Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[PixyMisa]

A false dichotomy is an argument where someone presents two alternative views as the only options.

But what you offered was a false dichotomy.

Haha. No.

Wrong. This is also something Dr Carroll goes into in his lecture, which I suggest you actually watch. Biology is Chemistry is Physics, just at different levels of abstraction.

And the answer is still nope, no matter how many times you say this.

That's your answer. It is of course the wrong answer, but it is yours.

Well, except for the little fact QFT is completely incompatible with general relativity, so it's clearly not a complete description of reality. So no, it's really not How The Universe Works. It's a very accurate model used to predict how the universe behaves at a specific finite range of energies.

Yes. It's accurate, but not complete. But we know that this cannot possibly matter for describing our everyday lives. So there's still no afterlife.

Then you have the fallacy of equating the model of reality with reality itself. You know, all these assumptions that you're making that you claim you're not making.

Of which you have so far illustrated precisely zero.

[You can quite easily show how rocky road ice cream is made up of atoms. Because it's made of milk, cream, sugar, and whatever else. Which are all made of atoms.

Yes, that's rather my point.

Subjective experiences are not made of atoms, unfortunately.

Subjective experiences are things that happen; they are brain activity, or more generally, computation. What are brains made of?

I am not saying information is transmitted to the soul by quantum entanglement. Sheesh. I was just pointing out to you that nonlocal realism isn't even compatible with QFT, so even if I grant you all your physicalist assumptions you're still wrong, because you don't need a field to change the state of a particle or collection of particles.

And I'm pointing out that quantum entanglement doesn't change the state of particles.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm confused. Isn't the physicalist/materialist view that consciousness is governed by electrochemical interactions between neurons in the brain? So when that goes *poof*, so does consciousness? Or is there a more elaborate theory of consciousness built from the foundations of quantized fields, so we're talking about QFT here in this thread to rule that out as well?

Why do you think those are different things?

If you are proposing some type of scientifically testable model for an "afterlife" that uses the tenets of QFT, I am all ears. Or if you want to show me someone, somewhere (anywhere), making this argument. Otherwise there is obviously no point in invoking QFT to refute a point no one is even making.

As Dr Carroll notes, you might not think you are making a claim under QFT when you invoke an afterlife, but you are.

I am not arguing for any new (specific) model, nor for an afterlife. Just pointing out how nonsensical it is to invoke QFT to "argue" against an afterlife when it is a question of consciousness which is a philosophical question first and a neuroscience question second (since neuroscience does not explicitly deal with the hard problem of consciousness).

There is no Hard Problem.

What conclusions about consciousness can be drawn from QFT that cannot be drawn from neuroscience, under the assumptions of physicalism?

I've already told you that, and this is covered in Dr Carroll's lecture. The point of invoking QFT is that there isn't anything we don't know that could radically change what we do know.

Neuroscience says that unless we've missed something huge, there's no afterlife.

QFT says we haven't missed anything.

People keep saying this but all I have seen are vague references to particles transmitting souls to heaven. Who is arguing for this mechanism?

As Dr Carroll points out, everyone who invokes any sort of afterlife is making that claim. Unintentionally, sure, but it's there nonetheless.

If you actually did miss what other assumptions I outlined, the biggest one is "physicalism is absolutely true and has been shown to be true". Others being "model of reality = reality" (false, as anyone who has worked in a quantitative field knows) and maybe something else like "just because QFT makes very accurate predictions under certain energy scales does not mean it models everything". For a non-soul'sy example, try to use QFT to map a genotype in an organism to a phenotype.

And where were these assumptions made?

Well, yes, but this only holds under the assumptions of physicalism. Which, AFAIK, no one who believes in an afterlife holds as true.

Anyone arguing against physicalism on an internet forum has problems I cannot even begin to address.

My point is that it's ridiculous to invoke QFT in these discussions for any reason.

And my point is, you're wrong.

And that it is clearly being used to try to bolster a position for no rational reason, and is also being used to try to sway an audience using technical jargon (OMG Physics!! Fields!!! Quantums!!!) when it doesn't apply, at all.

