Irrationality follows Rules of Quantum Physics, New Theory Says
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 мар 2024
- In an new paper that just appeared, a mathematician has argued that quantum physics can be used to explain some strange aspects of human decision making. It turned out to be not quite as crazy as I thought, but it doesn't mean that our brain is a quantum computer.
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#sciencenews #science #physics #consciousness 
Наука
I have Schroedinger's prostate. As long as nobody checks it, it is healthy and diseased at the same time.
That does it. If I ever have prostate problems later in live, I am telling everyone I have Schroedinger's prostate.
Cats needs vacations to be either alive or death at any given time...also some prostates were actually healthy until the moment these were checked to confirm the prostatelogist urologists expectation$
Just check it regularly with expert, your uncertainty of prostate will collapse its wave function and you can sleep without stress of thinking about it all the time.
But you are constantly testing while you go to the toilet, ok, it's a perhaps 3 sigma test, it's like or not open a window in the box to see the cat, lol
I am schrodingers prostate checker
Can’t help but feel it’s a bit of a situation of: “if the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail”. Did have to check the date though, as we're pretty close to April.
Close, but no cigar!
two very good points
Yeah, Monday will be awfull.
Even Penrose have some crazy quantum microtubules in the brain teory
If you really want an April fools' joke, don't look at quantum cognition, look at quantum gravity. Now that stuff is REALLY silly!
This is like a psychologist publishing a physics paper about how the double slit experiment is just an example of priming.
Best analogy
Poor guy…
Okay but this would be based, just the sheer audacity alone would be admirable
So it was all just god after all.
from a data viewpoint, literally is
This is your brain... This is your brain on quantum cognition. :Egg smashed in a hot frying pan: Any questions?
:baby chick hops around cold frying pan:
Can I have mine over-easy please? 😦
Do you believe in magic? In a young girl's heart?
Relax, everything is going to be okay!
classic haha
To be fair to your "jumping out the plane with a parachute" example of order-mattering, there is an extreme sport called "Banzai Skydiving" in which you throw your parachute out of the plane first, and then jump after it and try to grab it and put it on mid-air. So jumping first and putting the parachute on second is valid.
,,, howlue riggmaruelue,, twattay quas missing unbeknomedly ...
... but the odds do differ.
Not sure I want to know but what are the odds?
'jumping first and putting the parachute on second is valid.'
Only if you're batshit crazy.
Before or after the chute doesn’t matter, it’s before or after the ground.
@@gregoryclifford6938 so wait for the plane to safely land, then jump out of it? Clever!
When you actually make a decision, is that quantum determinism?
"Come on, make up your mind", or "come on, collapse your superthought".
You've discovered Quantum Gravity. It keeps drawing me back to watch your content.
lol 🤓
Oh yes 😂
As unpromising this sounds, i appreciate how he is willing to risk being viewed as a moron. We need a lot more people like him
I thought we already had a lot of people like that---making no attempt to hide being a moron.
Dorje brody is a heavy weight physicist, and more so than Sabine, although i am her fan..
Dorje is definitely an out of the box thinker, a rare breed even amongst the non law abiding physicists out of the imperial college theory group.. He and Carl Bender nearly solved (apart from one condition) the Riemann.. Hypothesis..
People forget emotions are chemical reactions not the chemicals themselves
What do you mean? Emotions are complex psychophysiological reactions that include both mental and physical components.
@@ailux. Exactly, and its emotional to try to reduce them into "chemical reactions". Its called rationalization, and its a defensive posture.
@@Nobody-Nowhere Well, the life itself is just a chemical reaction so..
It's how the brain interoceptively *interprets* those changes in blood chemistry which can be context sensitive for the same reactions; for example, to adrenaline which can be "positive" or "negative".
Emotions are illusions, see Quining Qualia by Daniel Dennett, see eliminative materialism, see Illusionism, see Blind Brain Theory. Our current understanding of "emotions" is wildly inaccurate and will be replaced by a much better, objective theory.
As a MSc. in Theoretical Physics who did my PhD and postdoc in computational Neuroscience I can confidently assert this is completely nuts. I also studied behavioural science as a side path later on my career.
Okay okay but hear me out ...
... it would be pretty cool right?
Theorethically...
You are wrong, see Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR.
