Can you apply quantum physics to biology?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOTjrNhnjDc

Because I thought it has been said, many times, that you cannot apply quantum mechanics to macro level molecules because it breaks down at that scale. I have had many physicists tell me the same tale time and time again so I wonder why they keep doing this. Or is there something I am missing here?

Scientists push the boundaries of the known. What is “known” is always subject to potential modification with new evidence.

I think the video is attempting to argue free will with quantum mechanics. But I thought that approach was debunked

I noticed the guy mentioned the possibility of some potential support of the idea of free will. But he also said something at the end about the potential development of a computer that does not rely on algorithms. He definitely seems to be trying to push the boundaries of what is known. Scientists do that sometimes (maybe most of the time?).

That is why what our best determination of what is most true, can change with the discovery of new evidence. Like I have tried to tell you. You make your best interpretation, now, of what is true, and accept that there is some things that you cannot know, yet, maybe never, and go from there. Then if/when what is known changes, you can reassess, if necessary, how you look at things.

Knowledge is a moth, Carlos. (I just threw that in. I don’t know what it means.)

I still don’t think it’s a good argument for free will because there is another interpretation rooted in quantum physics that says the opposite.

I still don’t think it’s a good argument for free will because there is another interpretation rooted in quantum physics that says the opposite.

I don’t think the guy was arguing for free will, I think that he just said that something he was working on might have implications for it.

From what I can tell humans seem rather deterministic, though some don’t like that. I can’t help but feel some are colored by the fear of being “robots”.

On that same video I saw someone trying to argue for free will and well, I got this:

Now to address free will and consciousness (one package). The above is correct because "try to make it wrong" - you'll have to deny either/all: [1] existence or [2] consciousness (that I remind you IDENTIFIES there IS existence: something rather than nothing) and [3] Aristotle's law of IDENTITY (relates to the aforementioned word "identification"). Therefore there is 'right' (and wrong) and I have validated "wholly, absolutely" what is right. By "wholly and absolute" I mean every point in the universe: there is existence, and it is man's mind that * identifies* the identity known as "existence". You said "none of that implies free will". This is an error. The fact that you can freely validate there "is existence" as opposed to lack thereof, means you have the ability to make a choice, to "do" (an action of consciousness: to choose). The entire discussion here is called "metaphysics" (what is reality). In epistemology (how can you "know" the truth to the above or ANYTHING?), we conclusion the known method to use free will in a rigorous manner to reach judgment (truth) is "Reason and logic". indeed we use 'reason" to reach all the above truths. "Reason and logic" does NOT just happen automatically such as a zombie. One must "act/action/do" reason using a known methodology called logic. BTW if you deny existence, consciousness or identity (first paragraph) then you AUTOMATICALLY DENY you are correct in your assertion, because to "be correct ASSUMES" what you are saying is based upon "reality, upon existence; that you can FREELY using free will come to proper conclusions" (such as the above). To state my words are INCORRECT means you are therefore denying you can even reason (does that makes sense)? There is "no way out" except to deny reality, deny you have the ability to make choices and therefore ADMIT you are implicitly incorrect. The above is objective meaning - whether you , a supposed alien anywhere in the universe, or me: we can all agree on "existence" and "consciousness". BTW the triple concept I presented are PRIMARY concepts of existence: so you can not DISCOVER them using science. You can only find them here using "reason and logic" that precedes science-and-math and upon which platform science-and-math is based. SCIENTISTS try to do the opposite and make science primary (scientism) but that leads to errors like "perpetual blithering paralysed" denial (skepticism: but if you skeptic of skepticism then it also implodes as a myth)
Which to me kind of hurts free will. I mean logic and reason are based on rules and factors that lead to a conclusion. Otherwise it’s faith. Saying you are conscious of existing isn’t free will because it’s all you know. We haven’t known non existence.

