quantum mechanics and consciousness

#2
I like the interest in microtubules, cilia, centrioles, and the possibility that these structures may offer sufficient isolation for quantum coherence. Beyond that I don't really find much to recommend Orch-OR...
 
#3
I like the interest in microtubules, cilia, centrioles, and the possibility that these structures may offer sufficient isolation for quantum coherence. Beyond that I don't really find much to recommend Orch-OR...
I find Tom Campbell's take on QM very interesting: you might like to check out the first couple of his Calgary lectures:


It could be a mistake to think in terms of physical structures mediating quantum phenomena and thereby consciousness. In my view, this ties in with Bernardo Kastrup's notion that we're looking at the appearance of things that correspond to processes occurring within Source Consciousness.

In Campbell's schema, he talks of how things are "rendered" within a virtual reality: that's just his particular metaphor for how things work, and, I think, quite a useful one. In this case, if indeed microtubules are related to consciousness, then that's just how they happen to be rendered within our consciousness when we actually investigate them. And, once we have rendered something, it comes into what we think of as physical existence, and has to be consistent with past, present and potential future observations. Indeed, Campbell explains QM itself in such terms.
 
#4
Well of course our perception of spatio-temporal patterns of matter and energy are from within space-time itself.

Whether they have any real validity (or not) beyond our perception seems unknowable to me. But our perceptions are all we've got to work with, so work with them we must, which is why I have little time for writings like Bernardo's etc, they get us absolutely nowhere in moving things forward in my view.

I believe, these structures (microtubules, cilia, centrioles etc) almost certainly have a geometric structure that reflects regularities of our perception of reality, most clearly seen in mathematics.
 
#5
Well of course our perception of spatio-temporal patterns of matter and energy are from within space-time itself.

Whether they have any real validity (or not) beyond our perception seems unknowable to me. But our perceptions are all we've got to work with, so work with them we must, which is why I have little time for writings like Bernardo's etc, they get us absolutely nowhere in moving things forward in my view.

I believe, these structures (microtubules, cilia, centrioles etc) almost certainly have a geometric structure that reflects regularities of our perception of reality, most clearly seen in mathematics.
I think one thing one needs to keep in mind is that the spatio-temporal pattern our perception exists in, may not be exactly what we think it is (and so too our perception).

For example, we now have irrefutable evidence in quantum physics that two entangled particles great distances apart, somehow are able to share polarity information with each other, instantaneously, when one of them is observed. This non-locality feature is part of what we now know as existing within the spatio-temporal pattern of our reality.

We also know black holes exist. Although nobody has actually been in a black hole, the theoretical science we have established in physics tells us a lot of surreal stuff about what exists in a black hole, among many is the spacetime curvature becomes an infinite singularity, and other laws of physics simply go off the charts in a black hole. And yet despite the seemingly bizarre physics, black holes do exist.

So what I'm saying here is, it is likely we need to take a closer look at the spatio-temporal pattern we exist in, because space and even time seems to not always be strictly what we perceive it to be using normal human perception. This is also true regarding data collected in psi research, consciousness somehow is able to perceive events at great distances, or precognitively become aware of events in the future. I would argue that it is not so much consciousness must exist outside a spatio-temporal pattern, but consciousness exists as part of a spatio-temporal pattern we don't yet fully understand.
 
#6
"Up to the Twentieth Century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the chart of the electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality."

~Buckminster Fuller
 
#7
And yet despite the seemingly bizarre physics, black holes do exist.
I doubt that. They're more likely an artifact of the current cosmological paradigm in which the role of electromagnetic force, 10^39 times bigger than gravitational force, is virtually ignored despite the fact that almost all the matter we see in space is in the plasma state (i.e. comprises ionised gases).
 
#9
#10
I think one thing one needs to keep in mind is that the spatio-temporal pattern our perception exists in, may not be exactly what we think it is (and so too our perception).

For example, we now have irrefutable evidence in quantum physics that two entangled particles great distances apart, somehow are able to share polarity information with each other, instantaneously, when one of them is observed. This non-locality feature is part of what we now know as existing within the spatio-temporal pattern of our reality.

We also know black holes exist. Although nobody has actually been in a black hole, the theoretical science we have established in physics tells us a lot of surreal stuff about what exists in a black hole, among many is the spacetime curvature becomes an infinite singularity, and other laws of physics simply go off the charts in a black hole. And yet despite the seemingly bizarre physics, black holes do exist.

