26

The idea that quantum mechanics fundamentally challenges the rules of logic was popular for a while, but has fallen out of favor in recent years. While intuitively it might seem that quantum superposition (i.e something being in more than one base state at the same time) is what challenges the rules of logic, by invalidating the law of non-contradiction, ...


22

The short answer: Your premise is not correct. Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily complex-valued. Here is a primer from Physics.SE if you are solid on the math. An explanation that is light on math: Complex numbers represent a particular collection of symmetries that behave in a particular way. They happen to be closely related to Real numbers because ...


12

Let me clarify a confusion first. Logic applies to sentences, not to objects, so object's ability to be in two places at once is not a contradiction, unless definition of "object" rules out such a possibility. It certainly does in classical mechanics, but classical mechanics does not apply to quantum objects that can be "two places at once". And quantum ...


10

The OP quote draws a distinction between determinism ("hard determinism"), and causal completeness ("less absolute determinism"). The former means that the current physical state of the universe predetermines its future state in every detail, i.e. it is a "sufficient cause", this is the Laplacian view of classical mechanics. The ...


9

First a point of clarification, from what you are describing, you are talking about libertarian freewill, not compatibilist freewill. More on that later. At the heart of your question is a confusion that you need to clarify, then you will understand the second paragraph you quoted better. You are confusing "Determinism" with "Lack of freewill" due to a ...


7

Does 'the quantum mind' solve the hard problem of consciousness ? Short answer: No it doesn't. Long answer: Penrose's quantum mind model is an answer to the question of how can a human mind perform computations that a computer (more specifically a Turing machine) can't. This is known as the Lucas' argument against mechanism. There are several criticism'...


7

I suspect that Petitot is misremembering and interpolating. Husserl did generally consider (formal) metaphysics to be the doctrine of individuation. For example, in a 1918 letter to Weyl, thanking him for a copy of Das Kontinuum, he writes: "Finally a mathematician shows appreciation for the necessity of phenomenological modes of treatment in all ...


7

In my opinion you are mixing up different points: Physics does not use complex numbers to count entities. It is sufficient to count mangos by non-negative rational numbers, i.e. 1 mango, 1.5 mangos, 1/3 mango etc. You are right that quantum mechanics is based on the psi-function which is a complex function. The squared modulus of this function, a real ...


6

This is a particularly sticky wicket because (a) we are delving into the philosophy of quantum mechanics (which is beset on all sides by those who wish to pervert it to their own ends) and (b) because we are confounding our understanding of the problem by confusing what we mean by "exists." To make this question more meaningfully answerable I will address ...


6

It is only an argument in the same sense that the Gödel theorem is an argument for transcendent truth or against AI. Mathematical theorems have no philosophical consequences unless they are conjoined with presuppositions that are themselves philosophical in the first place. This theorem is interesting as the strongest available no-go result for certain types ...


6

In the relevant sense the answer is "no", the appearance of a "yes" is created by projecting classical intuitions about locality onto quantum objects. This is confusing because the definition of locality adopted in classical physics becomes misleading when transplanted into quantum physics. "Quantum non-locality" of entanglement is a misnomer, rather than ...


6

Complex numbers are ordered pairs of numbers that have an extended definition of multiplication that is useful for representing circular motion in two-dimensions. (The definition of multiplication for complex numbers represents rotation around the origin point, plus scaling of the amplitude of that point according to the normal rules of scalar ...


6

In science, nothing is ever exactly 100 percent certain. Quantum mechanics has actual randomness (strictly speaking, the interpetation of this depends on weather you take the Copenhagen-interpreation or the many-worlds-interpretation. But thats not really relevant to this question I think). But also all other parts of science (except pure math I guess) have ...


5

"Normal" determinism — or at least, the way that people normally approach the notion of determinism — in the face of apparently random events is the position that the randomness is due to uncontrolled variables in the influences on the apparently random system, which you are not taking into account. A good example would be the brownian motion of ...


5

Imagine an exotic "universe", which does not have deterministic laws, but does have a notion of discrete time. At each step in time, the state of the universe — its "material" content — is given by a set of objects. It has no conservation laws as such. What happens is at each step, the set of material elements is replaced by either the power-set of its ...


5

If I interpret this correctly you seem to be asking whether some kind of rudimentary form of awareness may be a property of all matter? One person who I think would answer in the affirmative is Graham Harman in his metaphysics of 'polyspychism'. The most clear and complete exposition of his system is called The Quadruple Object, a great introduction can ...


5

You are right that Bell's inequalities do not rule out "superdeterminism" (Bell's term), as he himself acknowledged:"...if our measurements are not independently variable as we supposed...even if chosen by apparently free-willed physicists... then Einstein local causality can survive. But apparently separate parts of the world become deeply entangled, and ...


5

Rand's Objectivisms' central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic. Rand didn't say much about induction except that she didn't know how it ...


5

This question presumes not only the existence of common sense, but that two individual's common sense about a very peculiar topic might somehow coincide. As Einstein categorized it, there were four major aspects of a QM interpretation: Realism - Can we predict the future state of a particle without measuring it? Completeness - Does it account for every ...


5

The linked IEP article seems to me to be accurately summarized in the OP:"the argument about quantum processes in the brain falls short if we reject the original Gödelian argument... Penrose goes on to suggest that even if we deny the Gödelian argument we will still come to the same conclusion". But on my reading "the same conclusion" of Penrose is not that ...


5

This is intended as a complement to Conifold's and Jobermark' answers Penrose's argument can be broken down to two parts: Based on Lucas's Gödelian argument against mechanism, he argues that the human mind is more than just a Turing machine. The part of the human mind that is more than Turing machines can be explained by quantum phenomena in the brain. ...


5

Are we answering the right question? You touch upon an interesting point, but I have the feeling that your question isn't specific enough yet to reach a proper resolutions. Others have argued that 'complex numbers' aren't necessary for quantum mechanics. While I agree with their arguments, I think they're answering the question Do we need something we ...


5

For neutrinos to serve as the source of consciousness, they would need to exert influence on massive particles like the constituent atoms in protein molecules at a rate sufficient to support the information transfer rate characteristic of the human brain. But neutrinos are well-known to have an interaction rate with matter so low that they can travel through ...


4

The problem is the clear equivocation on the word "determined". Just because a quantum fluctuation for example, is not sufficiently caused or causally determined that does not mean the event was not determined in a sense that the event was "fixed" due to existing tenselessy on a four-dimensional space-time block (the B-Theory of time). If the future is "...


4

I'm not a physicist but was a student of philosophy. I am now much more interested in physics and quantum theory then I used to be. I'm not sure if the philosophy of determinism has been properly understood. In order to understand determinism we need to look at the free will v determinism debate. This is where the controversy is. When I was an undergrad the ...


4

The way quantum mechanics is commonly discussed makes this a very confusing issue. I will discuss this problem first and then move on to free will. People like to say there are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, which have different implications for what is happening in reality. These then claim that these different explanations all have the same ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible