4 ms·

I suspect the argument manyoso is setting up here is based on sophistry around the concept of "physical laws". His stance is most likely that quantum woo is par

by Udo 9y ago

I suspect the argument manyoso is setting up here is based on sophistry around the concept of "physical laws". His stance is most likely that quantum woo is part of the physical laws, in the same way a fundamentalist religious person would assert that the content of a holy book is part of the physical laws. What I - and I hope most people - mean by the phrase is different though, it's the body of actual physical laws that have been shown scientifically. > I'm not sure what his position is on computers that incorporate quantum magic though. Interesting thought experiment. I suspect he would be fine with those in theory, however since he already declared this special connection to the supernatural for humans it'd be interesting what computer components he would consider equivalent. But the beauty of his position is that, in the event of a generally intelligent computer emerging, he could always claim that any given nanoscale computing component is the silicon analogue of "quantum microtubules" (which was his woo-related organelle of choice in neurons). It's not like he ever has to prove his claims in order to be taken seriously.

manyoso 9y ago
It is not quantum woo and it is not quantum magic. Objective collapse theories are the complete opposite of what you are disparaging. Objective collapse theories are more physical than what we currently have. Few people have made more contributions in the twentieth century to actual physics than Penrose. He is one of the world's leading experts on general relativity and his objective collapse theory is nothing more that when quantum gravity is understood that gravity will play a role in the collapse of the wavefunction. To describe Penrose as engaging in 'quantum woo' or 'quantum magic' is grossly inappropriate. It just gives evidence that you don't understand what he is proposing. See Scott Aaronson for what an rebuttal to Penrose looks like not the ham fisted straw man takedowns from the likes of people in this comment section.
- Chronos 9y ago
  Penrose is not just arguing for objective collapse. Penrose is arguing for something computationally more powerful than objective collapse.
  - manyoso 9y ago
    If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argue for "something computationally more powerful than objective collapse" rather, he argues that the physical Church-Turing thesis is false due to quantum gravity. Something he is an expert on, btw.
    - Chronos 9y ago
      "gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis" Says who? Penrose is blacklisted, cite someone else.
dang 9y ago
> I suspect the argument manyoso is setting up here is based on sophistry around the concept of "physical laws". His stance is most likely that quantum woo is part of the physical laws, in the same way a fundamentalist religious person would assert that the content of a holy book is part of the physical laws. That falls far below the standard of discussion we ask users to abide by here. Please make your points directly and without such cheap insinuations.
- simonh 9y ago
  Er, I have met and talked to religious people who have said exactly this.
- Udo 9y ago
  It's not an incorrect summary of his position. I agree it may not look like a totally objective characterization on my part, but you're saying this in a discussion where I was literally told to "go home", by the same user you're protecting here. If you think my comments in their entirety detracted from the discussion, I'd like you to tell me. Otherwise I'm asking you to consider this statement in the context of both manyoso's and my comments as a whole. This is a discussion about quantum quackery, and you're stepping in on behalf of the pro-quackery side that has no problem telling me personally that I "have no idea what" I'm "talking about", and other dismissive discourse.
  - manyoso 9y ago
    It is incorrect. Penrose emphatically says the human brain is governed by physical law. To assert otherwise is just factually incorrect. Read his books or read his papers. If you disagree, please provide one quote that shows otherwise. I am sorry to have said "go home" and will refrain in the future. Still, you have lodged what I consider factually incorrect assertions about Penrose's argument. When asked for evidence you have provided none.
    - Udo 9y ago
      You misunderstand what I'm talking about. What dang criticized me for is a correct summary of your position. Let me elaborate: > "We proposed [...] that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity [...] This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. [...] We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe." ( Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose; Consciousness in the universe; Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78 ) and > "If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argue for "something computationally more powerful than objective collapse" rather, he argues that the physical Church-Turing thesis is false due to quantum gravity. Something he is an expert on, btw." ( manyoso, Hacker News, discussion id 14444443 ) None of these statements, while they are using the language of science, bears any discernable relationship to physical reality in a scientific sense. The postulate that any consciousness-related activity of neurons happens in structural elements like microtubules is a collection of unproven hypotheses divorced from both empirical and theoretical experience. The same goes for this preposterous claim about quantum gravity: there is currently no workable theoretical framework for quantum gravity, but this doesn't stop Penrose from confabulating properties onto the term so it can become a new go-to locus for his ideas on quantum consciousness. An observer will notice a pattern here: mystical truth claims about a hypothesis with no basis in either experimentation nor theory are being "supported" by hiding their supposed mechanisms of action inside yet-unexplored regions of the map. It's a god of the gaps argument. Now, you know this, as does Penrose. Both of you are trying to preempt this criticism by professing quantum consciousness is a fundamental part of the laws of nature, and hence it should not be categorized as woo. You are essentially rejecting the accusation of mysticism by asserting that magic is not metaphysical. Which was the observation dang chided (and apparently penalized) me for. For what it's worth: you decisively won the argument, both by popular opinion and the support of the site's admin. Accept a victory when it presents itself.

