Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[steenkh]

While discussing this, the slide shows several areas of woo that indeed can be dismissed, as all (but one) would logically rely on action at distances that would fall within the range of known QFT forces, such as clairvoyance or bending spoons. However, by lumping in "no life after death," he is implicitly claiming some type of action, at distances that fall in those same ranges or scales. That claims knowledge of workings of an impossible phenomenon qualitatively unlike the others on the list.

You need to show why life after death is qualitatively different from all the other claims.

He claims that there is no force that "moves your immortal soul from place to place." That is the assumption of a required field, stated clearly and on the record.

Yes. Carroll is assuming that QTF is a very good model of reality, and most of his presentation is devoted to explain why this is so. Obviously, in QTF life after death would have to be mediated through a force or a field.

For example, one cannot exclude new physics operating at subatomic levels, the "non-everyday" realm not excluded by known forces, unless one claims to know all about "soul transport."

If "soul transport" operates in the "non-everyday" realm not excluded by known forces, then our brain cannot consist merely of normal aroms working in the everyday realm. In other words, we need a touch of magic to make this work, and that will mean that QTF is not a good representation of reality.

He does not successfully demonstrate that at all. Because no definition is given (or possible) for any force capable of "moving souls," no restrictions may be placed on the scale of operation.

You seem to forget that our physical brains impose such a restriction on the scale of the operation.

Carroll's argument is too sweeping. While I would love concrete proof of no life after death, I am afraid that via this approach, that is not forthcoming.

I do not see that Carroll's argument is too sweeping. It only deals with the situation when QTF is assumed true. Anybody is free to come up with a better model that accommodates life after death and all the stuff that QTF does so well. But you will still have the problem that there is no credible evidence for life after death, homoeopathy, and so on. In fact, if there was, Carroll's presentation could be used as an argument that QTF should be discarded.

Carroll's argument has closed the doors on the "woo-woo of the gaps in science" believers, but believers have always believed that science is not a good representation of reality, so most will just seek refuge in magic.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Thanks for your comments, steenkh. I'll avoid quoting it all for brevity.

Life after death is discussed without definition so far, including in the original presentation. It is qualitatively different in one clear way, and that is that it must connect two worlds/realities or what have you. Since one world is totally unknown, and lies outside nature, this (mystical and solely hypothetical) process cannot be described in any meaningful way. The other examples of woo on the list all involve posited action at measurable macro distances between brains, or from a far-away cosmic body (astrology). They thus lend themselves perfectly to the point Carroll is making wrt QFT. I could not agree more. In any case, were such woo true, it would involve a force acting in decidedly "everyday life," whereas life after death, whatever that would be, is decidedly not.

Now, as for the brain, it is atomic, chemical, and so on up. What is also true is that fermions in the nucleus are composite, so these could potentially be subject to smaller range and weaker forces (to continue in the terms set by the presentation). Carroll himself suggests there may be more forces at this range, only that there is no experimental indication (nor is it required by the SM.)

(IIRC, the remaining hold-outs for supersymmetry are also counting on some new particles/fields at the massive, short-range, and weakly interacting "end." Too, far from being "out there" in space, it is my understanding that dark matter permeates baryonic matter, in our everyday world. There's another kettle of fish to think about, as the candidates for those particles are also in Wilson's 'unknown' section.)

Now, I realize this is JREF, and the board is all about slamming doors on woo gaps. I'm all for it. I just cannot agree - yet - that any door has been demonstrably closed on this particular woo, life after death, using Carroll's argument. My goal, then, is not to backdoor woo, only recognize the limits of, or problems with, any argument.

That's as far as reacting directly to Carroll's presentation is concerned. The default position, of course, is that there is no life after death because we have no reason to believe there is, just like, say, any deity. So, in a sense, suggesting that physics disproves something that was never there in the first place - immortality, or Asgardians - is somewhat of a woo-door opener, rather than closer, as it suggests these things might have a relation to physics. They do not, and like all things lacking entirely in any evidence, they can be dismissed without any need for recourse to QFT.

 

[Lorentz]

Check out this URL:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

If you have objections to that evidence, that's fine, but since I have nothing valuable to add to the work of those people - I'm not even a scientist - there's not much more I can say.

I checked out a random post there that had an intriguing title:
Josephson & Pallikari-Viras (1991). Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality

I get the strong impression that the authors never passed first year university physics. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that quantum entanglement cannot transmit information. They talk about EPR as if it's a way to transmit information faster than light. It's not.

In addition their writing style is more "critical theory" than "physics" and there are no formulas. You really can't do anything related to physics without those!

If the rest is of comparable quality, I'm very much not impressed.

 

[dlorde]

Life after death is discussed without definition so far, including in the original presentation.
...
Now, as for the brain, it is atomic, chemical, and so on up. What is also true is that fermions in the nucleus are composite, so these could potentially be subject to smaller range and weaker forces (to continue in the terms set by the presentation). Carroll himself suggests there may be more forces at this range, only that there is no experimental indication (nor is it required by the SM.)

Carroll dealt with the key requirement of claims of 'life after death', which is the persistence of the relevant information. For this, he shows there is no plausible medium and that unknown short range forces can not be relevant to the persistence of this macro-scale information.

So, in a sense, suggesting that physics disproves something that was never there in the first place - immortality, or Asgardians - is somewhat of a woo-door opener, rather than closer, as it suggests these things might have a relation to physics.

