From: Perry E.Metzger (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 08:37:11 MST
"Mitchell Porter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Tegmark's paper is a starting point, not an endpoint. There are
> many ways to produce and conserve entanglement, and we have
> no general theory. By my reading of the literature, there isn't
> even agreement on how to quantify entanglement in anything
> more complex than the two-party case. We have a long way to
> go before we understand the dynamics of entanglement, even in
> something as everyday as liquid water (e.g. cond-mat/0311628).
I'm not sure you completely got the implications of Tegmark's
paper. His straightforward calculations make it seem extraordinarily
unlikely that one could do quantum computation in a brain at
biological temperatures. That, coupled with the fact that there is no
actual evidence in favor of the quantum hypothesis at all (other than
pure speculation) tends to lead one to disbelieve in it very
>>please don't misuse the word "metaphysics"
> I don't think I did. I meant metaphysics in the traditional sense
> of the word - a general theory of reality.
That is not the way the word is usually used. Or, at least, "reality"
that metaphysics deals with has to do with issues like existence,
ontology, epistemology etc. It has nothing to do with physics per se.
-- Perry E. Metzger email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 04:00:54 MDT