Hilariously, I did the order of operations in the reverse of you. I started in Neuroscience and moved to theoretical* (you spelt your own degree wrong) physics
@@ExistenceUniversity But you spelled 'spelled' wrong. j/k
This surprises me. Are you suggesting that classical mechanics can fully explain all functions of the brain, including its ability to generate consciousness? I've encountered neuroscientists who suggested otherwise, leaning toward quantum mind theory to elucidate certain aspects of brain function.
Similarly, when examining sociotechnical systems, it can be beneficial to consider the application of quantum mechanics in understanding their evolution over time. This approach also aids in the design of new methodologies that better accommodate the coexistence of chaos and order within organizations.
It's fascinating how different disciplines intersect in our quest to understand the brain.
What a great first line to start your video! 😂 Amazing content as usual!
Interesting video Sabine, always like to hear your thoughts. Mr. X
Excellent video. I don’t think anyone else could have covered this video.
Oh, many people understand the paper and quantum mechanics, but few can explain it this clearly.
She´s a remarkable communicator.
Thank you for this info Sabine
Thank you for the video.
It's worth researching this in regards to adhd or autism.
A lot of times, my executive function freezes up because I can't decide the right order to do things, even though in the end it's all completely arbitrary
THANK YOU SABINE, this makes SO MUCH SENSE. like.. FINALLY, someone said it.
There is the already well known concept of priming, which seems a lot easier than trying to tack on quantum effects to explain a survey result, and is indeed one of the reasons survey options are supposed to be shown in random order. In this case, if you ask about a "good" politician first, that's going to be on the mind of the person when you ask about a "bad" one later, and viceversa, so the context of each question is different, which is why order matters.
Finally someone said this. It is kinda funny when expert physicists start theorizing about psychology without doing even basic due dilligence of reading about it first or asking their colleagues in the psychology department down the hall about it first.
Yes, but the concept of priming just provides a qualitative explanation. Here the claim is that you can predict something quantitative about the probabilities. If true, that would be a real advance.
whole issue is contrived. if you want to do comparison you ask for comparison, asking for arbitrary evaluation then changing the parameters to heuristical comparison with follow up question and act surprised when result is dependent on the order - there is no mystery there, basic cognitive mechanics, pretending otherwise is naivete or a scam
@@dinf8940But how do you get a computer to do that? Then you must ask why we would want a computer to do it. Right now, we use a-b testing but at the cost of losing some customers and no scaling (by scaling, I mean adding more than 2 options).
If your business (or political campaign) depends on accurately predicting human behavior, would you hire a sociologist or purchase a computer program?
When i see your some video on quantum physics (old video ). I thought that research in quantum physics only related to physicist. But after some video on quantum computation and this video .now i realise that this field is really interdispilinary. Or multidispilinary.
I think of superposition as an array of numbers(possibilities), and on certain circumstances reality doesn't like to do certain operations with it so it chooses a random number to work with
Thanks for supporting
Once upon a time, in a different life I was a dressage judge. The problem is that although there are certainly some basic guidelines, marking may still become subjective, and I sometimes found it hard to be fair depending on the order in which the competitors came. If there was an excellent one and then a poor one, the marks for the latter might become harsher than if the order had been the opposite.
Interesting. When I was in community college back in 2001 in phyc 101, I wrote a paper about the application of the uncertainty principle to psychology. The premise being that if you learn certain things about a person it might preclude knowledge of other things.
When I look at the double slit experiment and see how observation introduce a bias on the behavior of particles, and then look at how human perspectives introduce a bias on their experience, it's hard not to draw a connection between the two.
in Sabine words. correlation doesn't imply causation
You are all mistaking cause for effect. I will say No more.
Thanks. Interesting!
Just like asking, Do you like cheeseburgers more than chicken? (filter 1) How well do you like Cheese? (filter 2) Where would you like to eat? (filter 3)
The first 2 filters get the person thinking about food, and how hungry they are.
🙂🙃😉😄
This is something I try to tell people through philosophy (or super science for someone) for years. And even I could prove them before their eyes, they don't even understand the equation and how quantum mechanics works anyway. So having trusted source as reference is always good.
4:00 Bad example. In my culture, people eat chicken with pasta all of the time. Its called Chicken Parmesan.
i was amazed how they found that enzymes, genes and energy delivery in plants are using quantum mechanics indeed, biology are more complex than we thought.
