Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter

Quite interesting your essay - at least at the point I could follow it. And lots of common viewpoints.

Interesting to know that John Wheelers said "Never make a calculation until you know the answer". When in a research work, I have similar rule: "never use an equation unless I am able to replace it by plain text"; or, in the other words, "I always have to know more than equations".

Other important statement is "We aim for 'the scientific method' but

tend to use default response mode, so reject anything unfamiliar, which precludes advancement. Deciding truth on a who not what basis is a similar default error. Teaching only mathematical physics can't help expand capacity to 'understand'. Your "default response mode" is basically my "mind search-engine" and what you say here is exactly what I think, although I have not mentioned it in my essay because it was not about the mind.

After around section 7, I began to feel lost because of my limitations (and also my methodology). It's a pity because it seems to be very interesting, but we have to choose our fields of concern, isn't it? I am not qualified to follow your reasoning there. However, both your ideas and your writing style captured me until then.

Concerning your question about the role of gravity in promoting the ever larger connections between entities, surely it has a fundamental role; however, I would not say that its role is more important that any other - even the psychological ones, because without our social tendency the human society would not be possible.

Yet, if you want to know if there is one property responsible by all this, I would say "yes". However, that property is behind all we know - behind matter, radiation, fields. We still conceive the universe as having "particles" and a "vacuum", both with properties but being two different entities. We cannot model the universe differently. Yet, we begin to understand that particles shall be some sort of perturbation of the medium we call vacuum. We are just grasping this conception of the universe but it is only there that we can find a common cause for everything we know.

I want to thank your nice words about by essay. I am happy to know that it pleased you.

Good luck for the contest!

Alfredo

Peter,

Yours is a very interesting essay. I am not going to pretend that I understood everything that you suggested in it, but I do see how you drew the conclusions given at the end of the paper.

I know there are many ways to interpret the contest theme; however, I am surprised at how many essays, including yours, try to develop direct links between the mathematical laws and higher brain functions and higher intelligence. I realize that that is a valid approach to the theme, but it seems like a very difficult undertaking.

As you know, in my essay, I suggest that when DNA can cause something in its favor to happen rather than have to live at the mercy of its environment, it has exhibited intent. Therefore, by merely offering a step from inert matter to that of DNA (and RNA), it seems the question of how the mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions is fundamentally addressed (although I am not saying that I did a good job of addressing it). As living entities evolve into systems of higher complexity; of course, the sophistication of the aims and intentions grows.

Perhaps, in this situation, an incremental approach to ultimately understanding how the laws relate to higher intelligence is more useful than trying to eat the elephant all in one bite. Maybe we need to learn arithmetic and algebra before we tackle calculus and differential equations. I suspect, given the breadth of knowledge displayed in the essays submitted; we could probably come up with a good model of the initial jump from inert matter, driven by its surroundings, to living systems, manipulating their surroundings.

At any rate, good luck to you,

William.

Peter,

i think the experiment i spoke of was first meant as a thought experiment, figured out by Zeilinger and Mike Horne in 1985 and then presented at a conference in 1987, as far as i remember. It indeed was not a quantum eraser experiment, since i confused it with another experiment. So here it is:

Take a source that produces twin-particles which propagate in opposite directions. At each direction from the source, place a double-slit barrrier. The source and the distances between two slits on a barrier is such that at the measurement screen behind each double-slit, there does not appear an interference pattern, but a homogenous gray.

Say, the twin-particle propagating to the left is called A, the other, propagating to the right, is called B.

Scanning the detection plane (with a detector B) of particle B (from left to right or vice versa) gives a random pattern of impacts which lead to the homogenous gray.

But repeat the experiment with the difference that now we also install a detector (photomultiplier or such) in the detection plane for particle A at a specific place. Now repeat the experiment by measuring the relative frequencies of impacts at the measurement plane B (while detector A is always at the same location) by again moving it (from right to left or vice versa). Now you get non-random relative frequencies of the impacts, they form an interference pattern.

For the relevant coincidence counts, detectors A and B together produce an intererence pattern in the plane of particle B. One can also once more change the relative frequencies of impacts at the detection plane of particle B by slightly shifting detector A. One can do this until the maxima and minima at side B for the placement of detector A in the first run and in the second run (the latter the one with the slightly shifted detector position) build up together a totally washed out 'interference pattern'.

The fact that a detector is used at side A alters the relative frequencies of impacts on side B, irrespectively of how large the distances between the two detector planes are. Since nothing has changed at the source and at side B, one is forced to correlate the initial change of patterns with the use of detector A. But how can the use of detector A influence what detector B measures...

