I acknowledge that nature does not at all mirror the double slit experiment, but matter has intrinsic wavelength as far as I know, correct me if that isn't accurate. — Enrique
What would you mean by "matter" here? — Metaphysician Undercover
Merely speculating, but I think its important to avoid excessive bias towards a precedential model of brains as no more than a bundle of neurons wired together. The brain is actually 90% glia, which are closer to conventional, nonconducting cells in their structure, provisional of function that may differ dramatically from neuronal streamlining for purposes of electricity transmission. — Enrique
The Danish Neils Bohr and German Max Planck, along with contributions from many additional scientists, successfully theorized matter as a duality appearing more particlelike or more wavelike depending on experimental context. — Enrique
Wave and particle concepts were combined in a theory of all energized mass as ‘quantized’, occurring in discrete bundles that are however spatially diffuse in ways still, in the 21st century, only probabilistically definable. — Enrique
Quantized ‘wavicles’ were found to be arranged within atoms... — Enrique
It's true that mental phenomena --- ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc --- are products of brain processes : Mind is the function of Brain. But I was talking about a universal phenomenon, that I call EnFormAction, which is in some respects analogous to Energy, but also to Mathematical Statistics. This unconventional concept is hard to wrap your mind around, but some physicists have come to the conclusion that everything in the world is a form of Information. The notion that Energy & Matter are composed of Universal Information, can lead to the inference that the "conditional content of the mind" is also a form of Generic Information (my term) : the power to enform, to create. This is not a religious concept, but I think it is a modern mathematical version of the Logos or Spirit that ancient myths were trying to understand metaphorically.The Nietzschean in me can't get out of the view that information is a conditional content of the mind. — Enrique
Ha, you nailed it! Although the remark was meant sarcastically, it may be literally true. The operative assumption of modern Science is actually the ancient hypothesis of Atomism. That's the reductionist view of reality as composed of tiny particles. But Quantum science, while still using the metaphors of Particularism, has concluded that the foundations of reality are actually holistic Fields, from which virtual particles may or may not emerge. The links below discuss the concept in more detail than I can put in a post. My concept of Universal Information is closer to the Mathematical definition of a Field. And if it's universal it's always true. :joke:And if everything is defined as informational, how can you be wrong? — Enrique
And you keep talking about electricity flows as if the brain were switch a current of electrons. But charge is carried by ions. And it is only because of the "informational" structure of the axons - the molecular machinery of ion channels - that a wave of anything can flow down a neural "wire". What "flows' is a bunch of these pores opening and closing in a chain reaction that propagates like a wave. — apokrisis
This says to me, that "matter" might appear as a particle, or it might appear as a wave, depending on one's perspective. But do you see the need to define "matter". Is "matter" to you, the temporal continuity of existence, what apokrisis called "inertia"? — Metaphysician Undercover
...the fact that the brain relies on exquisite quantum balances to transduce the physics of the world into neurally encoded signals doesn’t mean the resulting conscious state is fundamentally quantum. It is instead fundamentally information processing. — apokrisis
Molecular machinery internal to an axon of course must differ from the properties of for instance a copper wire, but some kind of transport chain including tunneling and entanglement is probably involved, similar to photosynthesis, not solely the diffusion of ions. — Enrique
The structure of computers is based on models of information processing, so in that case it is an apt term, but analogy to brains could be flawed. I'd be interested to get your definition of information in the context of biosemiosis. — Enrique
The difference with biosemiosis is that instead of assuming that the substrate of nature is this mechanically definite stuff - stable substantial atoms of matter - the ground of being is instead a fundamental uncertainty or chaos. A quantum potential. So machinery is something that has to be built on wobbly foundations. Machinery in fact exists only if it can constrain or stabilise its own foundations. — apokrisis
In a good conductor like copper, the electrons themselves move a short distance at a drift speed of 1% the speed of light and the resulting wave or pulse at about 90% the speed of light. — apokrisis
The biosemiosis perspective is similar to mine because it is based on the same empirical evidence. The slight difference is that I view this underlying substrate as not unformed, homogeneous chaos, but a substance with complex patterns of supradimensional flux we have not yet even approached modeling — Enrique
but that amounts to trillions and trillions of pockets of quantum causality in an Earth lifeform, which make nonlocality the predominant ingredient in many facets of the organic world, a reality we have not yet deeply tapped into scientifically and technologically. — Enrique
I get the impression from a small amount I've read about semiconductors that the mechanism of "wave" propagation might amount to quantum tunneling/entanglement. — Enrique
Atoms are theoretical to the core, a hypothetical image generated by arbitrary graphing systems to supplement the conceptualizing of dimensionless quantitative data, altogether assisting pattern recognition and prediction. I think the nature of matter depends completely on an observer's frame of reference. An essential disjunct exists between matter interpreted microscopically vs. macroscopically, and at the most basic levels there are multiple models associated with differing experimental contexts. As far as "inertia", it has not yet been possible to generate conditions in which matter is motionless, so I'm not sure how apropos this idea is unless referring to some kind of fundamental relativity. I would define matter as a relatively equilibrated state emergent from substance interactions. — Enrique
So the question is, "relative" to what? Let's say that from a specific frame of reference, a particular state appears to be an equilibrate state. How would such a judgement be made, the state would appear to be equilibrate in relation to what? — Metaphysician Undercover
We have tapped into quantum tunnelling/entanglement in a big way with our technology. So it has certainly been delved into deeply. — apokrisis
By what principle could we judge that there is any such thing as matter? Or is matter simply imaginary? — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.