I don't recall him mentioning disproof; only talking about claims. Stating that any and all claims of manifestations or effects of unknown forces on a human scale can be dismissed without further consideration, is hardly a woo-door opener.

They do not, and like all things lacking entirely in any evidence, they can be dismissed without any need for recourse to QFT.

Good science doesn't dismiss claims that lack evidence (pragmatically it will rank their importance according to their estimated prior probability of being valid) until they are tested or they are shown to be impossible. QFT does the latter for a wide variety of woo (as do the laws of thermodynamics, to a lesser degree).

 

[Snorkio]

In the video of Carroll's talk from the OP, at minute 39:00 (http://youtu.be/Vrs-Azp0i3k?t=39m)

He has a slide showing the proposed 'zilbot' particle interaction in a Feynman diagram.

To quote the text from the slide:

If a new particle can interact with ordinary particles:
<diagram>
Then that particle can be created in high-energy collisions"
<diagram rotated 90 deg.>

I know he wouldn't be able to go into the math in this talk, but is there any explanation of why this is always the case?

 

[PixyMisa]

Bold added. No, Carroll is proposing that the lack of a field demonstrates no life after death.

As Carroll said, such a field would be required, because there is no mechanism in known physics that would allow for consciousness to persist after death. And no such field can possibly exist. That's it. The end. There is no argument to be made.

While discussing this, the slide shows several areas of woo that indeed can be dismissed, as all (but one) would logically rely on action at distances that would fall within the range of known QFT forces, such as clairvoyance or bending spoons.

But the known forces are known, and do not allow for such things to happen.

However, by lumping in "no life after death," he is implicitly claiming some type of action, at distances that fall in those same ranges or scales.

Yes. Because it is. Consciousness is brain function, and the brain works on those scales.

For example, one cannot exclude new physics operating at subatomic levels, the "non-everyday" realm not excluded by known forces, unless one claims to know all about "soul transport."

Of course we can. Consciousness is brain function. For it to be anything else is (a) impossible given what we already know and (b) impossible because it would require a field that we already know cannot exist.

He does not successfully demonstrate that at all. Because no definition is given (or possible) for any force capable of "moving souls," no restrictions may be placed on the scale of operation.

See above. You are ignoring the scale on which consciousness itself operates. You can't do that.

Carroll's argument is too sweeping.

No, you have just missed the point.

 

[PixyMisa]

In the video of Carroll's talk from the OP, at minute 39:00 (http://youtu.be/Vrs-Azp0i3k?t=39m)

He has a slide showing the proposed 'zilbot' particle interaction in a Feynman diagram.

To quote the text from the slide:

I know he wouldn't be able to go into the math in this talk, but is there any explanation of why this is always the case?

You'd probably be better off asking that in the science forum, where we have real live physicists. I could wade in, but I'd probably just present a hazard to shipping...

 

[abaddon]

You'd probably be better off asking that in the science forum, where we have real live physicists. I could wade in, but I'd probably just present a hazard to shipping...

Nope, I think you should wade in.

What the woo peddlers propose is a force or field or particle or something which is entirely undetectable in the macro world, yet simultaneously directly affects the macro world.

A does not fit with B. One of these things is not like the others. Square peg does not fit round hole no matter how much the woo peddlers try to hammer it in there, or how big their hammer is.

If there exists some field/force/particle/other which can have macro effects, then it must perforce be measurable. If, on the other hand, such a field/force/particle/other exists but is so weak as to be undetectable then it cannot affect the macro world.

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought Snorkio was asking specifically why that transformation of Feynman diagrams is always valid, and I'm not the right person to answer that question.

Once we grant that point, though, I'm good.

 

[steenkh]

Thanks for your comments, steenkh. I'll avoid quoting it all for brevity.

Life after death is discussed without definition so far, including in the original presentation. It is qualitatively different in one clear way, and that is that it must connect two worlds/realities or what have you. Since one world is totally unknown, and lies outside nature, this (mystical and solely hypothetical) process cannot be described in any meaningful way. The other examples of woo on the list all involve posited action at measurable macro distances between brains, or from a far-away cosmic body (astrology). They thus lend themselves perfectly to the point Carroll is making wrt QFT. I could not agree more.

I do not see the distinction between the two kinds of woo. If life after death had no interface back to our world whatsoever, it would indeed be unknowable. But it does, so it falls within the purview of ordinary physics, and it can be tested for and be measured just like the other kinds of woo.

In any case, were such woo true, it would involve a force acting in decidedly "everyday life," whereas life after death, whatever that would be, is decidedly not.

If people can "know" about it, tell of previous lives, speak to the dead and so on, it has to involve physical forces that are addressed by the OP. If not, then life after death is as they say "just a theory", and can only been investigated by actually dying. If there is an internet on the other side of death, I will gladly pick up this aspect of the discussion in a few years. But then, perhaps, the discussion will be centered on whether there is life before death!

Now, as for the brain, it is atomic, chemical, and so on up. What is also true is that fermions in the nucleus are composite, so these could potentially be subject to smaller range and weaker forces (to continue in the terms set by the presentation). Carroll himself suggests there may be more forces at this range, only that there is no experimental indication (nor is it required by the SM.)