So what I'm saying here is, it is likely we need to take a closer look at the spatio-temporal pattern we exist in, because space and even time seems to not always be strictly what we perceive it to be using normal human perception. This is also true regarding data collected in psi research, consciousness somehow is able to perceive events at great distances, or precognitively become aware of events in the future. I would argue that it is not so much consciousness must exist outside a spatio-temporal pattern, but consciousness exists as part of a spatio-temporal pattern we don't yet fully understand.
Yeah, the idea of entanglement as instantaneous transmission isn't really true. Nothing can move beyond the speed of light. The reason for the observation of entanglement seems to be that the particles share a common history.

Personally speaking, Speed of light seems to denote the speed that information can be processed, and fits nicely down the centre, between Space and Time. Space and Time contract/expand appropriately on each side of it, depending on the amount of information to be processed, and are a result of the processing, along with gravity/acceleration. When looking at space from time, it looks like energy. When looking at time from space, it looks like matter. QM seems to be a direct observation of the process at work. Maths seems to describe the architecture of the processor itself.

That's what it all looks like to me... Lol.
 
#11
Yeah, the idea of entanglement as instantaneous transmission isn't really true. Nothing can move beyond the speed of light. The reason for the observation of entanglement seems to be that the particles share a common history.

Personally speaking, Speed of light seems to denote the speed that information can be processed, and fits nicely down the centre, between Space and Time. Space and Time contract/expand appropriately on each side of it, depending on the amount of information to be processed, and are a result of the processing, along with gravity/acceleration. When looking at space from time, it looks like energy. When looking at time from space, it looks like matter. QM seems to be a direct observation of the process at work. Maths seems to describe the architecture of the processor itself.

That's what it all looks like to me... Lol.
I may be on the wrong track there, but couldnt it be that entanglement isnt a transmission as we know it? Therefore the speed of light wouldnt be necessarly a criteria. I mean, particles can pop in and out of existence as we know it. Couldnt it be possible that 2 particles connect to each other outside of our universe as well?
 
#12
I may be on the wrong track there, but couldnt it be that entanglement isnt a transmission as we know it? Therefore the speed of light wouldnt be necessarly a criteria. I mean, particles can pop in and out of existence as we know it. Couldnt it be possible that 2 particles connect to each other outside of our universe as well?
Yes, it isn't an instantaneous transmission, the particles appear to share a common past. Unfortunately if you know position, you can't also know momentum (I think this is really the space/time thing I was going on about before, energy is space, matter is time), that's how I see it at the moment. I prefer that, because it brings 'time' properly into explanations, as it seems almost absent at present, science concentrates on our shared spacial reality in the external world - as you would expect.

But you might be right, there may be something more. I don't know the effects because I've never considered it in any detail, but it's possible that there might still be some hidden dimensions (perhaps around 10nm in diameter) which perhaps we are interfacing with inside centrioles, microtubules etc..
 
#13
Yeah, the idea of entanglement as instantaneous transmission isn't really true. Nothing can move beyond the speed of light. The reason for the observation of entanglement seems to be that the particles share a common history.
You are incorrect. The information via entanglement is instantaneous. This has been thoroughly established, in fact measured quite precisely. Here is a good article to look at: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...stance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light There are other recent studies as well, although I will leave you to google it. The recent work in quantum entanglement is very fascinating.

Personally speaking, Speed of light seems to denote the speed that information can be processed, and fits nicely down the centre, between Space and Time. Space and Time contract/expand appropriately on each side of it, depending on the amount of information to be processed, and are a result of the processing, along with gravity/acceleration. When looking at space from time, it looks like energy. When looking at time from space, it looks like matter. QM seems to be a direct observation of the process at work. Maths seems to describe the architecture of the processor itself.

That's what it all looks like to me... Lol.
Einstein was a genius. I won't argue with you there, and boy do I wish I were Einstein on some days! lol. But Einstein wasn't always right. He was wrong for example, regarding the Hidden Variables he posited regarding the observer effect (See John Bell, and Bell's Inequality Principle) which eventually proved that Hidden Variables simply cannot be the case with the "quantum wave collapse" or "observer effect" etc. Or whatever nomenclature you wish to label the QM effect when something is measured (since there are now quite a few interpretations of the data, though no one disagrees that the weird/spooky data is present).

And in fact, when I first started reading up on quantum entanglement, the thing that really blew me away, and had me at first quite skeptical of the research, was the very thing you mentioned: Einstein - and nothing goes faster than the speed of light. But yet, even Sir Isaac Newton's principles were eventually scientifically overthrown (to some extent, we still use classical physics for most of our applied sciences). And quantum physics, especially over the last few decades, has overthrown some of our most commonly cherished notions, including the nature of information transfer, since two entangled particles, do somehow instantaneously change - and supposedly, no matter how far apart they are.

