[Haskell-cafe] Re: Quanta. Was: Wikipedia on first-class object

[Aaron Denney]

On 2008-01-06, ChrisK <haskell at list.mightyreason.com> wrote:
> Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 6, 2008, at 15:02 , Ketil Malde wrote:
>> 
>>> More seriously, perhaps "quantum" enters into the equation in how the
>>> brain works, perhaps it is even necessary for "thought".  However, I
>>> get worried it's just another mystical mantra, a gratuitous factor
>>> that, lacking any theory about how and what it does, adds nothing to
>>> help understanding the issue.
>
> The brain, being real, is best modeled by a final theory that physicists have 
> not yet (noticed) written down.
>
> "how the brain works" appears to be though electro- and bio- chemistry, which 
> are best modeled/described right now by quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics models these, but for most domains it's a substrate
that is unnecessary -- modeling at the level of chemistry works.

> There are observable quantum correlations that cannot be described by a 
> "classical" theory.

Not in the brain.  It's *way* too warm and squishy.

> So long as the processes you care about (e.g. whatever the hell consciousness 
> is) do not use these non-classical correlations then you can create a simplified 
> model that avoids the complexity of quantum theory.

Right.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-