterial in addition to the body that accounts for any states of mind or conscious experience in general.

 

So the above idea is that there would need to be something that can’t be observed because it’s not made of matter, and would need to have a certain distinct general property or some such properties so that brain states are changed into mental states.

 

But then it can be pointed out that there are already such things that are unobservable, just as such, and so that they can only be described from their effects, which may be called forces that act at a distance or fundamental interactions. And as generally described from their effects these forces each only has one identity. So it doesn’t make sense to say there are many forces of gravity or of electromagnetism. Yet it would need to make sense to say there are many immaterial minds in each of many individual human beings or other creatures.

 

Then even if it is supposed that each immaterial mind could have a property that is unique to each individual it can be pointed out that essential to there being many minds is that each individual has at least a unique perception as a particular point of view upon the external world, so how could this be explained by individually differing immaterial mental properties?

 

One could, however, consider the evidence detected of matter and the energy it radiates on the very small scale. as described by quantum mechanics especially, and where the behaviour of objects have been measured and described that differ from any effects that could be explained by or just by the known properties of the action of forces such as gravity and electromagnetism.

 

Then, however, it also needs to be assumed, firstly, that the quantum mechanical description of the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum objects, which include photons of radiant energy and subatomic components reflect, in some way, the hidden behaviour of these objects beyond any observations from experimental results

 

And then secondly, that at least some of this hidden quantum behaviour can be coherently described and visualised in representations of the defined trajectories of objects in motion. And these representations need to be entirely consistent with the observed and measured results of experiments.

 

However, until 1952, or some 26 years or so after the first successful quantum mechanical descriptions were devised it was assumed by almost all physicists that the second of the above requirements could not be achieved by any means. For the quantum mechanics described fundamental characteristics of behaviour that could not be coherently represented as the behaviour of objects in motion…

Edited July 3, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[merlin wood]

And then in David Bohm's two 1952 "hidden variable" papers there was intoduced an invisible cause that he called the quantum potential, and which led to experiment to test the properties that could described of an effect at a distance called quantum entanglement. This being an effect that could be measured and mathmatically described from objects that included electrons as components of atoms, but could not be measured and mathematically desctibed in terms of its strength.

[merlin wood]

So physicists may insist that quantum entanglement is an effect without a cause. But you could ask is it really though?

 

So you've got, fo example, the spin up/spin down correlation at a distance between atomic components that include electrons. And, for one thing, you could ask: for this correlation to be measured so that the spin up to spin down relationship to be retained between two components, sureky shouldn't the be something that acts at a distance so as to maintain this relationship? And so that this would be an invisible cause that acts in a quite different way to any of the forces so as to produce the entangled effect?

[Klaynos]

The relationship is not maintained, it is only there during the entanglement process... after that interactions with alter the states individually.

[merlin wood]

The relationship is not maintained, it is only there during the entanglement process... after that interactions with alter the states individually.

 

But then what of the entangled composite states of the subatomic components of atoms and molecules, that is, as they remain as the components of atomic and molecular systems?

[Klaynos]

But then what of the entangled composite states of the subatomic components of atoms and molecules, that is, as they remain as the components of atomic and molecular systems?

 

I don't really get what you're asking. But if they interact the entanglement is destroyed.

[merlin wood]

I don't really get what you're asking. But if they interact the entanglement is destroyed.

 

I'm basically asking why should quantum entanglement be measured in the first instance?

 

So why shouldn't eg. electrons possess spin-up/spin-down entanglement in atoms before any measurement?

[Klaynos]

Entanglement if a result of how the electrons or photons or whatever are created, they are created so that one has one state and the other MUST have the other state, but until anything is measured in quantum mechanics they are in a superposition state of both states.

 

I haven't explained it too well, if I get time later I'll look for an example.

[Royston]

Entanglement if a result of how the electrons or photons or whatever are created, they are created so that one has one state and the other MUST have the other state, but until anything is measured in quantum mechanics they are in a superposition state of both states.

 

I haven't explained it too well, if I get time later I'll look for an example.

 

I've just started my QM module, and I'm pretty sure quantum entanglement is covered in quite some detail, so I'll be happy to post what's discussed.

 

There's also (for Merlin Woods benefit) a good section on Bell's Theorem, that I could run through. However, I'm sure I read that the Bohm interpretation isn't violated by Bell's Theorem, as opposed to the EPR paradox...but I can't remember the specifics (plus this is quite new territory for me), IIRC it starts with the Schrodinger equations, and explores the position of particles which are the so-called hidden variables of Bohmian mechanics, but I'll come back to this, it's a very interesting topic.

[Klaynos]

Bohm interpretation isn't violated by Bell's Theorem

 

It's not...

 

I look forward to your post