I do not understand this argument. It seems to say that there could be forces acting on ordinary matter causing macro effects like talking to the dead, but still too small to be noticed? I would have thought that this is precisely what Carroll convincingly ruled out. He did admit that there could be other forces and fields that we do not know about, but the point was that they could not have macro effects.

That's as far as reacting directly to Carroll's presentation is concerned. The default position, of course, is that there is no life after death because we have no reason to believe there is, just like, say, any deity. So, in a sense, suggesting that physics disproves something that was never there in the first place - immortality, or Asgardians - is somewhat of a woo-door opener, rather than closer, as it suggests these things might have a relation to physics. They do not, and like all things lacking entirely in any evidence, they can be dismissed without any need for recourse to QFT.

I agree.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Kept meaning to come back to this thread. Kept forgetting. I will cherry-pick things to reply to for the time being:

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 am not evading anything. I will try to be more explicit:

The "kinds of afterlife" ruled out by QFT depend entirely on your assumptions. If one assumes consciousness (in the philosophical self-awareness sense) is entirely the result of neurons firing and interacting, then this rules out an afterlife entirely since when we die our neurons stop working. Notice that I did not have to invoke any axioms of quantum field theory here.

However, if one believes that consciousness is somehow fundamental (for example), and is not governed by, say, quantum electrodynamics, neurons, or anything else, then QFT would not rule out an afterlife because QFT only deals with fundamental forces.

Since one cannot demonstrate whether a system is conscious or not via the axioms of quantum field theory, "real" quantum field theory says nothing on the nature of consciousness. "Consciousness" is not a term one uses in the standard model. It does not appear in any equations. Quantized fields do not imply self-awareness in certain complex systems. It is just there, and we don't know why. And since QFT says nothing on the nature of consciousness, it does not "rule out" an afterlife, unless you add assumptions to the model stating "consciousness is due to neurons" (or whatever). And once you start talking about neurons, you're talking about neuroscience. Which is a distinct field that is compatible with QFT.

In other words, QFT (real QFT, not hokum QFT) says nothing with respect to the question of "is there an afterlife"? I hope that is clear and I am not accused of evading the equation anymore; it's literally as explicit as I could possibly get, I think.

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.

Then there is no need to invoke QFT. It is a question governed by the rules of neuroscience (with your own assumptions added regarding the philosophical nature of consciousness, as noted above). This isn't a strawman question: people keep claiming QFT "rules out more" than neuroscience with respect to "the afterlife". If neurons govern consciousness, full stop, then we don't need anything else to "rule out more". It is completely nonsensical.

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.

OK, even if I grant this, the positive claim is that "an afterlife cannot possibly exist because QFT". So then it must be up to believers in this statement to prove that QFT rules out (all possible) afterlifes. The burden of proof doesn't somehow shift back to the non-materialist when the claim is "QFT proves X is impossible".

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.

No, I'm supporting the view that QFT (again, real QFT. Not hokum QFT.) says nothing about consciousness, thus it says nothing about "afterlives". "Beyond the reach of QFT" doesn't even make sense. It's like saying QFT is beyond the reach of purple monkey dishwasher. Afterlife is a meaningless thing in QFT.

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.

This misses my point. The realm that we are familiar with is governed by classical physics. This is an approximation of quantum mechanics and special relativity at the energies and distances we are familiar with. Which are special cases and approximations of quantum field theory and general relativity. Which are special cases and approximations of some deeper theory that will hopefully unite QFT and GR. And this deeper theory is an approximation of how reality "really works".

Neurons are governed (approximately) by classical electrodynamics. We have taken as a given the materialist view; that neurons lead to consciousness. Death of neurons equals death of consciousness, assuming materialism. Therefore QFT doesn't even add anything new to classical physics nor neuroscience at the relevant energy scales. Invoking QFT is a sideshow intended to wow the audience. Materialism implies no afterlife. The question is nonsensical in terms of QFT.

Like PixyMisa, I will point out that physics trump philosophy any time.

Eh, they are separate things. I would say philosophy needs to be compatible with empiricism (and hence, physics) to have any value. But philosophical interpretations of physics are completely different than pure physics. QFT = no afterlife is a philosophical interpretation.

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.

By "laws of physics" do you mean "the real (non-approximate) laws that govern how all of reality behaves"? Or do you mean our current models that make predictions and approximate reality (like QFT)? Big difference here.

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

Yeah, and that conclusion is wrong unless you assume physicalism or materialism. If you assume QFT = reality then sure. That seems really silly to me though since it isn't even compatible with gravity.

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.

Tell me what causes consciousness in terms of QFT and maybe I can address your question. My guess is it is going to go something like (assume materialism), then QFT --> neurons --> consciousness. Therefore if the neurons die consciousness dies. That is all fine and valid. If one assumes materialism and neurons --> consciousness there is no afterlife and there is no discussion.

The objection, then, is obviously "materialism is true". Which, if materialism/physicalism is not true, then QFT doesn't address everything (which is true anyway, imo, because gravity).

Basically, it's a bit silly to use materialism to prove materialism.

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.

Are you trying to reverse the burden of proof again? Physicalism is a philosophical position about the nature of everything. If you want to say it has to be true the burden of proof is on you. I can't disprove it. If I say "consciousness is (probably) nonphysical or pi is nonphysical or logic is nonphysical" therefore physicalism isn't true you will just say "nuh uh" and claim qualia and math "don't really exist" or some such nonsense (in my opinion, at least).