Now that doesn't mean we throw out all of relativity, we can still use it, just as we use classical physics. But it does mean the mystery of what is going on, and the mystery of what reality is, is far from settled. And my own scientific speculations now are following along the lines of what Wheeler, Stapp and Lanza have written about. That consciousness does play a far more fundamental role than science has yet to admit fully.
 
#14
I may be on the wrong track there, but couldnt it be that entanglement isnt a transmission as we know it? Therefore the speed of light wouldnt be necessarly a criteria. I mean, particles can pop in and out of existence as we know it. Couldnt it be possible that 2 particles connect to each other outside of our universe as well?
Yeah - something is being transferred. No one really knows how at this time, or what is going on. I think though, that there is likely some kind of bounds to it, since we have well known structures, math to our current spatio-temporal patterns - it would lead you to believe the same would also apply to quantum entanglement information transfer. But what are the patterns, and constraints?

However, I really do think this recent established scientific evidence in quantum physics (which had been theorized for many decades but only recently proven) does open the door (just a bit) to the possibility of non-local information being accessible in consciousness.
 
#15
You are incorrect. The information via entanglement is instantaneous. This has been thoroughly established, in fact measured quite precisely.
I'm afraid not, it's been ruled out, that is a misinterpretation of what we are seeing. Have a look at Anton Zeilinger's work. This is a great video from a few months ago, which I think explains things in a reasonably understandable way...

 
#16
Yeah, the idea of entanglement as instantaneous transmission isn't really true. Nothing can move beyond the speed of light. The reason for the observation of entanglement seems to be that the particles share a common history.
As I understand it, no movement or transmission at any speed is involved. Entangled pairs are part of the one system, however "far apart" they might apparently be. Thus the instantaneity doesn't contradict the notion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, because we aren't talking about travel of any kind of signal. It's said that one can't communicate via entangled pairs, and that would be true if one thought solely in terms of signal transmission occurring through spacetime.

However, in theory at least, one could communicate without anything moving from A to B using a code such as Morse or what have you (spin one way could be dot, spin the other, dash: and if you can control the spin of one of the pair, the other will mirror it instantaneously, and the message could be decoded). Practically speaking, however, that would be very difficult, maybe impossible, to implement.

We are used to thinking of communication always involving something that moves from one place to another. But communication and transmission through spacetime aren't necessarily the same thing.
 
#17
I'm afraid not, it's been ruled out, that is a misinterpretation of what we are seeing. Have a look at Anton Zeilinger's work. This is a great video from a few months ago, which I think explains things in a reasonably understandable way...

Max, you are simply wrong here. In fact, Anton Zeilinger is one of the scientists (among others) who has established the instantaneity of quantum entanglement at the University of Vienna in Austria. Here is another article on his work: http://www.livescience.com/24579-spooky-quantum-entanglement-record.html . Note that I quote, the statement is made:
(Though this transfer of information between the particles is instantaneous, entanglement can't be used for faster-than-light communication because it is impossible to set the quantum state beforehand, as you would in a message).
Note that Anton is not the only researcher that has confirmed this kind of non-local phenomena. I suggest you look at the more recent research in quantum physics, which has very much confirmed "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein liked to call it, and has also established hidden variables is no longer a viable theory.

My Best,
Bertha
 
#18
Max, you are simply wrong here. In fact, Anton Zeilinger is one of the scientists (among others) who has established the instantaneity of quantum entanglement at the University of Vienna in Austria. Here is another article on his work: http://www.livescience.com/24579-spooky-quantum-entanglement-record.html . Note that I quote, the statement is made:

Note that Anton is not the only researcher that has confirmed this kind of non-local phenomena. I suggest you look at the more recent research in quantum physics, which has very much confirmed "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein liked to call it, and has also established hidden variables is no longer a viable theory.

My Best,
Bertha
I can only point you in the right direction... if you don't want to listen, there is nothing I can do... Bell explained this with 'Bertlmann's socks'.
 
#19
I can only point you in the right direction... if you don't want to listen, there is nothing I can do...
Heh. I'm telling you the direction you're pointing at i.e. Anton Zeilinger is the very guy who has helped established the instantaneous phenomena of entangled particles.

But you're right, if you don't want to look at the actual video you posted! (or the articles I cited for you) there's not much more I can do for you either.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
#20
I can only point you in the right direction... if you don't want to listen, there is nothing I can do...
Since i cant watch the video right now - what is it if it isnt instantaneily from the videos point of view or well, how do you interpret it(idk if that word is correct like that)? Some sort of "connection" (whatever that is in that case) with such a small delay that we nearly cant measure it? I dont wanna judge who's right, just want to know both positions to that discussion right here.
 
Top