Quantum physics, consciousness, free will, and woo-woo

[Underseer]

YouTube personality AnticitizenX made this post on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/Anticitize...3748663777598/958306474321811/?type=3&theater

I hope I'm not violating any copyright stuff by posting this here for anyone who can't view anything at the above link:

Our favorite quantum idealist (Raatz) posted this, saying that it represents a derivation of the free particle from literal "consciousness." When you actually read the paper, however (Hoffman and Prakash, 2014), it's really nothing of the sort. The authors just kind of state it outright while providing no justification for where it really came from. But the real funny part for me was that (46) is simply nothing at all like the expression for a free particle. It's more of a bastardized gibberish expression that kinda-sorta looks quantum-ish, but doesn't really mean anything.

For example, what kind of idiot uses the spatial variable x as an index for the summation? That alone is a dead giveaway that the authors are completely clueless. Another problem is the use of bra-ket notation where it simply doesn't belong. The "|x>" term has no place in the free-particle expression, because the |x> is supposed to specifically represent an arbitrary state function. It's as if the authors is just copied random symbols from a QM book, but then stuck then together without any clue as to their meaning.

So not only does the author fail to actually "derive" anything, but the result he gives is simply not what he says it is. This is a perfect representation of the abject buffoonery that is the quantum idealist crowd. It's just fancy enough that it sounds impressive to non-technical people, but for those of us who are actually experts, it's immediately apparent how little these morons understand the subject.

First, a caveat: I had one, maybe two semesters of quantum, and that was decades ago. I barely made it through the class, and I haven't touched it since, so a lot of what AnticitizenX is saying above went over my aging and addled brain.

Still, I hope that something in this post will help others spot woo-woo when people try to hide it in quantum physics. Woo-peddlers just love to use quantum physics because as Feynman said, if you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics. They know most people's eyes will glaze over and not look too closely at any of the claims.

So I guess I'd like to talk about several things:

1. How to tell when someone is using quantum physics to peddle nonsense.
2. The relationship between quantum physics and consciousness and/or free will.

A lot of people try to use quantum physics to wriggle out of determinism when it comes to consciousness, free will, and the human brain. They will insist that some quantum effect has an influence over the resulting thoughts, therefore determinism doesn't apply to the mind, therefore free will.

The problem with this of course is that if some quantum effect influences our thoughts, then some aspect of our decisions has no cause. That is, our minds are just very elaborate slot machines that make decisions at random. While this allows for "free will" under the determinism definition of free will, if our decisions are random and uncaused, then that is not what any normal person would describe as free will regardless of whether or not determinism is involved.

As for spotting woo, normally when someone tries to link discussions about consciousness or free will to quantum physics, I demand a citation. Apparently, this person produced one, and I'm not sure I'm qualified to figure out what's wrong with this one (at least not without hand-holding such as AnticitizenX provided).

Anyhow, what're your thoughts on any of this?

 

[bilby]

https://smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3

The last panel sums it up perfectly.

 

[Kharakov]

What's randelling? Is it some physics thing I haven't heard of?

 

[ryan]

The problem with this of course is that if some quantum effect influences our thoughts, then some aspect of our decisions has no cause. That is, our minds are just very elaborate slot machines that make decisions at random. While this allows for "free will" under the determinism definition of free will, if our decisions are random and uncaused, then that is not what any normal person would describe as free will regardless of whether or not determinism is involved.

You just explained how there could be free will, then you said that it is not how anyone normal would describe it. Perhaps those who think they are talking about free will are not actually talking about free will. Because, an uncaused decision is definitely useful for non-compatible free will. As for randomness, it would appear to an observer as being random, but to the agent it is selected.

 

[Juma]

The problem with this of course is that if some quantum effect influences our thoughts, then some aspect of our decisions has no cause. That is, our minds are just very elaborate slot machines that make decisions at random. While this allows for "free will" under the determinism definition of free will, if our decisions are random and uncaused, then that is not what any normal person would describe as free will regardless of whether or not determinism is involved.

You just explained how there could be free will, then you said that it is not how anyone normal would describe it. Perhaps those who think they are talking about free will are not actually talking about free will. Because, an uncaused decision is definitely useful for non-compatible free will. As for randomness, it would appear to an observer as being random, but to the agent it is selected.

If it is selected then it isnt random.

 

[ryan]

The problem with this of course is that if some quantum effect influences our thoughts, then some aspect of our decisions has no cause. That is, our minds are just very elaborate slot machines that make decisions at random. While this allows for "free will" under the determinism definition of free will, if our decisions are random and uncaused, then that is not what any normal person would describe as free will regardless of whether or not determinism is involved.

