Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Design Mind

Human consciousness may not be computable

Spread the love
Roger Penrose
Sir Roger Penrose(b. 1931)

Robert J. Marks looks at a recent theory:

One issue to be aware of is this: AI is performed by computers and computers are entirely algorithmic. That is to say, they are constrained to obey a set of operations written by a computer programmer. Mathematics is algorithmically constructed, based on logic and foundational axioms. And physics is built algorithmically on foundational laws. In this sense, common naturalistic phenomena are largely algorithmic. They operate according to the logic of mathematics and the laws of physics.

Penrose wondered, is anything in nature nonalgorithmic? He points to the collapse of a quantum mechanical wave function into a deterministic state. Such quantum effects can be found in the microtubules found in the brain. Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, M.D., propose4 a quantum mechanical model5 of consciousness involving the microtubules which, Hameroff notes, is “is in conflict with a major premise of [strong] AI and [Ray Kurzweil’s] Singularity.”6

Hameroff is referring to Google Director of Engineering Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that AI will be as intelligent as a human being by 2029 and that we will merge with AI by 2045 (that’s The Singularity). But computers are limited to executing algorithms and the theory that he and Penrose propose is non-algorithmic. More.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Also: by Robert Marks: Could Hal 9000 ever be built?

Screenwriters’ jobs are not threatened by AI Unless the public starts preferring mishmash to creativity

AI that can read minds? Deconstructing AI hype

and

Can the U.S. Air Force create thinking planes? Smart drones? They are working on general artificial intelligence (GAI) Eric Holloway: The likely way this will turn out is they’ll realize human-in-the-loop is unavoidable for any useful system, so it’ll spin off into something like the existing field of human computation.

19 Replies to “Human consciousness may not be computable

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    Penrose wondered, is anything in nature nonalgorithmic? He points to the collapse of a quantum mechanical wave function into a deterministic state. Such quantum effects can be found in the microtubules found in the brain.

    Microtubules can also be found in the cells of powdery mildew. I don’t see anyone suggesting that mildew is conscious.

    Given how far we are away from understanding the functions of the brain, isn’t the honest answer to the question of whether consciousness is computable is “we have no idea”? Speculation about quantum effects (which, as far as I’m aware, are computable, albeit slowly) is just speculation, and gets silly when you don’t learn the biology first.

  2. 2
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    “Microtubules can also be found in the cells of powdery mildew. I don’t see anyone suggesting that mildew is conscious.”

    Well, while I can make no assesment about the consciousness of powdery mildew, I would say that a model where microtibules are needed for consciousness to express itself does not imply that microtubules are a full explanation for consciousness.

    Penrose seems to believe that a quantum model can explain consciousness. But of course it could only be a necessary interface for consciousness. And however, the mere existence of microtubules is probably not enough for any model.

    You say:

    “Given how far we are away from understanding the functions of the brain, isn’t the honest answer to the question of whether consciousness is computable is “we have no idea”? ”

    Maybe it would be even more honest to say:

    We have no reasonable model of how consciousness could arise from a material configutation of objects.

    That’s the real point behind the hard problem of consciousness.

    You say:

    “Speculation about quantum effects (which, as far as I’m aware, are computable, albeit slowly) is just speculation”

    Well, speculation is an important part of scientific understanding, I would say.

    And what do you mean when you say that quantum effects are “computable, albeit slowly”? I don’t understand.

    The results of the wave function collapse can never be computed. We can only compute their probabilities, from the wave function itself. It’s not a problem of quick or slow. It’s a more fundamental difference.

    You say:

    “and gets silly when you don’t learn the biology first.”

    Again, I don’t understand. While I cannot agree more on the necessity of understanding biology as much as possible (and you are certainly welcome, as usual, to comment on my last OP):

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mechanosensing-and-mechanotransduction-how-cells-touch-their-world/#comment-668934

    I still can’t understand how biology can help, at present, in solving the hard problem of consciousness.

    And who is it that has not learned biology? Penrose?

    Who is silly, and why?

  3. 3
    daveS says:

    Bob O’H is right in that this is all extremely speculative. But what the hey, who can stop us?

    It’s interesting to consider extending the title of the post:

    Is dog consciousness algorithmic?

    Is bird consciousness algorithmic?

