Hi Bruno


From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 8:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Does the plants quantum computations?


Hi Stephen,


On 19 Feb 2010, at 19:43, Stephen P. King wrote:


            Tegmark's argument completely ignores the roles that structure
provide, among other things. 


You may elaborate.

I can make sense of this in quantum topology, but this needs huge magnetic
field. I do dream that metallic atoms well disposed could implement some
local quantum topology, but it is not easy to prove that quantum fault
tolerance can be obtained by atom structuring (at normal temperature,
pression, electromagnetical conditions) in a way to exploit (compute with)
the interferences. I have no certainty here, to be sure.



            Nature has repeatedly proven herself to be vastly more clever
than we can imagine. Quantum coherence is used in photosynthesis by plants
to increase the efficiency of photon energy capture by the use of structures
that act to hold decoherence off just in the right place for long enough. I
will leave it up to the experimentalists to explain the structures.



His paper has been the modern equivalent to the
infamous papers back in the 20th century that proved that heavier than air
flight was impossible.



Hmm... Tegmark does not pretend that quantum computation is impossible. Just
that the brain does not exploit quantum coherence so that it works like a
classical computer, which I find quite plausible. To pursue your analogy, to
say that brains are quantum computing is a bit like saying that humans can
fly  ... with their arms.



               He pretends that his trivial model is exact enough to prove
that there can be no exploitable coherence effects. I only claim that the
brain is exploiting coherence effects at small scales that would allow for
increased efficiencies. I am considering an idea different from that of
Hameroff based on resonance damping. But Hameroff’s discussions minus the
“Objective Reduction” stuff, IMO, is still valid. See:



It may be plausible, with the current "knowledge" (technically: belief) that
the origin of life may have exploited quantum algorihmic, but this would be
astonsihing at the level of interacting cells.


Of course, we don't know. I would be glad to be surprised. It would not
change anything to the comp theology, it would just put our substitution
level much more below the neurophysiological actual implicit substitution
level. (entailing many more worlds in the many worlds, much less accessible
by us in case "we" are quantum entity (always the same "Galois Connection"
theories/models, equation/surfaces).



>From the evidence we have so far, quantum effects seem limited to existing
within the cells and not between them, but there may be protocols that allow
for exploitation between cells. I am trying to figure this out but am very
limited in my ability.


People like him are a net negative contribution to
the evolution of our understanding of our universe.


Hmm... I will not shot on a colleague which inspired the birth of this list
an belongs, with Wheeler, to the first physicist open to the abandon of
physicalism and/or weak materialism ;)


He is also a fellow many-worlders.


But like many scientists he does not take into account the data of
philosophy-of-mind/cognitive-science, nor the data of computer science and
mathematical logic, despite they fit admirably. Only, they make eventually
physics more a sum on all mathematical structures than a mathematical
structure *among* others. May be both are true, complex open problem
(related to the consistency of Quine New Foundation (NF) I think).


He missed the qualia.



Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh on Tegmark, but nevertheless how many research
grant proposals have been shot down because of his paper? I myself have the
blunt force of it on my timid querries.

PS, Life is a pattern that emerges from biochemistry plus, not equal to


Sure. Biochemistry itself is a pattern in the mind of the Löbian machines,
and the mind of the Löbian machine is a reflect of arithmetical truth in
arithmetical (true) provability. I think (and can argue with the comp



My only complaint with your work is that it reduces the physical world to
epiphenomena and in so doing seems no better that material monism. I like
that it does not ignore consciousness as it puts logic in its core notions,
but there still something missing. There is no necessity for there to be the
phenomena of a physical world evolving in time in Comp.





Stephen P. King



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to