You just explained how there could be free will, then you said that it is not how anyone normal would describe it. Perhaps those who think they are talking about free will are not actually talking about free will. Because, an uncaused decision is definitely useful for non-compatible free will. As for randomness, it would appear to an observer as being random, but to the agent it is selected.

If it is selected then it isnt random.

What?, then "chosen" whatever

 

[bilby]

If it is selected then it isnt random.

What?, then "chosen" whatever

If it's chosen it's not random either.

 

[ryan]

If it is selected then it isnt random.

What?, then "chosen" whatever

If it's chosen it's not random either.

You and Juma need to read what I said. I said that it is random to an outside observer, but it is selected/chosen/fixed by the agent.

 

[bilby]

If it's chosen it's not random either.

You and Juma need to read what I said. I said that it is random to an outside observer, but it is selected/chosen/fixed by the agent.

I read it. It's incoherent nonsense.

Random events are random. They cannot be random only for certain observers or perspectives.

 

[Juma]

If it's chosen it's not random either.

You and Juma need to read what I said. I said that it is random to an outside observer, but it is selected/chosen/fixed by the agent.

You need to take us seriously: do you even know what random means? It doesnt just mean garbled. It means that there is no information in the signal. It is an actually measurable property of a signal.

 

[ryan]

If it's chosen it's not random either.

You and Juma need to read what I said. I said that it is random to an outside observer, but it is selected/chosen/fixed by the agent.

I read it. It's incoherent nonsense.

Random events are random. They cannot be random only for certain observers or perspectives.

If I have a penny in one of my hands, my hand with th penny is chosen by you randomly. It is not random for me.

 

[bilby]

I read it. It's incoherent nonsense.

Random events are random. They cannot be random only for certain observers or perspectives.

If I have a penny in one of my hands, my hand with th penny is chosen by you randomly. It is not random for me.

In such a scenario, I play no part in choosing which hand holds the penny; not a random selection, nor a choice.

I might, perhaps, randomly guess which hand might hold it, but my guess has no influence on the facts. The fact is that you chose, and the position of the penny is not random (although to me it is unknown). 'Random' does not mean 'unknown', nor does it mean 'unpredictable'.

Your analogy fails.

 

[ryan]

If it's chosen it's not random either.

You and Juma need to read what I said. I said that it is random to an outside observer, but it is selected/chosen/fixed by the agent.

You need to take us seriously: do you even know what random means? It doesnt just mean garbled. It means that there is no information in the signal. It is an actually measurable property of a signal.

A person driving on frozen lake will appear random. And as you say leaving no information/signal that would allow one to predict his future.

Now I am saying that the mind is the randomness (at least parts of the decision making process. What ever the randomness is doing is what the driver is doing. The driver's mind and the randomness might be the same thing. The selection/choice is when the perceived randomness takes its fixed values. Or physically speaking, the choice occurs when the wavefunction collapses.

 

[ryan]

If it's chosen it's not random either.

You and Juma need to read what I said. I said that it is random to an outside observer, but it is selected/chosen/fixed by the agent.

I read it. It's incoherent nonsense.

Random events are random. They cannot be random only for certain observers or perspectives.

If you really want to get rigorous, imagine a random number generator that in certain relativistic speeds gives off the number to 2 different people at different times. In this case the number is random for the observer that knows the answer but it is still being calculated for another observer.

 

[bilby]

You need to take us seriously: do you even know what random means? It doesnt just mean garbled. It means that there is no information in the signal. It is an actually measurable property of a signal.

A person driving on frozen lake will appear random. And as you say leaving no information/signal that would allow one to predict his future.

Now I am saying that the mind is the randomness (at least parts of the decision making process. What ever the randomness is doing is what the driver is doing. The driver's mind and the randomness might be the same thing. The selection/choice is when the perceived randomness takes its fixed values. Or physically speaking, the choice occurs when the wavefunction collapses.

Unpredictable is not random.

Things are random or they are not. 'Appear random' is as meaningless as 'appear prime'.

2, 3 and 43 are prime numbers. 63 'appears prime' to students who haven't learned their three, seven or nine times tables. That's not really useful information about 63.

There are plenty of unpredictable phenomena that are not random; unpredictability due to a lack of knowledge about the things that influence the result is completely different from randomness. A cyclone's path is unpredictable. But it's path is not random; we cannot possibly know enough details about the system to precisely predict its behaviour, but it is neither random nor wilful.

 

[ryan]

You need to take us seriously: do you even know what random means? It doesnt just mean garbled. It means that there is no information in the signal. It is an actually measurable property of a signal.

A person driving on frozen lake will appear random. And as you say leaving no information/signal that would allow one to predict his future.

