Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kougabro t1_j0g1l9x wrote

Reply to comment by sschepis in A deluge of fake articles threatens research on human genes -- Review: Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills by spontaneous_igloo

Look, I am not trying to insult you. But if you are actually interested in this topic, you have to realise that you are mixing things up in a way that truly makes no sense. Decoherence happens very quickly, and very reliably, at even the meso scale.

The codepens you have shared are nice, but this is just a particle simulation, you may call it life emergent behaviour, but consider that you will observe similar behaviour with dust particles, or crystal formation in solution, for example. Highly interesting behaviour, I agree, but I would not call it life emergent.

You see to be genuinely interested in this topic, and in running simulations, so I would suggest you do that! You can create a (limited) QM simulation of a few particles in a box (say in a crystal phase, and prepared in a state that you find interesting), and a few more gas-like particles bumping on them. What you will see, if you do that, is that the gas-like particles interacting with the solid will disturb its behaviour. This has also been observed experimentally, this is part of why experimental setups requiring entanglement are tough to set up, the system is easily disturbed; any textbook discussing this will provide a much better explanation than I can on this topic.

Edit: adding some references for anyone looking for formal material, see for example McQuarrie's statistical mechanics, chapter 10-7, for some formal descriptions of how you go from a QM statistical ensemble, to classical. For some simulation of systems that can exhibit both classical and "QM" behaviour, see: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.180403 and https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.150403

10

sschepis t1_j0g3vqi wrote

Thank you. This is really useful to me. Now I can go study this, put in the work that I need to, and come back when I have the language to discuss it with you. I am more than willing to put in the work and learn the information you are pointing me to. Thats me showing you respect, you have worked for it.

I'm willing to work for it too because I am convinced this is not nonsense. There is for example a fundamental link between entropy and life. I cannot reduce the signature action of life any further than modeling it in the terms I have described. I am convinced this link can be proven experimentally.

I arrived at my understanding of entropy from the perspective of conciousness - from predictions that tumbled out of the theories. That to me is good science, and I am happy to learn what I need to to frame it the way I need to.

The field of science should absolutely support both people like you, and people like me. Our history shows that contributions - great ones - are made by all kinds of people.

Let us support each other in this rather than presuming opposition and try to communicate. I certainly learn all the time from people. Thanks again for your response.

2

kougabro t1_j0g4znf wrote

Happy this could help, and sorry if my response was dismissive. Frankly I have seen variation of what you are saying many times, and most of the times by people that are not willing to do anything but rave about it.

> I'm willing to work for it too because I am convinced this is not nonsense. [...] I am convinced this link can be proven experimentally.

If that motivates you, good, and as you want others to keep an open mind, consider keeping an open mind yourself: maybe it IS nonsense!

There are links between entropy and life, yes, and you can formally describe them, using mathematics and physics. I advise Rob Philips excellent book "Physical biology of the cell" on the topic, as a much gentler introduction than what I cited above.

> [...] from predictions that tumbled out of the theories.

Once you write down a formal (mathematical) description of what your theory looks like, and what you can expect it to show, then you can have a conversation about it. No idea how you are going to put conciousness in there, to be honest.

As an aside, don't know if you heard of Jeremy England, but I get the impression you would enjoy reading on his research.

3

sschepis t1_j0hvzka wrote

I have not heard of him! I will check his work out.

I am more than open to being wrong! My interest is in discovering the truth and if I am unable to discard disproved theory, even mine, then I am not doing science.

I came to my conclusions about entropy from making the following suppositions:

Your recognition of consciousness is purely subjective, thus unfalsifiable and true from your position, which is always what matters.

If you perceive a system as conscious, then it is, to you, and since nobody can disprove this perception, it is true

Because you can observe the quality of consciousness in the objects in your environment, then that consciousness must already exist in the environment as an inherent field.

But we also notice consciousness as an active principle in objects - some consciousness can act.

What is the fundamental difference then, between consciousness that is passive, and consciousness that can act?

The fundamental difference is the action part of it - so what characteristic can I use to identify that system from the perspective of the quality of what it does?

The answer is found in how that system handles the constantly-growing entropy within itself.

We can apply this filter into our perception and recognize living systems purely by how they handle the entropy in their bodies, and we can define the activity of life as an activity that seeks to maintain low entropy.

The minute that the system has achieved equilibrium with its environment, it can no longer act. It is dead.

This is my straight line from consciousness to entropy. I came to the realization of the nature of entropy through this mechanism of deduction, not through classical science.

This is the reason why I think there is something there, there. My logic, in the context of how consciousness works, is sound. Except that no scientific theory, except for quantum mechanics, provides a reasonable explanation - ant it only requies modfying some basic presumptions about quantum mechanics to make it all work together.

Could it be all BS? Sure. But I am very proactive about tossing out theories that don't work, so here I am.

Thanks again for your time.

1

sschepis t1_j0jhoj6 wrote

Okay here's a formalization of this coming at it from the perspective of relativity which shows

that the scale change ratio needed for two observers with equal observational radius so that the large observer can no longer observe the smaller with visible light

is the same as the length of our observable universe divided by Planck's constant,

showing that quantum phenomena are a predictable effect of perspective.

https://www.reddit.com/r/theplenum/comments/znw04j/using_observational_evidence_to_connect_quantum/

1