You really should watch Dr Carroll's lecture. He goes into some detail on exactly how it applies, and why it's such an important result. Fascinating stuff.

 

[PixyMisa]

Eh, no. It makes correct predictions under certain energy scales.

Granted. But it makes correction predictions on precisely the scales under discussion.

It doesn't solve philosophy, which is what you are basically implying here.

I'm not talking about philosophy at all. I'm talking about physics.

And QFT tells us nothing about how neuronal interactions give rise to subjective experiences, as I've said a bunch already. You're making no substantive point here. "Rule out more" doesn't even make sense when no one is arguing for quantum mechanical mechanisms for soul transport.

But that is precisely what they are arguing for. Dr Carroll went into this point in the lecture. Really, watch it.

Neuroscience isn't philosophy and it doesn't deal with metaphysics, so yeah it doesn't "allow" for any kind of afterlife. I accept that. It assumes physicalism. It has to, because it is an empirical science.

Incorrect. Science is based on methodological naturalism, not metaphysics.

Now it's entirely reasonable to step from the overwhelming success of methodological naturalism to the position that metaphysical naturalism is correct, but of course that's an inductive step rather than a deductive one.

"QFT tells use that there is nothing outside of neuroscience.... that could possible allow for an afterlife either."

I don't even know what this means.

And yet it has been explained for you a dozen times, not least by Dr Carroll in his lecture. Do watch it.

 

[Aridas]

But we know that this cannot possibly matter for describing our everyday lives.

Rather, we "know" it until the FSM stops deceitfully altering the results obtained via science to trick us. Do you really want to risk going to the place where the beer volcano is stale?

 

[PixyMisa]

Rather, we "know" it until the FSM stops deceitfully altering the results obtained via science to trick us. Do you really want to risk going to the place where the beer volcano is stale?

Which makes me wonder - is there a gluten-free FSM for celiac sufferers?

 

[PixyMisa]

Of subjective experiences?

Of anything. Name a direct measurement, of anything..

Perhaps, but I generally only use it when someone is saying things like "X correlated to Y implies X causes Y". Like you're doing here.

But that's not what I'm doing at all. Not remotely.

I didn't say that the fact that brain function correlates with mental function demonstrates that brain function causes mental function.

I said that the entire field of neuroscience demonstrates that brain function causes mental function. Because that includes not just correlation, but temporality, mechanism, and the establishment of the lack of any other potential causal path.

No. No, it doesn't.

Yes. Yes it does.

"All"

Yep.

They haven't proven correlation is causation.

You don't appear to know what science is, if you think that's a valid point to raise.

And neuroscience (the actual field of study) does not even deal with the philosophical question of consciousness, pretty much as a rule, so I don't even know what you're talking about.

Of course not. It's a field of science. It deals with the scientific question of consciousness.

It many ways, sure it can be thought of as a computer.

Right. Because it is a computer.

BZZZT, no. It is a conclusion under very specific (and yes, very very useful for the purposes of research) assumptions. It is not a "conclusion" in the sense of "this is how reality is".

If you're expecting deductive proof from science, you're going to have a bad time. If you think I expect deductive proof from science, well, you're new here; you don't know me.

But it is a conclusion, in the sense that this is how the brain works; this is where minds come from.

You like to say things without proving them, don't you?

I can't copy-and-paste the entire history of science into this editor, but it's available if you care to look.

If you have any actual questions, I'll try to answer them. If you have any evidence which suggests I'm wrong, I'm ready to listen.

Maybe! Possibly! Probably(?)

Beyond any informed doubt.

Lol. Maybe you are a p-zombie

There's no such thing.

Some of us actually do experience things, so good luck proving that these things which exist because I have direct experience of them existing don't actually exist.

Experiences happen. There is, however, no such thing as qualia.

I am not sure what you mean. Model error is a real thing and neuroscientists don't all agree. This is obvious and is all I was saying. Also model of reality does not equal reality, etc.

So? Mind is brain function.

This all still assumes that everything which exists is physical, which is an assumption that I seriously doubt those who believe in an afterlife hold, so I don't understand what your point is.