    Is the consciousness of snakes, fish, insects, etc., algorithmic (if these animals are indeed conscious)?

    I ask because a few people do believe that all non-human animals are purely physical beings (as opposed to humans). Perhaps they also believe that algorithmicity is another property which separates humans from other creatures.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this comment in the OP:

    One issue to be aware of is this: AI is performed by computers and computers are entirely algorithmic. That is to say, they are constrained to obey a set of operations written by a computer programmer. Mathematics is algorithmically constructed, based on logic and foundational axioms. And physics is built algorithmically on foundational laws. In this sense, common naturalistic phenomena are largely algorithmic. They operate according to the logic of mathematics and the laws of physics.

    Penrose wondered, is anything in nature nonalgorithmic? He points to the collapse of a quantum mechanical wave function into a deterministic state. Such quantum effects can be found in the microtubules found in the brain. Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, M.D., propose4 a quantum mechanical model5 of consciousness involving the microtubules which, Hameroff notes, is “is in conflict with a major premise of [strong] AI and [Ray Kurzweil’s] Singularity.

    First off it is important to note that quantum wave collapse itself is not a quantum property that is found within the body but that quantum wave collapse is what happens when someone makes a conscious observation of a system.

    Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism- video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9kGpIxMRM

    And while the presence of a conscious observer is a necessary condition for quantum wave collapse to occur,,,

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms –
    Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/re.....t-confirms

    ,,, And while the presence of a conscious observer is a necessary condition for quantum wave collapse to occur, it is certainly not a sufficient condition to explain why the quantum wave collapse occurs. The reason why this is so is fairly obvious. Prior to collapse, the wave function exists in a “infinite dimensional-infinite information” state:

    Wave function
    Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ctor_space

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
    Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1)
    http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/fa.....lPSA2K.pdf

    Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
    Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entr.....tcomp/#2.1

    ,,, Thus, in order to explain the effect of quantum wave collapse, we cannot simply point to the conscious observer to explain it. We must appeal to a ‘sufficient’ cause that is itself infinite dimensional, i.e. is omnipresent, in its foundational nature, as well as appealing to a ‘sufficient’ cause that possesses infinite information, i.e. is omniscient, in its foundational nature.

    In other words, in order to adequately explain the effect of quantum wave collapse we must appeal to God as the sufficient cause for the effect that we are seeing with quantum wave collapse:

    Jeremiah 23:23-24
    “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away?” “Can a man hide in secret places where I cannot see him?” declares the LORD. “Do I not fill the heavens and earth?” declares the LORD.…

    Psalm 147:5
    Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite

    In regards to this comment from the OP,,,

    quantum effects can be found in the microtubules found in the brain.

    ,, In regards to that comment, Bob (and weave) O’Hara quips,

    Microtubules can also be found in the cells of powdery mildew. I don’t see anyone suggesting that mildew is conscious.

    Yet, the quantum effect in biology being appealed to in that specific comment is NOT quantum wave collapse but is quantum entanglement. What is also not mentioned in that comment is that quantum entanglement is ubiquitous throughout molecular biology. In fact quantum entanglement, besides just microtubules, is found within every DNA and Protein molecule in biology (as well as being found in many other important biomolecules)

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain – Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija – 2006
    Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural – amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy – classical and quantum state, and (3) information – classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system.
    http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    It is also important to point out that quantum entanglement is itself a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, effect that requires a sufficient cause, i.e. a cause that is itself beyond space and time, in order to adequately explain the ‘non-local’ effect.

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    In fact, what we are seeing in ‘quantum biology’ is a “extreme violation of local realism”. Specifically, it is now found that the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, (such as what we see in molecular biology), the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles.

    Physicists find extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states – Lisa Zyga – March 4, 2016
    Excerpt: The physicists also showed that the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles. In addition, even if a quantum hypergraph state loses one of its particles, it continues to violate local realism. This robustness to particle loss is in stark contrast to other types of quantum states, which no longer violate local realism if they lose a particle. This property is particularly appealing for applications, since it might allow for more noise in experiments.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-p.....alism.html

    The implications of finding ‘beyond space and time’ quantum entanglement, ubiquitously, throughout molecular biology, for the ID vs. Darwin debate, are fairly straightforward.

