Dr. Doug Matzke, Quantum Computers and Extended Consciousness |487|

[Quantum Doug]

One of the fundamental questions, I think, is whether they understand qualia. The term doesn't appear in the index of their book, which gives me an uncomfortable feeling.

David

This is Quantum Doug, Yes it was an oversight to not include qualia in the index. I have studied Penrose and Hameroff's work (see references) and attended and presented at the first several "Consciousness Conferences". I tend to focus on "meaning" (chapter 4) and "lucidity", (chapter 11) since that has a more information theoretic perspective and I can say something new about that rather than "qualia" and "consciousness".

 

[LoneShaman]

Working quantum physics has proven that It's a philosophical mistake to expect our notions of common sense views of reality (local realism) to conform.

 

[Quantum Doug]

I think it has been done with both photons and electrons. The answer is you attenuate the beam so much that the particles are well separated. Obviously it takes a while before the pattern builds up!

Actually, if the result were not the way it is - i.e. single electrons could not interfere with themselves - , the whole of QM and the Schroedinger wave equation would be blown to bits!

David

I agree with @David Bailey since the photon or electron generators can generate a single "emission" at a time. This is how exactly Dean Radin's experiment worked (using photons but also works with electrons because Fred Alan Wolf talks about electrons in See Dr Quantum double-slit video for a clear description). Yes is does take longer but our photo detectors (and eyes also) can detect a single photon so technologically not a problem.

 

[LoneShaman]

Huge molecules can show the wave-particle duality of quantum theory.
​

Researchers in Austria have made what they call the "fattest Schrödinger cats realized to date". They have demonstrated quantum superposition – in which an object exists in two or more states simultaneously – for molecules composed of up to 430 atoms each, several times larger than molecules used in previous such experiments.

https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/news.2011.210.html

 

[garry]

harming apparent others is obviously only harming ourselves.

I agree with you on this Michael. If we are with God while on Earth His law of Karma will kick in with retribution for us if we have it coming. It is written, (Hebrews 12:6)"Whom the Lord loves He disciplines and scourges every one whom He receives as son." But following this is written, "If they receive not scourging be they not true sons but bastards." This explains why some of the worst people get away without ever paying for their sins while here on Earth. But God has no place for them in Heaven. We may assume they will be going to the other place.

 

[garry]

I will read it now bud, and get back to you.

Be sure to read it right to the end including the questionnaire, Shane. The lady explains there how she endured ten years of intense longing to return to God after her experience.

 

[David Bailey]

Huge molecules can show the wave-particle duality of quantum theory.
​

https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/news.2011.210.html

Thanks for that! My first thought was that such a molecule would exist in a huge number of vibrational states, but then I realised that this probably doesn't matter because each molecule is only interfering with itself.

BTW, I do wish Schroedinger had used rats in his gedanken experiment - cats are far too nice!

David

 

[David Bailey]

This is Quantum Doug, Yes it was an oversight to not include qualia in the index. I have studied Penrose and Hameroff's work (see references) and attended and presented at the first several "Consciousness Conferences". I tend to focus on "meaning" (chapter 4) and "lucidity", (chapter 11) since that has a more information theoretic perspective and I can say something new about that rather than "qualia" and "consciousness".

But doesn't meaning require consciousness, and therefore qualia? For example, this page is just a collection of bytes - it could mean anything - it is only minds (incarnated or otherwise) that can give it meaning.

In your book I think you point out the fallacy of trying to conjour consciousness from massive conventional computations, but what else are your massed qubits doing other than compute - with some massive quantum parallelism in different 'universes' with an answer being extracted by something like part of Shor's algorithm (which I once read about, but has just about drained from my head).

David

 

[Quantum Doug]

But doesn't meaning require consciousness, and therefore qualia? For example, this page is just a collection of bytes - it could mean anything - it is only minds (incarnated or otherwise) that can give it meaning.

In your book I think you point out the fallacy of trying to conjour consciousness from massive conventional computations, but what else are your massed qubits doing other than compute - with some massive quantum parallelism in different 'universes' with an answer being extracted by something like part of Shor's algorithm (which I once read about, but has just about drained from my head).

David

Data in computers and knowing in humans are fundamentally different. I believe the mind is wave-like (thus wholistic) so the protobits forming the mind are more than just computing. All data (state) inside spacetime is isolated from computing (program change in state) but protobits due both state and program, they are a verbnoun balanced representation outside spacetime that simultaneously supports states and programs. This representation would be required to support both knowing and also consciousness since both are clearly more than just data. I think consciousness is emergent with/from the capabilities of knowing, meaning, awareness, attention, intention and lucidity so can't be sure if consciousness is the start or the end.
Quantum Doug

 

[garry]

I think consciousness is emergent with/from the capabilities of knowing, meaning, awareness, attention, intention and lucidity so can't be sure if consciousness is the start or the end.

