Thread: Quantum test grounds

Originally Posted by Tornado Joe

Hi Jahn,

I too find myself deviating from lucid dreaming and reading more and more of quantum physics, wave/particle duality, entanglement and the like.

I agree with PJ to some extent in that there is a link (though maybe not direct) between quantum theory and lucid dreaming. Both are 'things' or elements which swim around in this field of cosmic soup. They are not so much dependent on each other, but they do share a common place (or at least touch common points).

As for Bell's theorem, I've found that still a hard concept to grasp - but if you search for twin photon experiments you'll also find that it's been found that altering a photon in anyway will instantaneously effect it's twin, no matter how far apart. Is this the same principle? From what I understand, Bell's theorem had something to do with "hidden local variables".

The question is, what is it that you propose as far as an experiment for the Research Team? Or are you simply interested in an extended discussion?

"hidden local variables" I like what Einstein call it, " spooky action at a distance" Yes, it is the same principle.

I'm having the grandest time trying to conceive of how quantum mechanics and bell's inequality could have any more than a theoretical affect on the process of dreaming. If one took a classical computer as an analogy, there is plenty of room to speculate that certain QM effects can be used to enable two computers to communicate at a distance in some special way, but there must be a device connected to the computers to transmit and receive the data. The CPUs themselves cannot communicate to each other by themselves. Even though they utilize some very important quantum mechanical phenomena in their functions, those functions are specific and limited.

I haven't seen or heard of any evidence that thought processes in the brain utilize special quantum mechanical effects to carry out their functions, however. It doesn't mean it isn't so, but what makes neurons different from other cells is their classical behavior. Every cell possesses parts that rely on quantum mechanical phenomena, but only neurons are responsible for thought, and they have a straightforward, classical way of transmitting information.

For the ultimate proof, however, if a classical device, such as a neural network, of equivalent complexity and similar logic architecture, can be built to replicate the functions of the brain, then I would dismiss quantum phenomena as irrelevant to neural processes, such as dreaming. They may have their role to play, but it certainly would not be to enable thought or provide quantum abilities.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I haven't seen or heard of any evidence that thought processes in the brain utilize special quantum mechanical effects to carry out their functions, however. It doesn't mean it isn't so, but what makes neurons different from other cells is their classical behavior. Every cell possesses parts that rely on quantum mechanical phenomena, but only neurons are responsible for thought, and they have a straightforward, classical way of transmitting information.

For the ultimate proof, however, if a classical device, such as a neural network, of equivalent complexity and similar logic architecture, can be built to replicate the functions of the brain, then I would dismiss quantum phenomena as irrelevant to neural processes, such as dreaming. They may have their role to play, but it certainly would not be to enable thought or provide quantum abilities.

I don't think there's any evidence for it, but there is a developed theory about quantum effects in the brain as a whole, based not on neurons but "microtubules". It does have some followers. Unfortunately it relies on shielding effects (to prevent decoherence) which have not been confirmed experimentally.

Unfortunately I don't think we're going to see a human equivalent machine intelligence in the near future either. It's not just about simulating large numbers of neurons. AFAIK current computer models of neurons simplify away a number of significant features. And I think there's a significant challenge in scanning the entire architecture of a human brain. Our computers are already hitting fundamental limits, and we don't yet have a big enough computer to simulate a neural network with the same amount neurons as us. So there are a number of hard barriers before we reach that point.