Live data from Hacker News

Organisms might be quantum machines

bbc.com

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it's certainly possible that neural networks involve some non-trivial quantum-mechanical effects, it's also much more likely that (in the context of the brain), this notion arose from people expecting the brain and consciousness to be mysterious and inscrutable, hence "maybe consciousness is quantum!". In the absence of a concrete theory and testable experiment, that sentence has about as much meaning as "maybe…

Wouldn't the presence of quantum effects be the default assumption, and there would have to be some compelling reason for their absence? It's not like nature started from Newtonian physics. Natural selection uses whatever it can get its sticky mitts on. Quantum effects are perfect for information processing. To me, it's not the inscrutability of the brain that makes this seem likely... it's the bare knuckled win-at-a…

One disambiguation: everything involves the presence of quantum mechanics, insofar as Newtonian physics isn't how the universe actually works. It's not entirely obvious where to draw the line here in calling an effect "quantum" or "not quantum"; Newtonian physics alone doesn't explain the majority of chemistry or electricity, for instance, and the body wouldn't function without a wide variety of chemical and electrical reactions. The brain (and absolutely everything else) runs on the actual physics of the universe, not on a model we might have of it.

The default assumption would be our current model of how the brain works; any model proposing effects (quantum or otherwise) not yet accounted for would require an appropriate amount of additional proof. When I suggested which seemed more likely, I was taking priors into account.

More generally, though, I wasn't referring to concrete models that make specific claims about how the brain works; I was referring to the rather frequently stated vague claims that use "quantum" in a way that would have no more or less meaning with the word "magic" substituted. A specific concrete model would be amenable to prediction and experiment.

Whether any particular such concrete model seems probable or not would depend on what it claims. For instance, a claim that the brain depends on macroscopic quantum effects at a far larger scale than observed elsewhere seems improbable; a claim that the brain depends on properties of chemical or electrical interactions that quantum mechanics explains better than other physics models seems relatively less improbable by comparison, depending on the details. Whether any particular claims seem probable or improbable would depend on our current understandings of quantum mechanics, the brain, evolutionary search processes, and so on.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#82
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you have a reliable source for that? I omitted adding a source because if you look for scientific research on homeopathy you find essentially only studies stating that it does not work, Wikipedia has plenty of references.

The knowledge of homeparhy in Science is really limited. We cab image the the surface of the top of iceberg as what know the science of homeopathy. All the iceberg is what you can know learning study and practice homeopathy for years or a live. this is my vision

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is simply not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Efficacy https://nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy#hed4 http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

Mmmm better provide also homeopatic reference

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#84
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…

Alternatively: mathematics can be seen as the science of structure.

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/structmath.html

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

    > if all that exists follows mathematical law
As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality, not reality mirrors math. I don't see electrons solving quantum equations - equations describe an electron. The cannonball follows a trajectory that we can describe using math - but it doesn't do math. Sure, you can say that it does, implicitly, but IMHO that's stretching it a bit, I don't see the value in such a metaphor.

From a certain level such questions become completely arbitrary and useless: Remember, it's your brain that interprets everything and you can just say whatever you want when there are no consequences.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#86

- -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.

The brain, at least, plays a (somewhat local) observer role towards the Universe. The brain trying to understand the Universe is a nice byproduct of that role.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#87

This can open new research also on how works for example homeopathy and acupunture?

I absolutely would not rule out that this can open new research on for example homeopathy and acupuncture.

Yes many mechanisms actually are really not explored
Post reply on HN