    In short, Christian Theists have a ‘sufficient cause’ to appeal to in order to adequately explain the effect of non-local quantum entanglement within molecular biology. Atheist’s don’t. In fact, as far as foundational presuppositions are concerned, the reductive materialistic philosophy which undergirds Darwinian theory denies the existence of anything beyond space-time and matter-energy.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    It is also important to point out that in quantum theory it is the immaterial information itself that is primarily conserved. Not matter and energy that are primarily conserved as matter and energy are primarily conserved within classical mechanics.

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, or course, being the fact that we now have physical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.

    As Stuart Hameroff stated, “the quantum information,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    “Is anything worth more than your soul?”

    Supplemental note:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

  6. 6
    mike1962 says:

    Bob O’H: I don’t see anyone suggesting that mildew is conscious.

    How would one determine if mildew is conscious?

    How would one determine if anyone else besides one’s self is conscious?

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    gpuccio – fair enough about microtubules, but as far as I know, they work the same in both humans and mildew. I think we need more than “microtubules are quantum” as an argument for why consciousness could be quantum. Like, for a starter, how microtubules are related to thought processes (obviously “they are in brain cells” isn’t going to cut it, because they are in other cells as well, as far as I’m aware they are doing the same job).

    Maybe it would be even more honest to say:…

    No it wouldn’t. That’s changing the question, which is a less honest thing to do.

    My comment about quantum being computable is based on my understanding that we can model quantum processes, and also that quantum computers are Turing machines (this isn’t my area of expertise, so I may be wrong). I don’t see that not knowing the state a wave function will collapse into, and only knowing the probabilities, is a problem: the point is that we can compute those probabilities. If the collapse is random, that’s easy to simulate.

    And who is it that has not learned biology? Penrose?

    Whoever suggested that microtubules are responsible for consciousness. How would that work, when they are inside individual cells? Is there a single consciousness cell?

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    mike1962 – that’s a fair question. I guess we would need to be able to define consciousness precisely enough that we can detect it without having to have a chat with what we think could be conscious.

    (note: I have never chatted to mildew, at least not in a way that got a reply. I may well have sworn at it a few times, and towards the end of my PhD I suspect I was starting to think like mildew. But I suspect that I was becoming less conscious)

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    as to the headline:

    Human consciousness may not be computable

    Here a few notes along that line.

    In regards to classical computing we find that since classical computation involves logical operations that necessary involve the merging of two inputs, then consciousness can never be model on a classical computer since “it would have to be continuously hemorrhaging information.”

    Sentient robots? Not possible if you do the maths – 13 May 2014
    Over the past decade, Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his colleagues have developed a mathematical framework for consciousness that has become one of the most influential theories in the field. According to their model, the ability to integrate information is a key property of consciousness. ,,,
    But there is a catch, argues Phil Maguire at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth. He points to a computational device called the XOR logic gate, which involves two inputs, A and B. The output of the gate is “1” if A and B are the same and “0” if A and B are different. In this scenario, it is impossible to predict the output based on A or B alone – you need both.
    Crucially, this type of integration requires loss of information, says Maguire: “You have put in two bits, and you get one out. If the brain integrated information in this fashion, it would have to be continuously hemorrhaging information.”,,,
    Based on this definition, Maguire and his team have shown mathematically that computers can’t handle any process that integrates information completely. If you accept that consciousness is based on total integration, then computers can’t be conscious.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....3LD5ChuqCe

    Mathematical Model Of Consciousness Proves Human Experience Cannot Be Modeled On A Computer – May 2014
    Excerpt: The central part of their new work is to describe the mathematical properties of a system that can store integrated information in this way but without it leaking away. And this leads them to their central proof. “The implications of this proof are that we have to abandon either the idea that people enjoy genuinely [integrated] consciousness or that brain processes can be modeled computationally,” say Maguire and co.
    Since Tononi’s main assumption is that consciousness is the experience of integrated information, it is the second idea that must be abandoned: brain processes cannot be modeled computationally.
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/mathematical-model-of-consciousness-proves-human-experience-cannot-be-modelled-on-a-computer-898b104158d

    In regards to quantum computation we find in a paper entitled “Incompatibility Between Quantum Theory and Consciousness”, and in another paper entitled “Non-computability of Consciousness”, that “Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine,” Song explained. “Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do.”

    Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist – May, 2015 (article based on 2008 paper)
    Excerpt: “In his 2008 paper, “Non-computability of Consciousness,” Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.
    “Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine,” Song explained. “Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do.”
    Non-computability of Consciousness” documents Song’s quantum computer research into TS (technological singularity (TS) or strong artificial intelligence). Song was able to show that in certain situations, a conscious state can be precisely and fully represented in mathematical terms, in much the same manner as an atom or electron can be fully described mathematically. That’s important, because the neurobiological and computational approaches to brain research have only ever been able to provide approximations at best. In representing consciousness mathematically, Song shows that consciousness is not compatible with a machine.
    Song’s work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. “If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain,” said Song. “The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn’t lie.”
    Of note: Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Oxford
    http://www.33rdsquare.com/2015.....-says.html

    And here is a Reply to (an alleged) Mathematical Error in “Incompatibility Between Quantum Theory and Consciousness”

    Reply to (alleged) Mathematical Error in “Incompatibility Between Quantum Theory and Consciousness” – Daegene Song – 2008
    http://www.neuroquantology.com.....ad/176/176

    As to the problem of ‘scientifically defining’ exactly what consciousness is, Stephen Talbott has a very interesting article that highlights the fact that the more precisely we ‘scientifically define’ something, (its weight length, height speed etc.. etc..), the more we subtract qualitative meaning from what that something actually is.

    Here is an excerpt from his article to get this point across:

    The Language of Nature – Stephen L. Talbott
    Qualities
    Try sitting outdoors in a natural landscape for half an hour. After quieting yourself and becoming as receptive as possible to the surrounding world, consider this: Is there any content here beside the purely qualitative? From the sky and the distant hill to the grass, pine needles, or soil beneath your feet, do you not have to say, “The world I am experiencing simply is its qualities”? How many of us, during years or decades of creative work, will put such a problem to ourselves in this direct, observational, scientifically sanctioned way, as opposed to thinking about the problem in our studies or laboratories, with our thought mediated by a vast network of mental abstractions?

    Now try subtracting from the content of your observation everything qualitative. In the case of the tree over there, remove the green of the foliage, the gray of the bark, the smell of sap, the rustling of leaves in the breeze, the felt hardness of the trunk…and what do you have left? Nothing at all. You do not even have geometric form, since without light and color there is no visible form, and without the different qualities of touch there is no felt form. Form is not something independent that we proceed to flesh out with qualities; it subsists in nothing but the qualities themselves.

    You may want to say that the quantities we abstract from our qualitative experience of the world point us toward a more substantial reality hidden behind the world of our perceptions. But unless you can say something about this hidden reality — unless you can characterize it, giving your quantitative constructions some sort of content — where is your science? And how will you characterize this content without appealing to qualities?,,,

    “Quality” is in fact an approximate synonym for “meaning.” But we usually speak of qualities when we are referring to the world, and we speak of meaning when we are referring to language and thought. The two usages are closely intertwined. The way we reduce the world to atomic things without qualities is by reducing our descriptive language to the atomic terms of logic without meaning. That is, we can obscure the qualitative character of the world only by obscuring the meaningful character of our words. But we never fully succeed in this. The world remains word-like because it is full of the meanings of language, just as our words remain world-like because they are full of the qualities of the world.
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-language-of-nature

    And therein lies the unavoidable pitfall of scientifically trying to define exactly what consciousness is. i.e. The “hard problem of consciousness”. Any attempt to try to scientifically define “qualia” necessarily entails a process of subtraction from qualia itself. With the subtraction from the actual qualitative experience of consciousness becoming more and more acute the more scientifically precise, and mathematical, you try to be in your ‘scientific’ description of consciousness.

    A few relevant quotes:

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    “In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.”
    – William J. Murray

    “You see we always start from the fact that we are conscious. Consciousness is the only carrier of reality and existence that we can know. Everything else is abstraction; [they] are inferences we make from consciousness.”
    Dr. Bernardo Kastrup:

  10. 10
    EDTA says:

    Bob O’H @ 7,

    >I don’t see that not knowing the state a wave function will collapse into, and only knowing the probabilities, is a problem: the point is that we can compute those probabilities. If the collapse is random, that’s easy to simulate.

