Pin It

On Sep 28, 2010, at 12:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Thanks Stu was typing fast - but will be sure to include this distinction in Destiny Matrix 2012. :-)
However, the directed non-random effective collapse needed for signal nonlocality, violating the Born rule & "passion at a distance" may not need Planck scale  10^19 Gev effects unless they are amplified or stretched out in some way to the mesoscopic nano-scale level ~ 1/40 ev - this is a key issue of course. I do think Max Tegmark's "warm wet brain" refutation is false because he does not understand the robust phase coherence of pumped macro-quantum coherent dissipative structures e.g. laser immune to the ambient random temperature. Indeed, the effective temperature obeys a Kirchoff law for parallel resistances - in suitable dimensionless units

1/effective temperature = (input power) + 1/(warm wet brain ambient temperature)

1/T* = P + 1/T

Keep T fixed and let P ---> infinity

rather simple

On Sep 28, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Stuart Hameroff wrote:

For the record

Orch OR is Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR

OR is Penrose OR

Orch OR is orchestrated objective reduction, a theory of consciousness based on
quantum computation in microtubules inside brain neurons, connecting the brain
to Planck scale geometry via Penrose OR (objective reduction). Orch refers to
orchestration of the quantum computations (without decoherence) via synaptic
and other inputs.

Orch OR includes backward time effects, e.g. as Penrose described in his 1989
book referring to Libets experiments.

This last thing is "signal nonlocality" and that is what I meant as the really new physics concept that strongly violates orthodox quantum theory. - Jack's comment


Stuart Hameroff

Quoting JACK SARFATTI <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>:

Yes, however, that idea is from the late 70's before the idea of signal nonlocality = my direct back-reaction of hidden variables on the quantum potential = Valentini's "sub-quantal nonequilibrium" = violation of the no-cloning theorem was understood properly = Penrose's Orch OR? - was well formulated. Even today, Yakir Aharonov's two state destiny/history vector theory has signal locality (Shimony's "passion at a distance"). As I made clear to Bernard Carr in an interview, today I do not think orthodox quantum theory can describe qualia - it needs signal nonlocality in strong violation of quantum theory in same way that general relativity violates special relativity globally, though not locally. Carr expressed my position on clearly in his recent review paper. So, today I talk about "post-quantum theory" =/= "quantum theory." Also as a Bohmian I do not believe literally in "collapse" although it appears that way in the limit of thermal equilibrium of the hidden variable. Please put my current position in the book at least in your notes at the end as I do not want the reader to get the impression that my ideas today are the same as they were in the 70's and the 80's. They changed dramatically in about 1994 when I read Bohm & Hiley's "The Undivided Universe" where "passion at a distance" is explained as simply the test-particle approximation on the hidden variables (i.e. particle trajectories & classical boson field configurations on a spacelike hypersurface) - though not in those explicit terms.

On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:55 AM, David Kaiser wrote:

Hi, Jack,

I'm getting ready to go to press with the book. The publisher has asked me to secure permissions to use brief quotations as epigraphs for each chapter, even if the quotations already appeared in other published materials. Hence I would like to request your permission to use this brief excerpt as an epigraph for chapter 4:

"In my opinion, the quantum principle involves mind in an essential way [... such that] the structure of matter may not be independent of consciousness! [...] Some component of the quantum probability involves the turbulent creative sublayer of ideas in the mind of the 'participator."

    source: Jack Sarfatti, "Implications of meta-physics for psychoenergetic systems," _Psychoenergetic Systems_ vol. 1 (1974), 3-8, on 3-4 ("In my opinion") and 7 ("Some component").

May I have your permission to use this brief quotation as a chapter epigraph?

many thanks for your help -

David Kaiser                This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Associate Professor
Program in Science, Technology, & Society
and Lecturer, Department of Physics
Building E51-185
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Phone: 617 452-3173    Fax: 617 258-8118