Carver Mead: against Copenhagen
An interesting interview with Carver Mead, author of the (unconventional) Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism.
An interesting interview with Carver Mead, author of the (unconventional) Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism.
January 20, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I do think that the Copenhagen intepretation retarded physics as much as the idea of Platonic essences did biology.
January 20, 2009 at 4:31 pm
having made that comment, I must admit that after reading the interview I am profoundly weirded out. I am almost tempted to say that Mead is “not even wrong”, but will have to dwell on this for a while. Regardless, fascinating.
January 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Hi Jorg,
Indeed, I don’t know what to say. I’m surprised on my own ignorance of not knowing anything about Mead. Now I’m wondering whether I’ll read his book. The only thing that I can say for the moment is that I’m puzzled.
best,
Christine
January 20, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Christine:
Amazon says that the book is 138 pages long; I think that it would be an entertaining–at least–read on my bus-ride to work for a day or two.
Electrons a mile across–huh! But even though everything I know intuitively rebels against such a concept, upon reflection I certainly cannot dismiss it out of hand.
January 20, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Jorg,
Actually, I have a copy of it. I’m not certain whether I’ll read it *soon*, because I have many books in a row waiting to be read. He wrote a foreword and a Personal Preface that are both very interesting and his writting is pleasant. Here is an excerpt:
How do we, as a human culture, prepare ourselves and our children for this world in which the knowledge base turns over many times within a single human lifetime?
One answer to this dilemma is specialization: One can become an expert in a specialty that is narrow enough to permit one to keep up with the changes as they come along. This is the default solution. In this manner, we can, as it has been said, learn more and more about less and less, until eventually, we know everything about nothing! Specialization, as we all know, has its merits; however, if specialization were to be our only response to rapidly evolving knowledge, I would view our prospects as a culture with deep concern, even with alarm.
In his wonderful book, The Act of Creation, Arthur Koestler defines the creative process as starting with the juxtaposition of two concepts from separate conceptual spaces. Such a conjunction creates not merely a new idea but an enlargement of the space of ideas, a cross-fertilization that is the very stuff of which innovation is made. If we, by education, by scientific practices, by social norms, restrict the development of individual talents to narrow specializations, we will thereby lose the ability to innovate.
Best,
Christine
January 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm
In his Personal Preface he summarizes his personal quest that lead to the ideas developed in the book. He writes:
In the end, science is all in how you look at things. Collective Electrodynamics is a way of looking at the way that electrons interact. It is a much simpler way than Maxwell’s, because it is based on experiments that tell us about the electrons directly. Maxwell had no access to these experiments. The sticking point I mentioned earlier is resolved in this treatment, in a way that Feynman would have liked.
He was a student of and collaborated with Feynman.
Best,
Christine
January 20, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Ah, you too have a giant stack of books waiting in line. Sounds quite familiar to me…But yes, I looked it up on Amazon and found some of the reviews quite telling: as usual, the 1-star one seems to be the most informative, even though it fails to dissuade me from reading it myself.
January 20, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I have read the amazon reviews, and the opinons differ and form a spectrum. It appears that most or all of them would at least agree that the book is somewhat interesting/original and of some historical value, given the connection with Feynman. But whether his approach deserves further consideration is another story. Some mention a lack of rigor in the exposition. Well, one has to read it and form his/her own judgement.
January 21, 2009 at 12:49 am
Hi Christine,
I’d have to agree with Jorg that Mead’s ideas as far as this interview reveals are a little more then simply confused or fuzzy. For one thing standard QM (Copenhagen) has never been something that has particles and waves, as what you are told is that you have a wave that collapses to be seen as a particle, such that this forms to be a singular ontology. In the Crammer transactional approach of which Mead appears in part to subscribe, there is a partial departure from this, where one does have particles and waves, with the waves further subdivided into offer and confirmation waves that travel between particles backwards and forwards trough time to in the end to reinforce each other and combine to form one (realized)wave. This has been around for some time and except for one popular science book written by John Gribbin in support of it has gained little traction.
For what if’s worth and as I said before I don’t subscribe to Copenhagen either, yet I would guess that even among true physicists as yourself virtually no one does. My perception is the vast number use whatever interpretation that works best in the given situation presented. For example with the quantum computing people often opting for Many Worlds for instance. As you know my own thoughts about this currently and for some time are focused around the Bohmian interpretation which as apposed to what Mead is describing does have a dual (two part) ontology, being that there are considered to be both waves and particles in which the non local nature of the quantum realm is not simply suspected yet mandatory and to some extent explained. It also separates phenomena that on the surface appear as being non local, such as Wheelers delayed choice which in the Bohmian explanation turns out to be simply a local effect.
