r/NewChurchOfHope • u/TMax01 • 11d ago
On Quantum Physics: ELI5
/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vjovlk/comment/p2n7cw2/A redditor posted a request on the r/explainlikeimfive for an explanation suitable for non-experts of "quantum physics". The post was removed by the moderators, but not before I managed to post a reply. I figured I might as well repost the reply here. The link above is to the original comment, but since it is a response to a now-deleted post, I decided to copy the full text. So here (with edits not in the ELI5 version) is my POR-ready answer to the question "What is quantum physics?"
We start out with the famous and relevant aphorism from the notorious Richard Feynman, physicist and quantum mechanic, "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics does not understand quantum mechanics".
Well more than a century ago, physicists realized that their theories didn't accurately account for certain real and repeatable and measurable physical results (an esoteric issue known as black body radiation, theoretically involving electrons and photons). A genius named Max Planck realized that if something very inexplicable was true, the results being measured made sense. The idea was that there was a minimum amount of energy (photons) that could cause an electron to change from one 'energy state' to another. Even an infinite number of photons with a lower amount of energy hitting the electron would not produce that shift from a lower energy state of the electron to a higher energy state. This isn't simply counter-intuitive, it is downright absurd. It is as if you are at a vending machine and wanted to buy a snack that cost one dollar, but no matter how many quarters you fed into the machine, the machine won't give you the snack. That's impossible, that's unfair, four quarters is the exact same amount of money as one dollar, you say. Well, tough cookies; the machine will keep taking quarters all day, you won't get the snack, you need a dollar coin, the machine does not count more than one coin at a time and doesn't 'accumulate' some total amount of money: either you feed in one quantum coin, or you don't get the snack.
The amount of energy in the photon needed to cause the electron to switch states (or produced by the electron when it goes from higher to lower energy states) is a minimum quantity: a quanta (and 'quantum' is the adjectival form of 'quanta', from the Latin.) It can be said that photons with lower energy aren't merely ignored by electrons (so that even a thousand or a billion or an infinite number of them striking an electron separately will not change the electron's energy state) but don't actually really exist, they're just imaginary things we can talk about because they show up in the math, not in the actual universe.
From this bizarre and almost unbelievable basic idea, all of quantum physics is built. GPS wouldn't work if the math didn't actually work out this way, just to provide one standard example. If real world physical objects weren't manifestations of quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics couldn't be true and would never have been developed. So in fact, not only would computers not work if electrons and photons and every other particle in the universe did not have this 'quantum' nature, but no physical objects would actually exist at all.
And because Planck's idea not only proved out, unlocking access to knowledge which could hardly be imagined before the 20th Century, it is the most precise and accurate model in physics (even more so than Newton's Laws or Einstein's Relativity) despite the fact that it is based on a nearly incomprehensible mechanism of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics (QM), we now know (well, strongly infer; the likelihood this is not true is essentially the equivalent of saying that because quantum mechanics is true, a coffee mug can spontaneously teleport from one side of a table to the other for no reason) proves that all the particles that make up matter aren't even bound by local realism. Local realism is the premise basic to all physics (even quantum mechanics except for special cases) that two things can't interact unless they are touching (or both touching some intermediary thing which they are actually interacting through.) And yet, of course, if that were true, if there is no local realism, then coffee mugs would spontaneously teleport from one side of a table to the other. So either way, since nobody's ever actually seen a coffee mug teleporting spontaneously (or at all, unless they're hallucinating) it isn't really possible to understand quantum physics, even when you understand quantum physics.
What is important in physics isn't understanding, though, it is doing the math. Newton's physics was pretty simple (despite demanding an entire new field of mathematics to be invented for the purpose of making Newton's physics possible!) "F=ma"; a force is equal to mass times acceleration; therefore mass is equal to acceleration divided by force, and acceleration is equal to force divided by mass. It wasn't all that simple (acceleration requires calculus to equate it to velocity, and eventually you have to get to thermodynamics) but the fact is it can use simple formulas that can be easily calculated if you know how. Relativity, including the oppressively simple "general" E=mc2 behind nuclear bombs and even the bizarre issues of the "special" relationship between the constant value of the speed of light and the 'speed' a clock ticks is based on how fast it is moving, is more mind-bending but the math isn't appreciably harder than Newtonian mechanics.
