Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: re: Theory of Q-Mind
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jul 21, 1996 11:11 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jack Sarfatti

Posts: 10
Registered: 12/12/04
re: Theory of Q-Mind
Posted: Jul 21, 1996 12:12 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply



This is a repost as the original had a file stuck in the
middle that was not supposed to be there.

>Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:53:51 -0700
>From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@well.com>

Organization: Internet Science Education Project

On Sat July 20, 1996:

> Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
> Actually this is not a theory of Q-mind.


It becomes a theory of Q-mind ONLY when one makes the additional
postulate that Q from Hilbert space is funda-MENTAL
(i.e., Hameroff's term - I must be careful to give him credit
when he deserves it! Or he will get very upset and rant and rave
that I am "co-opting and "Jack The Rippering" him! :-))
in the sense of Chalmer's article in Dec. 1995 Scientific American.

My plausibility argument for this AD HOC postulate
(Hameroff and Penrose need to make an equivalent one in their
orch-OR version) is the beautiful mathematical connection to
standard models of complex adaptive systems. All possible
physical theories of mind must make an equivalent postulate. My
"mental" Q-determined "fitness landscape" guides the "beable"
(i.e. Bell's term for hidden-variable ) microtubule-system material
system point and, in turn, is modified,
through back-action, by the actual path of
the beable system point over the fitness landscape in
classical configuration space.

Note, orthodox quantum mechanics has zero back-action
which implies that the mental fitness landscape cannot
be modified by the path of the beable. Therefore,
contrary to Stapp's theory, orthodox quantum mechanics
cannot explain "qualia" and "intent". Neither can
classical physics explain it as Marvin Minsky, Dennett
and Churchland suppose. Stapp's theory in Phys Rev A,
July 15, 1994 p.18 can explain it because of its
nonunitary property which is equivalent to back-action.
Stapp apparently lost faith in his own equations
like Steven Weinberg did before him.

The beable system point includes the hydrophobic
electron switches, the tubulins and any external
gauge field configurations. Again all credit for
this part goes to Hameroff! :-)

However, my picture is not even thinkable in the
"orch OR" model because there are no "beables".
From my postulate linking Q to "mind" it immediately
follows that transient "qualia", forming the stream
of immediate sentience, are simply the changes in
the mental fitness landscape from the back-action
of the actual path of the beable.

It is then, for the first time, quite clear, qualitatively,
that the vague "orchestration" word, used by Hameroff,
is the self-organization from the co-evolution of the
Q-mind in Hilbert space with the beable system point in
classical configuration space. This co-evolution is created
by the joint action of the nonlocal and contextual
Hamilton-Jacobi force of Q-mind on beable-body, with the
reverse back-action of beable-body on Q-mind (fitness landscape).
This is the very pretty picture I have come up with that
Hameroff calls a "cheap imitation" of his "orch-OR" dream
which is vague and impossible, in principle, to visualize
in the detail I have given above because of Bohr's metaphysics.
Also we see that classical spacetime geometry does not play
a major role though we can always get to it from configuration
space. The main players are Hilbert space and configuration
space which Hameroff mistakenly IMHO rejects as less real than
some ill-defined fundamental spacetime.

As Bell said of Bohr's prohibition on the sort of visualization
I have just given above:

"vagueness, subjectivity and indeterminism
are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate
theoretical choice".

Now all the math you give below is perfectly compatible
with my postulate. I agree your math exists
on it's own without my postulate. My postulate is the
necessary bridge for a practical physical theory of consciousness
that will have immediate technological spin-off. It is
quite possible that this pilot-wave back-action approach is
only a low-energy "effective field theory" as it were to
a more profound ultra-high energy world of superstrings,
octonions and God knows what else in what Hameroff has called
"fundamental spacetime", but that in no way diminishes the
immediate practical utility of my above model which fits
seamlessly into the Santa Fe Institute paradigm, but adds
the quantum ghost in their machine which, as you pointed
out recently, is missing.

> Crowell:
> It is a theory of Hamiltonian
> chaos examined according to vortices in the pilot wave.


What does "It" refer to? My above theory of Q-mind which
locks into complex adaptive systems? Is that what you
say is "Hamiltonian chaos" from quantized vortices in Q?

> My purpose for examining this is that Hamiltonian
> chaos is quite frankly easier than
> strange attractor chaos.


Are you saying that the basins of attraction in the mental
fitness landscape are not chaotic and of low dimension,
but are simpler vortices like in superfluid helium?
These Feynman vortices do not require back-action.