It makes sense. Systems evolve to use natural processes to avert entropy. If a quantum process gives them that ability, it would be stranger if they didn't use it.
No, we all agree that life is very complex.
@@yurisonovab3892 so if we take example of serious alcoholic, which violates such cell processes and basically decay itself into environment, subconsciously? or maybe something broken on that level
@@fontende first. you failed to construct legible sentences.
second, the process of evolution does not work on an individual level. It is the result of a countlessly vast number of factors.
@@yurisonovab3892why is such aggression? did i found the painful callus of alcoholism in you?
Nice one. Yea I think that, in life, as well as in quanta world, contradictions and paradoxes exist quite happily despite anyone's misgivings about how they shouldn't.
I'm very interested in this, The idea that quantized maths can apply to more than one thing is interesting . . . I want to say more but also I am cautious to the point of not saying more. . .
I modeled the parachute jump example using the same math discussed in this video. Watch for my Quantum Leap paper, coming soon.
I´ll observe you😂
I think this idea is covered in NLP, the question itself is affecting the mood and person's mind space. If they are asked about the less trustworthy person first folks will still keep that in mind when thinking about the next question.
Nobody thinks of Al Gore as dishonest, but lots of people think Bill Clinton is dishonest, and everybody associated Al Gore with Bill Clinton.
So if Bill Clinton is brought up first, people will have that association in their mind when asked about Al Gore.
@@Alden_Indoway Yeah, I think it more likely that if asked about Gore first they thought about what he's been about recently but if asked after Clinton they then remembered that he was his vice president so associated him with that.
NLP is the Most unsciency movement ever existed
cars may follow they math of molecules because they both try to find the open space; it might be a leap to say that they rather not bump into each other. I cannot see why they wouldn't behave the same even if I only heard of this just now. it makes perfect sense..
1:30 this order dependence also happens in AI/LLMs and in other types of algorithms... no quantum physics required - only information and mathematics.
This^^
If saving time and brain power is the fundamental principle, like path of least resistance, it is irrattional to attempt to understand all states of superposition and it eventually leads to extinction :)
To consider whether consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, look at the transition between the waking and sleeping states. Like quantum shifts generally, we don't linger in an in-between state. We move from one state to the other in a moment, or in an instant, if we relate it to the timespan spent within one or another state.
Within neurons, tubulin molecules might be in a state of quantum juxtaposition. They might be in a relatively short, squat state, and in a longer, skinnier state simultaneously. Maybe this will affect the shape of the tube that contains ions ready to be directed to a neighboring neuron, depending on how the tube bends to come into contact with a neighbor...so that the two tubes join at their apertures to form a longer tube.
These microtubules are 'quantum-mechanical resonance chambers'. Depending on how the tubulin molecules that make up their walls bend slightly more, or less, the tube tips will come closer to this or that neighboring tube. With a constant vibration between quantum and classical states, the tubes essentially sample a multitude of possible patterns of connection, until a pattern of resonance of ions in long (connected) tube paths gains sufficient potential to overcome whatever barriers might have, up to that point, been blocking the transmission of the load of ions through a synapse to a neighboring cell.
Ok, Hammerof-Penrose. But how do you come to conscious decisions by that? It already was falsified. You find microtubuli everywhere in your body, so the stomach influences your decisions, too? Also there is a reason, why quantum computers work at very low temperatrures: decoherence! Does your brain think and decide some degrees above absolute zero?
It also opens up possibilities to relate quantum computations to macroscopic objects like people interacting.
Indeed. Soon we should be able to test whether its true or not that to even Lust for a woman in his heart, one has committed adultery. The experiment can map out the very first instance of the intent of Lust for another in say a husband's mind, while calculating the severe drop in probability of his marriage surviving into the future.
For a moment when I read the title I thought it was click bait, then I see it's not a click bait Chanel so let's watch it
I absolutely 💯% love how you breakdown a complicated subject so it's digestably understandable. Thank you!
This goes along with my formula to code heat signatures (weights) into colors then into shapes/complexeswords then use that to show how emotional patterns form and what they will form into (Personality traits and constitutions). From there we can cure Schizophrenia.
I love this show. It's hysterically funny, in a dry, inside private jokey sort of way that, if you are a regular watcher, the jokes makes sense and really funny! That's a talent, to create comedy that is complex and subtle. Which is how I view this show. The educational content mixed with the wry humor is great on it's own, but add biting commentary and criticism to a peer's scientific paper in the mix is a feat that few do well, if at all.
