Max Tegmark's Objections Against Microtubule Consciousness
Whilst all of Max Tegmark's calculations are correct, they do not ask the correct question.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler who is Tegmark's mentor.
Nowhere in Max's paper does he mention PW Anderson's "More is different" except for a passing informal reference to superconductors, superfluids, macro-quantum Bose-Einstein condensates. None of Max's useful calculations have ODLRO in the lower order reduced density matrices whose "phase rigidity" is an effective barrier against the thermal decoherence mechanisms he mentions. Note that the qubits of the alpha-beta superpositions of the electrons in the dimers should not be considered as individual fragile quantum superpositions subject to the decoherence calculated by Tegmark.
Rather we have a STIFF macro-quantum ODLRO parameter of the form
PSI(x) = R(x)e^iS(x)
Where S(x) is the macroquantum relative phase between alpha and beta and
R(x)^2 ~ density of phase-locked dimers at x.
We really need to do a resolution-scale dependent "wavelet" analysis here - this is only a crude first toy model.
The mental information is HOLOGRAPHICALLY encoded in the STIFF STABLE MACRO-QUANTUM PHASE S(x) in which we use Herbert Frohlich's PUMPED collective electric dipole modes in which 1/Pump Power ~ effective temperature. Ordinary thermal decoherence of the Tegmark type is irrelevant.
On Jul 16, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/16/2006 10:39:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Cramer's handshake supplemented by signal nonlocality - in every case
of successful RV the subject learns the details of the target in the
future. This information is sent back in time in a self-consistent
"Novikov" loop. This conjecture is falsifiable, e.g. subject dies
before learning details of target yet the prediction is true.
Could be falsified by Price's RV of Semipalatinsk. Though he got feedback on his drawing of the crane, he insisted that the site had to do with development of technology for space travel, concerning which the intell evaluators unanimously disagreed. He died shortly thereafter. At the end of the cold war, however, it was found that his claim was correct.
Of course, you can save your hypothesis by saying that he got feedback after he died! :-)