And in another vein saying that our feelings don’t matter without free will:

You say you trust your feelings! But who’s feelings are they really? Old school science only permits the standard interpretation that they are down stream of an assumed genetic determinism made that way by the blind process of natural selection. For your feelings to have bigger significance they must break from all forms of determinism making a provisional freewill real, otherwise you would be an automation that does not even need feelings. So your feelings do have significance despite what we are lectured about from evolutionary psychology that invested too heavily in the belief that evolution is defined by natural selection.

But how can mere feelings be significant? Its only because they are shared that we can communicate at all! Occam’s razor would say we need only One source for all emotion, and I believe that to be right. In my view, right-brain domination leads to a collective Heart, left-brain domination is more libertarian in its forward looking march. I believe the preferred state is the balanced mind where there is no need of mushrooms to seek enlightenment, I would think that would make you happy.

So if your feelings are determined from the determinism offered by old-school science, there is no need to look further because it’s the blind leading the blind unless we are talking about reproductive fittness; Lovecraft’s indifferent cosmos is at the bottom of everything, very nihilistic like Dennett says in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. But on the other hand, if your feelings are significant, then they must be put to the test as you are doing. Intuition will not stop looking until the lover has found his beloved in the authentic sense. So if you meet me, Have some courtesy, Have some sympathy, and some taste.

I don’t think there is a human alive that is perfect in every respect. We are all bad in different ways, perhaps TMK and Gura are good examples. But the big mistake you make is that you forget to look for the SAVANT in all of us, which is there because of One heart.

I don’t believe the intuition to look is meaningless. Its there because the feelings/emotions are real beyond what old-school science allows.

I don’t know where you find all this *#@%. It was on that same video? Maybe I skipped too much of it.

We are able to observe ourselves choosing to believe in existence. But our choosing is determined by current and/or historical contingencies. Hence, that is not free will.

Emotions are also determined. I don’t know about you, but my emotions are still important to me despite my technically recognizing that they are determined.

That’s what I thought as well, I was looking over it and the thing that struck me is that the guy was using a deterministic method (logic and reason) to argue free will. Reason and logic don’t sound like free will to me, that’s faith (and even then not exactly) . You can believe whatever you want sure, but that doesn’t make it true or logical.

All I could do is read it while thinking “you can’t be serious”. Though the bit about emotions not mattering without free will I think might have something.

“Though the bit about emotions not mattering without free will I think might have something.”

Wrong. Emotions are important among deterministic factors.

The second paragraph I quoted begs to differ.

The second paragraph I quoted begs to differ.
Are we talking about the same words?
I believe the preferred state is the balanced mind where there is no need of mushrooms to seek enlightenment, I would think that would make you happy.
That says emotions matter. You want a balance of head of heart.

Roger Penrose thinks so. He and Stuart Hameroff (anesthesiologist) have developed a hypothesis name ORCH OR.

According to their analysis “consciousness” can emerge from quantum treshold event, i.e. an experiential “bing”.

This the latest conference of TSC 2019 and it’s really interesting. This is # 9 in the series, the others from 1 to 8 can be found on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQc0nukSPvc&t=2484s

That says emotions matter. You want a balance of head of heart.
He was saying that if we are deterministic like "classical" science says then our emotions don't matter.
According to their analysis “consciousness” can emerge from quantum treshold event, i.e. an experiential “bing”.

This the latest conference of TSC 2019 and it’s really interesting. This is # 9 in the series, the others from 1 to 8 can be found on Youtube


That channel sounds like the woo of that “science and nonduality” page I linked to in my other threads.

Xain, we are in a deterministic universe, and still our emotions are a part of the contingencies that we experience and which are a part of our histories and therefore a part of the deterministic factors that produce our behavior.

I am sorry if you are reading bunk that tells you differently, or that you interpret differently. If you don’t get what I am saying, read the sentence above, over and over, til you do.

I know all that,which is what I was trying to relegate to the first person who tried to feed me that giant paragraph (not the second long one I quoted). As I read through it all I saw that NONE of it proved free will (he deleted the comment later on).

alright