4 ms·
> There's a fifth fundamental force of nature, just like gravity/electromagnetic/strong/weak forces, which interacts with specially structured organic matter W
by klmr 8y ago
> There's a fifth fundamental force of nature, just like gravity/electromagnetic/strong/weak forces, which interacts with specially structured organic matter
We can fairly confidently exclude this possibility. Dirac’s equation forbids it [1]. Or, in your specific language (which is good, don’t get me wrong): we have tested this hypothesis, countless times, and conclusively disproved it.
[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-...
- mozumder 8y agoIt's not a complete description; we haven't included the weak nuclear force, or couplings to hypothetical particles like the Higgs boson. The article literally states that Dirac's equation is incomplete at modeling the full situation. But that's okay, since those are only important at high energies and/or short distances, very far from the regime of relevance to the human brain. And the article makes the mistake of assuming that life force is the physical driving energy, instead of electromagnetic energy itself being directed by a life force. There are lots of randomness in quantum physics. The life force would cause that to be more deterministic. Einstein himself was a proponent of the hidden-variable theory, famously stating that "God does not play dice". Who are we to argue against Einstein?
- klmr 8y agoThe article also states why that omission is irrelevant. > And the article makes the mistake of assuming that life force is the physical driving energy No, it’s simply a tautology: if it interacts with physical entities, it’s physical. EM radiation itself is a physical phenomenon, so it doesn’t provide a magical escape hatch. It doesn’t matter what you call this mystical force; by virtue of interacting with a physical system it must be subject to rules of physics, no special pleading can change that. > There are lots of randomness in quantum physics Yes, but that is provably a fundamental property of quantum systems, not something we can ignore or manipulate nilly-willy. Your Einstein quote predates relevant experiments that disprove this hypothesis. “Who are we to argue against Einstein?” is therefore a classical argument from authority: we are arguing based on evidence (and new theoretical underpinnings) that Einstein, at the time he uttered the phrase, didn’t possess (in particular, Bell’s theorem). Your objection is exactly like refusing to acknowledge relativity, saying “Who are we to argue against Newton?” Anyway, if you’re keen on an argument from authority then consider this: who are you to argue against the consensus of the smartest minds working in the field of neurobiology? I hope you can appreciate how this argument sounds less convincing if used against you.
- mozumder 8y agoPretty sure any life force wouldn't be local, and would be faster-than-light..
- vutekst 8y agoI don't know how you can be pretty sure about any of that, but I look forward to the faster-than-light signaling devices we can build from this new revelation about nature.
- klmr 8y agoThat’s irrelevant. These terms don’t mean anything in isolation. You just picked the two terms on the Wikipedia page on Bell’s theorem that allow you to escape the restrictions of quantum nondeterminism. But you missed the fact that they don’t allow you to violate causality. In the context of our discussion this means that they cannot be used to circumvent quantum indeterminacy because that would break physical causality.
- mozumder 8y agoThe idea that a life force can violate causality is based on the fact that theories on life/god/spirit center around infinity, and possibly related to the multiverse. Now, figure out a way to test it.