However, I think I will be forced to read the book, for first I can’t believe that with the exposure and experience he has it should be able to so easily be dismissed, so perhaps there is something missing in his brief explanation. The second reason I have to read it is that the foundations are something that holds great interest for me so that until I examine his ideas I couldn’t be left confident that my current position is solid as I think. After all I do think of myself as following the greatest of sciences edicts and that is recognizing doubt above all else.
Best,
Phil
January 21, 2009 at 11:59 am
Hi Phil,
However, I think I will be forced to read the book, for first I can’t believe that with the exposure and experience he has it should be able to so easily be dismissed, so perhaps there is something missing in his brief explanation. The second reason I have to read it is that the foundations are something that holds great interest for me so that until I examine his ideas I couldn’t be left confident that my current position is solid as I think. After all I do think of myself as following the greatest of sciences edicts and that is recognizing doubt above all else.
I couldn’t have expressed myself better. These are essentially the reasons that made me acquire a copy.
Best,
Christine
January 22, 2009 at 2:26 pm
In his interview, Carver Mead said “… the way that the fly, or the cat, or the fish process their information …[is]… so … effective at computing … They use what seems like really slow, slimy computational material, and yet they perform miracles with tiny amounts of power, tiny amounts of space and in real time and very fast.
They’re not just digital or analog …”.
That seems to me to lead to the Penrose-Hameroff view of Quantum Consciousness,
which seems to me to be usefully related to the ideas about resonance discussed in Carver Mead’s book.
I have a web page about such stuff at
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanConResonance.html#resonance
Further, the views of Paola Zizzi
( see for example her papers at gr-qc/0007006 and gr-qc/0103002 )
show how such Quantum Consciousness can be related to our physical universe, especially its phase of inflationary expansion.
Tony Smith
January 22, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Hi Tony,
Really, I know nothing about quantum consciousness, but thanks for your comment and links, so that interested readers may follow them. [I'm not willing, however, to go into quantum consciousness; I confess that the subject does not instigate my curiosity at present]…
But yet I have searched a bit and found that there will be an APS Meeting next March, in which one can find on the page there an abstract entitled “The Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective-Reduction Proposal for Human Consciousness is Not Biologically Feasible” [ttp://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR09/Event/98485], which you might find interesting (or not)…
Best,
Christine
January 22, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Interesting. penrose’s ideas on consciousness were dealt with (rather devastatingly) by many, expecially Dennett, and I would have thought that the subject was dead by now. But of course it will keep on resurrecting itself until we have a real working model of consciousness…;)
January 22, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Hi Jorj,
“Interesting. penrose’s ideas on consciousness were dealt with (rather devastatingly) by many, expecially Dennett, and I would have thought that the subject was dead by now.”
I know it’s off topic yet since it’s been raised I wouldn’t exactly say Penrose idea has been defeated more that it’s been simply criticized. It more a case where people feel that what he’s talking amount to dabbling in their fields of expertise and therefore he’s not qualified by this reason alone. In that regard and as a qualifier I would ask if you have ever read one or both of either “The Emperors New Mind” or “Shadows of the Mind “ so that you are familiar with the arguments well enough that you could be so confident. Now I’m not saying that Penrose is right or wrong on this, yet I wouldn’t be so bold as to insist Dennett soundly proved him wrong. In fact I’m more certain that Dennett doesn’t even grasp the argument himself. His main hang up and principle objection is to imagine that in some strange manner Penrose’s ideas to be inconsistent with evolution. Whether Penrose is right or wrong I wouldn’t take it on Dennett’s word. In this regard . I’m then reminded of what Lee Smolin once remarked about Penrose which was:
“Roger Penrose is the most important physicist to work in relativity theory except for Einstein. He’s the most creative person and the person who has contributed the most ideas to what we do. He’s one of the very few people I’ve met in my life who, without reservation, I call a genius. Roger is the kind of person who has something original to say — something you’ve never heard before — on almost any subject that comes up.”
Best,
Phil
January 23, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Phil: indeed, when “Emperor” came out I was on a major cognitive science kick and read it, not finding it to be terribly useful. The general gist of Penrose’s argument there is the (rather vague) insistence on some kind of a connection between QM and consciousness due to the mysterious nature of both…;) Not to deny Penrose his due (The road to Reality is still one of my favourite non-technical books) I still must note that from what I have seen his attempt to explain consciousness is undermotivated and indeed, contradicts the algorithmic nature of evolution (Dennett’s objection in that sense is absolutely spot on). The latter in itself would be sufficient to sink it; however, as I have said, until we have a real working model of consciousness his version would at least be an alternative, no matter how unlikely. Of course, I think that consciousness emerges from purely macroscopic features of our brain function and there is no need to invoke anything else; just as of course–and sadly–I do not have a working model for it.