    I’ve heard this claim from others here, recently even. I have one question about it. It is one thing to be able to model the probabilities of some phenomenon. But there’s more information in an actual sequence of outcomes (assuming it’s long enough) than there is in the model of the probability function. So how can we say that we’ve actually captured *everything* there is to know about something, just because we’ve modeled the probability function for the general phenomenon?

    This last came up when someone (sorry–forgot who) said that adding randomness to determinism adds little, because we can model the randomness and then it’s taken into account. But that’s not entirely true if the actual random outcomes/observations make a difference in some process.

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    EDTA – if each state depends on the previous one, we can model the sequence as a Markov chain. If the dependency goes back further, we can extend the model (or re-write it so it looks like a Markov chain!).

    If the system is truly stochastic, and we have the right model, then that is as far as we can go. But in some cases we can estimate how much stochasticity to expect (e.g. from the binomial or Poisson distributions), and if we hit that, we can assume it’s not worth going further.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    EDTA as to:

    Bob O’H @ 7

    “I don’t see that not knowing the state a wave function will collapse into, and only knowing the probabilities, is a problem: the point is that we can compute those probabilities. If the collapse is random, that’s easy to simulate.”

    I hold that the primary reason why the collapse of the wave function is non-algorithmic and/or non-deterministic is not because the wave collapse is probabilistic and/or random, but the reason it is non-algorithmic and/or non-deterministic is because of free will.

    But before we get into that, let’s look at the failings of trying to model the quantum wave function from a purely deterministic/probabilistic approach. Which is termed ‘the realist approach’ in quantum mechanics:

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – JANUARY 19, 2017
    Excerpt: These problems are partly avoided in the realist—as opposed to the instrumentalist—approach to quantum mechanics. Here one takes the wave function and its deterministic evolution seriously as a description of reality. But this raises other problems.
    The realist approach has a very strange implication, first worked out in the 1957 Princeton Ph.D. thesis of the late Hugh Everett.,,, In the realist approach the history of the world is endlessly splitting; it does so every time a macroscopic body becomes tied in with a choice of quantum states. This inconceivably huge variety of histories has provided material for science fiction,12,,,
    There is another thing that is unsatisfactory about the realist approach, beyond our parochial preferences. In this approach the wave function of the multiverse evolves deterministically. We can still talk of probabilities as the fractions of the time that various possible results are found when measurements are performed many times in any one history; but the rules that govern what probabilities are observed would have to follow from the deterministic evolution of the whole multiverse. If this were not the case, to predict probabilities we would need to make some additional assumption about what happens when humans make measurements, and we would be back with the shortcomings of the instrumentalist approach. Several attempts following the realist approach have come close to deducing rules like the Born rule that we know work well experimentally, but I think without final success.
    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

    As you can see, Weinberg, an atheist, rejects the ‘realist’ approach because of the insanity inherent in Everett’s MWI, and also because it does not successfully deal with the probabilities, i.e. the Born rule, anyway. As he stated, when these failings to deal with the probabilities are taken into consideration, “we would be back with the shortcomings of the instrumentalist approach.”

    The failure of ‘the realist approach’ to successfully deal with the probabilities in quantum mechanics, i.e. to deal with the “Born Rule”, is clearly explained in the following video at the 4:30 minute mark:

    A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation – video
    https://youtu.be/_42skzOHjtA?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&t=270

    Now let’s look at exactly why Stephen Weinberg rejected ‘the instrumentalist approach’ in quantum mechanics:

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg
    – JANUARY 19, 2017
    Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9
    ,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,
    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

    To repeat,,,

    “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,”

    And although Weinberg, again an atheist, may reject the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, science itself could care less how atheists, or anyone else, would prefer nature to behave.

    Specifically, advances in quantum mechanics, with Contexuality and/or the Kochen-Speckter Theorem, now confirm the reality of free will within quantum mechanics.

    In Kochen-Speckter Theorem we find, as leading experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    And with contextuality we find, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation” and “Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. ”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    On top of all that, the final, what has been termed, ‘free will loophole’ has, for all practical purposes, been closed:

    Specifically, the “creepy” and “far-fetched” possibility that the “physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting” and that “a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure”,,,

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    ,,, that “creepy” and “far-fetched” possibility, (which is exactly the “creepy” and “far-fetched” possibility that atheists hold to be true), has now been, for all practical purposes, closed.

