(I am only a graduate in Physics and probably not qualified to make an informed comment. But here goes..) I have been fascinated by this idea that it is consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave function for many years and am delighted that there is some renewed research interest in this area. Can this thesis be verified experimentally? At the risk of using a term that I do not really understand, will retrocausality in quantum physics be a problem for any experimental setup?
@sterlingcooley7401
Жыл бұрын
Wonderful - a talk on Quantum aspects of consciousness and not a *single* mention of Orch OR by Hameroff-Penrose. A theory which actually has a mathematical backing, identifies a physical location for quantum collapse (in microtubules). Great job David… 😂
@Praveen-or5ce
4 ай бұрын
I was wondering the same.
@kattenelvis1778
3 ай бұрын
Well, he is using Integrated Information Theory, which also has mathematical backing and identifies a physical location for quantum collapse (information integrating systems). David is a dualist, and is morel likely to support a dualist interpretation of IIT, rather than a physicalist theory like Penrose.
@mattsigl1426
Жыл бұрын
IIT actually has a lot of empirical support in that it explains a lot of brain phenomena that we already know, like that the cerebellum, despite a surfeit of neurons, doesn’t contribute to consciousness. IIT answers this. And the modeling of q-space on the cause-effect repertoires of an integrated system in theory specifies the quality and character of an experience, even going so far as to explain how modalities of consciousness, like color perception, are realized geometrically as the architecture of how a quale is “built”. (In this case by certain entangled sub-mechanisms in an integrated system warping the shape away from a simple hyper-cube geometry into something more geometrically complex and specified.)
@ValJonFarris
4 ай бұрын
David, throughout this video I had the sense you struggled with believing the theories about the mapping between phenomenology and physics you presented. While Q-shape "structures" m i g h t be decodable, I seriously doubt that their "states" are computational.
@infinidimensionalinfinitie5021
Жыл бұрын
i loved the joke around twelve minutes in. some people say that replacing consciousness for measurement is just replacing one mushy thing with another mushy thing. ...well in some circles, that's true.
@thomassoliton1482
3 ай бұрын
The kernel of this entire discussion is that there is something called the “wavefunction”.. But what is that? Basically it is the abstract representation of the position of an electron or other “object”, object being defined as something whose position can be measured spatially (for example). But is the wavefunction real? Can it’s position be measured? No - it is an abstract idea in our brain. If you believe that “consciousness” is outside of ordinary reality, e.g. some “non-physical” stuff, maybe that’s what it is, and then this whole “consciousness is the collapse of (some) wavefunction” makes sense. But there is more than one way to make a wavefunction, because it depends on your measurement technique. If you measure the position of an atom using electrons, sure you will get a spread-out wavefunction, because the relative size of the particles is very small compared to the ability to measure their spatial and temporal properties. Not so with measuring the position of a car going down the street - you can precisely measure it’s position, so the wavefunction is very small spatially compared to the car. But what if you construct a wavefunction using the sound of the engine measured using your ears and pointing to the front car door? Then you will definitely get a very spread-out wavefunction like that of the atom / electron. But is the sound-based wavefunction of the car’s position any less real than that based on e.g. a camera? No, because neither are fundamentally real - they are abstract representations based on arbitrary meaurement procedures. That means the term “wavefunction collapse” is also an arbitrary representation of some observable (measureable) phenomenon. Which begs the question, is not the representation of consciousness as being the collapse of an arbitrary wavefunction also an arbitrary representation of consciousness? QED?
@modernsolutions6631
2 жыл бұрын
For those who have a hard interpreting what has been said: He demonstrated for a large class of physical model of a thing that could be extended simulate the human brain that consciousness has no quantum advantage. Meaning even if the system starts out in a quantum state it ends up in a classical state that can be simulated without quantum computers and is now amenable to classical causality. It is not clear if the results for the toy model will extent to a human brain. The consequence of this is that is closes the quantum escape hatch a little and he proposes a program of further research that close this quantum escape hatch. This result places a burden proof on people proposing that consciousness is not subject to the determinism of classical physics as they need to demonstrate that their model of consciousness is not vulnerable to collapse into a classical system because if it is we can build a second classical system that will behave exactly as the quantum system to all possible sets of stimuli.
@ezioberolo2936
Жыл бұрын
So David implies (19:16 min into the presentation) that Consciousness is quantized, as a superposition of probabilities (|C(x)>), although he has not made the case for it. I am more worried about the statement on the slide that Consciousness collapses, sometimes mine does!
@adelenieto8294
5 ай бұрын
We (humans) attempt to understand or figure out with our finite minds that which cannot be interpreted (the infinite). Life is fiat - let it be done!