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,

Nah. Just saying that doesn't mean it's true. It's only true if you assume materialism/physicalism.

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.

I didn't say QFT wasn't valid. I said QFT could not be used to map genotype to phenotype. And it almost certainly can't. You have to add additional axioms to your system (which will probably end up reducing to the laws of molecular biology, complex networks, and statistical mechanics). These laws are obviously compatible with QFT, because they have to be compatible with physics. But you can't take "just" the axioms of QFT to get phenotype from genotype. There is almost certainly some Godel incompleteness going on here. Computational irreducibility. That kinda stuff.

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.

No, the discovery of the Higg's particle lends credibility to QFT. Not physicalism. It's saying our models are almost certainly right within this energy scale. And models of reality do not equal reality. Physicalism is a statement about the nature of reality.

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.

Apparently, even if you believe in the "solidity of modern physics" you can still make magical claims like "QFT proves an afterlife cannot exist" even though QFT says nothing about consciousness nor an afterlife.

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.

Um, I'm not making the positive claim of "an afterlife cannot possibly exist, because quantums!" with absolutely no rationale to back it up. How about we have the people making the positive claim back it up with a little reasoning? A good first step would be to show that physicalism must be true, and/or consciousness and an afterlife must be governed by the subatomic particles that QFT describes.

I may get to the other responses later (hopefully). We shall see.

 

[steenkh]

The "kinds of afterlife" ruled out by QFT depend entirely on your assumptions. If one assumes consciousness (in the philosophical self-awareness sense) is entirely the result of neurons firing and interacting, then this rules out an afterlife entirely since when we die our neurons stop working. Notice that I did not have to invoke any axioms of quantum field theory here.

However, if one believes that consciousness is somehow fundamental (for example), and is not governed by, say, quantum electrodynamics, neurons, or anything else, then QFT would not rule out an afterlife because QFT only deals with fundamental forces.

No. The point of Carroll's lecture was that at some point this fundamental consciousness needs to influence normal QFT matter such as neurons, and this kind of interaction can now be ruled out. We do not need to know what consciousness is in order to know that it is physical, because we have exhausted the possible forces and fields in our energy range.

In other words, QFT (real QFT, not hokum QFT) says nothing with respect to the question of "is there an afterlife"? I hope that is clear and I am not accused of evading the equation anymore; it's literally as explicit as I could possibly get, I think.

You are clear, and you did not evade the question, but as I pointed out above, you are also wrong, at least if the afterlife has an interface back to our reality so that we can speak to the dead, feel the ghosts, and so on. If there is no backwards connection whatsoever, then life after death is just a dream, and nobody can know if it is true until they die themselves.

Then there is no need to invoke QFT. It is a question governed by the rules of neuroscience (with your own assumptions added regarding the philosophical nature of consciousness, as noted above). This isn't a strawman question: people keep claiming QFT "rules out more" than neuroscience with respect to "the afterlife". If neurons govern consciousness, full stop, then we don't need anything else to "rule out more". It is completely nonsensical.

No. Proponents of dualism often claim that we do not know everything worth knowing, and that there are other "planes" that influence us, but not governed b the laws of physics. Neuroscience in itself cannot rules this out, but as we have seen, QFT can.

OK, even if I grant this, the positive claim is that "an afterlife cannot possibly exist because QFT". So then it must be up to believers in this statement to prove that QFT rules out (all possible) afterlifes. The burden of proof doesn't somehow shift back to the non-materialist when the claim is "QFT proves X is impossible".

I thought I made it clear even in my previous post that we can only rule out the kinds of afterlife that interfaces with our reality. We cannot rule out all kind of afterlife.

No, I'm supporting the view that QFT (again, real QFT. Not hokum QFT.) says nothing about consciousness, thus it says nothing about "afterlives". "Beyond the reach of QFT" doesn't even make sense. It's like saying QFT is beyond the reach of purple monkey dishwasher. Afterlife is a meaningless thing in QFT.

Yes, you are right, QFT says nothing about afterlives. However, it does rule out the interaction that afterlives would have with our reality when people remember past lives, or get messages from their dead loved ones.

Neurons are governed (approximately) by classical electrodynamics. We have taken as a given the materialist view; that neurons lead to consciousness. Death of neurons equals death of consciousness, assuming materialism. Therefore QFT doesn't even add anything new to classical physics nor neuroscience at the relevant energy scales. Invoking QFT is a sideshow intended to wow the audience. Materialism implies no afterlife. The question is nonsensical in terms of QFT.

I think I have already covered this several times above.

Yeah, and that conclusion is wrong unless you assume physicalism or materialism. If you assume QFT = reality then sure. That seems really silly to me though since it isn't even compatible with gravity.

We do not have to assume physicalism or materialism. We only need to assume QFT to be true, which as we have seen is a fair assumption in our normal lives.

Tell me what causes consciousness in terms of QFT and maybe I can address your question.

No, as I have pointed out above, we do not need to know how consciousness works in order to know that at some point it must cause our physical body to act, and the conclusion in the OP is that new forces are ruled out, so only conventional forces can act. Consequently, consciousness must be generated by conventional forces.

Are you trying to reverse the burden of proof again? Physicalism is a philosophical position about the nature of everything. If you want to say it has to be true the burden of proof is on you.

