Spanspermia: Does Life Come from Outer Hilbert Space?

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle Hi, thanks for asking, I think you have understood my critique, I had not explained it correctly. We indeed probably have deeper quantum mechanisms, and so yes, probably hidden quantum effects that we cannot measure or observe. When you ask me to name a deeper quantum effect, you are assuming that the issue is one of empirical mechanism or technical specification. But my point is not about naming a particular biological quantum process. It is about showing that the problem itself is ontological, not mechanistic.
The question of whether deeper quantum effects matter in living systems cannot be settled merely by listing effects. Every classical biological model already rests on quantum substrates. So the relevance of quantum structure is not the question, the question is whether hidden ontological causes are part of the puzzle.
What counts as causal structure, how information relates to physical state, how coherence and decoherence define system boundaries,these are the physical and ontological limitations we must consider.Why for example we have negentropic stabilities from the physics we actually know, like GR, QFT, Hilbert space, informations, geometrical algebras....

I am not claiming that quantum biological effects are this or that, and I am also not claiming that they are foundational in some mystical sense. I am saying that we cannot assert either position until we address the ontological grounding of physical information, coherence, and causation in open systems. So the question you ask me is, let's say, premature, because description is not explanation. A working model is not the same as a metaphysical possibility, just as a classical approximation is not a classical ontology, if I can say it that way.

Until we resolve what it means for structure, information, and coherence to exist in a living system, asking for specific quantum effects is asking for an answer inside a framework we are precisely questioning. This was what I was explaining mainly. So how can we conclude, considering these physical, informational, and ontological limitations?
Real humility means recognizing that the limits of knowledge are philosophical before they are technical....regards

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

That's a very long way of saying you can't.

SepiaBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk

Means motive and opportunity I think. This is a glimpse into the future of LLMs piloted by who do not understand what they want to say, but want to be seen to be saying something. I also think precisely because of the positioning of the topic it will attract quite a lot of muddled thinking. Immodest as it may be, I did do my best to write against the kind of essay I expected to see, and it seems I wasn't wrong.

Ulla Mattfolk

SepiaBeetle How quantum is life? It would for
example be absurd to suggest quantum social science [1]- so what exactly is meant by the question? I believe
a reasonable interpretation is as follows: do there exist phenomena at the biological scale which can only
be explained quantum mechanically? By this I mean effects that require the language of non-commutative
operators ...
They wanted us to take Schrödingers text on what is life, as a theoretical structure of negentropy and asymmetry in open quantum systems. But life is not a substance like a chemistry. It is not about the dogma in biology either. So we are free to tell want life is?
Another similar is consciousness, it is not a substance, nor a chemistry. It can be about entanglement as Keskens think.
And the mind is not a substance either, nor a chemistry. It is like a projection and a reduced function, as it comes from all the trillions and more of cells, bacterias etc in our bodies. The mind is maybe the 'I', the interpreter as a unity. It is a very odd situation to have this. So I thought we could use Pauli principle of exclusion here to find one mind only. It must be about dimensions and phases. Not about chemistry and matter.

In physics we have two other that are the same, gravitation is not a substance, it is ABOUT a substance. Time is not a substance but ABOUT how substances move. Like consciousness is ABOUT how patterns form and change. Life is also ABOUT how time is used and evolution, which is also ABOUT how matter behaves, etc. The models we have are not sufficient to describe all this, I think. We go around in circles and find no way out.

So, what exactly is the question in 'how quantum is Life'? They did not ask how quantum is biology, note.
Ulla.

Ulla Mattfolk

SepiaBeetle I am surprised the moderators accept clearly deficient essays of 1-2 pages if even that sometimes, They does not even fulfill the smallest of the demands made. There must be a reason why. I am sad and disappointed.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle of course I cannot describe a thing that we have not still discovered or measured and it is the point, me I don t conclude, you yes , the difference is there.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle
it is not because we do not know yet that we must conclude that there is nothing to know....
You tell me .That's a long way of saying you can't. So in telling that, so because we cannot describe a mechanism hidden , so the mechanism does not exist for you , and so no need of further ontology.....if I am understanding well. That needs explainations ....

