On 2/16/2012 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
But QM is consistent with some things (almost all big things) being almost exactly
classical. There is no reason to think our brains depend on non-classical processes to
perform computations (metabolism - yes, computation - no). Certainly it would be a
severe evolutionary disadvantage if there were more than a just a little randomness in
the function of a brain.
Hi Brent,
"Almost is" does not equal "is". Sure, if we are considering objects that have huge
masses and thus have aCompton wavelength
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength> that is almost beyond the range of our
ability to measure it, when we can get away with thinking of them as "almost exactly
classical"and thus FAPP is ok to say that they are "classical". But we are not talking
about Jupiter (the planet), we are talking about the human brain and digital
substitution of its computational function.
We're talking about sodium and potassium ions diffusing through channels. Their compton
wavelength is around 1e-15m which is plenty small already. But you have to compare that
to something relevant.
The human brain is not an homogenous mass (pace Tegmark), it has lots and lots of very
fine structure, structure that is well within the range of having a large enough Compton
wavelength to make a difference what makes a difference about quantum stuff.
It's not the compton wavelength relative to some measurment we make that is relevant, it's
the action of the process relative to h. It is Tegmark who has calculated the action of
ions in the firing of a neuron and shown that the decoherence time for various neuronal
processes are all many orders of magnitude shorter than the neuron firing intervals,
arXiv:quant-ph/9907009v2
Classical teleportation is, like classical substitution, simply a pipe dream.
Makes no sense!? Being classical is exactly what allows teleportation and functional
substitution.
Does computational universality only works for objects that have a Compton
wavelength that is tiny? That is what you are in effect asking us to believe.
It can only be implemented by physical devices that are deterministic, since otherwise the
device won't compute the intended algorithm. Brain processes may be random to some
extent, but it must be small in order for brains to be useful organs to enhance survival
and reproduction.
Brent
Onward!
Stephen
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4814 - Release Date: 02/16/12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
