We can argue these points all night if you like, but neither of us will get anywhere because we both hold different theories as true.
We can argue these points all night if you like, but neither of us will get anywhere because we both hold different theories as true.
oce@jlai.lu 6 days ago
I think this is incorrect, it does collapse to definitive state when observed, but the value of the state is probabilistic. We make it deterministic by producing s large number of measurements and deciding on a test on the statistical distribution of all the measurement to get a final value. Maybe our brain also does a test on a statistic of probabilistic measurements, or maybe it doesn’t and depends directly on probabilistic measurements, or a combination of both.
We also lack fully proven equations or complete resolution of equations in fluid dynamics.
I think parsimony is very much based on personal opinion at this point of knowledge.
chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 6 days ago
You’re right about quantum measurement—I oversimplified. Individual quantum measurements yield probabilistic outcomes, not deterministic ones. My argument isn’t that quantum systems are deterministic (they’re clearly not at the individual measurement level), but rather that these indeterminacies likely don’t propagate meaningfully to macro-scale neural processing.
The brain operates primarily at scales where quantum effects tend to decohere rapidly. Neural firing involves millions of ions and molecules, creating redundancies that typically wash out quantum uncertainties through a process similar to environmental decoherence. This is why most neuroscientists believe classical physics adequately describes neural computation, despite the underlying quantum nature of reality.
Regarding fluid dynamics and weather systems, you’re correct that our incomplete mathematical models add another layer of uncertainty beyond just initial conditions. Similarly with brain function, we lack complete models of neural dynamics.
I concede that parsimony is somewhat subjective. Different people might find different explanations more “simple” based on their background assumptions. My deterministic view stems from seeing no compelling evidence that neural processes harness quantum randomness in functionally significant ways, unlike systems specifically evolved to do so (like certain photosynthetic proteins or possibly magnetoreception in birds).
The question remains open, and I appreciate the thoughtful pushback. While I lean toward neural determinism based on current evidence, I acknowledge it’s not definitively proven.