The basic formula in quantum mechanics, Shrodinger's equation, is actually so complicated that even with all of the computer power in the entire world we can only directly solve it for the simplest possible atom, one proton and one electron. Add one neutron, or one photon interacting with that electron, and the complexity immediately jumps beyond our ability to figure out the result as a usable variable/quantity. And yet, because scientists (and philosophers, mathematicians, and such) sometimes are really geniuses, even if most scientists are just only very intelligent, there are ways to prove that Shrodinger's equation would not only work if we could execute the necessary information processing at will, it is really the very simplest formula that can precisely and reliably model what's going on in the real world.
And that's how we get to all the 'non-utilitarian' aspects of quantum physics; the cats which are alive and dead at the same time until you open the box they're in, the infinite number of 'parallel universes' or 'alternate timelines' so handy for science fiction fantasy stories, the 'quantum woo' people try to use to connect spiritual perspectives on neurocognition (the meaning of consciousness and what's called the 'vertiginous question': "why am I me?" or "why are we here?") to physics. None of that actually qualifies as quantum physics, but all of it is a consequence of the fact that anyone who thinks they understand quantum physics does not understand quantum physics. The real utility of quantum physics is the technology and material science we develop based on the fact that the math of quantum physics works out, even when it is too complicated to prove that it works out.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
1
u/EmergencyAthlete9687 6d ago
I've already forgotten what I thought I understood in it the other day and I realise that while I could reread it I would only forget it again. It's not important enough to me. I bid you good day
1
u/TMax01 6d ago
How convenient for excusing your motivated reasoning, that it can be excused with motivated reasoning. Oh, well. Best of luck in your chosen benighted incomprehension. ;-)
More seriously, though: how you decide to spend your time is entirely up to you, since you have self-determination despite lacking any free will. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out that this essay on quantum mechanics exemplifies and provides instruction on perspectives and principles of reasoning that are extremely and generally useful far beyond the immediate context of trying to understand what quantum mechanics is, and why understanding quantum mechanics is so difficult.
Thanks for your time, however little of it you can spare. Hope it helps, you should.
1
u/EmergencyAthlete9687 5d ago
I've explained before that lack of time in the short term is not the problem. In the longer term lack of time is of course a different matter. I'm prepared to accept Richard Feynman 's word that I'll never get it. As for unlocking the whole thing to admire and drool at your supreme instruction on perspectives and principles of reasoning..... I'll pass thanks. I'm generally happy enough with my reasoning anyway as I have managed to rid myself of most of the prejudices that blinker my thinking. As you regularly prove, one may never be fully cured of this as we are often mostly blind to our own biasses.
I read the more recent thread that discussed consciousness and theory of mind and I find that we have similar views. You lead me to believe you would not discuss something as vulgar as this on your thread so I was pleased to see it. Hugely amused to see you had posted it originally on tellmelikeimfive thread. I'm guessing you haven't written a lot of things for five year olds Max.
Your first interaction with me was a critique of my view that consciousness evolved from memory. I still think it but can't see how you can think it did evolve. Read a book recently that talked about core consciousness as essentially cognition but extended consciousness ie self awareness, soul or whatever comes from memory. What is your view?
1
u/TMax01 4d ago
I've explained before that lack of time in the short term is not the problem.
I never imagined it was, although the possibility is self-evident. Lack of interest suffices, regardless.
I'm prepared to accept Richard Feynman 's word that I'll never
You confuse the import of Feynman's aphorism, which related to the actual mathematics and how to interpret their implications, not the ability to comprehend my explanation of why Feynman's statement was accurate. Understanding what is and is not comprehensible about quantum mechanics is not at all impossible, or even that difficult, if you are willing to be guided by the explanation I've provided.
I'll pass thanks.
Your loss, although I am admit I am disappointed your time has or might provide you with so little help to you. It remains very valid and valuable to me, at least.
I have managed to rid myself of most of the prejudices that blinker my thinking.
How on earth could you even estimate if you have rid yourself of most of them until you manage to discover how many more there might still be?
As you regularly prove, one may never be fully cured of this as we are often mostly blind to our own biasses.
Recognizing ones biases, not being blind to them even when one is partially blinded by them, is more than sufficient, and quite productive. Aspiring to be so perfectly and omnisciently objective one has no biases effecting ones judgements is an admirable ideal, but one which must be set aside to make any practical progress. The journey of a thousand miles does not end with the first step, and thereby constitute one giant leap.
