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

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#121

Post by crystaln »

QuantumRoar wrote: post #109
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 part…

That's silly. "Simple" in this context is an entirely human construct. Matter and energy just are. They have no sense of their own complexity. If quantum effects exist, they are equally as accessible as macro-classical effects to biology even if not human understanding.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#122

Post by kakarot »

dnautics wrote: post #92
kakarot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the assumption that the working theory is birds share a similar feature as fruit flies and possibly foxes. The cones that allow us to see blue light actually work as compasses when suspended in a fluid, and they are not attached to the retina of a fruit fly but are suspended in their eye and thus shape incoming visual patterns around magnetic fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception

The cryptochrome hypothesis doesn't require detachment from the retina as it's a protein that has directional excitatory preference, not the whole cell.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. I find this topic to be of extreme interest

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#123

Post by QuantumRoar »

crystaln wrote: post #121
QuantumRoar wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 part…

That's silly. "Simple" in this context is an entirely human construct. Matter and energy just are. They have no sense of their own complexity. If quantum effects exist, they are equally as accessible as macro-classical effects to biology even if not human understanding.

Of course you're right but we're talking about two different things. I was telling you about how humans cope with complexity in science. You wouldn't get anywhere in science if you would always start from the most detailed theory. Instead, you try simpler models first and if they accurately describe the phenomenon, there's no need to involve quantum mechanics (which often renders problems almost impossible to solve).

On the other hand, if you tried the classical theories and notice that there are things unaccounted for, then you go and look for more detailed theories to apply to your problem. That's the normal way you do research and that's what happened here.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#124

Post by Gatsky »

kenbellows wrote: post #111
Gatsky wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean... evolution explains the complexity of things, and evolution certainly has a foundation in the chemistry of DNA. Or are you asking why we have the particular configuration of biological entities we have instead of a different one?

Well what does it mean to say that Biology is applied Chemistry? To me it says 2 things. 1 - That there is no 'new' knowledge in biology. 2 - The important aspects of biology can be reduced easily to applied chemistry.

Evolution contradicts this, because it is a genuinely new idea. Some may say it is the ONLY new idea in biology, but that's good enough.

It's often quoted here that "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." You could extend this to "Biological science is no more about chemistry..."

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#125

Post by Terr_ »

ddt_Osprey wrote: post #56
Terr_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My cynical prediction is that if quantum-effects are part of the brain, it will only be in a practical, philosophically-boring way. So they may be essential to basic plumbing shared by many species, but not otherwise a game-changing factor for "consciousness" or "intelligence".

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…

> All this information is serialized onto pretty much 5 channels

Says who? Just because you can invent categories doesn't mean you've identified channels. That would be like walking up to a computer, say "pictures, sounds, storage", and assume that the computer must contain 3 enormous channels dedicated to each type of information.

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#126

Post by gnaritas »

saskurambo wrote: post #83
waterphone wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, homeopatic anecdotes are not science. Science has studied homeopathy and found it to be complete and utter nonsense. That's the end of the story, it's superstition and does not work. You either understand that, or remain willfully ignorant. There are no other options.

Homeopathy doesn't work, that's a fact, what part about that known fact seems to confuse you? Why are you insisting something that is KNOWN to not work, works? What don't you get?

Re: Organisms might be quantum machines

#127

Post by gnaritas »

saskurambo wrote: post #79
gnaritas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'll just assume English isn't your first language because nothing you just said makes a lick of sense.
Post reply on HN