Justin Riddle on Quantum Biology + Consciousness

In episode 5 of Quantum Consciousness, Justin Riddle answers the question, what is a digital computer? An understanding of how digital computers work is essential to discussing consciousness. Fundamental to the digital computer is the creation of solid states within a universe teeming with quantum fluctuations. Topics for today: Alan Turing's model of a computer, David Marr's three levels of analysis of information processing, the creation and maintenance of solid-states, how digital computation highlights the measurement principle of quantum mechanics, logic gates within central processing units, de-mystifying computer software, and the limitations of automation.

0:00 Introduction & recap
2:05 Why study digital computers?
4:27 The Turing Machine
5:46 David Marr's three levels of analysis
7:09 Digital computers are physical
11:44 Transistors & error-correction
18:52 Measurement in digital computers
23:13 Central Processing Unit
27:45 De-mystifying the digital computer
36:22 Jobs safe from automation
40:55 Summary & outro

In episode 6 of Quantum Consciousness, Justin Riddle explores the nature of quantum computers and compares their function to digital computers. How does quantum computation vastly outperform digital computation? Why is digital computation still required? Can quantum computers run exponentially large search algorithms in polynomial time? Will we have to merge our conscious minds with our technology to keep up with it?

0:00 Introduction & Recap
2:12 You are a quantum computer
5:03 Digital Interface
8:33 Quantum Coherence
11:40 Goal is a large single wave function
18:15 Universal Quantum Simulation
22:42 Run times and Computability
29:30 Can q-computers run exponential search?
34:20 Future applications of q-computers
35:52 The Self through Quantum Coherence
39:25 Building quantum computers
44:08 The Singularity is Near
50:35 Outro

=-=-=




=-=-=

In episode 10 of the Quantum Consciousness series, Justin Riddle explains that mathematics does not have a firm foundation in first order logic. While it seems intuitive that mathematics should be able to be described by simple principles, there is no simple way to explain how humans can comprehend mathematics. What happens when we try to use first order logic to explain how first order logic works? Well, we run into paradox: situations that are impossible to resolve and do not make any sense. For example, take the liar’s paradox, “this sentence is false.” There is no way to make sense of this sentence, because it leads to paradox. The content of the sentence is not supposed to refer to the truth value of the statement itself. Similarly, you cannot use first order logic to refer to the truth value of first order logic itself. Sets cannot describe sets (Bertrand Russell’s set paradox). And most dramatically, digital computers cannot even describe digital computers (Alan Turing’s halting problem). All of this leads Roger Penrose to conclude that “humans are not using a knowably sound algorithm to ascertain mathematical truth.” While we can understand things and learn mathematics, it’s really not clear how this is possible and something more than digital computers are required! Quantum mechanics offers a novel lens to this problem as the first order logic that appears in particles also has a supervening wavefunction that does not appear to follow the rules of first order logic. I don’t have the answer for you, but I sure have a lot of questions for you to consider!

0:00 Introduction
2:20 Types of knowledge
4:15 First Order Logic
7:57 Foundation Crisis
10:57 Gödel’s Incompleteness
13:08 Paradox
15:56 The Halting Problem
23:30 Roger Penrose’s Noncomputation
24:20 Particles ruled by waves

[Laird]

I'd not heard the term "Trialist" before. Is this what you mean by it?

I'll watch these videos at some point and see if I do have any insight to share.

I've now watched all the videos you've posted in this thread, @Sciborg_S_Patel.

First, re "trialism":

Justin himself uses that term in a couple of the videos, so that's likely where you heard it.

As he uses it, it seems essentially identical to my own basic ontology, as I summarised it in an earlier post, except that he calls the third element "Platonic" whereas I call it "conceptual" - both seem to refer to the same idea.

His frequent mappings of various other domains (than basic ontology) onto this triad is interesting and quite creative.

Second, re the series as a whole:

I began with the understanding that he was building a case for a specific explanation or framework of consciousness, but realised at some point - when he effectively said as much - that he doesn't have one himself, and seems instead to just be more broadly opening the door for quantum mechanics to have a primary role in such an explanation or framework. That was a little disappointing, but his videos have anyway been very interesting. I'm not sure though that I'll watch the thirty that you haven't yet posted. Perhaps if you continue drip-feeding them, I'll watch them as you post them.

Third, given the above, the best nuggets I got out of his broad door-opening were:

a) The idea that quantum phenomena can better map to consciousness than can classical phenomena, in particular that the unity of the self could have something to do with the unity of a quantum wave function.

b) Oh dear: I had another one but have now forgotten it - it was in a later episode though, and had something to do with framing quantum phenomena against physical phenomena to stress their similarity to mental phenomena.

Fourth and finally: although the door-opening is interesting and welcome, I think that @nbtruthman summed up the fatal case against quantum phenonema literally being consciousness pretty well in this post.

Fourth and finally: although the door-opening is interesting and welcome, I think that @nbtruthman summed up the fatal case against quantum phenonema literally being consciousness pretty well in this post.

Well I would agree on that, no structure - whether stochastic or Planck level - can really *be* consciousness.

But, nevertheless, it seems structure is intimately wedded with consciousness in this reality and seemingly in some other ones.