To me it is obvious. Theoretically nothing at all should exist. Albert Einstein said, "The Universe is an illusion, albeit a persistent one." I believe It all began when A Conscious Being, origin unknown. dwelling in all the nothingness for a time unknown decided an apparent reality should be brought about. And so, through a process that shall remain beyond explanation, though many will continue to try, we find ourselves here. As we too are Conscious, a condition quite beyond our flesh, we may assume correctly we are derived from the original Creator. Amazingly, we may reconnect at anytime of our choosing through prayer. Try it, you'll see it works! As Jesus said, "Spirit is Spirit and flesh is flesh." If consciousness is not present within the body to operate it, the body is no more than a meat suit. ~g

 

[ShaneTheThinker]

To me it is obvious. Theoretically nothing at all should exist. Albert Einstein said, "The Universe is an illusion, albeit a persistent one." I believe It all began when A Conscious Being, origin unknown. dwelling in all the nothingness for a time unknown decided an apparent reality should be brought about. And so, through a process that shall remain beyond explanation, though many will continue to try, we find ourselves here. As we too are Conscious, a condition quite beyond our flesh, we may assume correctly we are derived from the original Creator. Amazingly, we may reconnect at anytime of our choosing through prayer. Try it, you'll see it works! As Jesus said, "Spirit is Spirit and flesh is flesh." If consciousness is not present within the body to operate it, the body is no more than a meat suit. ~g

I am not Christian, but I appreciate Gary's thoughts. In fact, I have been pretty much shunned from my family for my own thoughts. My thoughts, however, are more precious to me than all worldly possessions, because they are still my own.

 

[ShaneTheThinker]

Data in computers and knowing in humans are fundamentally different. I believe the mind is wave-like (thus wholistic) so the protobits forming the mind are more than just computing. All data (state) inside spacetime is isolated from computing (program change in state) but protobits due both state and program, they are a verbnoun balanced representation outside spacetime that simultaneously supports states and programs. This representation would be required to support both knowing and also consciousness since both are clearly more than just data. I think consciousness is emergent with/from the capabilities of knowing, meaning, awareness, attention, intention and lucidity so can't be sure if consciousness is the start or the end.
Quantum Doug

Were you the gentleman that was interviewed by Alex?

 

[ShaneTheThinker]

I think it has been done with both photons and electrons. The answer is you attenuate the beam so much that the particles are well separated. Obviously it takes a while before the pattern builds up!

Actually, if the result were not the way it is - i.e. single electrons could not interfere with themselves - , the whole of QM and the Schroedinger wave equation would be blown to bits!

David

My problem with these experiments is that the foundation of them are not clearly demonstrable. Perhaps the actual experiment shows some kind of result, but what we speculate about these results is confusing. Has a single electron been isolated? How do you know that a single electron was fired at both slits? What the hell is a photon and how is that different from an electron? Also, that phenomenon of "when we were looking at it this happened, but when we weren't looking this happened," is confusing and misleading. What exactly were you looking at in the first place?

 

[David Bailey]

My problem with these experiments is that the foundation of them are not clearly demonstrable. Perhaps the actual experiment shows some kind of result, but what we speculate about these results is confusing. Has a single electron been isolated? How do you know that a single electron was fired at both slits? What the hell is a photon and how is that different from an electron? Also, that phenomenon of "when we were looking at it this happened, but when we weren't looking this happened," is confusing and misleading. What exactly were you looking at in the first place?

Well going back in time, Newton speculated that light consisted of a stream of particles, but then gradually people observed wave like behaviour that didn't make sense if light were particles. Then Einstein demonstrated the for light of any particular colour, light energy came in multiples of X, like X,2*X, 10*X, etc, but you never got light (of the given colour) with energy X/2 or whatever. That seemed to settle the matter - light was composed of particles, which he called photons. However the wave like properties didn't go away, and when you pass monochromatic light through two slits, you do indeed get an interference pattern on the other side. Basically that didn't make sense, and caused the development of a weird new theory called quantum mechanics. Obviously the next question was whether photons interfered with each other or whether the interference pattern would still build up if you weakened the beam of light so much that only one photon was in the apparatus at any one time - and yes, that still gave an interference pattern! That is why people talk about light being both a wave and a particle phenomenon.

Electrons are very different from photons, for starters, a beam of electricity in a vacuum bends in a magnetic field, and is pulled (accelerated) in an electric field. It was discovered that electricity (electric charge) also comes in well defined chunks that were dubbed 'electrons', so the obvious question was whether electrons could also behave like waves. The answer is yes, so electrons and photons both have the strange duality. I think scientists back then put a lot of effort into trying to show that this interpretation was a mistake, because I suppose QM back then was weird, just as psychic phenomena are considered weird now. QM has stood the test of time - that is how matter works. Psychic phenomena also seem to be impossible to explain away - which is why I think at some point science is going to have to come to terms with them.