It cannot be proven or disproven, but as per the OP, we can see that a lot of woo stuff has been eliminated, precisely the stuff that builds on the premises that there is more to the world than physics. Then you can draw your own conclusions.

Nah. Just saying that doesn't mean it's true. It's only true if you assume materialism/physicalism.

Wrong. The only assumption we need is that QFT is true for our energy range. It does not need to be true for everything. If we do not have faith in QFT, then of course all the stuff that is ruled out by the OP is possible.

I didn't say QFT wasn't valid. I said QFT could not be used to map genotype to phenotype. And it almost certainly can't. You have to add additional axioms to your system (which will probably end up reducing to the laws of molecular biology, complex networks, and statistical mechanics). These laws are obviously compatible with QFT, because they have to be compatible with physics. But you can't take "just" the axioms of QFT to get phenotype from genotype. There is almost certainly some Godel incompleteness going on here. Computational irreducibility. That kinda stuff.

This claim is too abstract and faith-based for me to comment on.

No, the discovery of the Higg's particle lends credibility to QFT. Not physicalism. It's saying our models are almost certainly right within this energy scale. And models of reality do not equal reality. Physicalism is a statement about the nature of reality.

I have not mentioned physicalism because it is not necessary. As we have seen, QFT can rule out unconventional interactions without reference to a philosophical position.

I have edited out a lot of your comments because I would basically have to repeat myself even more if I replied to each one. If I have inadvertently left out important stuff, please point it out, and I will take a look at it.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No. The point of Carroll's lecture was that at some point this fundamental consciousness needs to influence normal QFT matter such as neurons, and this kind of interaction can now be ruled out. We do not need to know what consciousness is in order to know that it is physical, because we have exhausted the possible forces and fields in our energy range.

The point of my replies is that yes, Carroll states this, but he (nor you) does not explain why it is so. I keep asking for an explanation why a "fundamental consciousness" needs to influence "normal QFT matter" such as neurons, and this kind of interaction can be ruled out. Can you provide an argument that doesn't assume the model of reality equals reality?

Here, help me out. We know that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete. It has a bunch of shortcomings. It is incompatible with general relativity. It does not explain gravity. It cannot explain dark matter and dark energy. We don't even know if it is self-consistent. We have never (ever) and probably never will detect a graviton. Physicists are currently looking for a better theory of reality.

And you think the conclusion from this is that the standard model is absolutely correct at the relevant energy scales, it is a perfect representation of reality, it is impossible that there is another force which we haven't detected yet (it has not been proven there can be only four forces), and we know we could detect something if it were interacting weakly with our brain when we can't even detect gravitons? How do you figure?

And you think it can be stated flatly without any proof or evidence because "zee quantums!!! Sean Carroll said so!!!" Do this for me: describe a particle physics experiment that will detect all possible particle interactions with the brain (note I am giving you your stipulation that for a "fundamental consciousness", as you put it, to exist, it must interact with neurons via particles). Do this without assuming the standard model (i.e. you can't just say "we know there are only four interactions because there are only four interactions in the standard model". Describe how you are going to load a living brain in a particle accelerator and what the data will look like if you find a new interaction vs. proving there cannot be any new interactions. Talk about your limits of detection, and uncertainty in your measurements.

You are clear, and you did not evade the question, but as I pointed out above, you are also wrong, at least if the afterlife has an interface back to our reality so that we can speak to the dead, feel the ghosts, and so on. If there is no backwards connection whatsoever, then life after death is just a dream, and nobody can know if it is true until they die themselves.

But you kept asking me for "an afterlife compatible with QFT". And I kept giving you one, "one that is not governed by physicalist assumptions". This is the easy one, it just rules out interactions with "our reality" as you put it. This is obviously a "kind of afterlife". I don't understand why you keep forcing additional assumptions of speaking with the dead and existence of ghosts on it. It's not because it is easier to argue against is it? That would make it a strawman.

No. Proponents of dualism often claim that we do not know everything worth knowing, and that there are other "planes" that influence us, but not governed b the laws of physics. Neuroscience in itself cannot rules this out, but as we have seen, QFT can.

Eh. This is a strawman as far as I am concerned. I am not arguing what all other proponents of dualism are arguing. I am not even taking a positive position. I am just explaining why Sean Carroll is almost certainly wrong here. If you want to argue with something specific Deepak Chopra said (or whoever), have at it. I cannot support every argument ever made by every dualist. That is silly.

I thought I made it clear even in my previous post that we can only rule out the kinds of afterlife that interfaces with our reality. We cannot rule out all kind of afterlife.

OK, then Carroll and others in this thread were wrong to flatly stat "QFT rules out an afterlife", right? It only rules out specific kinds of afterlifes with specific properties.

In fact, you said (and this is what I was responding to):

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.

So, in fact, you did state all possible "souls" and "afterlifes" were impossible according to QFT. You did not stipulate only those that interact with us physically. It seems you like to backpedal, or at the very least you overstate things so it is not clear what position you are actually taking.

Yes, you are right, QFT says nothing about afterlives. However, it does rule out the interaction that afterlives would have with our reality when people remember past lives, or get messages from their dead loved ones.

Well... in order to make progress I will just say "ok sure". But not all interactions (even in QFT) can be measured, so I still think you may be reaching if you're stating QFT offers a negative proof of these things.

