[extropy-chat] Re: A view on cryonics, worlds, identities

scerir scerir at libero.it
Sun Sep 19 18:20:36 UTC 2004


Brett Paatsch

> Its not that I regard quantum physics as unworthy of
> investigation, its just that I don't see it as necessary for
> an understanding of biology and being mortal I have to
> choose where I'll spend my time. 

Agreed completely.

> If you think that it is a failure to understand quantum
> physics that is causing me to draw different conclusions
> on cryonics than you, or different ones than I am doing 
> now, then I would take that as a strong reason for me
> to try to deepen my understanding of quantum physics.

No, no. Don't do that. Almost nobody understands quantum 
physics. It is a science of 'principles' and 'operations'
(at least in the matrix mechanical formulation). More or 
less like the special relativity theory. Something new
happened 100 years ago, in many different fields. As you
can see there are abstract objects also in ....
http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-12/p49.html
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/8
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/11/7

That said, there is a possible *conceptual* connection between
QM and biology. Call it polymorphism, call it evolution,
call it selection, call it adaptation, call it randomness,
call it chance, dunno. But it appears that QM, beyond
its general and strong principles like *unitarity* and linearity,
allows hidden, sometimes remote, potentialities to become
actual.

What appears to be more frightening: a clocklike universe which 
is totally governed by deterministic laws, or a lawless universe 
which is totally unpredictable and random? (Asked once Karl Svozil).
Well, QM is exactly between the total randomness (non-computability?)
and the total predictability. 

QM also permits nonlocality - both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal 
equations of motion - while respecting relativistic *causality*. 
Is QM the unique theory that reconciles nonlocality and causality? 
Bell, Cirel'son, and others gave numerical values of certain bounds.
To make things simple (but not good) let us say that the value "2" 
means "classical", the value "2 * sqrt2 * sqrt 2" means "super-quantal"
(super-entanglements?, stronger non-locality?, FTL?, etc.), the value 
"2 * sqrt 2" means "quantal". Once again QM is something in between
boring behaviours and Star Trek fireworks.

That's the only important thing of QM, imo.

s.

"There is no general consensus as to what its fundamental
principles are, how it should be taught, or what it really
'means'. Every competent physicist can 'do' quantum mechanics,
but the stories we tell ourselves about what we are doing
are as various as the tales of Scheherazade, and almost
as implausible."
- David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics,
page VII, preface, Prentice Hall, 1995 (inventor of the
consistent histories interpretation of QM).
   





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list