quantum darwin?
FYI Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23, 2004) http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html A team of physicists has proved a theorem that explains how our objective, common reality emerges from the subtle and sensitive quantum world. If, as quantum mechanics says, observing the world tends to change it, why doesn't each person leave a slightly different version of the world for the next person to find? Because, say the researchers, certain special states of a system are promoted above others by a quantum form of natural selection, which they call quantum darwinism. Information about these states proliferates and gets imprinted on the environment. Thus observers tend to see the same 'preferred' states. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Save Toby
Kevin Street wrote: http://www.savetoby.com/ xponent Brilliant Maru rob Now we have truly seen the face of evil, and it has bunny ears. Toby is probably splitting the take with him. Well, yeah. I can't give toby the care he truly deserves, and with your donations, Toby will live a more fulfilling life. This little guy has been through so much, he deserves a life fit for a king, and with your donations, he will finally get the life he so deserves. With the kind of cash he's asking for, that will be one pampered rabbit. (As of Feb. 26, he had about 1/3 of the total.) And I don't know the cost of most things at cafepress.com, but I can tell you the guy is getting $4 from each bib or creeper sold Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote: FYI Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23, 2004) http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html I saw the same idea floated a couple months back on another list. My reaction then is what it is now: What a load of anthropocentric crap. Here's why. The article has this statement: Because, as Zurek says, the Universe is quantum to the core, this property seems to undermine the notion of an objective reality. In this type of situation, every tourist who gazed at Buckingham Palace would change the arrangement of the building's windows, say, merely by the act of looking, so that subsequent tourists would see something slightly different. Yet that clearly isn't what happens. == Yeah? Prove it. The suggestion that the universe is as it is because we see it that way -- and that what exists around us is somehow inherited from some predecessor consciousness -- is no different from the assertion that we shape the universe each moment by our simple interaction with it. IOW until I woke up this morning nothing else in the world existed. In fact I never even woke up. I only came into existence a fraction of a second ago, with a collection of false memories of a history that never happened. I certainly can't think of a way to prove, beyond any shadow of possible doubt, that Buckingham Palace has not been changed by observation; in fact, I bet it can't be proved totally that it *exists*. This is such a blatant load of horse dung that it should go a long way toward driving a coffin nail or two into the entire QM paradigm. I'm not trying to suggest that QM is 100% wrong. But when you're studying something that leads you to such a clearly bizarre assertion -- that we've observed the universe into existence, essentially -- either the underpinning of QM is fundamentally flawed, or our perceptions of reality are. Or, at the very least, understanding of QM is faulty. The strange effects that take place on the quantum level don't have to manifest on the grosser levels, after all. Indeterminacy for a single quark in a brick doesn't cause an entire palace's façade to change. The other problem I have with the idea of quantum Darwinism is that you more or less have to assume a god. That's actually *more* likely to be true, in my mind, than quantum Darwinism. It's much more likely that the fault lies in our ability to perceive, not in what it is we are observing. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Through the Looking Glass
Behalf Of JDG In recent weeks it has become clear that President Bush has floated a trial baloon regarding lifting the current cap on income subject to Social Security tax. Right now, income over $100,000 is exempt from the 12.5% Social Security tax. I believe that when asked about it, President Bush said something to the effect of everything is on the table. Which is, of course, a long, long, LONG way off from saying that Bush is proposing to raise this cap. Either that or he is proposing to invade Iran as well by saying all options are on the table there. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin:quantum darwin?
David, Do you happen to know what physics journal this work is in? Or hasn't the journal article come out yet? I've read some of their stuff on decoherence a few years ago and found it to be rather interesting. Thanks, Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Re: quantum darwin? On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:50 AM, d.brin wrote: FYI Natural Selection Acts on the Quantum World - (Nature - December 23, 2004) http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041220/pf/041220-12_pf.html I saw the same idea floated a couple months back on another list. My reaction then is what it is now: What a load of anthropocentric crap. Here's why. The article has this statement: Because, as Zurek says, the Universe is quantum to the core, this property seems to undermine the notion of an objective reality. In this type of situation, every tourist who gazed at Buckingham Palace would change the arrangement of the building's windows, say, merely by the act of looking, so that subsequent tourists would see something slightly different. Yet that clearly isn't what happens. == Yeah? Prove it. Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin:quantum darwin?