@Blazeww
2 жыл бұрын
I found a problem and it came from listening to these theories and common sense. Observation collapses the wave function and quantum clouds of particles all act as one so... What collapsed the wave function for our universe to start if no consciousness was there to collapse the wave function of a universe that should've had everything act as one and not separate or cool in random spots and everything started from a quantum state?
@Blazeww
2 жыл бұрын
And they say God isn't real as they use a mind that came from nothing to decide to say that as atoms in the universe are unfeeling and don't think? As information cant be created or destroyed and in a universe where the whole time disorder should've acted on the expanding universe keeping complex life from happening. Why? Because everything was already in the state its trying to get back to from chaos. So we shouldn't even be here if purely universal physics gave rise to us. Everything they teach contradicts it. And we can actually build a body now and see if it wakes up and acts like us if scientist really can copy organs to chips now.... Only question is would that be wise to do. Cause what if it doesn't have the organic light we have? Do non living things have that light going on when things happen? Will a built body be soulless if it wakes up? What if everything is made and put together and nothing happens or it just goes crazy following random impulses with no will to direct them? The creation of man that comes to Earth. Maybe its not a threat from out there, maybe its not a born person but a built person.
@AlexADalton
Жыл бұрын
God
@LordBlk
Жыл бұрын
This is what my layman mind has been asking and I keep getting told its just that fact that measurement isn't consciousness...
@StephenPaulKing
Жыл бұрын
Maybe it is not "resistant but is invariant with respect to shifts in implementations.
@santerisatama5409
Жыл бұрын
Howdy. What is "it" and not resistant to what? "We experience a world with definite properties" is a hopelessy vague statement. I guess it refers to the tautology that we observe numerical measurements when we measure numerically. In terms of foundationally economical computation theory, numerical counting and measuring is as such already entropic irreversible process (cf decoherence) that hides the information they are coherently derived from. The minimal non-sine-qua relation for wave like movement is the more-less relation. To clarify that we are doing relational relations instead of object oriented computation, it's philosophically even better to speak relational operators < and > as asubjective verbs expressing continuous processes such as "increases" and "decreases" without the straightjacket of subject-object dualism. Fenomenology of "measurement" in terms of contemporary mathematical physics is very clear. To measure is to valuate numerically. And as said, in terms of information theory, numbering and numerical measuring is already entropic in relation to the "hidden variables" of underlying formal language consisting of relational operators, which generate palindromic strings with increasing resolution from palindromic seeds through the basic syntactic operation of concatenating mediants, and to establish a variety of theories of rational numbers (each seed generates a theory) define required countable objects, ie. . Motivation for that choice can be discussed some other time. Any case, the process of generating strings and counting defined countables produces Stern-Brocot type structures that contain fractions in their coprime forms in orderly manner, as well as palindromic mirrors with natural interpretation as "negative" fractions thus forming a complete theory of rationals, and with continuum of palindromic seeds, a large variety of theories of rational numbers. You could perhaps say that the concept of arithmetic field of rational numbers is an invariant "resultant" of the underlying SB-type structures, but maybe that's not so simple question. Any case, as < and > have also natural interpretation as path information (e.g. L and R paths down the Stern-Brocot tree), which raises the question of link to Feynman paths, numeric interpreting and measuring loses the much richer path information contained in the relational structures. Terms "precise" and "imprecise" are rather poorly defined in respect to this level of computation theory, which is also very open to Wolfram's hypothesis of computable universe.
@EightiesJames
Жыл бұрын
We All can detect a quantifiable WFC.. I'll stare at you while you figure it out.
@MrFly-r2n
22 күн бұрын
Notintertest
@anglewyrm3849
2 жыл бұрын
This guy's specialization is clearly elsewhere, and it comes across as a salesman attempting to shoehorn their favorite subject in for the sake of publication/readership
@AlexADalton
2 жыл бұрын
Ok no. Chalmers is the brightest person working on consciousness today. He literally defined the problem for a generation in The Conscious Mind. If you don't know who Chalmers is, you have no idea what is going on in consciousness studies today.
@daleputnam8300
2 жыл бұрын
He seems pretty objective actually, there is an epistemic gap between physical processes and consciousness.
@pleiotr0pictrait
Жыл бұрын
@@AlexADalton he's clearly not specialized nor in mathematical models, nor in quantum mechanics, and it shows. (Also, calling him either bright or 'the brightest person working on consciousness today' is disputable, even knowing his work in that field, where he sure publishes a lot)
@AlexADalton
Жыл бұрын
@@pleiotr0pictrait his undergrad degree is actually mathematics and he is writing a book currently on philosophy of quantum mechanics. Have you read a single book by Chalmers on consciousness? Youre wrong in that he actually doesn't publish a lot. His first major book is a tour de force though.
@pleiotr0pictrait
Жыл бұрын
@@AlexADalton I didn't know that, thanks for the correction. And yes, I've had the displeasure of reading his 1996' book on the topic.
Пікірлер: 27