Essay Abstract

How did our universe develop complexity and intelligent life? Quantum mechanics may hold the key. First, a classical universe could not form complex orderly structures. Second, both the time-asymmetric nature of wave evolution and collapse, along with the correlative power of entanglement, spreads increasing organized possibilities forward in time. We already know that quantum mechanics aids the efficiency of photosynthesis, it may also help drive evolution and the powers of the mind, "free will" in particular.

Author Bio

I am an independent scholar asking challenging questions and trying to figure out what's going on. I have worked in various technical and other fields, being somewhat of a "Renaissance Man."

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Neil --

Nice essay. I especially like the point you make to begin with, that even though classical physics seems neat and simple, compared with quantum mechanics, it just doesn't work as the basis for any kind of higher-level structure. One theme of my essay is the remarkable functionality of quantum physics, and how many different kinds of complex structure are needed to support the precisely uniform and predictable behavior of atoms and molecules.

Surely you're right that QM is needed as a basis for the evolution of life and humanity. And I think there are at least some important analogies between quantum measurement and the kinds of interaction that evolved human intelligence.

Your point about Bayesian reasoning is also on point. When I was a kid, hardly any scientist would admit to believing in life in outer space; now nearly everyone assumes there must be other forms of life out there. But you can't calculate odds based on a single case, especially one as singular as ours.

Thanks -- Conrad

Hi Neil,

It's a pleasure to see you are here. I just started reading your essay, and I am glad you are stressing a very fundamental thing: the proper structure of the physical laws. Your explanation of impossibility of classical world is well articulated for the general public, and that is important. In fact, structural tuning of the laws is more fundamental than fine tuning of their constants, as we also tried to stress two years ago. While I am reading your essay, you may have a look and comment ours. When finished, I will comment more.

Cheers,

Alexey Burov

Conrad, Alexey and Lev:

Thanks for the supportive comments. I'll look at your essays soon. Sigh. I just got 1-bombed (known by the averaging math) by some anonymous coward who gave no reason for the worst possible rating. If you don't like an essay, you can even stay anonymous but at least give a reason why you think a paper deserves a low rating. I say this on behalf of all of us. I am blaming those who abuse their vote here, not FQXi.

    Neil,

    I like your essay and give you a high rate. I already mentioned that we fully share your attention to the structure of the physical laws, not only to their constants. I also agree with you that rare interventions of the free will into any probabilistic events would not be distinguishable from a rare fluctuation. One more important point I see in your essay is that for infinite or big enough multiverse/universe low probability of appearance of life is not actually prohibitive as a pure accident. What convinces me in the upper Mind is not that low probability, but very special features of the physical laws, which we describe by the word discoverability, see our text for more details.

    Good luck!

    Alexey.

    Hi Neil

    I enjoyed reading your essay and think your reasoning is solid. Lots of ideas you have packed in concisely and coherently.

    I agree with your point about free will & determinism vs QM. James Robert Arnold's essay explores this as well you may like to read it.

    I will read your essay Alexey and Lev it is on my list

    My essay will be of interest to you i think Neil. It explores the biofriendliness of the laws and constants and within the same theme the constructiveness of human reasoning. (Please help me recover as I was bombed three times!)

    Regards,

    Gavin

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      Neil,

      Nice essay, well written and argued and representing a sound overview of much of QM and it's implications. But I can maybe see why it was 'bombed', which might be the same reason mine was; tackling QM at all!

      I agree with most of your analysis, but It seems you didn't read my logical unravelling of Bertelmann's socks of last year ; Red & Green Socks, which survived multiple bomb attacks! You won't then have seen the (relatively!) simple classical analogue, which I expand this year to a full classical derivation underpinning almost all you write!! So your; "roughing out the "principle of the thing" in broadest terms" looks right, but due to new physics not 'magic'!

      In brief. Consider a pair of socks with different colour linings, or a spinning sphere where we find one pole spins clockwise and one anti-clockwise. You may just find all do!! Now with anti parallel propagation, similar reversible 'sock' detectors giving outputs of either 'SAME' (RR,GG) or 'DIFFERENT' (RG,GR), the weirdness evaporates. Anyway I hope you read this years and see if you can rationalise it. Too few even bother.