David

 

[David Bailey]

Data in computers and knowing in humans are fundamentally different.

OK - we definitely agree about that.

I believe the mind is wave-like (thus wholistic) so the protobits forming the mind are more than just computing.

I guess that depends on how you define 'protobits'.

All data (state) inside spacetime is isolated from computing (program change in state) but protobits due both state and program, they are a verbnoun balanced representation outside spacetime that simultaneously supports states and programs.

Can you dumb that down a bit for me (rather a lot!) - because 'protobits' isn't defined - even in your book, I think. However, I don't think I understand exactly what you are saying here regardless of the definition of protobits.

I mean, one reading of "All data (state) inside spacetime is isolated from computing" is obviously false because computers exist in a sequence of states, and they also exist within space-time.

David

 

[garry]

I am not Christian, but I appreciate Gary's thoughts. In fact, I have been pretty much shunned from my family for my own thoughts. My thoughts, however, are more precious to me than all worldly possessions, because they are still my own.

You are absolutely right, Shane. Our cache of thoughts is the one domain we may yet claim exclusively as being masters of, regardless of societal pressures.
Personal experience has taught me however, to be flexible and open to thought adjustments at anytime during life. I never believed in demonic possession until I encountered a person who left me with no doubt that they were. I was age 44 when I had that experience. From the same person I learned that astral projection, sometimes referred to as remote viewing is a fact. I also learned that good triumphs over evil if we, as Creator's children desire from the Creator that it should.

 

[Quantum Doug]

OK - we definitely agree about that.

I guess that depends on how you define 'protobits'.

Can you dumb that down a bit for me (rather a lot!) - because 'protobits' isn't defined - even in your book, I think. However, I don't think I understand exactly what you are saying here regardless of the definition of protobits.

I mean, one reading of "All data (state) inside spacetime is isolated from computing" is obviously false because computers exist in a sequence of states, and they also exist within space-time.

David

The term protobits is my short name for GALG bits (main theme of the book) that are mathematically proto-dimensions. This means they have maximum concurrency because they are all orthogonal.

Regarding the differentiation between state and computing. State generally is stable and persists (dram, disk or particles) and we refer to that as memory. In fact we don't want dram to change by itself (the definition of a good memory). Computing implies a change of state due to some operation, usually as a program running in a cpu. So computing requires both: and a computer (that contains memory and cpus) is not the same as computing (where cpus actually run programs to change the memory state). The is the segregation of state memory (space) from change (cpu) in 3D computing and this leads to the memory/cpu bottleneck in conventional computers.

Alternatively, quantum states are maximally concurrent at a very fine grain level and exist outside conventional 3D spacetime, so they are fine-grained massively concurrent processes, each with their own state and change mechanisms. These quantum processes can act as both a state and a program (all electrons act alike without any "electron program") so they are verbnoun balanced.
So hopefully I now defined my terms carefully enough so you see the intent of my comments.
Quantum Doug

 

[Quantum Doug]

Were you the gentleman that was interviewed by Alex?

Yes, all the posts from "Quantum Doug" are from me Doug Matzke, the person Alex Interviewed. Apparently I did not make that clear

 

[David Bailey]

You are absolutely right, Shane. Our cache of thoughts is the one domain we may yet claim exclusively as being masters of, regardless of societal pressures.
Personal experience has taught me however, to be flexible and open to thought adjustments at anytime during life. I never believed in demonic possession until I encountered a person who left me with no doubt that they were. I was age 44 when I had that experience. From the same person I learned that astral projection, sometimes referred to as remote viewing is a fact. I also learned that good triumphs over evil if we, as Creator's children desire from the Creator that it should.

You might find this book interesting:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thirty-Yea...g+the+dead&qid=1613939542&sr=8-1&tag=mh0a9-21

David

 

[David Bailey]

The term protobits is my short name for GALG bits (main theme of the book) that are mathematically proto-dimensions. This means they have maximum concurrency because they are all orthogonal.

Regarding the differentiation between state and computing. State generally is stable and persists (dram, disk or particles) and we refer to that as memory. In fact we don't want dram to change by itself (the definition of a good memory). Computing implies a change of state due to some operation, usually as a program running in a cpu. So computing requires both: and a computer (that contains memory and cpus) is not the same as computing (where cpus actually run programs to change the memory state). The is the segregation of state memory (space) from change (cpu) in 3D computing and this leads to the memory/cpu bottleneck in conventional computers.

Alternatively, quantum states are maximally concurrent at a very fine grain level and exist outside conventional 3D spacetime, so they are fine-grained massively concurrent processes, each with their own state and change mechanisms. These quantum processes can act as both a state and a program (all electrons act alike without any "electron program") so they are verbnoun balanced.
So hopefully I now defined my terms carefully enough so you see the intent of my comments.
Quantum Doug

Well I guess I am going to drop out of the conversation at this point, and leave it to others here to pursue it if they can.

David