My term 'Bell deniers' is confusing. I should have written entanglement deniers, since you accept Bell's theorem, but do not think that spooky-action-at-a-distance is reality, but only a misunderstanding. In a certain sense i do so, because i do not think that there is really an action at a distance in space and time. But i rationally think that there is a reason for the above described behaviour, although maybe not tracable with our usual notion of causality.

The above experiment was conducted and confirmed. In this experiment one can neglect the particles which did not hit the detectors or did not hit the double slits.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Hi Peter thank you for updated comment on my page. The links still do not work. This is an old problem with fqxi - I found that when formatting, you must strip http:// from any url you add after link: try it in the preview it should work.

Best

Vladimir

Peter,

the experiment is described in Zeilingers book ‚Einsteins Schleier'; i don't know if there is an english version available on the market. I will google the paper and send you the link if i find that paper.

The starting 'assumption' of the homogenous gray is due to heisenbergs uncertainty. If you could use a twin-source to produce (at the left side, say) an interference pattern and conclude with the particle on the right side which slit the particle on the left took, you had circumvented the path/interference complementarity. Only a source of a certain size does produce the homogenous gray. Think of it here classically. The source must be approximately in size of the distance between two slits. This is analogous to a very small source which produces the interference pattern, but if slightly moved a little bit, the interference pattern on the screen will also move so that the moved and the unmoved patterns are inverse and result in the homogenous gray.

But by using a very small source, the twin-particles do not anymore propagate in exactly the opposite directions (but more or less randomly), what means that one cannot anymore conclude from the right side which slit the particle on the left side took. For a bigger source this is the case and therefore even by using a double-slit the result will be the homogenous gray. Remember, we use here a twin-source, not a stream (like for example coherent laser light) of photons onto the double-slit.

Only if you also install a double-slit for the idler and measure the impacts in the way i described before, you get the relative frequencies i spoke of, which are the signature of interference. I know, this is all spooky in light of your own approach. Could you send me the link to the Weihs paper where the group admitted to have substracted that 'rotational variance' data?

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Peter,

Bravo, good work. The work, setting thinking and continue the analysis of the offered thoughts. The work which will be for my part highly estimated.

To tell the truth, I don't carry myself to the big experts in the area of physics of consciousness, more likely on the contrary, but in my opinion the consciousness has other, thinner nature. Certainly, I don't deny physics (more precisely - biophysics) of brain structure, but I'm almost assured that a brain it is simple a highly organized antenna realizing information interchange between individual intelligence (as the mechanism of implementing of the consciousness of an individuum), and a noosphere (as a "global information field" - prof. Vernadsky). All residual body of each person (also of all other live beings) is thought up only for this purpose, to provide optimum performance of this aerial (brain) in certain environment.

Believing that my thought, most likely is not new, I carry myself to supporters of those who denies possibility of the creation of artificial consciousness. The intelligence can be (possibly) to some extent simulated and realized.

Best regards and good luck in the contest!

Vladimir

Piter, I have read all the laudatory comments about your essay and, therefore, expect the best. It is obvious that the authors wanted to get high scores to improve your ranking.

Most of the essays in the contest is 'Much Ado about Nothing', However, is their great work, and I can't give them low scores when they visited my topic and found out that there are New Cartesian Physic.

Peter, you have a talent to combine a lot of good words and a lot of writing. That you attract the attention of others. I do not exclude that you can be among the winners.

I ask you to remember the existence of the New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

Peter,

here are three papers, addressing the experiment.

The first was presented at the conference 1985:

http://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/1985-03.pdf

Another paper from 1999, so more in a popular scientific style, is this (page 232):

https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Aspelm_Happy_centenary_photon.pdf

Another more technical paper is this (page 289):

http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/zeilinger.pdf

A doctoral thesis with another realization of the scheme can be found here (also only in german language):

https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Dopfer1998.pdf

Note that it even does not need a second double-slit to produce interference at both detectors, denpending on what happens with the other detector.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter, thanks for the question.

I also criticize the Cartesian coordinate system for its long axis and on this basis to reject the special theory of relativity, as it is the basis of the inertial reference system, which prevent each other from moving due to the long axes. I believe that the Cartesian coordinate system takes place only in the infinitesimal sense. The place where we live is infinitely small relative to the entire Universe, so we can mentally use Cartesian 'frame' systems, assuming that space is at rest.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

Hi Peter,

I have replied to your post on my essay page.

Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your enjoyable and interesting essay. I especially enjoyed your foray into quantum mechanics and the perspective your give on the EPR paradox. We agree on many things that you say and I wonder if you know about Charlie Bennett's work (IBM TJ Watson Research Center, NY) on computational efficiency? In any event I wanted to wish you good luck for the contest and let you know I have rated your essay in the meantime.

Regards,

Robert