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

I'm trying to make the point that your argument boils down to there being things I might not know. I agree! But polemically I can hardly engage with the negative possibility that there might be some hypothetical effect I've missed. The argument I'm making is based entirely on matters which we do understand, and is about as close to settled fact as anything in the universe, because if it weren't the case we would suddenly have to find new explanations for the way most things behave most of the time. Your position is equally applicable to literally any argument or position on any topics, and equally productive in all of them. I'm very willing to engage on any topic of fact, not on the morality of modesty. If you're able to coherently formulate your critique - and direct me to any positive theoretical or experimental evidence that buttresses your position - then great, I am more than happy to engage with that. But equally I'm not interested in wasting my time screaming into a void.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle the same for me you know, if you cannot give concrete ontological developments about my points, so I loose also my time, and I speak in the void you know. We are here to discuss about your essay, and your essay you know what I think about it, we are not here to make a competitonor to develop our vanity, I need answers about concrete questions I asked.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle
Your argument is based on what we understand, ok. But you tell things like because our current model works, no deeper model is needed. It is not like this that physics progresses. You need evidence , yes me too, but is it a reason to conclude ontologically about this topic How quantum is life.
We cannot conclude quantum biology is irrelevant because the ontology of biological coherence is not fully understood.Me I don t claim , I doubt. Epistemic humility is important.
We cannot declare quantum biological effects irrelevant simply because classical approximations work. Classical behavior emerges from quantum substrates, not the reverse. Therefore, biological coherence cannot be dismissed on the basis of classical success., it is my point. I am not claiming that a specific quantum biological mechanism is proven. I am claiming that we cannot conclude such mechanisms are irrelevant simply because classical approximations succeed. Classical behavior emerges from quantum structure, so the deeper question cannot be ignored ontologically speaking.

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

but I've said nothing about ontology. I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about the model that is quantum. It's a body of ideas and techniques that makes predictions, united by formal dynamical postulates . That's it. You can argue all you like about whether it's 'real', I don't find those questions very interesting. All I am talking about is the incompatibility of quantum with the claims made about how that theory in particular might drive observed processes in a different discipline concerned with different lengths times and complexities. That's it. You can interpret this as saying something about reality but it's you ascribing that to the theory, not me. Not once do I talk about reality, only the theory and the models.

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

Okay, how about you tell me where my arguments goes wrong. Tell me what I've misunderstood about quantum theory or complexity on my way to my conclusions. Incidentally, for what it's worth I did my best to distinguish between the scientific and the fantastical ideas at play. The problem I have is that you have in every single post harped on about the importance of humility, but in all of this I actually haven't heard one thing that makes me think you have a sufficiently firm grasp on what is known to be able to make that judgement. I'm arrogant in the way ten years of thinking about these things for a living tends to make one. What's your excuse?

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle
I have never said that your essay was bad, it is a good one, I just said that you conclude things that are not proved. The humility I refer to is about our ontological and physical limitations. All general thinkers who understand general relativity, QFT, Hilbert space, the Schrödinger equation, the Born rule, and so on, also understand the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, the measurement problem, and our ontological and physical limitations. It is this humility I was explaining. So how can we conclude about how quantum life is?
We do not yet know whether quantum effects play a fundamental role in biological organization.
Classical models describe biological systems well, but they do not explain the origin of coherence, regulation, and information flow nor the origin of the universe and the primary informations, nor the consciousnes, or why we exist, live and from what.
Therefore, we cannot conclude that life is purely classical just because classical approximations often work.
Classical success does not imply classical sufficiency.I am talking about limits of knowledge.And so we cannot tell that limits don t exist....

