"Exploration of new theory that shows how the quantum multiverse rather than God or creationism accounts for the origin of life and evolution."
My Dad and I are both fond of this book and the ideas is puts forth makes sense. That it is the normal state of matter to eventually become self-replicating. And that quantum reality exists within our brains...quantum reality existing everywhere at the same time... might explain telepathy. I'm butchering the real theory, so read it yourselves.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If fullerene can enter the quantum multiverse then DNA may do the same.
This appears to be the cornerstone of their argument, but it's a big "if." The essence of their theory is that DNA is only a little bit wider than fullerene, and might therefore be able to achieve a quantum state. But it's a LOT longer, and if quantum states are in some way dependent upon total mass or an object's microgravity -- which is a theory of which I'm personally very fond -- there's no conceivable way that would work.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone see the holographic elementary theory article in SciAm recently? It posited that our universe is really 2 dimensions of space plus time, that acts on a boundary to create the "illusion" of our normal spacetime. It apparently helps link string theory with relativity, and makes previously intractable calculations solvable (though it does create some new intractable problems).
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Anyone see the holographic elementary theory article in SciAm recently? It posited that our universe is really 2 dimensions of space plus time, that acts on a boundary to create the "illusion" of our normal spacetime. It apparently helps link string theory with relativity, and makes previously intractable calculations solvable (though it does create some new intractable problems).
-Bok
Wow, Bok, I read that article about the holographic universe, and it was extremely cool and mind-blowing, but I wouldn't have summarized it like that at all. I don't think they ever said that the universe is really two space dimensions plus time, and creates an illusion that there are more. I took it to mean that there is an observed principle that the amount of information contained inside any closed surface is proportional to the surface area. I'm not positive what observations this is based on, as it seems to be something theoretical that's arisen with regard to the study of black holes. The implications of it, if true, were really fascinating, but I didn't get the impression the authors were talking about remaking our view of the universe into one that only has 2 spatial dimensions. I think I'm a long way from doing that, based on that one area of inquiry.
Anyway, I'd like to reread the article now, since we had such different ideas of what the implications were. I think I gave my copy away or tossed it. It was at least six months ago, wasn't it? I'll look around for it, in case it's still here. Do you have a link to the article?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On second thought, I wonder if we're even talking about the same article on holographic theory.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The many-worlds view of QM is, in my view, completely unviable. There's no way to make sense of probability. How can one outcome be likelier than another if they all happen in some parallel world?
(No, you can't say that there are more worlds where the likelier outcome happens, there are no world-duplicates. To be different worlds, there must be some physical difference.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Exploration of new theory that shows how the quantum multiverse rather than God or creationism accounts for the origin of life and evolution."
I think his motivations need work. Can we discount these ideas for his zealousness to prove false a creator like we discount ID proponents for their zealousness to prove one? His theories seem about as falsifiable as ID, so we'd have to judge on motivations rather than soundness.
It's a cool idea, anyway.
A few random thoughts:
I second TomDavidson's doubts. Buckyballs doing the double-slit is rather cool, though - I didn't know that. That they can implies that they can get into a shared coherent quantum state. I may be remembering quantum physics wrong, but it seems that a system can be partially coherent. Would these directed mutations he's talking about require a pure quantum state? He doesn't say.
He totally lost me at whole cells entering quantum states, though. And his John Cairns example was very, very weak. I'm not saying it's not evidence, but it seems to be explainable by standard mutation / selection. He doesn't give enough information for the reader to make a distinction. I would have started with Barry Hall.
quote:The problem with adaptive mutations is that no one can figure a way that information can travel backwards from the environment to DNA, to mutate certain genes. Myself and a physicist colleague, Jim Al-Khalili, recently proposed a novel solution: that DNA may exist in quantum states that are able to sample multiple mutational states simultaneously.
Right. And to be sensitive to the environment, it seems you'd need whole cells to get into the quantum states as well... which is where he lost me before. Whole cells? Come again?
The thing is, you'd never see it happen, because if you tried to look, you'd localize the cell. Maybe he's figuring a special way to look at it sideways...
quote:Quantum mechanics allows an escape from this gloomy outlook because quantum systems are not entirely deterministic. Although bacteria are certainly not conscious and do not know that they are making a decision, I believe those same quantum dynamics – though involving electromagnetic fields rather than DNA – are responsible for what we call our ‘free will’.
So he's a QM => Free Will believer. Interesting. Not that that's bad. I have a very religious (scientist) friend who thinks the same thing.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm butchering the real theory, so read it yourselves.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Maybe he's figuring a special way to look at it sideways...