Normally, if I planned something the day before yesterday but it has a longer street and then coincides with something passing by, it is canceled or not depending on our importance or priority! There is also an order of the movement on a large scale, whether we are aware of it or not, then we wonder why!
The author used really bad analogy as Sabine pointed out.
But here is something else to think about. Why do some people display rational behavior and others not? If it was all just quantum effects certainly all people would display quantum irrationality.
Sounds to me like a thing people will use as an excuse for their bad behavior, like "I didn't want to cheat, it just happened because quantum brain".
I'm sure there is a string theory that can describe the human cognition. (+/- pretty sure error margin)
All without once mentioning the words "non commutative"
I can confirm that a quantum of my cognition can either not be found, or I have no idea where it's going.
Misleading it is, I have to admit, and mesmerizing, literally.
I always thought irrational decisions would be very simple to explain, because fundamentally they don't exist. If an ai gives "irrational" advice, the advice is actually rational, because based on how it is computed, the outcome is exactly what it should be and therefore rational, even though the advice is incredible counterproductive and bad. I think the same can be applied to humans.
I don't think we have the same definition of "rational". If you teach AI to be irrational, that doesn't make it's responses rational. What is rational is why it is producing irrational responses, but those responses are not rational.
This video has the best jokes; it gets the reward of a "like". Is there a scientific relationship between talking about cognition and better jokes? Bonus for "quantum healing": ooh, that sounds' New Age-y. The only thing missing is a phone call. If the phone did ring, who would it most likely be?
Ah, but because we couldn't see or hear it, we have to assume it both did and didn't ring.
the polarisation problem IMO can be explaines with hidden variables contrary to what is the general physicists opinion. would love to discuss this seriously once..
So, at the end it does seem like Quantum Cognition is very similar to Quantum Healing. Thanks for helping the quantum hype going.
i have always assumed that random ideas and decisions probably were in part due to quantum superposition. If you are equally likely to make Choice A as you are Choice B, a single electron could choose for you by way of probabilistic super position.
No it can´t, there´s a scale seperation between it, decoherence prevents it. There´s a reason, why quantum computers work at very low temperetures only.
@@Thomas-gk42 how does decoherence prevent it? If the the firing of a neuron is dependent on the state of an electron, and it creates a cascade effect to Choice A, or none firing cascades to choice B. Decoherence is part of the process that determine the state of the electron.
Assuming the assumptions of the OP, decoherence is not an argument against, it is an argument for.
@@yziib3578Of course quantum effects have influence on biology and physiology on a submolecule level, but it´s more than unlikely, that it influences our decisions even if it has a cascade effect. There are billions of billions of synapses in our brain, and the different quantum effects will cancel each other out, otherwise the butterfly effect would dominate the world. Scale seperation works efficient, as in an atom, where forces inside a stable nucleus have no strong influence on what happens in the shell.
That title is definitely something that would never have occurred to me to even ask.
Forcing people to "open the box" influences the decision based on the quickest solution for the individual which brings the most comfort emotionally without any feeling of doing a moral injustice. It isn't clear whether two groups were used in the experiment or whether the same question was asked twice but in a different order to the same group. Thus levels of trust/mistrust leveled down. Reconsideration took into account how they came to the first answer and whether they felt it to be a fair assessment based on whatever information/experience each one asked might have possessed what their parents told them they should do and many other things they may have had no time to take into account when first asked. It simply reflects the mind's heuristic processes. I'd, like to see an extra level to the experiment in which each was told to give their answer quickly and then having answered asked to think about it again carefully, then presented with the different order, and the same process repeated. Then I'd like to see it done with a three-way paired combinations of Morgan Freeman, David Attenborough, and the Pope!
I wish I understood Nature as well as you, Sabine. Thank you for taking the time to explain what you know and what you think you know as clearly as you do. You are truly a perspicacious and perspicuous science communicator. It helps that you’re an actual theoretical physicist and only moonlight as a RUclipsr. I’m also a closeted believer in super determinism 🤫… EPA will yet be vindicated, or not…
The filter ordering implies that all light has a particular orientation, like spin. Is there an anti-light where a different filter order works?