    Anton Zeilinger and company have now pushed the “free-will loophole” back to 7.8 billion years ago using quasars to determine measurement settings.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Moreover, here is another recent interesting experiment by Anton Zeilinger, (and about 70 other researchers), that insured the complete independence of measurement settings in a Bell test from the free will choices of 100,000 human participants instead of having a physical randomizer determine measurement settings.

    Challenging local realism with human choices – A. Zeilinger – 20 May 2018
    Abstract: A Bell test, which challenges the philosophical worldview of local realism against experimental observations, is a randomized trial requiring spatially-distributed entanglement, fast and high-efficiency detection, and unpredictable measurement settings. While technology can perfect the first two of these, and while technological randomness sources enable device-independent protocols based on Bell inequality violation, challenging local realism using physical randomizers inevitably makes assumptions about the same physics one aims to test. Bell himself noted this weakness of physical setting choices and argued that human free will could rigorously be used to assure unpredictability in Bell tests. Here we report a suite of local realism tests using human choices, avoiding assumptions about predictability in physics. We recruited ~100,000 human participants to play an online video game that incentivizes fast, sustained input of unpredictable bits while also illustrating Bell test methodology. The participants generated 97,347,490 binary choices, which were directed via a scalable web platform to twelve laboratories on five continents, in which 13 experiments tested local realism using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles, and superconducting devices. Over a 12-hour period on the 30 Nov. 2016, participants worldwide provided a sustained flow of over 1000 bits/s to the experiments, which used different human-generated bits to choose each measurement setting. The observed correlations strongly contradict local realism and other realist positions in bi-partite and tri-partite scenarios. Project outcomes include closing of the freedom-of-choice loophole, gamification of statistical and quantum non-locality concepts, new methods for quantum-secured communications, a very large dataset of human-generated randomness, and networking techniques for global participation in experimental science.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04431

    And indeed, free will is indeed ‘non-algorithmic’ and is also certainly non-deterministic. And can therefore never be modeled on a computer.

    As Douglas Robertson states, “Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information.
    “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas G. Robertson – 1999
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: the creation of new information.
    “… no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    As a Christian, I would be very remiss in my duties if I failed to hash out the fairly profound implications of all this.

    Having the reality of free will empirically validated by quantum mechanics to such a deep level has some fairly profound implications.

    First, by allowing agent causality back into the picture of modern physics, as quantum physics itself now demands, and as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), then a empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram
    https://youtu.be/F-TL4QOCiis

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/journals/i.....802004/271

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    http://www.academicjournals.or.....onacci.pdf

    Besides the reality of ‘free will’ and/or Agent causality within quantum theory bringing that rather startling solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, there is also another fairly drastic implication for individual people being “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” as well.

    Although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. Lewis states the situation as such:

    “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
    – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

    And exactly as would be a priori expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Again, the implications for individual humans are fairly drastic, i.e. eternal life with God or eternal death/hell apart from God

    Verse:

    Deuteronomy 30:19-20
    This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    Because of such dire consequences for our eternal souls, I can only plead once again for atheists to reconsider their choice to reject God, and to now choose life, even eternal life with God, instead of death.

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    John 5:24
    Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

  14. 14
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H at #7:

    ” I think we need more than “microtubules are quantum” as an argument for why consciousness could be quantum.”

    I can agree. But after having researched the roles of cytoskeleton for my recent OP, I tend to think that microtubules and actin and myosin and all the rest may have a fundamental role in many important cell decisions. So, the whole cytoskeleton could be actively implied in the consciousness-body interface.

    “Like, for a starter, how microtubules are related to thought processes (obviously “they are in brain cells” isn’t going to cut it, because they are in other cells as well, as far as I’m aware they are doing the same job).”

    Not necessarily. Now I don’t want to defend microtubules at all costs 🙂 , but for example they are one of the main components of axons.

    “No it wouldn’t. That’s changing the question, which is a less honest thing to do.”

    I don’t think so, but I respect your idea,

    “My comment about quantum being computable is based on my understanding that we can model quantum processes, and also that quantum computers are Turing machines (this isn’t my area of expertise, so I may be wrong). I don’t see that not knowing the state a wave function will collapse into, and only knowing the probabilities, is a problem: the point is that we can compute those probabilities. If the collapse is random, that’s easy to simulate.”

