Organisms might be quantum machines • Hacker News Board

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#71

Post by fsiefken » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

mixedmath wrote: post #2

Only somewhat related: I'm currently reading Anathem by Neal Stephenson. I'm nearing the end of the book, and the concept that human brains might use quantum processes in the decision-making process is a very important and prevalent idea in the novel. [Although he takes some artistic license --- it is only a novel, afterall]. So I've been thinking, at least passively, about organisms being quantum machines quite a bi…

Yes, look into Stuart Hameroff, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff who thought of quantum effects through neural microtubules independently of Roger Penrose in 1987 whose work from 1989 inspired Neal Stephenson. Neal wrote on his website in the Acknowledgements section:

"1. Penrose posits, in The Emperor's New Mind (ISBN 978-0192861986) and Shadows of the Mind (ISBN 978-0195106466), that the human brain takes advantage of quantum effects to do what it does. This has been so controversial that I have found it impossible to have a dispassionate conversation about it with any learned person. The dispute can be broken apart into a number of different sub-controversies, some of which are more interesting than others. The science-fictional premise of Anathem is based on the relatively weak and modest assumption that natural selection has found some way to construct brains that, despite being warm and wet, are capable of exploiting the benefits of quantum computation. Readers who are uncomfortable with the specific mechanism posited by Penrose might also wish to read Henry Stapp's Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics (ISBN 978-3540407614) which posits a quantum brain mechanism that is completely incompatible with Penrose's."

Also read this, I was lucky enough to do an academic level course on parapsychology long ago with Dick Bierman for 4 study points:

* Quantum States In The Retina? Pierre St. Hilaire, Dick Bierman, Stuart Hameroff http://quantum.webhost.uits.arizona.edu/prod/content/quantum...

Why is research like this not funded and practised more? Is it to far out, costly or difficult?

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#72

Post by taneq » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:27 AM UTC

paul_milovanov wrote: post #64

ddt_Osprey wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perception in humans seems capable of grasping data sets with billions of pieces of information each second, and distilling it all down to intuition. All this information is serialized onto pretty much 5 channels (excluding things like one's sense of balance, or the awareness of how your body is posed), all streamed concurrently. Sounds like a recipe for high bandwidth consumption. Many cycles per second. Based on th…

5 channels? those are some whooping-ass channels.

Each 'channel' (assuming he means senses) has a helluva bus width.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#73

Post by taneq » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:29 AM UTC

tener wrote: post #61

Pretty sure brains are exploiting quantum phenomenas too, we just haven't noticed that yet. This should make replicating human brain much harder.

Why? Because computers can't exploit quantum phenomena? Phenomena such as, say, field effects in doped silicon?

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#74

Post by Noseshine » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:30 AM UTC

jp3141 wrote: post #70

fizixer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... chemistry is a leaky abstraction ... Well I second you on that. Even stronger: All of (theoretical) science is a leaky abstraction. When an area is new, people are doing the spherical-cow-approximation willy nilly. After it gets established, corner cases start to surface. Incidentally, theoretical physicists are the masters of creating spherical-cow-approximations and leaky-abstractions. They're always going fo…

relevant xkcd https://www.xkcd.com/435/

Math is a tool. It's orthogonal and used by all, not hierarchical above (or below) all of them..

http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

    > The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not,
    > so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler
    > question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural
    > sciences in spite of the difference in subject matter. I do not think it is.

I'm not even including that famous Einstein quote about math.

Example: When you are doing math in economics you are not doing something that is even more foundational than physics.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#75

Post by Noseshine » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #57

pdonis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see quantum effects? No. Chemistry itself is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects; quantum effects determine the structure of atoms and molecules, how they combine, and how much energy is involved in those processes. That's true whether the processes are taking place in living bodies or not. My reaction to this article is basically the same as j…

I thought chemistry operated at a higher level, as in it doesn't care how or why a atoms are structured they way they are, they just deal with the results at a higher level of abstraction. Is this incorrect?

Take a course like "MITx: Introduction to Solid state Chemistry" [0] and while you won't be doing quantum physics except a very basic introduction you'll brush against it all the time.

Depends on what exactly you do in chemistry. Understanding structures like molecules and chemical bonds takes you deep. I f you only care about macro effects, like how to turn this input into that output in an industrial process than you move away from the low-level basics.

The same as in any field, you get to choose if you want to invent new algorithms or if you care about software architecture - both valid jobs for a CS person but it's different worlds.

[0] https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solid-state-chemistr...

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#76

Post by flohofwoe » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:42 AM UTC

- -1st century: the brain is 'magic'

- 15th century: the brain is the creation of a divine being

- 17th century: the brain is a clockwork

- 20th century: the brain is an electrical computer

- 21th century: the brain is a quantum device

- 22th century: the brain is a ??

It's an interesting thought though, and I especially like Neil Stephenson's idea that the brain is a quantum device that 'leaks out' into parallel universes and uses 'brain capacity' from those overlapping universes, but it's just that: a neat idea, and science fiction. What's different this time? :)

[edit: formatting]

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#77

Post by adrianN » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:58 AM UTC

fizixer wrote: post #17

danbruc wrote: post #5

Tl;dr Biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied quantum physics and in some cases chemistry is a leaky abstraction and does not perfectly explain what is going on in organisms. Three examples - photosynthesis being more efficient than expected, birds sensing Earth's magnetic field by an unknown mechanism and a lack of understanding how olfaction works in detail - are presented but besides that there are no n…

> ... chemistry is a leaky abstraction ... Well I second you on that. Even stronger: All of (theoretical) science is a leaky abstraction. When an area is new, people are doing the spherical-cow-approximation willy nilly. After it gets established, corner cases start to surface. Incidentally, theoretical physicists are the masters of creating spherical-cow-approximations and leaky-abstractions. They're always going fo…

That sounds like a pretty solid method for making progress. First outline something with spherical cows and refine the theory as data that doesn't quite fit keeps accumulating.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#78

Post by Razengan » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 7:58 AM UTC

flohofwoe wrote: post #76

- -1st century: the brain is 'magic' - 15th century: the brain is the creation of a divine being - 17th century: the brain is a clockwork - 20th century: the brain is an electrical computer - 21th century: the brain is a quantum device - 22th century: the brain is a ?? It's an interesting thought though, and I especially like Neil Stephenson's idea that the brain is a quantum device that 'leaks out' into parallel uni…

I like this best: The brain is the Universe trying to understand itself.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#79

Post by saskurambo » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 8:13 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #35

saskurambo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the mechanism of homeopathy isn't know. Clinic results are differente from test with placebo

There is no mechanism of homeopathy other than the placebo effect, homeopathy is pseudo-scientific bullshit, simple as that, it's fiction. If you think it works, it only demonstrates that you have no understanding of the placebo effect and are easily taken in by bullshit. > Clinic results are differente from test with placebo reply No they aren't.

Yes they are differents. Homeopathy cure the person not the hill. In test only the hill is observed not the unity of person. Tests are exclusives, clinics is inclusives

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#80

Post by rpwverheij » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 8:19 AM UTC

Noseshine wrote: post #74

jp3141 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

relevant xkcd https://www.xkcd.com/435/

Math is a tool. It's orthogonal and used by all, not hierarchical above (or below) all of them.. http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html > The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, > so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler > question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural > sciences in spite of the di…

what if the nature of the physical universe has no other reason to be as it is other than mathematical consequences of harmonies, resonances, balances, etc? In other words: if all that exists follows mathematical law, doesnt that make math part of the existential?