Conversations On-Line
Intuition Network: Physics   open forum

22

                Subject: nonlinearities in qm                 Date: 02/09/97

'Scott/Hebb/ ... scaling changes don't require scaled mechanisms'  

On 2/7/97 Jack Sarfatti wrote: (to physics@int)

>>Robert G. Flower wrote:

>>(RF)Alwyn Scott's article in JCS (see abstract below) objects to quantum theories of mind because (conventional) QM is "linear." Quite so!

>(JS)Yes, as I have said there is no room for living mind with inner felt experience in either deterministic classical physics or indeterministic quantum physics. What is required is a really new post-quantum physics with backactivity from actual rocklike particles and rocklike gauge fields in configuration space to their attached thoughtlike form-dependent fields in Hilbert space.

[JNR] This is biased limitation on Sarfatti's part. It's premise is that Consciousness has one and only one "form" - this new Indeterminate Determinism - and more, that it exists only at two levels ... the ultra sub-Planck and the Human supra-sentient. There being a very active feedback amongst these two distanced levels - with none in between.

He leaves absolutely no room for developmentally different forms of consciousness at new heirarchic levels. No room for substantively different "emergent" forms of consciousness. Such a view is too short sighted and not in keeping with observation.

>>(RF)But this argument also supports the idea that a *non-linear* extension to QM, such as you are proposing, is needed to bring QM to bear on the mind/matter problem.
>>
>>Still, there's the fact that Scott's non-linearities are macro-scale and exist in real configuration space, while those you suggest ("quantum-charge") are micro-scale, and probably exist in other space(s). But the connections between non-linearities at these 2 different scales might be important.

>(JS) NO! There is no reason to suppose that quantum charge is only on the microscale, and I have repeatedly said that quantum charge originates in configuration space back-acting on Hilbert space.

[JNR] This is inherently wrong also....confusing mathematically statistical references (of eigenstate markers) with physical reality. It claims a mechanism - but shows no mechanism - of signal amplification from the so-called "microscale", to any corresponding "medial scale", and on toward any "macroscale" - let alone any other plateaus along the way. You can't just "suppose" your way to a model of sentience. And you can't flippantly change scalings at will. Absolutely not!    Because to do so you need to drag a scaled version of Planck's Constant up with you, up to the marco scale. And there just ain't no such animal in the physical or mathematical repertoire!

>>(RF)   ---------quote---------
>>  http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/jcs_3_5-6.html
>>  On quantum theories of the mind. JCS, 3 ( 5-6) 1996 , pp. 484-491
>>  Alwyn C. Scott, Department of Mathematical Modelling, Technical
>>  University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark.
>>
>>In response to recent suggestions that the phenomena of consciousness may be related to those described by quantum theory, it is argued that distinctive features of brain activity (global coherence, threshold affects, binding of cell assemblies, etc.) are more typical of nonlinear classical dynamics than of quantum dynamics, which is a linear theory.

>(JS)Nonsense. Scott is not aware of the fact that the quantum equations of motion for the classical rocklike beables are highly nonlinear and nonlocal in Bohm's theory even for zero backactivity. Scott is raising phony issue.

[JNR]  Inaccurate evaluation again. He is very well aware of the characteristics of those equations. Sarfatti is choosing to avoid the appearance of important distinct secondary and tertiary (etc) assemblies of construction. The rationale of Sarfatti's system would have micro-DNA effecting the construction of medial-DNA and then macro-DNA structures in the universe, instead of proteins, viruses & organelles, organisms and then societies.

Sarfatti's notions of beables, Hilbert spaces, back-action etc have merit, but not to the extent that he'd wish. And they're definitely incapable of the two productive processes: complex emergence and evolutionary emergence.

>>(RF)Thus natural scientists should turn to hierarchies of nonlinear classical systems rather than quantum theory for explanations of the brain's mysterious behaviour.

>(JS)Scott's point is wrong. Quite wrong. He does not understand the problem.

[JNR]  Scott is *very correct*. The thread of common dynamics that exists through all levels of organization of phenomenal existence no-where demands that the *forms* of those dynamics be *identical*, as Sarfatti's model would have it. As  ecumenical as Sarfatti' is trying to be with his theory of back-action {which, from the standpoint of interactive holism, is a very appropriate approach}, it needs to be developed in the context it belongs: formative primal consciousness.  Scott is focussed on quite other orders of Consciousness, the various "emerged" forms (eg, Baars).

The struggle of view-points is an unfortunate victim of there being only one term - consciousness, to refer to similar but distinctly separate phenomena.

INTEGRITY PARADIGM