    Well, the probolem here is that the “random” collapse could be exactly what consciousness could control, making it apparently random, but controlled in reality.

    That’s why a quantum interface has been invoked by many, starting with Eccles, as a possible tool for free will.

    Controlling the pseudo-random collapses of many events could be the key to generate purposeful macro-events, without violating any law of nature. Especially in systems that work very far from equilibriun, like neuronal synapses.

    “Whoever suggested that microtubules are responsible for consciousness. How would that work, when they are inside individual cells? Is there a single consciousness cell?”

    Penrose is probably too attacked to microtubules! 🙂 The problem with him is that he has understood a lot of important things, but still tries to adhere to a materialistic explanation. That may be ciase for some confusion.

    Consciousness, of course, is in no cell. It is a transcendental subject, that refers to itself the many modifications in the body and outside of it. But that’s another story. 🙂

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    gpuccio – The cytoskeleton has the same role in (almost) all eukaryotic cells. So either all cells in eukaryotes are “actively implied in the consciousness-body interface” or there has to be something special about the cytoskeleton of nerve cells. Until you can demonstrate either of these, your theory is a non-starter.

    Well, the probolem here is that the “random” collapse could be exactly what consciousness could control, making it apparently random, but controlled in reality.

    Is there any evidence that consciousness can control which state a system collapses into? Again, until you can demonstrate this, your theory is a non-starter.

  16. 16
    jawa says:

    gpuccio @14:

    “Not necessarily. Now I don’t want to defend microtubules at all costs ???? , but for example they are one of the main components of axons.”

    That’s a very good point.

    Also the term “microtubules” seems associated with the cellular centrioles and centrosomes, which appear to be important parts of the cell division process.

    BTW, it would be interesting to read your comments on the proteins involved in the asymmetric segregation of intrinsic cell fate determinants.
    Maybe someday that could be another OP by gpuccio? 🙂

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H asks gpuccio,

    Is there any evidence that consciousness can control which state a system collapses into?

    Yet, as was stated at post 12, consciousness, or more precisely, free will controlling which state a system collapses into is precisely the startling finding of the Kochen-Speckter Theorem and Contexuality.

    In Kochen-Speckter Theorem we find, as leading experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    And with contextuality we find, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation” and “Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. ”

    Contextuality is ‘magic ingredient’ for quantum computing – June 11, 2012
    Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems.
    In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation.
    Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit – a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It’s because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit.
    Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.
    Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That’s part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-06-w.....antum.html

    And again, as was stated at post 12, in the instrumentalist approach of quantum mechanics, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg
    – JANUARY 19, 2017
    Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9
    ,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,
    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

    And to repeat for clarity,,,

    “In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,”

    And of specific interest to the ID vs. Darwinism debate:

    the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.

    And again Weinberg is certainly not some type of partisan hack saying these things. He is an atheist. He should have a bias against being so honest about the instrumentalist approach.

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – OK, so consciousness might affect the probabilities, but that doesn’t answer my question, does it?

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H concedes that,,,

    consciousness might affect the probabilities,

    and then Bob asks

    “but that doesn’t answer my question, does it?”

    The question I specifically addressed in post 17 was this one,,,

    Is there any evidence that consciousness can control which state a system collapses into?

    In answer to that specific question, I made the clear distinction that humans, via their free will, control “what we perceive as reality now”,,, which,,, “depends on our earlier decision what to measure.”

    Note that that finding certainly does not mean our own finite consciousness is bringing reality into existence, i.e. collapsing the wave function. It only means that we, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, have a direct hand into what type of reality is presented to us.

    And as was pointed out in post 4, “while the presence of a conscious observer is a necessary condition for quantum wave collapse to occur, it is certainly not a sufficient condition to explain why the quantum wave collapse occurs.”

    As was also pointed out in post 4, since the quantum wave exists in an ‘infinite dimensional-infinite information’ state prior to its collapse to a finite state, then “in order to explain the effect of quantum wave collapse, we cannot simply point to the conscious observer to explain it. We must appeal to a ‘sufficient cause’ that is itself infinite dimensional, i.e. is omnipresent, in its foundational nature, as well as appealing to a ‘sufficient’ cause that possesses infinite information, i.e. is omniscient, in its foundational nature”.,, In other words, we must appeal to the Mind of God as the ‘sufficient cause’ in order to adequately explain quantum wave collapse. That is to say, in order to adequately explain exactly what type of reality ultimately gets presented to us via our free will choices, we must appeal to the Mind of God.

