|
Dear Andrei and List, I have been reading the session opening post for a few days now and trying to make sense of it in terms of the Foundations of Information Science. These questions continue to be raised and I am glad the session here causes me to return to them. They continue to be the center of an ongoing crisis in physics. I am not sure of the state of play - and it would be useful to me to have a physicist summarize the latest work. The last paper I reviewed on the subject was James Malley's paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402126.pdf) which, at the time, I thought convincingly showed that EPR results do not commute. A paper from Daniele Tommasini (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000651/00/locaqft.pdf) appears to show that EPR is unmeasurable. I'd like to hear the standing of these papers today, if anyone knows. I was fortunate to be in a conversation with Roger Penrose a few years ago about these questions and he put it rather well by saying that he was troubled that cricket balls did not appear to behave according to the rules of quantum physics. I have a number of standing questions about entanglement theory especially as it related of molecular biology. For example: Is an entire organism considered to be an entangled entity? What is the theoretical and experimental justification for stem cells as origin of entangled cell structures? How does that work according to entanglement physics? It is simple to consider entanglement in the case of single photons, it is rather more difficult to generalize it. Although, aggregate manifestations of entanglement may, in fact, be easier to deal with both experimentally and theoretically. What Penrose is getting at by the above remark is that if such states as entanglement/non-locality and superposition do exist at the quantum level they must surely manifest at the classical level. Andrei's appeal to scale in his recent post seems unreasonable (he essentially asks at what increase of mass entanglement stops). Hence, entangled states/non-locality, superposition, must necessarily be in the mechanics of information theory. In other words, we need a theory of information that unifies classical and quantum theories - or we need some reasonable explanation of why there should be two theories. I think there may, in fact, be ready manifestation of entanglement/non-locality at the classical level underlying the integration of experience in senses. If this is not a classical level manifestation of entanglement and non-locality then it requires that we do something like Jonathan Edwards' (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~regfjxe/aw.htm) proposal and reduce integrated experience to single cells. This does not seem likely in my view because the argument reduces to a point and if it does not the locality issues remain within the cell. However, I do think Jonathan's work is very interesting and worthy. In my view, even if the manifestation is isolated to a single cell or just a few cells in the brain, the locality issue is a problem for sentience engineering and cognitive science. (Obvious example: smash fingers from both hands in a door. How is it you can integrate the pain of each together in a single cognition?) Indeed, I do currently assume in my work that there is this manifestation of entanglement/non-locality at the classical level of sentience engineering and that it does explain the integration of experience. However, whether this non-locality and associated sensory / cognitive integration relates directly to EPR I leave as an open question. There are many miles to go before we sleep. It certainly would be convenient, however, if I could say with some certainty that all organisms are entangled entities - in a single whole or in parts. As to the Toshiba device, as they say here in the USA, "I'm from Missouri" (the "show me" state) - I will wait until they actually have something to show before passing judgment. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith SEMEIOSIS RESEARCH INSTITUTE for ADVANCED SCIENCE & ENGINEERING http://www.semeiosis.org http://iase.info Andrei Khrennikov (by way of Pedro Marijuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
|
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