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

okay, you've named a lot of disconnected buzzwords. Can I ask, have you ever solved the Schrodinger equation? Have you ever done a calculation with the quantum formalism? Because what I'm talking about and the arguments I'm making are based on the actual formalism and the mathematical analysis of its behaviour. It is a step beyond just saying "the Born rule". It's not a failure if you don't know any of this, but - as you have kept saying - have some humility. There's plenty of references in the text for what I'm talking about.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle
Be frank, what is your chosen interpretation of QM? The MWI is not it. It is not me who does not know the fundamentals. It is not a failure if you are not able to develop deep ontological possibilities and extrapolate them with neutrality. Some are good in details, but they are not good for generality and doubt. It is like this. I don t know all me, I recognise it even If I cannot stop to study maths and physics since I was at university , I am 50 years old, I study all days because simply I am passionated and I cannot stop.There I study in details the ZX calculus and diagrams of Penrose. I correlate these works with my theory of spherisation and the spherical quantum volumes.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle
In your analysis of what is quantum, you say that quantum theory is statistical, that there are non-commuting observables, and you discuss coherence, interference, and entanglement. That part is fine. But after that, you clearly move to an ontological conclusion. You seem to assume a mathematical accident and an universal wave function,probably you are a fan of Everett and the MWI, I don t know I just explain how I see ,and that explains why you use expressions like soft minded fantasists, word salad, or fake Buddhist wo.. These are not concrete scientific arguments for me .It is like an odd way selective. You conclude as if your ontological choice were the only truth, and as if it were moreover the most intelligent choice.And the others them are false,
This is why I spoke about neutrality and the humility that comes from recognizing our limitations. For me, that is what is suspicious, not the idea of discussing quantum effects in biology. Biology is a physical system, operating inside quantum physics. So we cannot, I believe, rely on a circular or selective reasoning when we know that both our physical theories and our interpretations are limited.
You say that entanglement probably cannot scale in biology. But the problem is not there. We cannot argue from assumptions,we must argue from data. And we currently lack sufficient data. So we cannot claim certainty about this.

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

My interpretation of QM will not change the argument I am making. It is irrelevant, because the ideas I am presenting are grounded in the formalism. You can discuss interpretation until you're blue in the face and you will be no closer to understanding quantum mechanics. You're confusing the more accessible, and much more easily abused dressing of the theory with the theory itself.

Steve Dufourny

SepiaBeetle I fully respect the rigor of formalism, the problem is not there but my point is ontological. Focusing only on formalism risks circular reasoning, we describe what we observe with math and then conclude there is nothing more to discover, I d have liked if some extrapoaltions could have given possibilities beyond the How, I like the why . The problem is there, so we cannot really go farer I think in our discussion, It was a pleasure to discuss even if we disagree, Wish you all the best in this essay contest and in the life, regards

Ulla Mattfolk

The big problem in quantum and in consciousness is the quantum measurement poblem and decoherence. About size or scale we don't know (Susskind, the vienna group). Entanglement is not depending on scale generally. Tunnelling not either. Spin, no..

Why does nobody discuss this? How can we make the theory of decoherence differently, as instance use noise like 'life' does (topological quantum computing)? What about the role of water, can we have quantum in water (plants), or in oil (anasthesia?) +the role of em-force? The quantum theory of today is perhaps not good enough (Penrose and t'Hooft)

Also regarding scale you don't say anything about microtubulis and the measurement in Gran Sasso (Curceanu et co). What do you think about it, are there errors or other more classical interpretations?
Ulla.

SepiaBeetle

Ulla Mattfolk

I'd actually contend the big problem with quantum consciousness is that there is a yawning chasm between the theory it employs and the phenomena it is trying to explain. In that sense it is worse than useless, and I simply do not understand how anyone can take it seriously.

and in fact, to follow up - entanglement and (de)coherence massively depend on scale, particularly in terms of their sensitivity to perturbation.

SepiaBeetle

Steve Dufourny

Okay, if your concern is ontology that's fine, but it's not mine, and it's not the concern of the essay! I don't believe any ontology-led program is an effective way to do physics research, precisely because it necessarily presumes there is a right answer to a question that - if we are really honest - isn't even well posed. So in that regard I have nothing to say - I'm more concerned in statements with predictive power, and which can be falsified through the predictions they make on testable outcomes.

« Previous Page Next Page »