Quantum Theory

[vanschen]

---

Watch this the CHILD about quantum mechanics on PURE POTENTIALITY!

YouTube - What the bleep do we know? Down the rabbit hole. part 3

nice link.

the quantum - unlimited supply of energy. this maybe the magician,s holy grail - tapping the vaccuum energy with consciousness.

[vanschen]

agree. consciousness for now is not empirically demonstrable nor can me quantitatively formulated. but then again, Cognitive Science as a discipline is a very young science, but the optimistic view is that it can become a science like physics in the next 100 years. thus, although current literature consciousness could not be explained in reductive physicalism (pure materialist conception) exactly why the problem of consciousness is the very argument against the forefront of physicalist theories of the mind, i am stilll open to the idea, and even wager, that in the future consciousness can be explained in scientific terms. Such was why i said "perhaps" in my earlier statement with the condition that we could adequately define consciousness and demonstrate the certain shade of consciousness we consider.

cheers!

if consciousness will be in a century or a millenia be reduced to the functionality of the brain and ultimately to a mathematical equation, that would be a remarkable discovery - an equivalent maybe of finding the holy grail in cognitive science. but there is a "darker" side to it. it would imply that we humans are just mindless hulks. incapable of independent thought. a "being" or just an object inside a computer simulation. are we just mere patterns or computer programs inside a super[quantum computer]? a simulation run like in mathematica [S. Wolframs program]? what then of our freedom? our free will? then we go back to philosophy.

[vanschen]

OK this is not Spiritual I guess. I guess quantum theory can be broke down as the composition of matter...

Break this down:
molecule->atom->proton/electron->quarks->string
(hope im right based on what i remember)

for those who don't have an idea String Theory will make you understand this... I watched the video. In late 90's they say quarks is the small god's that makes up the universe but then quarks ddnt prove to be the basic component of matter. So scientist again make a new theory call strings. But so far in the documentary they said it is impossible to study strings based on the current technology.

So its safe to say this is scientific Findings not related to God. If someone insist then please present a convincing facts and proof that we might be able to respect your views not just personal view because it becomes a subjective matter.

Science is truth.
Theory is Unproven Science.
Theory is Unproven Truth.

Logical?


FYI:
The old quantum theory was a collection of results from the years 1900–1925 which predate modern quantum mechanics.

Quantum theory is already proven so its called Quantum Mechanics.

just to not confuse the readers.

an electron is already an elementary particle. it cant be broken down into quarks.

[vanschen]

Well, it talks about Consciousness at sub atomic level!

Bohmian interpretation of QM as a solution to Schrodingers cat in a state of superposition.

[The_Child]

if consciousness will be in a century or a millenia be reduced to the functionality of the brain and ultimately to a mathematical equation, that would be a remarkable discovery - an equivalent maybe of finding the holy grail in cognitive science. but there is a "darker" side to it. it would imply that we humans are just mindless hulks. incapable of independent thought. a "being" or just an object inside a computer simulation. are we just mere patterns or computer programs inside a super[quantum computer]? a simulation run like in mathematica [S. Wolframs program]? what then of our freedom? our free will? then we go back to philosophy.

roll over Sartre.


but no really, it doesn't have to be that way. Consciousness MAY itself be within the indeterminable planck level. which means that the issue of freedom and morality does not have to be rendered inutile. Isnt it that what ticked Einstein's off from quantum mechanics, its indeterminable nature? ("god does not play dice" famous remark) then perhaps, just perhaps, consciousness follows quantum probability instead of a deterministic logic. (all over Heisenberg's central formula again)

that i would like to wager, that consciousness could not be determined by classical physics, because if it was, then i would like to believe that it would not have been that problematic to spatially locate such phenomenon until now. What might say that it may be a functionalist reduction, but then again i wouldn't count on it as purely functionalism. And also, if such is so, we do not have to revert back to Skinner or his disciples.

one of my favorite retorts from one of my idolized persons in the field, thomas nagel, once wrote (which seems to go like this): Without consciousness the mind-body problem would have been boring, with consciousness it has become impossible.

cheers!



p.s wolframs is a nerd. but thats a side-note.

[brownprose]

Admittedly, I am just merely a student of science...but it doesn't make sense the attempt to explain spirituality with Quantum Theory. Apparently, the two are distinguishable but disparate fields. Connecting both of them all the more tells you that they are not the same banana.

[NASYO]

Connecting both of them all the more tells you that they are not the same banana.

aw, ka-gets ko ana.
pareha cla nga tubag apan la-in2X ang unod or explenasyon.

[vanschen]

roll over Sartre.


but no really, it doesn't have to be that way. Consciousness MAY itself be within the indeterminable planck level. which means that the issue of freedom and morality does not have to be rendered inutile. Isnt it that what ticked Einstein's off from quantum mechanics, its indeterminable nature? ("god does not play dice" famous remark) then perhaps, just perhaps, consciousness follows quantum probability instead of a deterministic logic. (all over Heisenberg's central formula again)

that i would like to wager, that consciousness could not be determined by classical physics, because if it was, then i would like to believe that it would not have been that problematic to spatially locate such phenomenon until now. What might say that it may be a functionalist reduction, but then again i wouldn't count on it as purely functionalism. And also, if such is so, we do not have to revert back to Skinner or his disciples.

one of my favorite retorts from one of my idolized persons in the field, thomas nagel, once wrote (which seems to go like this): Without consciousness the mind-body problem would have been boring, with consciousness it has become impossible.

cheers!



p.s wolframs is a nerd. but thats a side-note.

nice quote.

MAY = possibly.

if indertiminacy is freedom. then human c should arise from quantum c. but human c is different from quantum c. quantum c obeys the Uncertainty P which we dont normally experience. UP is insignificant in the mesoscopic level - the human level. though UP is reflected in a "situation" like claustrophobia - a spread wave when a particle is pinned down in a small space [Greene,s idea]. and in eureka [new: now that's funny] in Archimedes [my idea]. generally, thought spreads emotions and emotions spreads thought. though this and other situations reflect the UP, it does not in all situations. like when you drive and see the GPS map of where you are and where youre going [though my teacher told us that because of the UP you should think instead: " i know where im going but i dont know where i am. i know where i am but i dont know where i am going." this is impractical and much less pathological. [maybe true if its about life!]

so i think, just my junk idea since i dont have any PHd, human consciousness is in between the indeterminate [quantum] and determinate [macroscopic]. this is the idea behind string theory and loop quantum gravity, that is to unify both micro and macro. maybe one day we,ll read a paper citing string theory or LQG by cognitive scientists.

this is just a joke: if we were take the idea of quantum consiousness to its extreme then we,d all be with OCDs.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

are you a scientist sir?

[vanschen]

are you a scientist sir?

i wish i were. a sayangtist.