Joined: April 2007
One of the main arguments Roger Penrose uses against Strong AI is our ability to think about paradoxes.
This gets into Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. It basically states a theory of the universe which includes it being consistent is possible if, and only if, the universe is inconsistent.
If I understand correctly, this is based on the assumption that logic holds (i.e. the theorem includes formal provability).
This leaves two choices either agree Reality might be inconsistent or agree that it is inconsistent.
NOMA allows for the latter choice.
The FAPP world of science is like the game of Monopoly, it is logical, consistent and follows rules. It is its own magisterium with its own set of tools which are totally unsuited for dealing with the illogical, inconsistent magisterium of philosophy (i.e. religion).
Reality contains the merging of the two because neither can stand alone.
According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, science can’t be complete. There must be a detectable interface or interfaces where science breaks down.
At this point, I doubt very few won't know what my next two words will be…
Which also includes the likelihood Consciousness is involved.
I tried to find a good, simple explanation of Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger (GHZ) states but what I found was either drowning in techno-babble or simply presumed the quantum GHZ states exist along with their implications. Here is my short semi-technical description of a GHZ experiment. We have three entangled photons (usually two pairs with one photon “erased”) where we can measure either circular polarization (Left and Right) or linear polarization (Horizontal and Vertical). Quantum theory (e,g, Schrödingers equations) makes a different prediction than classical physics.
If we measure the circular polarizations of the first two photons we know the linear polarization of the third photon. If the circular polarizations are the same, the third photon will be vertically polarized. If they are different the third photon will be horizontally polarized. A consistent classical algorithm can be developed which accurately describes the relationships between circular and linear polarizations as long as there is a mixed choice of measurements. By using straight-forward logic, classical physics predicts that if the first two photons are horizontally polarized that last one MUST be vertically polarized. Experimental results clearly demonstrate this classical logic does not hold, it is also horizontally polarized.
This is an example of QM’s measurement problem. The results depend on the choice of the observer. The responses tend to fall into three categories. The first is the scientific IOU that we will come up with an acceptable answer someday, the second is the Sgt. Shultz attitude of carrying on as if there is no problem and, finally, there is Quantum Quackery. This last category includes metaphysical answers like Many Worlds and GodDidIt. I freely admit that it is appropriate to label my ideas as Quantum Quackery.
Here are some more people engaging in Quantum Quackery…
JOHN CONWAY AND SIMON KOCHEN, THE FREE WILL THEOREM
|Do we really have free will, or, as a few determined folk maintain, is it all an illusion? We don’t know, but will prove in this paper that if indeed there exist any experimenters with a modicum of free will, then elementary particles must have their own share of this valuable commodity. |
Note: there is a big “IF” involved here. If we have no free will then Reality is one giant clockwork mechanism. GHZ states aren’t a problem because the observer had no choice. The universe forces his/her hand and everything is interconnected.
Here is a version recently updated...
The Strong FreeWill Theorem
Plato’s Cave Revisited: Science at the Interface
One of us (G. E.) has given a detailed analysis of the characteristics of science  in terms of cause and effect in the context of hierarchical structures (bottom-up and top-down causation). There it has been argued that physics cannot be the only form of causation, the origin of causal slack being associated with quantum fluctuations and human mind (free will). Here we further develop these ideas by focusing on the process of scientific exploration. Incompleteness has been taken to underly any theoretical scheme about the world: There is no unconditioned “truth“, neither in science nor elsewhere. Here we have based our analysis on three interrelated lines of argument, starting and ending with Plato’s cave: First we have detailed the structural model for the O?W-partition: Implicitly, the interface I has been taken to be both the precondition for and the carrier of mental processes – with judgements as the main building blocks for scientific exploration. We have then introduced the quantum analogy (by which a structurally similar but entirely physical case can be studied in full detail). Finally, accepting in principle limitations (as derived from the quantum analog), this analysis supports a formal picture for the development of science as a process, which is, at least, consistent with experience. To sum up:
(1) Our point of departure has been the fundamental incompleteness of any theoretical scheme for the description of the world W. We need a frame of reference.
(2) This severe limitation has been counterbalanced by the conviction that empirical science, as “practically“ confirmed by technology, does exist.
(3) The “workings“ of empirical science has then been taken as a motivation to introduce an interface model I for its underpinning.
(4) While not unique, such a model – here formulated in terms of modes Mi – is not reducible to physics. I is meant to organize the partition between the observing O and the observed W, defining, inter alia, frames of reference.
(5) The correlations between O and W imply a “local“ dressing (reminescent of those between parts within W). Quantum jumps are considered as an example for such a dressing of W.
(6) Quantum physics appears to be complete for systems W in isolation. This could still be challenged, but doubts will diminish, we believe, as quantum technology further improves.
(7) The O/W-partition does not allow for causal closure within W, in particular not within physics. As a consequence there is a peaceful coexistence between system- and interface-dynamics (without over-determination). There is no conflict between W being deterministic, W interfaced with O being non-deterministic.
(8) The world W is not merely fine-tuned such that we can exist (anthropic principle); rather, the world as it appears to us, is a result of the interface and thus of us being observing.
(9) The implications of our model seem to be consistent with empirical findings. The interplay of system- and interface-dynamics has been discussed in some detail.
I argue it is a “logical” conclusion that Reality just might be illogical.
I suggest that if it can be illogical, it is illogical.
Therefore, the logical and consistent magisterium studied by the tools of science can’t be complete.
Therefore, there is a magisterium which can’t be studied by the tools of science.
Ergo, NOMA is an appropriate belief.