Did I imagine the _Nature_ reference (Dec 2004) right at the top of the post and collaspe the wave function? * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: David, Do you happen to know what physics journal this work is in? Or hasn't the journal article come out yet? I've read some of their stuff on decoherence a few years ago and found it to be rather interesting. Thanks, Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:10 PM Subject: Re: brin:quantum darwin? Did I imagine the _Nature_ reference (Dec 2004) right at the top of the post and collaspe the wave function? No, Nature is not a physics journal. I read the news reference and wanted to see if there was a physics publication, which would go into more of the detail I was interested in. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. So.in your opinion Schrodringers Cat is a false or unfalsified theory? The weak or strong anthropic theories? (Be warned..I may want to use your argument for a story I am outliningG) xponent Scanning Tunneling Organ Of Love Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf So I take it you don't like the Copenhagen interpretation, Warren. But, what do you think of the other interpretations, like the Tegmark multiverse? ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Thanks Everyone (Was Re: Soros and OSI)
--- Jo Anne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan wrote: Our own Gautam is the recepient of a 2005 Sorros fellowship. Details concerning this fellowship are given at http://www.pdsoros.org/ Congrats, Gautam. I know what a big deal that is...because: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/news/fellows_20040122 First, thanks very much to everyone for their good wishes. I was, and am, honored, humbled, and surprised to get the fellowship. Reading the bios of people who won in previous years was always aspirational for me - I wished I was that sort of person, and I think it'll be days before I really process the fact that I won one as well. I'm just hoping that I don't get a call tomorrow where they tell me they've made a mistake! Second, congrats to JoAnn for her daughter's remarkable achievement. I can't believe she didn't say something earlier! The award she received is actually far more impressive, because it's for creating and enacting a real program to do immensely valuable work. New American Fellowships, by contrast, are more for - potential is probably the best word. What your daughter is doing is really extraordinary, and I hope you give her my best wishes as well. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
[two replies combined here, one to RS and one to maru] On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. So.in your opinion Schrodringers Cat is a false or unfalsified theory? Schrödinger's Cat is not a theory; it's a model to illustrate one of the more unusual effects of QM at a subatomic level. It's a kind of real-world interpretation of (example) the electron slit experiment (BTW, apparently that experiment has been replicated in a modified way, this time along the time axis -- and it still happens.) I know that there are various tests that confirm observation appears to cause some events to collapse into realities that, until the observation is made, don't exist (or exist equally, which amounts to the same thing). I'm not questioning that the math behind QM, the science, appears to work. I am simply suggesting that there are some very wrong conclusions being drawn about how the universe happens, and they're based in QM. Or rather, we are vastly miscomprehending what QM is telling us about ourselves. The weak or strong anthropic theories? Those aren't valid either, IMO; I think they're inverses of the situation. That is, we seem to think this universe is ideal for (weak:life || strong:human life) because we happen to live in it. Well, obviously if nothing lived in a given universe, one conclusion to be drawn would be that it's nonoptimal for life, but there wouldn't be anyone there to figure that out. It's only the inhabited universe/s where you get life saying, Huh, how interesting; if things weren't just so, we wouldn't be here... Let me express that in a slightly different way. Imagine a gingerbread man looking at the cookie cutter that has just cut him out of the dough. He thinks to himself, Gosh, it sure is amazing how well that cutter mold fits around me -- obviously this cutter has to exist in this way. That would be the strong piskotothropic principle. Or he might think, If the conditions of this oven weren't just right, I couldn't be baking here in this pan right now. That would be the weak piskotothropic principle. But his reasoning is inverted; he seems to fit the cutter so well only because he has been so precisely molded by it. That's what I think is happening in this universe; the anthropic principles -- either one of them -- are a bit like the gingerbread man fantasizing that his presence somehow implies rules about how the cookie cutter can be shaped, or how the oven, eggs, flour, sugar and pan can work. Or he might think By seeing the cutter, I've caused it to come into existence. My observation has shaped the cutter, and in fact observation has caused the oven, the heat, *and* the pan to all come into existence. Until I and my kind saw these things, they simply weren't there at all. That's the quantum Darwin principle, and it is by far the most ridiculous conclusion the gingerbread man can reach. The objections I have to quantum Darwinism are certainly emotional, or maybe you could call them philosophical. From the perspective of an atheist, I don't like what qD suggests about the history of this universe or the way it leaves a big gaping hole for a deity to appear. From the perspective of a pragmatist or realist, I don't like what qD suggests about history; it might render history meaningless. Ethically and philosophically, don't like what qD suggests about *us* -- if we're really shaping the universe, then starvation, genocide and general human and animal suffering must exist only because we've dreamt them up, and every moment we let it endure is another moment of needless suffering foisted off on millions. We die only because we believer we do? Horseshit. Worst of all, that qD would mean the rock-fondlers are correct in their blatherings about consensual reality and other inane, feel-good drivel. But I *also* don't think quantum Darwinism is particularly parsimonious. It suggests there *must have been* observers (other than us) in the past, which is not necessarily false but a tall thing on which to hang one's hat; or it suggests that our observance of the past -- possibly by the lightyear delay in astronomy, who knows -- has affected the history of the universe even as we observe it, and frankly I think prior observers are more likely in this case. Otherwise, again, all of history is useless. It is rendered, to quote Ford, bunk. qD suggests that consciousness has a deep underlying effect on all of what might be called objective reality; and at its core it seeks to re-enthrone humanity in a way that hasn't been viable since the Copernican revolution. That said, there
Re: quantum darwin?
