Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA04580 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:07:12 +0100 Message-ID: <3ACC6D2C.559AEFB9@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 14:03:40 +0100 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D69@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sorry, I know you make an explicit exception for quantum stuff, but
> isn't there a quantum effect (quantum tunnelling perhaps?), that says that
> it's possible for the cup to 'fall' back up from the floor, reconstruct
> itself and the coffee to return to its position. It's improbability is such
> that you'd have to wait far longer than the age of the current universe to
> actually see this happen, but it could happen in principle. Aren't you
> therefore here talking about the illusion of time's "arrow" (I believe
> that's the common phrase)?
I don't think (...) you need quantum stuff for that, I think that could
be just down to alignment of electron momentums (or something, said he
desperately trying to dredge up some A-level physics), and you're dead
right about the reversible arrow of time (I'm sure causality comes into
that somewhere though, to give it 'direction'). But I am assured that
even the quantum stuff (positron-electron pairs 'spontaneously' forming
etc.) only appears random because our current models are just that,
models. Apparently it may well all be going on down there at the Planck
scale (10^-33ish metres, 10-43ish seconds), but how on earth you'd
explore that I have no idea. Fundamentally though I think it's wrong to
say that quantum stuff is anything in particular yet, because we don't
know. For example, in a 2D world, things popping in and out of
'existence' because they have a third dimension to move in may look
random to the flatworlders, but they just don't have enough knowledge to
correctly attribute the cause.
Where the rubber meets the road with this quantum issue is when it is
used to explain away anything hard. The most irritating (to me) example
of this is the 'consciousness physicist' Roger Penrose (microtubules
happen to have an internal diameter which is similar to some important
wavelength therefore consciousness is just random and too hard to
understand because of all this 'quantum' stuff going on) to which I say,
stick to tessellating. As if brains weren't complex enough to explain
minds (10^10 neurons, 10^11 support cells etc..).
Ref (the top hit on my search, nothing personal):
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/intro.html (although
they've kind of moved sideways a little, the basic stupidity of this
approach remains - "Hey, these brains [that we haven't got a clue about]
just don't seem *complex* enough to us...").
Actually this is worth asking: Is there anyone on this list who doesn't
think that a brain composed of neurons, interacting through electrical,
chemical and mechanical routes only, is enough to make a mind?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 14:10:03 BST