January 24, 2009 at 4:07 am
Hi Jorg,
Well I’m glad to learn you’ve read at least one out of two, yet I was hoping you would have read “Shadows of the Mind” which was the follow up to Emperor. In short I don’t see how to say that life is comprised of algorithm precludes that such a process to construct a devise that could tap a quantum process. For example It’s been all but confirmed recently that a plants efficiency in converting sun light to energy realize on utilizing quantum process or logic although to use the term rather loosely. Anyway, at least you can concede that until a better idea is had that you’ll leave Penrose’s in the mix. Like I said to begin with I wouldn’t swear if he is right or wrong yet consider this still an open question,
I’m a little puzzle by you refereeing to Penrose’s “Road to Reality” as a non-technical book” for it leads one to imagine all of what it contains is easily grasped. If you can truly make such a claim let me tip my cap to you
Christine, please except my apologies for having strayed of topic on this one and if you decide not to post it I would understand.
Best,
Phil
January 24, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Phil: “The Road to reality” is a non-technical book compared to, e.g. Weinberg’s “Cosmology”. it is written with the lay audience in mind (albeit somewhat educated lay audience!). I think the subjects of mathematical physics and modern cosmology are not easily “graspable” and yet there is a number of non-technical books on those: Susskind, Krauss, Randall, Smolin all pitch in.
And I really should check out “Shadows”. I’ll put it onto my (ever-growing) stack of things to read.
I think that side-discussions of this sort are usually quite fun; I am known for going off-topic on any number of threads. Perhaps that demonstrates the fundamental interconnectedness of everything?
January 24, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Hi Phil and Jorg,
No problem in discussing Penrose here, although the whole thing initiated with Tony making the connection with “Quantum Consciousness”… As I mentioned, not something that I am particularly interested at the moment. So perhaps it would be more beneficial for you to concentrate your energy on a more specific post dealing with the matter, because there is the problem of the discussions become lost in an unrelated post.
But just to mention it briefly, I read “The Emperor’s New Mind” a long time ago, and I’d probably have to re-visit it some day; I did not read “Shadows of the Mind”. I am reading “The Road to Reality”, slowly. I consider the latter a “semi-”technical book. That is, an excellent book to start with the concepts and follow more technical details from the given bibliography.
Best,
Christine
January 24, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Hi Christine,
As I myself acknowledged the Penrose discussion was far off topic. Despite noting this I would recommend that if you are ever inclined to revisit it to read “Shadows of the Mind” rather then reread “Emperor” as it is a refinement of the first which includes a lengthy and yet brilliant explanation of Godel’s incompleteness theorem. I’m not aware of your own expertise yet Godel’s original theory is written in a language of logic that he specifically needed to create to have it be considered and demonstrate as being correct. Penrose has the mathematical prowess to be able to simplify this to some extent, while at the same time not diminishing its meaning, limits and/or intended impact. I consider this alone worth the purchase and the reading.
Best,
Phil
January 24, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Hi Jorg,
I’m heartened to learn that “Shadow of the Mind” will be placed on your stack if only for reasons expressed before to Christine. As for being interconnected if there is to be believed a Theory of everything this is a given.
As for “Road to Reality” I’m more inclined to agree with Christine that it be considered a semi-technical book if for only the simple reason it does include some of the maths and aids in learning them; as well as challenging the reader to expand their own understanding. The others you mention are for the most part the opposite in this regard by attempting to substitute analogy for almost everything. With the attention span of the average reader diminishing rapidly, along with the numbers that do, I’m not surprised. I’m not sure what can repair this phenomena, yet I salute Penrose for his defiance of it in believing more can be not only understood but more so find joy in doing so. I’m certain that the sales of the book would be much greater if he had conformed, yet again this serves to further demonstrate his principles of purpose are greater then his desire for wealth and or widespread fame.
On the contrary, I’ve discovered in the end it makes little difference. As for example, after Hawkings’ Book “A Brief History of Time” came out (the prototype of the books you mentioned) I would see it appear on many people’s bookshelf’s . Several times at parties and such I would notice it on the shelf and attempt to strike up a conversation with the owner in reference to it, only to find almost at every occasion they admit to not ever reading it, yet worse ever intendimg to. Rather it served as a trophy of sorts, to lead others to false assumptions about the owner’s scope of interests. So I would say that other then perhaps the bible today (not that I’m reccomending it) it is the most owned book which at the same time being the least read.
You might say its somewhat exaggerated to think as being possible, but I would contend that if such a trend is not reversed we could find ourselves in yet another dark ages; not out of lack of access or the folly of war, yet rather resultant of general apathy and disinterest.
Best,
Phil
P.S. i promise I will now return to topic yet as you say it is interesting at times to stray a bit