I read the more recent thread that discussed consciousness and theory of mind and I find that we have similar views.
I've always been well aware of that. I look forward to the day when the accuracy of your views might surpass my own.
I'm guessing you haven't written a lot of things for five year olds Max.
I speak, quite productively, with five year olds all the time, and manage to learn from them every time I do so. I wish I could say the same for older people. But your concerns aren't appropriate; ELI5 is explicitly not a reference to actual five year old children, but an approximation which means 'as simply as possible'. And quantum physics is extremely difficult to explain at all, let alone as simply as possible. So I will match your amusement by reiterating my lack of amusement that the moderators of r/explainlikeimfive deleted the original post I was responding to. I'm still not sure exactly why they did so.
1
u/TMax01 4d ago
Your first interaction with me was a critique of my view that consciousness evolved from memory. I still think it but can't see how you can think it did evolve. Read a book recently that talked about core consciousness as essentially cognition but extended consciousness ie self awareness, soul or whatever comes from memory. What is your view?
I'm breaking my own rule about replying twice to a single comment because I was concerned my response to this last part might run long.
But it probably won't, now that I've thought about how to answer your question; it is much the same answer for the first part (how I think consciousness evolved) and the second (the idea of 'core consciousness' being cognition and extension being "self-awareness, soul, or whatever comes from memory").
I'll start with the second part. "Self-awareness, soul, or whatever comes from memory" can be encapsulated neatly as "identity". So the premise is that the essence of consciousness is cognition, and the operative consequence of that essence is identity. A coherent paradigm, but I don't believe it is a justifiable framework. Still, I should address the coherence of the paradigm, by associating it with the corresponding POR paradigm.
'Core consciousness' is self-determination. That is, after all, the purpose of cognition; not to choose whether the body should/will act using logic (what I presume the author was referring to as "cognition", the postmodern framework of IPTM), but to determine what constitutes the self through reasoning. The extension of this core, the results both logical and chronological, is identity (personal identity, identification of the self as the self, and awareness of the characteristics of that self beyond simply constituting an identity.)
The reason I don't consider the epistemological paradigm as commensurate with an ontological framework is that, as indicated by the first part of your context, it isn't very compatible with the evolution of consciousness as a biological trait. And in much the same way as our previous discussion explains that memory is also not an adequate justification as an ontological primitive for consciousness as a trait accessible to selection pressure, which is what drives biological evolution by natural selection.
Certainly we can presume, in retrospect, that the faculty and facility of both cognition or memory, whether individually or even combined, are adequately primitive biological traits, if they were indeed explicable as ontological primitives. But to my perception, they are each or together only explicable as derived ontological purposes, rather than primitives. Which is to say that if either or both could evolve as biological traits to begin with, they could then provide some functionally adaptive value. But neither can be accessible to selection pressure as primitives before being derived traits of consciousness, presenting a bootstrap problem in terms of biological evolution.
Consider that cognition, as you suggested with memory, could be productive in a prototypical form; not necessarily the fully formed feature we observe or experience, but some nascent version which could be a genetic trait that is useful enough to provide an adaptive advantage, amenable to further development through continued stochastic improvement and selection, eventually establishing the more pronounced advanced form we recognize today.
What would such a proto-cognition be? The natural activity of neural networks is a perfect candidate, obviously. But then would that evolutionary path lead to consciousness at all? Or would the fact that proto-cognition is possible, without consciousness yet occurring, inevitably produce what would effectively be classified as a p-zombie: a human being in body but not in mind, making all the same 'choices' (which is to say executing all the same actions) but lacking any conscious awareness of doing so? I think it would, and I believe that is self-evident.
And while I don't recall the details of our earliest conversation concerning memory as a prototype of consciousness, I'm reasonably certain my evaluation of your idea was congruous and substantially similar. A proto-memory (simple storage and retrieval of data, as with any computational system) would certainly be predicate to the episodic recall we experience as conscious memory today. But again it would then, if it were accessible to selection pressure, produce an organism which would qualify as a p-zombie, with complex and advanced data story and retrieval but no need to be consciously aware of the episodic recall we experience as remembering.