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:12 PM Subject: Re: quantum darwin? On Mar 3, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. What wiggle room? Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that you trust your feeling about how things should be better than a scientific understanding of the universe. Science is our best means of understanding how the universe works. Aristotle got things very wrong when he used gut level feel. The models that best fit observations are, by definition, the best descriptions of what we observe. Since the universe, the totality of phenomenon, is what we observe, how can you say that the universe is different than what our best models of it give us. What special source of information do you have, other than observation and the ability to model that observation. I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. No, there is a much better explanation than this. The universe is phenomenon, not a collection of things-in-themselves. If you only drop your insistence that the universe must fit your beliefs, then what we observe is quite understandable from a variety of metaphysical viewpoints. Indeed, it makes sense that we observe QM effects as we do. Also, its worth noting, that there have been experimental confirmation of macroscopic quantum statesnot just macroscopic effects. In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a separate reality but the interface between that separate reality and our minds, a lot of things fall into place rather nicely. Quasi-realism is extremely messy and virtually every effort to come up with quasi-realism has fallen apart very quickly. (I'm not talking about MWI.that is personally distasteful to me, and I don't consider it realism, but it does not collapse upon itself.) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Are scientific proofs acceptable to you? Possibly. If you read the rest of my criticism of the underlying principles, you'll see there's far too much wiggle room. What wiggle room? Do you realize what you are saying? Yes, I do. I am saying that QM is incomplete, that our understanding is incomplete, and that it's unwise to use an incomplete understanding to purport anything like total comprehension of a thing. As to the wiggle room -- did you read what I wrote? There's plenty of it. ;) You are saying that you trust your feeling about how things should be better than a scientific understanding of the universe. Not at all. I am saying that it is the height of folly to use an incomplete theoretical system to posit *anything* about the universe as anything *except* conjecture. Science is our best means of understanding how the universe works. Aristotle got things very wrong when he used gut level feel. So tell me again why you think this god idea is valid...? The models that best fit observations are, by definition, the best descriptions of what we observe. Since the universe, the totality of phenomenon, is what we observe, how can you say that the universe is different than what our best models of it give us. What special source of information do you have, other than observation and the ability to model that observation. Dan, are you aware of how many interpretations there are of QM? Are you aware that all those interpretations are valid? In what specific best model do you think I should place my trust? Which one of those interpretations is the correct one? Isn't it just possible that none of them are correct, that we've got only the vaguest clue what's going on out there, that QM is just the latest phantom idea? Before we start assuming that we know how things operate, doesn't it make sense to see if our ideas are leading us to silly conclusions? I really don't think QM is a valid assessment of our universe. It's partially correct, sure, but it leads to really outrageous conclusions, and to me the most parsimonious explanation is that it's our perceptions of the universe that are just plain wrong, that the universe does *not* shape itself to an observer's will. No, there is a much better explanation than this. The universe is phenomenon, not a collection of things-in-themselves. There is no such thing as a thing in itself; I'm very aware of that. If you only drop your insistence that the universe must fit your beliefs, then what we observe is quite understandable from a variety of metaphysical viewpoints. You, like some other QM defenders, have it inverted. It is QM that states the universe fits our beliefs. I'm saying hogwash. By supporting QM you are the one declaring that the universe operates according to people's observations, that consciousness alters outcomes. That is one of the key tenets of QM. And it's a key reason I think *some* of the conclusions reached via QM are dead wrong. Indeed, it makes sense that we observe QM effects as we do. How? Also, its worth noting, that there have been experimental confirmation of macroscopic quantum statesnot just macroscopic effects. Do you mean the electron-slit thing, or are you referring to something else here? In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a separate reality but the interface between that separate reality and our minds, a lot of things fall into place rather nicely. Sure, even more so if you accept the mumbo-jumbo that wishing something is true is sufficient to make it so. That's what really lies at the core of strong QM defense, I think. What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM (not just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since QM is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false. Almost as though it's a religion. Quasi-realism is extremely messy and virtually every effort to come up with quasi-realism has fallen apart very quickly. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Through the Looking Glass