Once again, no, it's a conclusion. An inductive conclusion, but this is the real world, and that's all you get.

You can believe that it's not true, but that belief would be contrary to all available evidence. And that would not be rational.

Is this "explaining the afterlife in terms of QFT" a real thing that "afterlife believers" really do, and it's a common problem you are experiencing? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

"Explaining" things that don't happen in terms of "quantum" or "energy fields" or "forces" or "entanglement" is very, very common. It rarely gets more specific than that.

But that's not the main reason why this matters, as has been explained to you many times already.

This matters because it's routine for skeptics to allow the benefit of doubt - perhaps there's something that would allow for some unobserved thing to happen, some cause that is also unobserved.

This result from QFT says no. Once you have established the basic physical impossibility of something, we also know that there are no unknown laws of physics that apply to our everyday world, and the argument can stop there.

 

[steenkh]

Any afterlife that is not governed by physics, I suppose. As I mentioned above, I doubt many afterlife proponents are physicalists/materialists.

You are evading the question. Afterlife proponents would quite happily accept that the world is governed by magic and not by laws of physics. An afterlife in a world governed by the laws of QFT which is extremely well founded cannot interact with the physical world, so consequently nobody would know about it. There is no soul interacting with our bodies, and every view of an afterlife will necessarily be based on pure fantasy. So I ask again, and this time I will expressly state that it is an assumption that QFT or something similar is true: what kind of an afterlife do you think is not ruled out by QFT, and how would you know about it?

I'm confused. Isn't the physicalist/materialist view that consciousness is governed by electrochemical interactions between neurons in the brain? So when that goes *poof*, so does consciousness?

Correct. This is a view that is backed up by observations.

Or is there a more elaborate theory of consciousness built from the foundations of quantized fields, so we're talking about QFT here in this thread to rule that out as well? (If so, what in QFT is causing consciousness that is not covered by neurons? I'm legitimately curious.)

Why this strawman question? Nobody here has claimed that there is an alternative view of consciousness. All I stated was that because neurons are made out of stuff that is ruled by QFT, QFT also allows us to state confidently that there is no soul, and no afterlife, and any view of consciousness by neuroscience will have to support that. Please bear in mind that even if neurons are not the only components in consciousness, the additional constituents of consciousness will equally be subject to QFT.

If you are proposing some type of scientifically testable model for an "afterlife" that uses the tenets of QFT, I am all ears.

QFT rules out an afterlife that interfaces with our world, so I fail to see how QFT can test for something that does not exist. It must be up to believers in the afterlife to prove that QFT is wrong by demonstrating the reality of an afterlife. As any reader of this forum will know, these kinds of claims can never be verified scientifically.

Or if you want to show me someone, somewhere (anywhere), making this argument. Otherwise there is obviously no point in invoking QFT to refute a point no one is even making.

You seem to support a view that an afterlife is beyond the reach of QFT, so somebody is making this claim, at least if you also claim that we can know about the afterlife.

Our philosophical view of the universe is drastically different now due to quantum mechanics than before under Newtonian physics, even if we aren't personally affected by quarks and neutron stars. Model of reality does not equal reality.

Our models improve all the time, and we know that it is extremely accurate at our everyday energy levels. Do you want to claim that philosophy can turn an accurate model that is supported by countless observations into an inaccurate model? If it was so, the model would be useless.

I am not arguing for any new (specific) model, nor for an afterlife. Just pointing out how nonsensical it is to invoke QFT to "argue" against an afterlife when it is a question of consciousness which is a philosophical question first and a neuroscience question second (since neuroscience does not explicitly deal with the hard problem of consciousness).

Like PixyMisa, I will point out that physics trump philosophy any time. Philosophers may think what they like about consciousness, but it will still be subject to the laws of physics. And contrary to what many people think, the laws of physics have not stopped working after the discovery of quantum mechanics; in fact it is because of our knowledge of QM that we know about entanglement and tunnelling.

What conclusions about consciousness can be drawn from QFT that cannot be drawn from neuroscience, under the assumptions of physicalism?