I think I have already covered this several times above.

Yeah, you tried, but most of it is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions about QFT and how interactions take place and are measured. Besides, I am addressing the broad claim of "QFT proves no afterlife". Not the restricted claim "QFT proves ghosts and speaking to the dead are impossible", which is what you seem to be (sometimes) arguing.

We do not have to assume physicalism or materialism. We only need to assume QFT to be true, which as we have seen is a fair assumption in our normal lives.

"True" as in offers accurate predictions? Or "true" as in it is equal to reality? You keep kind of hinting that you think QFT and the standard model ARE reality (at our energy scales), without actually stating it. Can you flatly state it if that is what you believe? Because if that is the context you are coming from I don't think you can be more wrong, and I doubt we will come to any agreements. There are so many things we know are true that are incompatible with the standard model that I don't know how one could think it is some philosophical truth about how the universe really is.

No, as I have pointed out above, we do not need to know how consciousness works in order to know that at some point it must cause our physical body to act, and the conclusion in the OP is that new forces are ruled out, so only conventional forces can act. Consequently, consciousness must be generated by conventional forces.

The "conclusion" in the OP was stated without proof. You are assuming so much wrong stuff about "forces" I don't know where to start. I guess what I wrote above would be a good place.

It cannot be proven or disproven, but as per the OP, we can see that a lot of woo stuff has been eliminated, precisely the stuff that builds on the premises that there is more to the world than physics. Then you can draw your own conclusions.

You need to be more precise. When you say "more to the world than physics" are you defining physics to be "reality and the laws which govern it" or "our models of reality that comprise the field of physics"?

I don't know how many times I can say that our models are only models. Have you ever worked in a quantitative field that builds models? Have you ever tried to experimentally verify them? Do you know what that entails, and what the limitations are?

Wrong. The only assumption we need is that QFT is true for our energy range. It does not need to be true for everything. If we do not have faith in QFT, then of course all the stuff that is ruled out by the OP is possible.

"True" as in make accurate predictions? Or "true" as in is equivalent to reality? (I'm sure you realize by now I am not going to let this go.)

This claim is too abstract and faith-based for me to comment on.

This gave me a good hearty chuckle. You literally throw out all of the science and experimental results on complexity, computational irreducibility, and incompleteness, and you flatly state that one can do something as complex as map genotype to phenotype using the principles of QFT which has never been done and almost certainly never will be done if any of the current research on complexity is correct. And I am the ones that is stating something based on faith. Lol! No really, LOL.

I have not mentioned physicalism because it is not necessary. As we have seen, QFT can rule out unconventional interactions without reference to a philosophical position.

It cannot. You have to make assumptions about the nature of measurement and observations, and recognize the limits of your instrumentation. And you can't just assume your model is true because it talks about cool complex quantum physics yo.

I have edited out a lot of your comments because I would basically have to repeat myself even more if I replied to each one. If I have inadvertently left out important stuff, please point it out, and I will take a look at it.

I would say the most important thing would be for you to address your implications that our models of reality is equivalent to reality (if I haven't made that clear yet ). Also, an explicit argument showing why QFT rules out all possible interactions with neurons would be great, considering that you think it is proven. Oh, and while you are at it, define "fundamental consciousness" as you used it in your last reply and explain why whatever you define must be governed by quantum field theory and why we know we can measure whatever that is. Thanks!

 

[PixyMisa]

The "kinds of afterlife" ruled out by QFT depend entirely on your assumptions.

Nope.

If one assumes consciousness (in the philosophical self-awareness sense) is entirely the result of neurons firing and interacting, then this rules out an afterlife entirely since when we die our neurons stop working.

That is not an assumption. That's a conclusion, based on all available evidence.

Notice that I did not have to invoke any axioms of quantum field theory here.

You have missed the point. The point is that QFT tells us that that is the end of the argument; that we know there are no undiscovered laws of physics that could rescue the hypothesis.

However, if one believes that consciousness is somehow fundamental (for example), and is not governed by, say, quantum electrodynamics, neurons, or anything else, then QFT would not rule out an afterlife because QFT only deals with fundamental forces.

If orange juice were somehow fundamental, then even if oranges went extinct, we could still have orange juice. What kind of argument is that?

Since one cannot demonstrate whether a system is conscious or not via the axioms of quantum field theory, "real" quantum field theory says nothing on the nature of consciousness.

Wrong. It says, quite explicitly, that consciousness is a field interaction just like everything else in the Universe.

"Consciousness" is not a term one uses in the standard model.

Nor is "tadpole", but that doesn't make tadpoles magical.

It does not appear in any equations. Quantized fields do not imply self-awareness in certain complex systems. It is just there, and we don't know why.

Self-referential information processing.

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought I made it clear even in my previous post that we can only rule out the kinds of afterlife that interfaces with our reality. We cannot rule out all kind of afterlife.

Any afterlife must by definition interface with our reality at least at one point, or it's not anything at all. And there's no way that can happen.

So yes, QFT rules out all the conventional forms of afterlife. (Leaving, for example, uploading your mind to a computer as physically possible if enormously difficult from a technical perspective.)

 

[Craig B]

Any afterlife must by definition interface with our reality at least at one point, or it's not anything at all. And there's no way that can happen.

