On 2/28/2012 2:38 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Also see http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4059 (dec. 18, 2010), Focus on
quantum effects and noise in biomolecules
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2337 for the latest on the topic.
Classicality is not so easy to assume any more. I may seem unusually
confident but I do have indirect knowledge, via personal friend, of the
latest work at UC Berkeley on this question.
On 2/28/2012 1:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2012 7:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Let me see if my thoughts are correct as I can best write them.
COMP is the conjunction of "Yes Doctor", the Church Thesis and
Arithmetic Realism, correct? I am now not sure of the definition of
"Digital physics" given this thread so far... From what I can tell,
Yes Doctor is built on the idea of functional substitutability at
some level or scale for physical systems, such that a given
algorithm will run on any functionally equivalent physical system;
it is basically a restatement of computational universality. This
idea shows us that our consciousness is not dependent on a
particular form of physical system if and only if our consciousness
is algorithmic or computable in the Turing sense. I am agnostic on
this because I do not see any evidence (pace Tegmark) that our
brain's implementation of consciousness does not involve quantum
This is ambiguous. Tegmark showed that quantum decoherence of ion
locations in neural processes is much faster than neural signaling,
therefore brain processing is almost all classical. It is classical
*because* there is quantum entanglement between the ions and the
environment. It is quantum entanglement with an environment
(something with many degrees of freedom) that produces decoherence
and classical behavior. If you substitute for some neurons a silicon
chip that is designed to be functionally identical, that
"functionally identical" means it acts as a classical device to
implement a certain computational algorithm. Of course it will be
quantum entangled with its environment because that's what makes it
Maybe you meant you that you think brain processes may involve
quantum coherent superpositions - but that's what Tegmark refuted.
Not so fast! Tegmark's argument only holds, if it can be
experimentally verified that is, _only_ for ion transport based
processes. Consider theexperimental evidence
for quantum entanglement in the photosynthesis process in algea, does
that not make you pause just a little bit in making your proclamation?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at