This thread is about the drawn conclusion from QFT that there is no soul, and no afterlife.

People keep saying this but all I have seen are vague references to particles transmitting souls to heaven. Who is arguing for this mechanism?

I have asked you several times what kind of afterlife is not ruled out by QFT, and all you have offered is effectively the kind that is not ruled by QFT. If you will be more specific, we can discuss what QFT means for the specific instance of an afterlife that you would put forward.

If you actually did miss what other assumptions I outlined, the biggest one is "physicalism is absolutely true and has been shown to be true".

Can you mention anything that invalidates this view? The JREF forum is a forum for skeptics, and we are all ears to hear about anything that can prove that physicalism is not true. All we have been getting is hearsay or badly conducted tests.

Others being "model of reality = reality" (false, as anyone who has worked in a quantitative field knows) and maybe something else like "just because QFT makes very accurate predictions under certain energy scales does not mean it models everything".

Did you see Carrol's talk? He is addressing these points, and the obvious answer is that physicists are perfectly aware that the QFT model is not complete. But it is sufficiently complete that we can state with confidence that souls, afterlife, homoeopathy and so on, are all false,

For a non-soul'sy example, try to use QFT to map a genotype in an organism to a phenotype.

Bad example because that mapping depends on stuff that is governed by QFT, so this hardly shows that QFT is not valid here. You have to realise that even though we have to use higher levels of abstraction to understand something, it is still governed by the same basic forces.

Well, yes, but this only holds under the assumptions of physicalism.

Yes. Sean Carrol's point (that you obviously never saw) was that the discovery of the Higg's particle added so much credibility to QFT that we can say that it is complete in our energy range. So this assumption is extremely solid.

Which, AFAIK, no one who believes in an afterlife holds as true.

Of course, if you are unaware of the solidity of modern physics, you can hold just about any view you want. It just does not stand up for scrutiny. Alternatively, you can reject physics, and make a magic claim such as a "god beyond physics" is actually ruling everything according to his whims, or even that little magic pxies are shuffling our atoms about. These can all be valid theories, but they just fall short of Occam's Razor, which is a big assumption in itself, and one that "physicalists" are aware of.

My point is that it's ridiculous to invoke QFT in these discussions for any reason. And that it is clearly being used to try to bolster a position for no rational reason, and is also being used to try to sway an audience using technical jargon (OMG Physics!! Fields!!! Quantums!!!) when it doesn't apply, at all.

You do not seem to be overawed by our jargon, but you also has made little attempt to impress us with rational reasoning. If you could be more specific about the supernatural claims that you think have credibility, we could take it from there.

 

[dlorde]

If you actually did miss what other assumptions I outlined, the biggest one is "physicalism is absolutely true and has been shown to be true". Others being "model of reality = reality" (false, as anyone who has worked in a quantitative field knows) and maybe something else like "just because QFT makes very accurate predictions under certain energy scales does not mean it models everything".

None of those assumptions are necessary to the results being discussed. The QFT results, though they may be incomplete, already tell us that we now know the rules by which the everyday world operates. Whatever else is out there, whether supernatural, non-physical, magical, other-dimensional, etc., isn't relevant to our everyday lives because it doesn't interact with the fields, forces, and particles of everyday energies and scales; if it did, we'd have noticed it.

This means we can stop wasting our time on hypotheses of everyday interactions that require anything more than the everyday fields, forces, and particles we know. It doesn't mean other stuff isn't out there; just that it isn't relevant to us because it doesn't interact with us.

To paraphrase Dr. Carroll's chess analogy, knowing the rules of chess doesn't make you a good chess player, or give you an understanding of chess positions, but it does mean you can say with certainty whether a move is valid or not. You can reject without further consideration moves that require a rook/castle to move diagonally, or games that introduce novel pieces, etc.

 

[Nakani]

Aww is this thread over? It made for some good reading. I thought Mr. Glosser did quite well considering what side he was on, the other guy Notsomuch.

It got me thinking; how do you define consciousness in QFT?