Yes. For it to be "after" it must by definition have a point of contact with the reality of physical living being, or it is nothing. If not nothing, then it is imagined immaterial life beyond the reach of our senses, not originating in any past or present physical entity, which for the purposes of this discussion is the same as nothing.

 

[steenkh]

The point of my replies is that yes, Carroll states this, but he (nor you) does not explain why it is so. I keep asking for an explanation why a "fundamental consciousness" needs to influence "normal QFT matter" such as neurons, and this kind of interaction can be ruled out. Can you provide an argument that doesn't assume the model of reality equals reality?

I have stated several times that the only assumption that we need is that QFT is true, i.e. models reality to a sufficient degree. If we do not assume this, then everything goes, and consciousness could be caused by little fairies squeezing the neurons.

Here, help me out. We know that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete. It has a bunch of shortcomings. It is incompatible with general relativity. It does not explain gravity. It cannot explain dark matter and dark energy. We don't even know if it is self-consistent. We have never (ever) and probably never will detect a graviton. Physicists are currently looking for a better theory of reality.

The standard model of particle physics is a splendid model of the interactions that matter for us in our everyday lives, just like the Newtonian model of gravity is all that we need to send robotic probes to far away planets (timing is another matter). I do not understand why you insist on exaggerating the incompleteness of physics to a degree where it could be of importance in the energy range where we know it is best.

And you think the conclusion from this is that the standard model is absolutely correct at the relevant energy scales, it is a perfect representation of reality, it is impossible that there is another force which we haven't detected yet (it has not been proven there can be only four forces), and we know we could detect something if it were interacting weakly with our brain when we can't even detect gravitons? How do you figure?

If you found a flaw in Carroll's argument please present it. Right now, it just seems that you reject it because you do not like it.

And you think it can be stated flatly without any proof or evidence because "zee quantums!!! Sean Carroll said so!!!" Do this for me: describe a particle physics experiment that will detect all possible particle interactions with the brain (note I am giving you your stipulation that for a "fundamental consciousness", as you put it, to exist, it must interact with neurons via particles).

Eh? Carroll's argument was that this has already been done. Did you miss the part where he described how modern particle accelerators have been able to clear the field of unconventional particle interactions in the energy range which is of importance to our lives?

Do this without assuming the standard model (i.e. you can't just say "we know there are only four interactions because there are only four interactions in the standard model".

As I said, if we drop our only assumption, which is that QFT is true, then everything is possible, so obviously this cannot be done.

But you kept asking me for "an afterlife compatible with QFT". And I kept giving you one, "one that is not governed by physicalist assumptions". This is the easy one, it just rules out interactions with "our reality" as you put it. This is obviously a "kind of afterlife". I don't understand why you keep forcing additional assumptions of speaking with the dead and existence of ghosts on it. It's not because it is easier to argue against is it? That would make it a strawman.

An afterlife which undetectable even to the believers is fairly uninteresting. I have already said that such an afterlife is not ruled out by physics. What more do you want?

Eh. This is a strawman as far as I am concerned. I am not arguing what all other proponents of dualism are arguing. I am not even taking a positive position.

I did not say that you are a dualist. I referred to the dualistic arguments that we hear every day. You have only spoken about unknown physical forces that could cause consciousness, which is close to dualism but not quite there.

I am just explaining why Sean Carroll is almost certainly wrong here.

No you have not. You admit that the discovery of Higg's particle has strengthened the position of QFT even more, but you drop Carroll's only assumption when you still insist that QFT is not adequate for the energy range where it is strongest. If you wanted to show that Carroll is wrong you would have to accept his assumption, and show that his argument is still false. That would persuade me.

OK, then Carroll and others in this thread were wrong to flatly stat "QFT rules out an afterlife", right? It only rules out specific kinds of afterlifes with specific properties.

Correct. It only rules out all the woo-woo belief that we are met with every day. It does not rule out those things that even the believers admit is only a belief. It does not rule out gods that do not meddle with our lives; but it definitely rules out souls, it definitely rules out reincarnations where people can know they are reincarnated, it definitely rules out dowsing, and it definitely rules out homoeopathy. I think Carroll's point is pretty strong,even if he overstated it by not excluding a certain kind of afterlife that hardly anybody believes in anyway.

So, in fact, you did state all possible "souls" and "afterlifes" were impossible according to QFT. You did not stipulate only those that interact with us physically. It seems you like to backpedal, or at the very least you overstate things so it is not clear what position you are actually taking.

OK, I backpedal. I did not realise that I was facing this kind of pedantry. by now you should know what I mean: Carroll's argument as I understand it, rules out non-QFT interactions in our energy range. So woo beliefs that do not involve implicit influence on our world are not excluded. Is it clear now?

Well... in order to make progress I will just say "ok sure". But not all interactions (even in QFT) can be measured, so I still think you may be reaching if you're stating QFT offers a negative proof of these things.

About that I do not know. If you have examples, please present them.

Besides, I am addressing the broad claim of "QFT proves no afterlife". Not the restricted claim "QFT proves ghosts and speaking to the dead are impossible", which is what you seem to be (sometimes) arguing.

Not sometimes, but all of the time. I have no interest in beliefs that have no influence on our lives.

"True" as in offers accurate predictions? Or "true" as in it is equal to reality?

"True", as in "sufficient".

The "conclusion" in the OP was stated without proof.

