Dear John,
On 19 Feb 2010, at 22:54, John Mikes wrote:
I think you (not you alone, it includes the esteemed 'conventional
scientific establishment' as well) got it backwards:
not to start with my own ignorance about "what do we call "LIFE",
but from the folk-meaning of it on: whatever we identify as that
moumenon, is NOT a
"...quantum process or 'computation' of course..." it is (whatever
it is) the poorly understood information we received, interpreted
into our limited mental capabilities - AS -
a quantum process or computation because we identified such things
already.
We don't pretend our theory are true. We never do that (except the
week-end I guess). Nor do we pretend that we have the correct
interpretation of our theory. That's a nuance ignored by most
physicists.
I would say it is (whatever it is) what we bet is behind our poorly
understood information we received. It is what our hypothesis are about.
We have no idea what those complex phenomena are of which we receive
only partial information and understand even those poorly. Then we
feel smart.
We never should.
May I refer to your parenthetical reference to the "physical world"?
I am not sure. I would call it only the current consensual "reality".
With comp, this (the observable-in-a repeatable-way) has to be
retrieved from arithmetic (extensional and intensional). (And the
propositional basic part has already been retrieved if we accept the
arithmetical interpretation of Theaetetus-Plato theory of knowledge").
Which does not intend to reduce my appreciation for the practicality
of the achievements in technology etc. by our so far disclosed
epistemic enrichment in our cognitive inventory.
I exempt the 'computation' from my denial, especially if we apply
'computation' in a wide enough(?) domain.
Well, if you are willing to survive with an artificial brain, then the
notions of computation and computability play a key role in *your*
theology, including your physics.
Best,
Bruno
On 2/19/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Hi,
I have to find time to look at this in more detail, but I am already
rather impressed. Please correct me.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shining-a-light-on-plants-quantum-secret&sc=WR_20100209
If life is a biochemical process, it is a quantum process or
"computation", of course. But if those papers are correct, genuine
interference processed are used by proteins selected for that task.
I don't think this can invalidate Tegmark's argument that the brain
is mainly a classical machine, but I know that in biology, we can
always be surprised, and it may be a tiny step toward such
invalidation. This may lead to lowering down our mechanist
substitution level.
It open the prospect to build quantum devices by genetical
engineering. Perhaps.
Bruno Marchal
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
