Article

2022-10-24 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Skidmark 2022-10-24 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 OK, did anyone actually read this... if so did anyone understand it?

Posted by Mercutio 2022-10-24 10:19|| 2022-10-24 10:19|| Front Page Top

#2 No on both counts.

Posted by Super Hose 2022-10-24 12:08|| 2022-10-24 12:08|| Front Page Top

#3 Looks like one of those deep research papers in IEEE or ACM or some other journal. you read it over once or twice and come out with "What was that??"

Or: "What he said!"

Posted by CrazyFool 2022-10-24 12:35|| 2022-10-24 12:35|| Front Page Top

#4 Ha ha. Ass I understand it they're trying to say the brain is functioning mostly as a classical (non quantum) physical machine, but they've encountered phenomena like entanglement in the the brain. Which leads them to believe the brain is also a non-classical machine, and uses quantum phenomena to compute. This is not surprising since many things done daily by the brain, like daydreaming for instance, are so complex and quick, the train of thought superluminal, it is outperforming any quantum computers they can build, every second.

Now I know from my reading that there is a phenomenon where two neurons can seem to be entangled, as even disconnected and several inches apart, they can respond to the same stimuli and the brain as a result connotes a certain flavour with a color or an experience with a sound or smell. An entanglement of sorts occurs between unconnected neurons for reasons said to lie in the frequency of electrical potential. 2 Phase locking I think they call it [may be wrong]. And this phenomenon can occur even outside the organism, that is between two different subjects.

The brain is certainly an observer of the universe. But whose? If yours, then I'm a part of the show. If mine, you are. Naturally we jump to the statement, 'we all are observers!' If that is so, then how did we start to observe so similar to each other? Why does particle that decays in the box for you also decay for me, and the cat? Where did it start? Is all consciousness entangled?

These are interesting questions. Of course being a Christian we can posit that there is only really one consciousness, and everyone else is written from a template that is the Word. And everyone that is of Him is known to him and they manifest some of that word. But a material universe is required for... well whatever this is. A play? A test? A filtration for a sturdy race of individuals worthy of Him? What?

These guys meanwhile just wanna make better number crunchers and treat brain diseases, which is also great. Better folks than the sons of bitches playing with earpiece wearing mastodons and self replicating killer tomatoes.

Posted by Dron66046 2022-10-24 14:15|| 2022-10-24 14:15|| Front Page Top

#5 ^^^
Obviously!

Posted by NoMoreBS 2022-10-24 14:17|| 2022-10-24 14:17|| Front Page Top

#6 Brilliant, Dron.

this phenomenon can occur even outside the organism, that is between two different subjects.

I was reminded of the many generations of siblings gathering at a parent's deathbed and the wonder of memories that occur.

Posted by Skidmark 2022-10-24 16:06|| 2022-10-24 16:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Yes, exactly. While psychologists have refered to collective unconscious and neurobiologists insist there is something going on in the temporal and parietal lobes that generates the 'numinous', they are discounting love altogether. An element that is mysterious indeed and somehow central to our universe even if we haven't yet figured out how.

Oh, we have the literature, the words, 'God so loved', 'perfect love casteth out all fear' and such. Imagine a society where you loved thy neighbour like your siblings. It would be ideal. Science may knock at the door. But what answers, they don't want to meet it. They'd rather have something they can quantity, standardize and then fiddle with.

Posted by Dron66046 2022-10-24 16:40|| 2022-10-24 16:40|| Front Page Top

#8 'God is love'. Where does one take that? What does one do with it? It is so simple the mind skims over it and then comes back to it, still confused. I think about these things a lot. 😶

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

Posted by Dron66046 2022-10-24 16:46|| 2022-10-24 16:46|| Front Page Top

#9 Re #8: He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Calls to mind the definition of grace as a participation in the life of God, that is, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!

<soapbox>
Science is not capable of understanding immaterial causes upon the material world, as the cause (by definition) cannot be observed/measured but not so the effect. The scientific method disallows appeals to the Divine, so they have no way to explain the effect because there is no (material) cause. It seems like magic, so such observations are discounted.