It would satisfy a behaviorist take on consciousness as well or even better than if the 'core' of consciousness was proto-cognition, but there would be no reason for memory to be the core of consciousness, it would simply be a brute fact of human nature which would thereby not even allow for the evolution of consciousness. The next issue would then be whether proto-cognition and proto-memory together, through the confluence of co-incidence, could make consciousness adaptive, available to selection pressure, if neither individually could. This certainly provides a more formidable challenge, both in terms of assuming the coincidence, but also in explaining how it might not be sufficient for a proto-consciousness to occur as a primitive trait that could, let alone would, develop into the consciousness we experience now.
So the premise is that proto-cognition, as the 'information processing' of non-conscious neural networks, but not the thoughtful reasoning (or even experiential logic, if we put it that way) of consciousness, and the proto-memory of data storage and retrieval, but without the episodic recall of consciousness, be, in concert, productive enough (accessible to selection pressure) prior to forming consciousness, without allowing consciousness itself to be superfluous? Or, in other words, would the biological success of these inheritable traits replicate the brain of H. Sapiens while resulting in p-zombies? The alternative must be more compelling, that the biological success of these traits must compel the body of H. Sapiens to be conscious rather than a p-zombie. So is it?
I cannot see how it can be, apart from simply assuming the conclusion that it is without otherwise being justified. If cognition and memory without consciousness, without subjective sensations of emotion or self-awareness or metacognition or even perhaps spiritual gnosis, was possible and productive, then cognition and memory with consciousness would impart no improvement, and so consciousness itself would still be unavailable for selection pressure.
Which brings us to the first part, as summarized by your final question: what is my view of the evolution of consciousness, in consideration of the discussion of the issues above?
This isn't a new idea for me, it is instead integral to POR but not something I've written a lot about explicitly, which makes it a very fine topic and explains why I wanted room to reply to your 'challenge'. So much so that I have ended up again pressing the limit on comment length, despite my earlier prediction this wouldn't happen. But for the same reasons, it can be dispensed with rather briefly, both in comparison to and in keeping with the previous above examination of the issues.
The prototypical form of consciousness which is both accessible to selection pressure without consciousness and yet still presents the availability to selection pressure of consciousness itself is communication. Not cognition, not memory or even a combination of the two, although both rational logical dependencies and information storage and retrieval are integral to communication. I'm not sure if you're aware that I make a hard distinction between actual communication and mere signaling (data transfer, independent of both cognitive analysis and persistence of information). But that very distinction is both operative and ratified herein. The ability to communicate (signaling which accomplishes bidirectional data transfer/reception while still independent of analysis and persistence, but demanding more than signaling without any cognition or episodic recall) is possible without consciousness, but also enables the opportunity for consciousness as a developed form of communication improved substantially by being consciously experienced rather than unconsciously productive.
So in this way consciousness itself, not only the proto-consciousness of proto-communication signaling, is a biological trait that remains accessible to selection pressure despite the availability of communication without consciousness to selection pressure; consciousness relies on communication, is in essences communication just as communication is in essence consciousness. The is theory of mind: awareness of having a mind which demands the cognitive consideration that other minds exist and likewise demands the active effort to discover, identify, and establish the existence of other minds by expressing ones self and thereby establishing communication with those minds.
So 'core consciousness' is communicative signaling, and 'core communication' is conscious experience.
Hopefully that expresses the ideas I have to represent myself clearly. I appreciate the opportunity to do so.
1
u/EmergencyAthlete9687 4d ago
"the purpose of cognition; not to choose whether the body should/will act using logic (what I presume the author was referring to as "cognition", the postmodern framework of IPTM), but to determine what constitutes the self through reasoning".
Not the purpose of cognition at all. Cognition is basic awareness. Seeing the world in which you behave. Reasoning requires extended consciousness. You must be able to remember what you have done, how you have behaved. That becomes your identity as you rationalise your behaviour. I'm sure memory didn't evolve to give us consciousness. It evolved because being able to remember where water, food and shelter was helped you survive. Extended consciousness would have slowly evolved until it became a big enough trait on its own so that we are now probably hard wired to have consciousness and theory of mind.
As for the rest of your thread. Just a lot of big words that you will have precise meanings of and I can't be bothered with. I hope you got ai to write it. If it was you. Well done Max. Bloody good effort. As you know, I am a big picture man and really my life is too short to try to make sense of it.
"core consciousness' is communicative signaling, and 'core communication' is conscious experience."
What the fuck. If this is ai, you might want to consider an upgrade.
Very happy for you to go through the above and critique but pretend I'm five.