To determine what the mind is made from we have two choices, particles or forces. I can't see how our consciousness can be made of particles. I think consciousness is a force, the one that best fits is electromagnetism. The force doesn't come from an external source, we create it.

Could we say we make a human force? Common and unremarkable as it may be.

Our bodies create electricity, enough to get the brain firing, heart pumping, lungs breathing and tongue wagging (some people not in that order). We are a force that is influenced by matter and can influence matter. We are influenced by our 5 senses and the force can influence the matter that makes up our bodies(ie. our muscles).

Our thoughts (ie. An imaginary Red ball) are manipulations of the force replicating vibrations we have experienced before. We are able to copy the vibrations photons make in order to see a Red ball in our minds.

What say you? Can anyone improve my theory?

 

[steenkh]

Aww is this thread over? It made for some good reading. I thought Mr. Glosser did quite well considering what side he was on, the other guy Notsomuch.

We disagree completely here!

It got me thinking; how do you define consciousness in QFT?

We do not. Consciousness is such a complicated interaction of all the forces and fields of physics that it is better studied at higher levels of abstraction. QFT also does not describe the Niagara Falls.

To determine what the mind is made from we have two choices, particles or forces.

This is a false dichotomy: the brain is made from both forces and fields (QFT is dealing with fields, not particles; did you see the video of the OP?). The mind is obviously created by activity in the brain, which neuroscientists have known for a long time. The rest of your post does not make sense.

 

[Donn]

Oh, no. Not the red ball again.

 

[Resume]

Oh, no. Not the red ball again.

I see a red ball and I want it painted black
and with the other analogies that suck
I want them to turn back . . .

 

[The Greater Fool]

This is somewhat back to the original topic, so I'll go back to dowsing as this thread I believe was spawned by the recent dowsing thread. Disclaimer: I don't believe in dowsing, psi, spirits, gods, demons, water memory, etc.

The argument I'm testing is along the lines of dowsing being possible because it may be using an undefined force (or an unknown aspect of a known force) that would be measurable if we knew what to measure. I will approach this via an example: Gravity.

We have all sorts of evidence for gravity: We feel the effects, we see the effects, we can measure the effects, we can predict the effects based on well tested and documented algorithms. I don't think anyone rejects the modern concept of gravity (Any arguments thus far?)

What we don't know is the mechanism of gravity. We can't see gravity, can't interact or interfere with gravity, we can't measure gravity (we can measure its effects). Compare this to light, where we can see photons, interact and interfere with photons, and can measure them directly.

The maths describing gravity use a placeholder called Gravitons, which is a theoretical quantum construct (boson, zero charge, zero mass, spin 2). It is considered a force carrier.

Here we have a thing that we can see and feel the effects of at distance, and through these effects we can determine distance and/or size of the source.

Now the leap: Why could not such a thing, even the gravity thing itself, be able to convey additional information about its source?

 

[The Man]

To determine what the mind is made from we have two choices, particles or forces.

This is a false dichotomy: the brain is made from both forces and fields (QFT is dealing with fields, not particles; did you see the video of the OP?). The mind is obviously created by activity in the brain, which neuroscientists have known for a long time. The rest of your post does not make sense.

So false in fact that it isn’t even (technically) a dichotomy, in either case (particle/force or particle/field). In the standard model forces are mediated by particles or Gauge bosons. In QFT the fields are quantized into, yep, you guessed it, particles. Though in both cases generally virtual particles. Forces/Fields, now that might be about as much of a dichotomy as one could get, and even that ain’t much, as not all field quanta (particles) are gauge bosons (mediators of force) but all gauge bosons are field quanta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_quanta

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

 

[Nakani]

We disagree completely here!

Completely? So... Your saying this thread was not good reading, Ed Glosser is not a good debater (just on the wrong side of the law) and that Notevenwrong had some good points?

We do not. Consciousness is such a complicated interaction of all the forces and fields of physics that it is better studied at higher levels of abstraction. QFT also does not describe the Niagara Falls.