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:46:35 -0600, Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of JDG In recent weeks it has become clear that President Bush has floated a trial baloon regarding lifting the current cap on income subject to Social Security tax. Right now, income over $100,000 is exempt from the 12.5% Social Security tax. I believe that when asked about it, President Bush said something to the effect of everything is on the table. Which is, of course, a long, long, LONG way off from saying that Bush is proposing to raise this cap. Either that or he is proposing to invade Iran as well by saying all options are on the table there. Good point. Keep in mind that Bush is trying to sell an unpopular plan and that the object is to line the pockets of his friends. He'll say and do anything to achive this goal as we've seen time and again. A question on the subject: SS is a payroll tax, right? So the (actually 6.2% from the individual) amount of income taxed would be limited to the employees regular pay? How about other forms of compensation such as stock options? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, I wrote: In short, once you drop realism...which is hard to reconcile with the results of QM, and accept that the objects of our senses are not a separate reality but the interface between that separate reality and our minds, a lot of things fall into place rather nicely. Sure, even more so if you accept the mumbo-jumbo that wishing something is true is sufficient to make it so. That's what really lies at the core of strong QM defense, I think. What's funny is that I regularly sense a strong commitment to QM (not just in you), one that isn't comfortable with conceding that, since QM is incomplete, it's possible that some of its conclusions are false. Almost as though it's a religion. That reads a little harsher than I intended. I was thinking of the nonspecific you in that first graf; I should have written it as ...even more so if one accepts the mumbo-jumbo that... The second graf isn't meant to be a slam on religion, but rather on the fervor with which I have seen *some* people defend QM. (That's not targeted at Dan either, BTW, and neither is the following.) Sometimes I feel like Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope -- there's a vast outcry from a throng of individuals, not all of whom seem to have thought fully about what QM's suggestions really mean; the analogy is to the huge number of holiday Catholics who were up in arms because of Sinead's gesture, all of whom seemed to forget that they were really *Christians*, and not particularly devout ones either. When there are nearly a dozen possible equally sensible interpretations of QM's effects on the universe, isn't it just a little odd? When QM says that the universe is the way it is because of how it's been observed in the past, doesn't anyone else get a yellow light? Can the universe really be that plastic? Doesn't it seem just a little hubristic to suggest that reality is, quite literally, what we make it out to be? Is that truly the most likely case, or is it instead more feasible that we're not there yet, that we aren't fully clear on everything? Just before Einstein published his paper on relativity, physicists were saying that there was virtually no research left to be done in physics, that it was soon to be a dead science. Boy were they wrong. Isn't it feasible that we're just as wrong to assume that QM is really a fully legitimate, deeply descriptive and entirely accurate model of reality? Particularly when there still isn't agreement about how to interpret what QM tells us? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quantum darwin?
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:45 PM Subject: Re: quantum darwin? Sometimes I feel like Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope -- there's a vast outcry from a throng of individuals, not all of whom seem to have thought fully about what QM's suggestions really mean; the analogy is to the huge number of holiday Catholics who were up in arms because of Sinead's gesture, all of whom seemed to forget that they were really *Christians*, and not particularly devout ones either. I'll answer your earlier post with work that has been done in the last 50 years after I've slept. But, you miss why QM is defended as it is. The reaction is as though you said but evolution is just a theory. What would be helpful in thinking about this is asking why Feynman's response was to say shut up and calculate instead of pursuing the same intuative path Einstein didand why his sucessors agreed with that assessment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