      Lastly you asked; "So what is "randomness" anyway?" may I offer the observation that from a splitter the North and South pole distribution each way is random and 50:50 (changing non-linearly at the detector electron by Cos latitude and tending to undecidability at the equator). That '50:50' is all that 'randomness' needs, and I also identify TWO ORTHOGONAL 'uncertainties'. Can you suggest any case where that 50:50 case seems inadequate?

      But enough of mine! Very well done for yours. It sits right up there on my scoring mod sheet.

      Very Best wishes for the recovery of your score.

      Peter

        Nice to see you here Neil.

        Your essay tangle mine a bit. The collapse is maybe 'partial'? Also the asymmetry is very important and the critic of Schrödinger time evolution in closed situations are a proper one. Quantum situations cannot generally be seen as closed.

        You have proper claims with no reference a bit too often to feel good for me, otherwise quite ok. A bit 'wordy' too :)

        Nice. I will give my vote for you later.

        Ulla.

          Too much a headache to say much tonight, folks. I'll try to reciprocate with some comments at other essays (and have already voted on a few.)

            Dear Neil Bates,

            Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

            I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

            Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

            The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

            A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            Nice essay Neil Bates,

            Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...

            Let's first ask: could a classical universe turn out like ours did? You might be tempted to start by saying: maybe, just look at the Solar System and other gravitationally-bound complexes. But no. Yes, solar systems are impressive, but are fragile to outside interaction.

            Here I describe a classical universe using Newtonian Physics............

            ..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

            I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

            For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

            Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

            With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

            Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

            Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

            http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

            Best wishes to your essay.

            For your blessings please................

            =snp. gupta

            Neil, it is good to see you made it in for this one. I agree that QM is essential for the universe to work the way it does and you explain that very well.

            You ask how rare we are. I think we are rarer in the cosmos than many people currently imagine. The continual news of exoplanets naturally leads to optimism, but Fermi's paradox does not go away and it may have required many chance events and circumstances to bring us to our current level.

              Phil,

              Thanks for your affirmation. I'll take a look at your essay here, I like attempts to deal with consciousness. We are perceivers of this world, that conditions our attempts to understand it, and "mind" cannot be canceled out of that journey.

              Thank you, Gavin. I'll look at James' and your essays. The question of causality and what is "necessary" versus from chance or even "free" has never really been truly understood, much less answered.

              Thanks, Steve. There are many essays this time, and quite a mix of focal points and perspectives.

              Thanks, Peter. You start your essay as a storyteller and interdisciplinary generalist, setting the table about the questions instead of juseht diving in with an axe to grind. I like that. I am not yet sure just how the segue into angular momentum carries on to the end point, and per relevance to genetic change etc. Maybe looking at comments from others will help me understand your strategy here - and I need to brush up on "spin networks," spintronics and the like. The latter surely has relevance to neurology at the fine level such as in microtubules.

              As for the red/green socks issue, I am thinking - perhaps you mean, that the superposition of right and left spin (that gives rise to a linear polarized state) can be objectified to an opposite? (Such as 0.8 RH and 0.6 LH at some phase angle, corresponds to the other photon being 0.8 LH and 0.8 RH at the same phase angle?)

              You are welcome.

              Indeed there are many essays and several very relevant.I enjoyed and liked a lot this contest.We learn in the same time and we share ideas.FQXi makes a wonderfull work.It is so innovant, transparent,global and revolutionary for the global sciences community.We can make incredible revolutions on this Platform.

              All the best from Belgium

              First - no editing of our comments at our own essay page, eh? I can do it at the blogs though. (And my spellcheck still flags "blogs" and damn, "spellcheck" for that matter?!) Sigh - hence "juseht" is there to stay I suppose. In any case: I forgot to take into account, that altho the angular momentum vectors from a binary emission would be opposite in actuality, they actually show the same spin relative to the observer. Hence I should write (and would fix if I could!) the above as:

              (Such as 0.8 RH and 0.6 LH at some phase angle, corresponds to the other photon arriving with the same constitution relative to the observer?)