by Udo 9y ago

manyoso 9y ago

It is not quantum woo and it is not quantum magic. Objective collapse theories are the complete opposite of what you are disparaging. Objective collapse theories are more physical than what we currently have. Few people have made more contributions in the twentieth century to actual physics than Penrose. He is one of the world's leading experts on general relativity and his objective collapse theory is nothing more that when quantum gravity is understood that gravity will play a role in the collapse of the wavefunction. To describe Penrose as engaging in 'quantum woo' or 'quantum magic' is grossly inappropriate. It just gives evidence that you don't understand what he is proposing. See Scott Aaronson for what an rebuttal to Penrose looks like not the ham fisted straw man takedowns from the likes of people in this comment section.

Chronos 9y ago
Penrose is not just arguing for objective collapse. Penrose is arguing for something computationally more powerful than objective collapse.
- manyoso 9y ago
  If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argue for "something computationally more powerful than objective collapse" rather, he argues that the physical Church-Turing thesis is false due to quantum gravity. Something he is an expert on, btw.
  - Chronos 9y ago
    "gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis" Says who? Penrose is blacklisted, cite someone else.

dang 9y ago

> I suspect the argument manyoso is setting up here is based on sophistry around the concept of "physical laws". His stance is most likely that quantum woo is part of the physical laws, in the same way a fundamentalist religious person would assert that the content of a holy book is part of the physical laws. That falls far below the standard of discussion we ask users to abide by here. Please make your points directly and without such cheap insinuations.

simonh 9y ago
Er, I have met and talked to religious people who have said exactly this.
Udo 9y ago
It's not an incorrect summary of his position. I agree it may not look like a totally objective characterization on my part, but you're saying this in a discussion where I was literally told to "go home", by the same user you're protecting here. If you think my comments in their entirety detracted from the discussion, I'd like you to tell me. Otherwise I'm asking you to consider this statement in the context of both manyoso's and my comments as a whole. This is a discussion about quantum quackery, and you're stepping in on behalf of the pro-quackery side that has no problem telling me personally that I "have no idea what" I'm "talking about", and other dismissive discourse.
- manyoso 9y ago
  It is incorrect. Penrose emphatically says the human brain is governed by physical law. To assert otherwise is just factually incorrect. Read his books or read his papers. If you disagree, please provide one quote that shows otherwise. I am sorry to have said "go home" and will refrain in the future. Still, you have lodged what I consider factually incorrect assertions about Penrose's argument. When asked for evidence you have provided none.
  - Udo 9y ago
    You misunderstand what I'm talking about. What dang criticized me for is a correct summary of your position. Let me elaborate: > "We proposed [...] that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity [...] This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. [...] We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe." ( Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose; Consciousness in the universe; Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78 ) and > "If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argue for "something computationally more powerful than objective collapse" rather, he argues that the physical Church-Turing thesis is false due to quantum gravity. Something he is an expert on, btw." ( manyoso, Hacker News, discussion id 14444443 ) None of these statements, while they are using the language of science, bears any discernable relationship to physical reality in a scientific sense. The postulate that any consciousness-related activity of neurons happens in structural elements like microtubules is a collection of unproven hypotheses divorced from both empirical and theoretical experience. The same goes for this preposterous claim about quantum gravity: there is currently no workable theoretical framework for quantum gravity, but this doesn't stop Penrose from confabulating properties onto the term so it can become a new go-to locus for his ideas on quantum consciousness. An observer will notice a pattern here: mystical truth claims about a hypothesis with no basis in either experimentation nor theory are being "supported" by hiding their supposed mechanisms of action inside yet-unexplored regions of the map. It's a god of the gaps argument. Now, you know this, as does Penrose. Both of you are trying to preempt this criticism by professing quantum consciousness is a fundamental part of the laws of nature, and hence it should not be categorized as woo. You are essentially rejecting the accusation of mysticism by asserting that magic is not metaphysical. Which was the observation dang chided (and apparently penalized) me for. For what it's worth: you decisively won the argument, both by popular opinion and the support of the site's admin. Accept a victory when it presents itself.