Why Determinism could never be disproven or shown to be unlikely

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Freddy,

QM deals with many things about the universe as a whole. If the theories hold merit, I'd suggest they also apply (although, it's possible only peripherally) to human behavior as well.

Let's just look at the firing of neural nets... The cascade is probability dependent on the reactions cascading prior. Some random neuron could be triggered by a neural net clear the other side of the body, and that randomness described by QM... Just a thought. You may not want to discount the connection out of hand.


Cheers.

Where is the evidence for this? Point to science that has shown through experimentation that this process actually effects human behavior.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Where is the evidence for this? Point to science that has shown through experimentation that this process actually effects human behavior.

I guess I'm somewhat confused by your request. Are you asking for evindence that humans behavior can be correlated through neural activity, and that the chemoelectric transmission of this activity can be described by QM? Clarify your question, and I'll do what I can to clarify my answer.


Cheers.

[InfiniteNow]

In the meantime, I've found a scientist who seems to study this exclusively. See Stapp 1993, as well as Stapp et. al.

Processes at the genetic and molecular level have direct influence on the states of the brain and contents of mind...Some authors, such as Penrose [28], Stapp [29] or Eccles [30] argue that without quantum mechanics we cannot understand the unity of human experience...

Anyway, I was suggesting that quantum computation could, in fact, be applied to human behavior. It was conjecture, and not intended to be a statement of fact, only what I interpret to be a highly likely possibility.


Enjoy.


UPDATE: I've found much more extensive research on the issue.

First, an article from a gentleman at MIT. He indicates that neural firing and brain processes are much more classical in nature, and studies on coherence and superposition of neural states seem to support this. However, he does mention that, despite the overall classical nature of of these macro processes, it would be inaccurate to argue from the stance that quantum level probabilites play no role in thoughts, consciousness, and behavior. It's a neat article if you want to launch the .pdf.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/brain.pdf

And here's an awesome paper co-written by John Wheeler describing quantum phenomena which speaks slightly to the idea of quantum and mind.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/quantum.pdf

The fact that neurons decohere much faster than they can process information (it takes them about seconds to fire) means that if the complex neuron firing patterns in our brains have anything to do with consciousness, then decoherence in the brain will prevent us from perceiving weird superpositions.

As mentioned above, we perceive only those aspects of the world that are most robust against decoherence. Decoherence therefore selects what Zurek has termed a "pointer basis", basically the familiar quantities of classical physics, as special. Since all our observations are transmitted through neurons from our sensory organs, the fact that neurons decohere so fast makes them the ultimate pointer basis. As Zeh has stressed, this justifes using the textbook wave function collapse postulate as a useful "shut-up-and-calculate" recipe: compute probabilities as if the wave function collapses when we observe the object.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by Sacri Sankt

im afraid this passage shows your own complete ignorance of quantum mechanics. the behaviour of a particle in the future cant be predicted, not even in theory. its not a matter of building a bigger microscope, there is a theoretical limit on how well you can understand something. a limit imposed by the nature of reality itself. like many philosphers, i think you would benefit tremendously from studying scientific theories for a while, it would stop you building intellectual models on profoundly flawed premises.

While it might be convenient to your emotions and your beliefs if that was the case, sadly it is not. You demonstrate ignorance by assuming that someone disagreeing with your point of view means they do not understand it or have not been exposed to all the details, when you have no clue that it is not in fact you who do not understand mine. Additionaly you yourself do not know how to respond to my arguments, so you proclaim out of ignorance that someone else would. Two argument fallacies that preclude your statements from having any meaning.

The things that quantum scientists label "trivial assumptions" (when in fact no assumption is trivial when dealing with a situation so completely removed from all of your experience) are where the objections of philosophers are realized. It is nothing more than the self importance of scientists that would ever drive them to contradict statements like these when they really have no evidence to back up their claims.