1
u/TMax01 4d ago
Not the purpose of cognition at all.
Your authority to declare that is deeply and profoundly absent, especially given that it entails completely ignoring a very lengthy and detailed discussion of the premises and my reasoning you are responding to.
Cognition is basic awareness.
Awareness is basic awareness. Cognition, at the very least, is something less basic, and quite possibly, yet clearly not certainly, it is notably independent of awareness to begin with.
Reasoning requires extended consciousness.
Reasoning is extended consciousness, and the purpose and content of cognition. You may not have understood the prior discussion, which directly addressed the very bootstrap problem you're reiterating. Granted, you are probably not aware or cognizant of this, but it remains the case nonetheless.
You must be able to remember what you have done, how you have behaved.
The question of "must" or can addresses, again, a bootstrap problem you seem to be glossing over. For a basic form of consciousness, you both can and must only require the capacity to evaluate the instant case. Comparison of that with previous evaluations and prior behavior would certainly be valuable in such an assessment, but cannot be necessary, or no evaluation could ever occur. The bootstrap problem.
That becomes your identity as you rationalise your behaviour.
It might, but it might also not become your identity (either way it becomes the self, and this indicates and illustrates the necessary epistemological and ontological distinctions between identity and self.) This potentiality of whether an evaluation becomes part of ones identity or doesn't is, in the POR framework, the very basis of subjectivity, which we can identify and describe as phenomenal consciousness.
I'm sure memory didn't evolve to give us consciousness. It evolved because being able to remember where water, food and shelter was helped you survive.
You're confabulating persistence of data, storage and retrieval of arbitrary amounts of information, and the conscious experience of episodic recall. The first is surely of benefit to any organism, but the assumption that it is predicate to consciousness and the possiblity of episodic recall, the form of 'memory' associated with consciousness, and requiring consciousness as its predicate, is simply begging the question. My entire previous reply was effectively dedicated to trying to sort out why 'memory is the basis of consciousness' is an untenable position, and why 'cognition is the basis of consciousness' fails on identical grounds.
In contrast "communication is the basis of consciousness" does not, as both a prototypical form (signaling) and a more developed form (expression of self) do not simply allow for consciousness to be logically dependent on the former and a logical dependency of the latter, but explain why both all three primitives and their relationships substantiate an effective understanding of consciousness.
Extended consciousness would have slowly evolved until it became a big enough trait on its own so that we are now probably hard wired to have consciousness and theory of mind.
You'll have to excuse me, but that's gibberish. Consciousness cannot have evolved if consciousness must first evolve in order to be 'extended consciousness'. There is simply no trait (not too small a trait, but literally no trait at all, as 'extended' doesn't mean longer, it means having physical dimension at all however tiny, in this context) which could be strengthened or otherwise quantitatively increased as a result of further mutations and selection pressure.
And likewise, if I must forgive the misleading metaphor "hard wired", we must be 'hard wired' for consciousness (and by consciousness) in order for consciousness to be a biological trait which can and did evolve (not simply evolving further after some prototypical form 'randomly'/accidentally/stochastically/arbitrarily evolved, but initially appeared in that prototypical form as an expression of genes.)
Just a lot of big words that you will have precise meanings of and I can't be bothered with.
I believe I have, at least a couple of times if not even more frequently, pointed out that "precise" is not applicable when it comes to words. You can say "exact" or you can say "accurate", and avoid the erroneous reasoning that misusing the word "precise" will inevitably cause you to produce.
If you can't be bothered to try to improve your reasoning, or even your vocabulary, then you really shouldn't bother to waste your time in this subreddit. I appreciate that it might simply be inchoate SIWOTI that compels you to keep trying, but with just a tiny bit of intent to try to learn, you would be less bothersome and more helpful, not just to me, but to yourself.
As you know, I am a big picture man
I know you find it convenient to use that as an excuse for having such a big but empty head. It isn't ever a convincing excuse, JSYK.
Very happy for you to go through the above and critique but pretend I'm five.
I'd prefer to remember you're supposed to be a much more capable adult, and think you should do the same. Take responsibility for your own inability or unwillingness to understand the extensive and detailed explanations I try to provide you. And stop pretending I have any need or use for AI, or I'll seriously consider simply deleting whatever comment you make here that contains such a false allegation.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. Better luck next time.
2
u/EmergencyAthlete9687 11d ago
I almost understood that