David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In human consciousness perceptions are distinct or atomistic events despite being perceived by an apparently undivided inner observer. This paper applies both classical (Boolean) and quantum logic to analysis of the Liar paradox which is taken as a typical example of a self-referential negation in the perception space of an undivided observer. The conception of self-referential paradoxes is a unique ability of the human mind still lacking an explanation on the basis of logic. It will be shown that both classical and quantum logics fail to resolve the paradox because of the particle-like (atomistic) nature of physical events in the moments of perception. The atomistic reality is the only one observed in human consciousness even if, as has been claimed by a number of authors, consciousness arises from a quantum mechanical superposition. However, a computational solution of the paradox can be achieved by embedding quantum registers in a fractal space. The truth values, or q-bit eigenstates, of the separate parts of the paradox correspond to sub-spaces of the fractal. Since a fractal contains the whole in each part a self-referential negation emerges as the experienced concept in each sub-space. Fractal quantum computation is realized by a cNOT-operation with percolation of the control q-bits into sub-spaces of a nascent fractal. In other words, atomism cannot cope with a self-referential paradox but quantum logic gates embedded in a fractal structure can cope. Remarkably, it will be shown that a mind operating on these algorithmic principles will not inevitably be limited by Turing's halting theorem. I suggest a physical mechanism that can deal with our experience of self-referential paradox. Because it is also shown that this cannot be achieved by any previously suggested classical or quantum mechanical operation, the newly proposed mechanism provides a better model than others for an important aspect of the structure of our minds.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William Mark Stuckey, Michael Silbserstein & Michael Cifone (2008). Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox. [REVIEW] Foundations of Physics 38 (4):348-383.
Diederik Aerts, Jan Broekaert & Sonja Smets (1999). The Liar-Paradox in a Quantum Mechanical Perspective. Foundations of Science 4 (2):115-132.
Bradley Dowden, Liar Paradox. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jeff Snapper (2012). The Liar Paradox in New Clothes. Analysis 72 (2):319-322.
Roy A. Sorensen (1998). Yablo's Paradox and Kindred Infinite Liars. Mind 107 (425):137-155.
Nicholas J. J. Smith (2000). The Principle of Uniform Solution (of the Paradoxes of Self-Reference). Mind 109 (433):117-122.
Jan Broekaert, Diederik Aerts & Bart D’Hooghe (2006). The Generalised Liar Paradox: A Quantum Model and Interpretation. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 11 (4):399-418.
Erhard Bieberich, Structure in Human Consciousness: A Fractal Approach to the Topology of the Self Perceiving an Outer World in an Inner Space.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #74,115 of 1,102,134 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,622 of 1,102,134 )
How can I increase my downloads?