At 14:17 10/04/2012, Arthur wrote:
Keith,
(KH) So far, quantum physics tells us that the electrons in my brain
that are producing personal experiences of consciousness and
free-will are also having simultaneous effects on electrons
somewhere elsewhere in the universe, even at its furthest ends -- if
ends there be. Might it also be the case that electrons elsewhere in
the universe are affecting those in my head?
(AC) Hadn't heard this stated as such before.
(KH) I was simplifying enormously. It doesn't necessarily involve
electrons, but only some or any sub-atomic particles. My sentence
accords with those quantum physicists, such as the late David Bohm,
who don't believe that quantum effects are random (as many scientists
believe them to be) but are guided by deep variable factors ("hidden
variables") and which, moreover, are "non-local". If, in fact, some
or all of the sub-atomic events which are going on in my brain
(either instigated by "me" or by factors elsewhere) have effects
elsewhere then the whole universe might be totally interconnected in
some sort of informational web. John Stewart Bell (1928-1990)
proposed a theorem in 1964 by which non-locality can be tested. So
far, a series of experiments have shown that a changed condition of
one particle seems to have immediate effect on another, or at least
an effect that is faster than light, wherever the latter particle
might be. As we all know, Einstein resisted the idea of non-locality
-- believing that the apparent effect on the "other" must be due to a
local circumstance. However, deciding between the two will take a
great many other experiments before non-locality can be disproved or,
conversely, accepted into the current belief system in physics.
Shifting ground now to biology itself, recent research has shown that
at least one important chemical reaction which is important to life
(one particular stage during photosynthesis) should not in fact take
place according to known physical and chemical laws. An important
"accidental" event always occurs instead of many others which are
more probable. It may be that, in due course, other important
chemical reactions that are fundamental to life -- perhaps the
beginning of life itself -- the first self-replicating molecule --
will be discovered and are, in fact, what are called quantum events.
Keith
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 5:39 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION
Subject: [Futurework] Where's my consciousness?
A brilliant op-ed by a brilliant scientist appeared in the Los
Angeles Times of 1 April. It suggests that we shouldn't be worried
if the universe doesn't have a purpose. It is headed "A universe
without purpose" and is written by Lawrence M. Krauss who heads the
Origins Project at Arizona State University. He implies that all
good people (that is, sensible people, lay-people as well as
scientists) should be comfortable with the fact.
His key sentence is: "For many, to live in a universe that may have
no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable." Then, in the next
paragraph, he leads off with: "But science has taught us to think
the unthinkable." Well . . . for one thing, the sentence is
self-contradictory. We cannot think about what we cannot think
about. For another, the main thing -- the only thing -- that science
teaches us is that whatever we may happen to believe now may, in
fact, turn out to be wrong.
In fact, belief in a particular scientific theory is no different in
kind from a particular religious belief. The only difference is
time-scale. A particular religious belief may last for generations
or centuries or even millennia before it is "disproved". It changes
when the surrounding culture has become sufficiently dissonant so
that, usually, a chief spokesman (together with a close-knit group
surrounding him) announces a replacement belief or a modification
that sits more comfortably with the new culture. His flock usually
adopt the new belief pretty instantly or, sometimes, a maverick
youngster decides he wants to keep with the old "purity" and starts
a new schism.
On the other hand, as soon as a scientific spokesman announces a new
belief, then other scientists will immediately try to devise a new
culture (a controlled experiment) which will seek to disprove it. If
the experiment is successful then the new belief is abandoned, or
modified or it's substituted by an even newer belief. The point is
that the belief is usually challenged well within the lifetime of
the innovator. Science is a history of disproofs rather than a grand
revelation.
But, essentially, there's no difference between scientific belief
and religious belief. They are both seeking some sort of coherent
explanation of the universe and life -- almost exclusively human
life in the case of religious belief. I rather think that Richard
Dawkins' life-long, over-aggressive arguments with religious
believers has done science, and evolutionary biology in particular,
a lot of damage.
As for me, I remain very uncomfortable that the universe may not
have a purpose, whether self-generated or initiated by something
else. Until science can come up with a testable theory that would
adequately explain why I (at least!) experience what we call
consciousness and free-will and set them both well within the modern
culture of science -- quantum physics -- then I'm quite happy with
the belief that the universe might be designed beforehand or is
being designed now by one method or another. So far, quantum
physics tells us that the electrons in my brain that are producing
personal experiences of consciousness and free-will are also having
simultaneous effects on electrons somewhere elsewhere in the
universe, even at its furthest ends -- if ends there be. Might it
also be the case that electrons elsewhere in the universe are
affecting those in my head? Where's my consciousness?
Keith
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