Nothing like starting the afternoon with a quantum cocktail of cognition.😊
I encourage you to look up Videos on "quantum game theory" where the presenters are flabbergasted when audience members ask how you can actually achieve a superpositioned move outside of theoretical description
What if quantum effects are not properties of the particles of reality but of the observer? What simulated telescope could have resolution to see what simulates it?
The fault my dear Brutus is not in the stars, but in ourselves. - Garak (Quoting Shakespeare)
Philosophically, that seems the simplest and least problematic interpretation of quantum mechanics/theory.
thanks you
„Irrationality“ stems from the circumstance that our brain receives limited information, which is then processed heuristically. That’s where all the biases come from, that’s why our emotions have much more power than we want them to have, that’s why we don’t have a rational explanation for every decision we make.
Reminds me of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose (1994)
You should have mentioned Roger Penrose in this presentation. Maybe in a separation, discuss his quantum-mind theory.
Yah glad you brought it up- Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR). Also Stuart Hameroff's idea that the effect was taking place in the microtubules.
Why do all the philosophers and neuroscientists seem to assume that the brain can only be deterministic or fully agentic? And never really seem to bring up that it might be a combination/dance of agentic and deterministic systems?
compatibaism?
I don't think this is what Compatiblism proposes, but I also don't understand what Dan Dennet is talking about at all.
Because if there's any agency, it would then have to factor into the deterministic, making all that results from that agency itself agentic. In other words, if you have a little free will, that adjusts the feedback loops that are deterministic, meaning that, ultimately, all choices are a result of the changes imposed by the free will.
Quantum is interesting because it allows us to move from pure deterministic to probabilistic, without losing the causal relationship theory that is at the base of all science.
@sproo No. You are confusing agency/free will for omnipotence. Sam Harris, is that you?
@@vagabondcaleb8915 Not at all. Remember that determinism is based on the results from the ENTIRETY of the situation. If you've made a decision based on free will, any decision, that decision then affects not only your activity in the deterministic world, but also the physical state of your mind -- you get more neurotransmitters toward being happy, upset, or whatever your decision was. (For example, remember that studies have shown you can improve your mood by simply smiling for a minute or two.) Because of this, the deterministic portions of your cognition have now been affected by your free will, meaning that they too, are essentially driven by that free will, just perhaps not as directly.
Monty Python: "MY BRAIN HURTS"
Ah, it's a well know business axiom that you can only choose 2 out of these 3 properties in a business process, "accurate / fast / good."
This is like the Heisenberg’s principle where you can only measure position OR momentum, not both, and to be more accurate in either measurements, you need to increase the resolution and energy of your process & sensor.
I once saw paper where someone calculated insurance fees using Einsteins relativity, so why not?
no one should immediately trust their opinion without challenging it with thought.
This true - but from an evolutionary perspective, it’s not efficient. I suspect survival goes to those who are best at instinctively (whatever that means) knowing when to trust their opinion and when it needs some revision of priors.
i agree. i'm just trying to be a better thinker.@@almac4067
Also just rotating an object on its 3 axis one at a time don't yield the same result if you proceed in different order.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this approach be the same as just using statistical models to study human behavior with extra steps? What does the concept of wavefunction collapse really add to the cognitive theory? A decision in the cognitive science can simply be called a sample from a probability space, we only NEED to call it a collapse in physics. I mean I don't see the advantage of applying QM nomenclature to cognitive processes. (PS: I don't see any references in the description can someone please share a link?) (PPS: I was kind of hoping this video was about penrose-hameroff microtubule based quantum consciousness!)
When 'Logic' is mentioned, it always reminds me of Einstein, and his own logic.
You start with removing all physical objects from space 'De Sitter Space', and then replace one object, and say, 'Mass bends Space/Time'...which is a circular argument and no 'Time' since you need two or more objects to measure with 'Time'.
Hi, I got a reply from a 'Real Telegram Wave-function' that wanted to 'Discuss' with this collapsing 'Wave Function'...
...I guess making quantum measurement on receipt....?
Your guess as good as mine :)
Order of Operations: 1) Put 2 slices of bread together 2) Put peanut buttet on one side 3) Put jelly on the other 4) set sandwich down on the particle accellerator while you tighten a nut.
Wow, physicist finally discovered Behavioral Economics... To bad Daniel Kahneman already won a Nobel prize for discovering this already. Interesting that they are applying new mathematical models to the concepts, that's exciting.