> The realm of quantum strange attractor physics
> more closely approaches the idea of back-action.


Oh! I see you are saying just the opposite.
So, are you suggesting that the phase transition
from superfluid to normal fluid requires
back-action where the relatively organized
vortices decay to fractal strange attractors?

Are you also saying that the basins of attraction
in my Q-mind model above are NOT from the
Hamiltonian chaos of vortices, but are chaotic
strange attractors that are usually fractals.
Are you saying that back-action
generically implies fractal strange attractors
in my mental fitness landscape? If you can prove
that rigorously, then we have a funda-MENTAL theory
of why chaos biophysicists see such fractals in
their measurements

Good! :-)

> Crowell:
> The modified evolution
> equations due to Nanopolous are due to the "noise" induced on local
> states by the global string states at a finer grained scale.I think
> this occurs with strange attractors in quantum chaos. I have a sort
> of philosophical statement on this at the end.
>
> My hope is that the lessons learned from Hamiltonian quantum chaos
> can lend their hand in the problem of more "real world" chaotic >

systems with
> nonunitary dissipations and driving terms. This is the domain of
> experience where back-action should rear its head.
>

> > Sarfatti to MATPITKANEN
> > I had a look at your theory. While I am quite impressed
> > with your mastery of modern mathematical physics methods
> > I think you are hitting a flea with a sledgehammer.
> >
> > I understand why you are forced to do so because you
> > rely on the Bohr paradigm.

> Crowell:
> This is a little surprising since the whole discussion is centered
> around a term that concerns the vortex behavior of the pilot wave and
> its connection to the particle.


Please clarify, are you saying that MATPITKANEN's math
is one of quantized vortices in Hamiltonian chaos?
You can follow his math much better than I can.

> > Sarfatti to MATPITKANEN:
> > Your math actually gives
> > some meat to Hameroff's word salad dressing, but I think
> > the actual problem does not require such a radical revision
> > of current ideas and such fancy mathematics.
> >

>
> If you want to see some really baroque mathematics you should check o
> out C. Cave's methods on quantum chaos. His methods relies upon the
> Bohr's approach.


> > Sarfatti to MATPITKANEN:
> > However, keep up the good work. I could be wrong, but
> > I doubt it! :-)



> Crowell:
> The modified approach to quantum theory, such as the Langevin terms
>that arise in Nanopolous' theory, are I think fairly generic to the
>physical world. For the problems of consciousness I tend to feel that
> chaos in a
> nonrelativistic domain of experience is much more likely to bear
> fruit than an attempt to tie things to Planck scale physics.


That is exactly what I have done above.
However, there is a numerical coefficient To
in the density matrix equation with a decay time T that
varies like T = To/N. I use Nanopoulos's Planck-scale
string-derived formula for it which has a mass dependence of
1/m^6. This T is essentially the time available for a
quantum computer of N identical switchs of mass m to compute
IF the N-switching network is thermally-screened from
ordinary interactive decoherence.
Hameroff claims at least "three" ways this
can happen. I claim one in
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/qmcarnot.html ,
and Vitiello has, at least, one in
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/vitiello.html .

> Crowell:
> The future of
> Planck scale physics is rather dodgey in my opinion.
>
> If back-action can be modelled according to modified evolution
> equations
> that result from strange attractor physics, or from string theory,
> then
> maybe back-action is a sort of universal aspect of nature.


Yes, that is exactly what I think. The only reason we have
non-sentient matter is because the decay time t
from thermal interactive decoherence
is short compared to possible T's of systems
that are not thermally-screened. That is,
my back-action theory of Q-mind predicts
that any form of matter that is thermally-screened
is automatically sentient as part of the funda-MENTAL
(a bow to Hameroff! :-)) structure on this "Intelligent Universe"
(a book by Hoyle). This is a strong prediction
and it is the reason I say we can make conscious silicon computer
chips today with nanotechnlogy if we set our minds to it. Some group
in UK has gotten 20 million pounds to try,
but they don't have the right theory as yet.

> It almost
> leads us back to certain mystical statements about the universality
> of consciousness in all things.


Exactly, I said that in SPACE-TIME AND BEYOND
(E.P. Dutton) over 20 years ago based upon
my precognitive remote-viewing of my future theory! :-)


> Maybe our mental consciousness is really just one small, but maybe
> hightly complex, facet of a much more general reality of >

consciousness.
> It begins to look a bit like the Indra's net in the Uppanishads

This is precisely what Schrodinger suggested.
--
"I've got a little list!" (Mikado)
sarfatti@well.com
http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/index.html








Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.