OK, I used the abbreviation "QFT" without thinking what it stood for. I ment how can we define the consciousness within the laws of Quantum Physics. Niagara falls is there because of the priciples described in QFT.

What is "higher levels of abstraction"? Do the laws of Physics apply there?

This is a false dichotomy: the brain is made from both forces and fields (QFT is dealing with fields, not particles; did you see the video of the OP?).

Yes I watched it multiple times.
I was under the impression that the fields are commonly called particles for ease of conversation. I'm not really concerned with what the brain is made from, I was talking about the mind.

The mind is obviously created by activity in the brain, which neuroscientists have known for a long time.

Whoa that's a shocker!
Care to expand on that? We know what organ the mind comes from, What is it made of? How does it work?

 

[steenkh]

Completely? So... Your saying this thread was not good reading, Ed Glosser is not a good debater (just on the wrong side of the law) and that Notevenwrong had some good points?

In my opinion Glosser is a fairly typical philosophical dualist. Officially acknowledging physics, but then uses philosophical reasons to end up with something beyond physics to explain consciousness (the "experience of red" is apparently the argument that should physics out of the window).

I ment how can we define the consciousness within the laws of Quantum Physics. Niagara falls is there because of the priciples described in QFT.

So why should it be a problem that consciousness is there because of the principles described in QFT?

What is "higher levels of abstraction"? Do the laws of Physics apply there?

A higher level of abstraction could be a level where you take a more strategic overview without bothering with the little details, and of course the the laws of physics apply.

Yes I watched it multiple times.

That is fine. One never knows: Ed Glosser did not seem to have seen it once.

I was under the impression that the fields are commonly called particles for ease of conversation.

OK, I should not have called you on that. I am myself not a physicist, and have no special knowledge about it.

I'm not really concerned with what the brain is made from, I was talking about the mind.

It is normally assumed that the mind is the result of brain activity.

Whoa that's a shocker!
Care to expand on that? We know what organ the mind comes from, What is it made of? How does it work?

I am sure you are aware that the exact working of the brain to produce consciousness is still unknown, and probably will continue to be so for a long time. This gap in our knowledge is then assumed by dualists to be filled by magic.

 

[dlorde]

The argument I'm testing is along the lines of dowsing being possible because it may be using an undefined force (or an unknown aspect of a known force) that would be measurable if we knew what to measure. I will approach this via an example: Gravity.
...
Now the leap: Why could not such a thing, even the gravity thing itself, be able to convey additional information about its source?

If you accept QFT as a reasonable model, we know what forces act at distances relevant to human scales. We also know how those forces behave at human scales, so we can say what kind of information they can convey and how (and if) it could be detected by the brain or some biological sensor.

 

[Nakani]

So why should it be a problem that consciousness is there because of the principles described in QFT?

I'm not saying it is. That is what I was hoping we could define.

A higher level of abstraction could be a level where you take a more strategic overview without bothering with the little details, and of course the the laws of physics apply.

Oh, I see what you mean. I think that if we don't define it right down to the little details (Quantum physics),the Woobots will always have a foot hold.

It is normally assumed that the mind is the result of brain activity.

Yes I know. I was trying to delve a little deeper into the mystery.

I am sure you are aware that the exact working of the brain to produce consciousness is still unknown

Yes

, and probably will continue to be so for a long time.

Yes it will, with that attitude. JK (kinda)

This gap in our knowledge is then assumed by dualists to be filled by magic.

It will stay a magical process untill we explain it using QP. The mystics are always asked for proof and the critical thinkers think they win when there is none.

I dont think its a win untill the mind is explained using the laws of Quantum Physics and proves them wrong.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I'm not really concerned with what the brain is made from, I was talking about the mind.

Whoa that's a shocker!
Care to expand on that? We know what organ the mind comes from, What is it made of? How does it work?

I know I'm stating the obnvious here, but just because we have words for aspects of being a human, such as brain, mind, soul, spirit, imagination, does not give them any separate existence, does it. There's no mind without brain, no spirit without a mind as a part of a brain to think of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

We know what organ the mind comes from, What is it made of? How does it work?

What is a web browser made of?