I would follow the path you were exploring about energy preservation if you are interested in decision making and irrationality. As humans, we are "cognitive misers", in that we want to preserve energy in mental processing. The outside world is overwhelmingly complex and we can't assign enough mental resources to perceive and judge everything fairly -- there's just too much data. So we use mental shortcuts simplify that which is complicated. This, however, leads to the predictable logical fallacies that you will read about in any critical thinking teaching module.
I'd love to see Sabine's take on the stance of Federico Faggin in his book "Irreducible" (actually out now in Italian, but out on June 1st in English afaik). In the book the topic of using quantum mathematical tools to try and pick at free will and consciousness is discussed at length, sometimes (I feel) bordering on the religious and philosophical, and I'm having a good hard time reading it...
Opinions on politicians are a subjective quantity - yes the first question sets the baseline for the subjectivity.
To equate these things suggests that the motion of light is subjective.
4:13 yes this makes sense but youd do similarly with any probability based calculation where the outcome is uncertain but weighted by known probabilities.
Problem with superposition of decisions is that reduction of the respective wave function is not caused by measurement, it just happens at unpredictable time. We need to add a little bit of nuclear cognition - half-life of the decision reduction.
The factored wave content decides it's own disposition, by.dependency to the apron of time compression, and its' 'prime lineage.
Unknown and incomplete lepticons can become decepticons before valid rehabilitation, but only by falling on the patent thread and being absorbed, with the appropriate structured discipline.
I had heard that some people think there may be some quantum processes in the brain that make it all work beyond the chemistry. So there may be some quantum effect in decision making. Too bad the most random two digit number is 37 followed by 73, suggesting that we aren't completely quantum, otherwise, we might be better at making random choices.
Well. It's because there's a feeling component to that choice which informs us that that is a good.. reasonable choice. It's just that reason doesn't actually help in this goal. Here have a 40.
If they do exist, those quantum processes would be coexisting with chemistry based processes. Which means that it wouldn't imply we are solely chaotic systems, but more of a layered systems with both unpredictable and predictable operations, mutually influencing each other.
When asking someone to give a random number between 1-100, there is logic involved simply due to the requirement of finding a number that we consider random. There is also a psychosocial layer to this experiment.
If I ask you to think of a random number, the one you provide might never be fully random but more likely influenced by your past (for example having watched a video about the number 37 recently, which might then prompt you to select a different number, thinking that this might not be random "enough".) But maybe deep down you had access to a different number that was actually random, but remained stuck in your subconscious.
That does not mean our brains aren't based on quantum processes, only that we might not have access to those in an intentional and conscious manner.
2:26 "If you put the vertical filter first, then that doesn't matter." But the vertical filter was already first. She means "If you put the diagonal filter last." This makes sense, as no light reaches it.
The partition function applies. The population of brains are in the ground state is much higher than the population of brains in excited states.
Assuming this is a good representation of the study, I feel like the researchers are demonstrating their own lack of rational thinking, rather than the participants. To assume that any of them "disagree with themselves" is to assume they had a consistent value mapped onto the percentages of "honesty". That's not a good assumption for any measurement of subjective perceptions.
This stretch is so big it became a 1-atom-thick sheet
There is some study being done on how plants may be using quantum physics in the photo synthesis process. Why not the brain too.
It is possible to model the “irrationality” using neural networks. No need to borrow from QM.
I remember being at a small conference about 30 years ago (as an undergrad) where Roger Penrose stormed out of a panel discussion in disgust due to a Biologist on the panel making poorly constructed arguments for neurons behaving quantum mechanically :) I guess there's nothing new under the sun :D :D
This reminds me a bit of a book from 1991 called the Quantum Self by Danah Zohar. The only thing i remember about it is that people's decision were random (so sometimes would make sense, but sometimes not) but following the random decision the brain would go to great lengths to rationalize/justify the decision. Didn't make me a believer, but did explain a whole lot of stupid or just-pick-one decisions I've made, and it was nice to blame my idiocy on some perverse physics and the Bose-Einstein condensate that is in my brain (or so I read) so that was worth the price of the book and saved a ton 'o money on therapy. This quantum consciousness and quantum brain stuff has been around for decades, altho I'm not sure ever published with logic equations before, but I could well be wrong there. (My book topic interests shifted so I haven't kept up on my lay science and metaphysics collections. And now I feel like a dinosaur for even having hardcopy books, but I'll be laughing when the internet goes down in the next pandemic.)