What level of proof are you demanding from a 1-hour popular Youtube lecture? Carroll did present the arguments, but he did not present the calculations, or the tons of data needed for a scientific proof.

You need to be more precise. When you say "more to the world than physics" are you defining physics to be "reality and the laws which govern it" or "our models of reality that comprise the field of physics"?

The latter.

"True" as in make accurate predictions? Or "true" as in is equivalent to reality? (I'm sure you realize by now I am not going to let this go.)

The former. (I have no idea how you expect this sophistry to invalidate the argument. You want to attack physics where it is strongest, which is our everyday lives. Very well, carry on!)

This gave me a good hearty chuckle. You literally throw out all of the science and experimental results on complexity, computational irreducibility, and incompleteness, and you flatly state that one can do something as complex as map genotype to phenotype using the principles of QFT which has never been done and almost certainly never will be done if any of the current research on complexity is correct. And I am the ones that is stating something based on faith. Lol! No really, LOL.

Nobody can describe the complexities of a speech-recognition program by describing it in terms of logical gates and single bits of data, and yet the program builds on that. I still cannot follow you here. Different levels of abstraction do not invalidate each other.

It cannot. You have to make assumptions about the nature of measurement and observations, and recognize the limits of your instrumentation. And you can't just assume your model is true because it talks about cool complex quantum physics yo.

The assumption that our model of reality is true is not just taken out of thin air. It is based on solid evidence. And you can only point to evidence that it is not true when you go outside our normal energy range.

I would say the most important thing would be for you to address your implications that our models of reality is equivalent to reality (if I haven't made that clear yet ).

I think I have addressed this several times in this discussion now.

Also, an explicit argument showing why QFT rules out all possible interactions with neurons would be great, considering that you think it is proven.

The explicit argument was presented in Carroll's lecture, which is what this thread is about. I think it is easier for you to watch the lecture than it is for me to make a transcription and present it to you.

Oh, and while you are at it, define "fundamental consciousness" as you used it in your last reply and explain why whatever you define must be governed by quantum field theory and why we know we can measure whatever that is. Thanks!

I do not understand what you want here. Do you disagree that our brain has to be influenced by the "fundamental consciousness" (which is your concept not mine) for it to say, cause one to put one leg in front of the other?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Any afterlife must by definition interface with our reality at least at one point, or it's not anything at all. And there's no way that can happen.

So yes, QFT rules out all the conventional forms of afterlife. (Leaving, for example, uploading your mind to a computer as physically possible if enormously difficult from a technical perspective.)

Given (for purpose of argument) that the soul is in fact electromagnetic, then there's no physical reason in Carroll's argument to say it can't exist. Mind is electromagnetic, and if a soul did exist, EM seems a fair bet.

Given (as above) that the EM embodiment thereof might be anywhere from high energy cosmic rays (!) to infra red photons , with the latter somewhat more probable. less improbable:-

Has anyone actually bothered to look for such ?

It seems to me to be possible (however improbable) that Carroll might be spot on, but that we have simply never looked in the right place, in the right way, at the right time, for perfectly identifiable and familiar particles that might be there, but which , as solid materialists, we had absolutely no reason to expect.

That sort of self induced blindness has happened in science before. It's not much of a gap and eminently pluggable with appropriate data, but as Devil's Advocate, it's the best I can come up with. But do the data exist or must we do such measurements? If the only folk who have done such things are precisely the ones we know to be wildly unreliable in their studies...

 

[PixyMisa]

Given (for purpose of argument) that the soul is in fact electromagnetic, then there's no physical reason in Carroll's argument to say it can't exist. Mind is electromagnetic, and if a soul did exist, EM seems a fair bet.

Well, it couldn't be just a standing EM field (there's no such thing); there would have to be a material component.

Given (as above) that the EM embodiment thereof might be anywhere from high energy cosmic rays (!) to infra red photons , with the latter somewhat more probable. less improbable:-

Has anyone actually bothered to look for such ?

Sure. People have looked for the soul directly, and we study human EM fields all the time - EEG and EKG and MRI. If there were a soul and it worked via the EM field, we would have known about it for decades.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

To state my objection another way, it is that because whatever is 'living' after death is not defined, it need not be tied to mind physically, according to your brand of woo. For example, there are those who distinguish among body, mind, and soul, with the last being a track record of all life experiences, presumably 'here' but undetectable, and which then goes off into Neverland. This perspective does not require physics, as all spiritual 'components' and 'relations' can be considered non-natural, and of course are mere speculation, to which I do not subscribe.

QFT has no relation to this scenario, and is not probative in any sense. What got me to post in the first place was the implied statement that for any definition of afterlife, a field would need to be responsible. Thus my rather labored attempt to undertake precisely the type of woo that the suggestion opens up.

I just think it's best not to mix physics up in proofs with which it has no relation,* as this potentially creates resistance in those who, through exposure to physics, may later find their beliefs best challenged by the simple practice of science over time. I think 'losing' the afterlife ranks up there with the fear of becoming a moral monster as obstacles for those still on the fence, yet wobbling.

And I do know of those who practice physics, are not theists, yet who pine still for an afterlife. Who am I to deny them that, especially since they are excellent mainstream scientists who do not peddle woo? (I prefer George Carlin's Big Electron personally, but that's me.)

*All the other woo the presentation stated as impossible was spot on.