Now I am saying that the mind is the randomness (at least parts of the decision making process. What ever the randomness is doing is what the driver is doing. The driver's mind and the randomness might be the same thing. The selection/choice is when the perceived randomness takes its fixed values. Or physically speaking, the choice occurs when the wavefunction collapses.

Unpredictable is not random.

Things are random or they are not. 'Appear random' is as meaningless as 'appear prime'.

2, 3 and 43 are prime numbers. 63 'appears prime' to students who haven't learned their three, seven or nine times tables. That's not really useful information about 63.

There are plenty of unpredictable phenomena that are not random; unpredictability due to a lack of knowledge about the things that influence the result is completely different from randomness. A cyclone's path is unpredictable. But it's path is not random; we cannot possibly know enough details about the system to precisely predict its behaviour, but it is neither random nor wilful.

Going off of typical definitions of randomness, a cyclone is definitely random. If that's not random then what the hell is?

 

[bilby]

Unpredictable is not random.

Things are random or they are not. 'Appear random' is as meaningless as 'appear prime'.

2, 3 and 43 are prime numbers. 63 'appears prime' to students who haven't learned their three, seven or nine times tables. That's not really useful information about 63.

There are plenty of unpredictable phenomena that are not random; unpredictability due to a lack of knowledge about the things that influence the result is completely different from randomness. A cyclone's path is unpredictable. But it's path is not random; we cannot possibly know enough details about the system to precisely predict its behaviour, but it is neither random nor wilful.

Going off of typical definitions of randomness, a cyclone is definitely random. If that's not random then what the hell is?

'Random' doesn't have 'typical definitions'; in a mathematical or scientific context, it has a single, very specific definition.

If you want to say 'unpredictable', 'irregular', or 'chaotic', then do so. Don't abuse the word 'random', it just confuses everyone - particularly yourself.

Cyclones are not random; they are chaotic. Their behaviour is determined, but to accurately predict it at a reasonable distance into the future requires unachievable precision in our knowledge of the starting conditions.

 

[ryan]

Unpredictable is not random.

Things are random or they are not. 'Appear random' is as meaningless as 'appear prime'.

2, 3 and 43 are prime numbers. 63 'appears prime' to students who haven't learned their three, seven or nine times tables. That's not really useful information about 63.

There are plenty of unpredictable phenomena that are not random; unpredictability due to a lack of knowledge about the things that influence the result is completely different from randomness. A cyclone's path is unpredictable. But it's path is not random; we cannot possibly know enough details about the system to precisely predict its behaviour, but it is neither random nor wilful.

Going off of typical definitions of randomness, a cyclone is definitely random. If that's not random then what the hell is?

'Random' doesn't have 'typical definitions'; in a mathematical or scientific context, it has a single, very specific definition.

If you want to say 'unpredictable', 'irregular', or 'chaotic', then do so. Don't abuse the word 'random', it just confuses everyone - particularly yourself.

Cyclones are not random; they are chaotic. Their behaviour is determined, but to accurately predict it at a reasonable distance into the future requires unachievable precision in our knowledge of the starting conditions.

So would QM be random? Do you think you might be just convoluting my original statement and unnecessarily taking this into a semantic black hole?

 

[beero1000]

So would QM be random? Do you think you might be just convoluting my original statement and unnecessarily taking this into a semantic black hole?

Quantum mechanics predicts true randomness, i.e.  Martin-Löf randomness, where there is no algorithm to predict it (from any perspective).

 

[bilby]

'Random' doesn't have 'typical definitions'; in a mathematical or scientific context, it has a single, very specific definition.

If you want to say 'unpredictable', 'irregular', or 'chaotic', then do so. Don't abuse the word 'random', it just confuses everyone - particularly yourself.

Cyclones are not random; they are chaotic. Their behaviour is determined, but to accurately predict it at a reasonable distance into the future requires unachievable precision in our knowledge of the starting conditions.

So would QM be random? Do you think you might be just convoluting my original statement and unnecessarily taking this into a semantic black hole?

As far as we can tell, QM includes truly random behaviours; The decay of radioactive materials, for example, is indistinguishable from randomness, and can only be predicted statistically with large populations of similar nuclei. So you can identify a half life for a given unstable isotope, but it is not possible to predict the time at which a given nucleus will decay.

If you want to discuss anything with any hope of reaching useful conclusions, then precision is essential; the misuse of technical terms is to be avoided, unless our purpose is to obscure rather than to enlighten. There is nothing unnecessary about demanding the use of accurate language in a technical discussion; To fail to do so is to invite (intentional or unintentional) equivocation fallacies, and the resulting logical errors.

Truly random inputs cannot in any way be 'willed', by definition - the ability to influence an event would render it non-random. So randomness (including QM randomness) cannot possibly be a contributing component of willed behaviour.