Causal determinism, Sabine. No two ways about it.
Thank you, always very interesting. But regarding the editing. All the pauses between sentennces are now removed. This has led to a staccato type effect, and it degrades one's ability to absorb what's being said and to comprehend it. Isn't it better to leave slight pauses between phrases? All the best communicators to do it.
A common belief is that answering “yes” several times in a row increases the likelihood that people will answer “yes” to the next question. It is also said that if people are asked to name "even" and "odd" at random, they will change "even" to "odd" with a probability greater than 50%.
Probably all this can be described using a similar theory.
My question is how this theory can be used, if we exclude the option of conducting falsified sociological surveys, which are easy to obtain without such a theory..
A lot of physicists hate this idea but it would probably be a good idea to study if it may be some kind of deterministic parameter
One could as easily use quaternion math as the reason as why order of operation matters.
TANZVERBOT
I've got quantum piles, you see
No rippling on Good Friday
Schrödinger’s cat is on the mat
Half live, half gone, in piles it sat
This idea seems to follow the inevitable comparison of our brains to whatever the newest technological breakthrough is, once it was compared to a machine in the industrial revolution, then a calculator, a television, a computer, etc. It's only fitting it's now bringing quantum comparisons on the way to "understanding" the human brain. Which we aren't anywhere close to, IMO.
Human cognition is a dynamically variable system combining logic and emotion. Expecting a rational result is irrational.
This is why Economics fails because one of its fundamental assumptions is that human economic decisions are rational. At the individual level, reason barely enters into decision-making; affordability often gives way to desire and greed, hence credit card debt. At the national level, decision-making gives way to party policy driven by political beliefs moderated by self-interests of both donors and individual politicians.
But psychology is actually a huge part of economics lectures.
@kazioo2 That's as maybe, but it does not filter into economic theories OR into government action. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't teach it to figure change from a £.
Good video
4:06 it’s not in 2 states simultaneously but the one state has an outcome that isn’t in a predictable in just one way. All of reality and the potentials of the unreal are in constant fluctuation so reality and unreal are in superposition when you think on it. Reality expands sharing the unreal because the unreal isn’t unreal just a different shape currently. Imagine if i said a tree was a chair, not currently but it’s a shared potential, not 2 at once.
A criterion for determining whether a system must be described by quantum Mechanics: If the product of a typical mass (m), speed (v), and distance (d) for the particles of the system is on the order of Planck’s constant (h) or less, then you cannot use classical mechanics to describe it but must use quantum mechanics.
Taking the typical mass of a neural transmitter molecule (m=^-22kg), its speed based thermal motion (v=10m/s), and the distance across the synapse (d=10^-9m) and found that mvd =1700h, more than 3 orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be necessarily present. This makes it very unlikely that quantum mechanics plays any direct role in normal thought processing.
Synaptic chemical transmission between neurons is completely classical. If the quantum computations are “isolated in microtubules within the neurons,” then how do they have any affect the neurological processes that carry out cognition? Those processes are essentially interactions between neurons.
its not order dependence as much as context dependence, the second question has a context the first one doesn't, they are answering the question with the implicit context of the person being in a set of 2, and to an extent a set of politicians, americans, etc, trustworthyness is inherently relative and humans only think relativisticly, it's one of the things that makes us so adaptable to different environments and it helps us make decisions which is the only purpose of our logic, and decisions are always relative comparisons.
There is nothing illogical about the difference in rankings in that opening example, it makes perfect sense, if you repeat the experiment but give the participants a contextual framework first, even if you don't mention the second person at all until after asking about the first, you will get less of a difference. the remaining difference would be due to peoples imperfect ability to ignore context, since u are asking them to counter act their semi-unconscious context filtering to a small extent.
But the context is the order. So that's kind of saying the same thing. (Though I'll agree, for that particular example, yours is the most accurate.)
In boolean logic, A => B is unrelated to B => A.
But in bayesian logic, we can calculate A => B from B => A.
Suppose that tigers have stripes, and we see an animal with stripes.
Mathematically, it's not always a tiger. But statistically, the stripes increase the chances.
That's why statisticians live longer than mathematicians !