Presumably this is why science has difficulty with the mind vs body problem (assuming the mind (intellect) is in the soul and not only in the brain), angels and demons acting in the world, God's creation of the universe, etc. One needs philosophy or natural theology to get at such truths.
</soapbox>

Posted by Enver Gleagum9725 2022-10-24 17:51|| 2022-10-24 17:51|| Front Page Top

#10 Did I read it? Yes I did

Did I understand it? No I didn’t

When are we going to go back to concise economical academic writing

My dissertation chair would fry me like an egg for the mumbo jumbo in this paper

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2022-10-24 18:33|| 2022-10-24 18:33|| Front Page Top

#11
I can't see philosophy and theology, disciplines taught in institutions, Enver, as valuable to this pursuit though. They've been a waste of mankind's time in my opinion. Science is better any day. And science won't attack the word if it's honest. Because the word is unassailable. It is lucid, incontrovertible and not mysterious at all. It is so simple even a fool cannot err therein. Clever people come along and build seminaries and churches and creeds and nonsense and soon you have dogmas and statements like 'oohhh you just cannot know ye Olde mystery!'

The non deterministic basis of free will, and the totally quantum nature of faith as taught by Jesus are examples of the word and science entangled [no pun]. In fact, God has repeatedly told his followers to go ahead and play with the universe like it is putty. No rule was big enough.

He implied you could move a mountain just by believing it. That your act of telling it to move, none wavering in your belief, was enough. Almost as if everything that was being played out by the universe could be subjectively altered, gravity included. Gravity is an essential component of our reality. It is one of the four forces. But walking on water trashes it. Joshua stopped the earth's rotation by telling the darn sun to stop in the sky while his boys whupped the canaanites.

This is genuine wave collapsing phenomena. Changing material reality just by willingly observing it only one way, macroscopically! And it happened with Jesus all the time. Loaves and fishes. Wine from water. Eyes from mud! So much that he musta done, which is mentioned in simple words for us. I'm not saying we need to be scientific in our approach to God. I just mean that if universal phenomena is reported correctly and looked at in the light of the word, it will point back to him.

Much of how he placed the stars and the firmament is echoed thousands of years later in the discovery of dark matter and more fundamentally the branes that make particulate reality, that shape the forces. Energy gets form as matter by simply adjusting its frequencies. 'For God made the things which appear out of things that do not'. My point is we have not discovered the connections. It's not because they're not there. It's only because there are people behind pulpits that would rather waste time on convincing people about how a good Christian doesn't ask many questions.

Posted by Dron66046 2022-10-24 18:55|| 2022-10-24 18:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Of course I may be wrong though.

Posted by Dron66046 2022-10-24 18:56|| 2022-10-24 18:56|| Front Page Top

#13 Modesty, thy name is Dron66046. ;-)

There are things that are not testable by the methods available to science, even the methods of historic sciences like geology/paleontology. Perhaps someday some of them will be, as new methods prove themselves, but I think there will always be somethings that require faith.

But trying out new ideas to see if those boundaries can be stretched is the proper realm of science, too.

Posted by trailing wife 2022-10-24 22:34|| 2022-10-24 22:34|| Front Page Top

23:36 Billy B
23:24 trailing wife
22:51 Skidmark
22:50 Skidmark
22:44 Canuckistan sniper
22:41 Canuckistan sniper
22:38 Spanky the Bunyip7682
22:37 Canuckistan sniper
22:34 trailing wife
22:28 trailing wife
22:25 Billy B
22:21 Angineper Elmusing174
22:21 trailing wife
22:17 trailing wife
22:06 trailing wife
21:47 trailing wife
21:45 Angineper Elmusing174
21:29 Elmatch Shiter4579
21:20 magpie
21:16 Super Hose
21:11 Super Hose
21:07 Super Hose
21:05 Super Hose
21:01 Angstrom