Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Organisms might be quantum machines

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#101

Post by PeterisP »

nopassrecover wrote: post #90

Interesting insight on olfaction. Quantum involvement (e.g. selective wave-form collapse) is about the only viable possibility I can see for escaping determinism and allowing free will (and even then we're pushing current physics firmly into pop-sci fiction).

The concept of "escaping determinism" or "rescuing free will" seems weird to me. For any of the very different definitions of free will there a bunch of arguments about whether they are true or not in our reality - but "I don't like the consequences" is not one of them.

Free will is not something that needs to be saved. We can't save it, we can't change it, we can't create it if it's not there, we can't remove it from the universe if it's there. It exists (or not) in some particular way, and that's it. It would be interesting to find out definitely, but that wouldn't really change anything; and I don't believe if there's anything in our behaviour that should change upon finding it out.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#103

Post by deckar01 »

I am familiar with the concept of plants to growing towards the sun and following the sun throughout the day. I'm curious if a similar mechanism is occurring at the atomic level, causes new cell growth to converge onto a shape that maximizes electron transmission.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#104

Post by IanCal »

spectrum1234 wrote: post #98

I'm convinced that this is also how consciousness works yet I've never seen this published. Consciousness can't spontaneously appear so the only way it's possible is through quantum phenomena.

> Consciousness can't spontaneously appear

Why?

> Consciousness can't spontaneously appear so the only way it's possible is through quantum phenomena.

I don't understand at all how these two statements are connected.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#105

Post by ghgfhgfhn »

Noseshine wrote: post #85
rpwverheij wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

nah, you are interpreting math in too narrow a sense. It's really an exploration of all possible things that can be. Which is what the universe is really, it's just gotten a lot further down a particular path.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#106

Post by nabla9 »

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…

>in some cases chemistry is a leaky abstraction

There has never been "classical" theory for chemistry like there has been classical mechanics that works reasonably well within limits, just weird heuristic rules. Chemistry is quantum chemistry is quantum electrodynamics.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#107

Post by Gatsky »

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…

Can you provide an example of how this rather facile assertion leads to any insight into biology? For example, how does it follow in a coherent fashion that the chemical properties of DNA lead to Mozart, or a lady bug? In short, how does chemistry explain either the origin, function or future trajectories of any of the utterly amazing biological entities that exist today?

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#108

Post by acqq »

taneq wrote: post #72
paul_milovanov wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 channels? those are some whooping-ass channels.

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

Moreover, we have more than five senses. An example of one of these, for this we have the real "devices"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibular_system

built-in to give us the sense of balance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_balance

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#109

Post by QuantumRoar »

crystaln wrote: post #88

Why would anyone ever assume that biology obeys an entirely artificial distinction between classical and quantum mechanics devised from human ignorance billions of years after evolution began?

The same way you assume you can compute how a ball flies through the air without using quantum field theory. Turns out, the ball isn't noticeably influenced by its atomic structure. But then it turns out, some of biology might be.

The best description is the simplest one being able to describe all related phenomena. So unless you have a very good reason, it wouldn't be helpful to start from the standard model of particle physics.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#110

Post by m_mueller »

rpwverheij wrote: post #80
Noseshine wrote: post #74

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?

We don't have to make this thought experiment since we already know that it isn't the case - reality is a subset of what's mathematically possible. Finding that subset is what physics is concerned with.
Post reply on HN