    In Dr. Bruce Gordon’s examination of quantum mechanics, he came to very much the same conclusion. Specifically, in the following paper Dr. Bruce Gordon states, “the metaphysical objectivity and epistemic intersubjectivity of the enstructured qualitative reality of our experience can be seen to be best explained by an occasionalist idealism of the sort advocated by George Berkeley (1685-1753) or Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). In the metaphysical context of this kind of theistic immaterialism, the vera causa that brings coherent closure to the phenomenological reality we inhabit is always and only agent causation. The necessity of causal sufficiency is met by divine action,”

    Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature – Bruce L. Gordon – 2017
    Excerpt page 295: In light of this realization, the rather startling picture that begins to seem plausible is that preserving and explaining the objective structure of appearances in light of quantum theory requires reviving a type of phenomenalism in which our perception of the physical universe is constituted by sense-data conforming to certain structural constraints, but in which there is no substantial material reality causing these sensory perceptions. This leaves us with an ontology of minds (as immaterial substances) experiencing and generating mental events and processes that, when sensory in nature, have a formal character limned by the fundamental symmetries and structures revealed in “physical” theory. That these structured sensory perceptions are not mostly of our own individual or collective human making points to the falsity of any solipsistic or social constructivist conclusion, but it also implies the need for a transcendent source and ground of our experience. As Robert Adams points out, mere formal structure is ontologically incomplete:
    [A] system of spatiotemporal relationships constituted by sizes, shapes, positions, and changes thereof, is too incomplete, too hollow, as it were, to constitute an ultimately real thing or substance. It is a framework that, by its very nature, needs to be filled in by something less purely formal. It can only be a structure of something of some not merely structural sort. Formally, rich as such a structure may be, it lacks too much of the reality of material thinghood. By itself, it participates in the incompleteness of abstractions. . . .
    [T]he reality of a substance must include something intrinsic and qualitativeover and above any formal or structural features it may possess.117
    When we consider the fact that the structure of reality in fundamental physical theory is merely phenomenological and that this structure itself is hollow and non-qualitative, whereas our experience is not, the metaphysical objectivity and epistemic intersubjectivity of the enstructured qualitative reality of our experience can be seen to be best explained by an occasionalist idealism of the sort advocated by George Berkeley (1685-1753) or Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). In the metaphysical context of this kind of theistic immaterialism, the vera causa that brings coherent closure to the phenomenological reality we inhabit is always and only agent causation. The necessity of causal sufficiency is met by divine action, for as Plantinga emphasizes:
    [T]he connection between God’s willing that there be light and there being light is necessary in the broadly logical sense: it is necessary in that sense that if God wills that p, p occurs. Insofar as we have a grasp of necessity (and we do have a grasp of necessity), we also have a grasp of causality when it is divine causality that is at issue. I take it this is a point in favor of occasionalism, and in fact it constitutes a very powerful advantage of occasionalism. 118
    http://jbtsonline.org/wp-conte.....ressed.pdf

    The reiterate “The necessity of causal sufficiency is met by divine action,”

    Of tangential interest to this subject of ‘Divine action’ bringing about our immediate experience of the world, it is also interesting to point out that George Berkeley, an 18th-century Anglo-Irish bishop, and a renowned Christian Philosopher after whom Berkeley University was named, and whom Dr. Gordon referenced in his paper, reached the conclusion, long before quantum mechanics came along, that God must be the “immediate cause of all our experiences.”

    George Berkeley,,,, A convinced adherent of Christianity, Berkeley believed God to be present as an immediate cause of all our experiences.,,,
    Berkeley believed that God is not the distant engineer of Newtonian machinery,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Theology

    It is kind of amazing that someone, a Christian philosopher at that, was able to deduce, hundreds of years ago, what we are just now finding out from quantum mechanics.

    Quote:

    All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth – in a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world – have not any subsistence without a mind.
    – George Berkeley

Leave a Reply