Philosophy includes the study of human knowledge, and therefore quantum physics is a subset of philosophy. A result in philosophy CANNOT be contradicted in quantum physics. What such people have created is merely a play on words. IE IF A if B if C if D if E then noone could ever predict the actions of quantum particles, even if they were omnipotent or whatever else. Well guess what... if pigs could fly the world would make no sense.

Scientists ignorant of philosophy come around all the time and attempt to contradict its results. What they fail to understand is how those results are realized in their own discipline. They can argue with philosopher after philosopher thinking they know what they are talking about, and then one day a slightly less ignorant scientist comes along and puts the philosopher's objections in scientific language and finally they understand. They may not even recognize the connection between the "scientific objection" and the philosophical result, they might proceed to do the very same thing all over the next month. I don't care - people like that are blind and stupid.

What if special relativity was only true prior to a certain amount of "absolute speed" something that doesn't seem to exist until one of its boundaries is reached? What if the universe is really discrete? Why does the bell inequality even apply to QM considering that it is based on experience from non QM situations? Nobobdy knows anything about quantum mechanics. All we have are assumptions, piled upon assumptions, piled upon more assumptions.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Nobobdy knows anything about quantum mechanics. All we have are assumptions, piled upon assumptions, piled upon more assumptions.

Following the above logic to fruition, we do not know ANYTHING at all.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Following the above logic to fruition, we do not know ANYTHING at all.

No that is not true. This crackerjack response to philisophical claims was a good argument once in a very specific situation, and it was responsible for producing the result that every person should look for information that contradicts their own beliefs in order to have the best knowledge a person is capable of.

The reason it was so easily defeated in that case is that our whole lives are based on the information we have so far, and to throw all of that out based on the possibility of evidence we have yet to obtain would leave us with nothing. Therefore we have no choice but to hold what we believe as knowledge as long as we keep an open mind and look for alternatives.

This has nothing to do with QM. We have a negiligable amount of information regarding QM, and all of our instincts, intuitions, our whole lives are based on the macro world. I am not saying that noone should attempt to use what little information we have access to to try and determine what is going on in the quantum world. What I am saying is that no quantum physicist is in the position to make wide sweeping claims about anything based on their findings.

Only reasoning based on evidence sampled from dealings with quantum particles can be used to qualify other evidence regarding quantum particles. Anything that we believe may hold true for the macro world but not for quantum particles without needing some supernatural explanation for why this is the case. Rather all that is needed is an explanation that we do not yet know. To look at it in this fashion does not require us to throw out all knowledge.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

What I am saying is that no quantum physicist is in the position to make wide sweeping claims about anything based on their findings.

Ever used a computer? QM makes it, and LOTS of other things you see as an everyday convenience, possible. Your broad sweeping claim above is what's fallacious.

[Kriminal99]

Quantum particles make everything possible. The study Quantum particles does not. People who study quantum particles do not understand everything about how they realize the world we live in. At best they might be able to see a connection between some of the effects of these particles behavior and what occurs on the macro level. They do not have enough information to even qualify the things that they see with any kind of confidence. Computers were invented long before the discipline quantum mechanics.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Computers were invented long before the discipline quantum mechanics.

No...computers (as in calculating machines) were realized about the same time that quantum mechanics were founded as a discipline. After that, it took a long time for computers to be anything but huge machines that turned wheels and caused glass tubes to blow up.

With quantum physics it became possible to create the microchip.

The fact that quantum mechanics apply to all particles, means that it also applies to our neurons and synapses. Therefore a signal from a nerve might never reach the brain due to a random quantum event. This is difficult to prove *when* it happens because we can't observe it both happening and not happening at the same time (as that would require two different outcomes of the same event) - but the quantum effect, as in Brownian motion, is well documented and quite well understood. It applies to human beings because it applies to the particles we are built from.

Brownian motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sacri Sankt]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

What I am saying is that no quantum physicist is in the position to make wide sweeping claims about anything based on their findings.

so quantum physicists cant use thier studies to make claims about reality, but philosophers can?