Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Despite the final comment on this AfD, this really appears to be original research, and consensus here is as such. Deathphoenix ʕ 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Wow theory

Appears to be original research, 10 unique Google hits. Accurizer 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Arbusto 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be that there was little to go on, except for Zizzi's paper itself, but I did read that more than once and have compared with other formulations of LQG. The reasoning seems sound, especially if the reader has also read her "Minimal Model" paper. Zizzi's work was cited in an article in November 2004 Scientific American entitled Black Hole computers by Seth Lloyd and Jack Ng. The Emergent Consciousness paper was published in the journal of NeuroQuantology in 2003, and supports the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model of consciousness. The Big Wow article was written to fill a blank space, as the link in the Orch-OR entry had remained red for too long, and this author is familiar with Zizzi's work. I am trying to be as objective as possible, but the only other reviewer to the author's knowledge is Joy, in her Telic Thoughts blog, which can be accessed at http://telicthoughts.com/?p=473 (JonathanD 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Note: Black Hole Computers was the Cover Article of the November '04 Scientific American, so the authors of that publication must consider this work important! (JonathanD 03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

• Delete Despite interestingness, it returns very little on google, suggesting that it has not yet reached any audience, and is thus unremarkable, or as the wikipedians put it NN Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete I actually like LQG; it's a bit of a maverick theory (which is part of what I like about it), but it is respectable. There is a difference, though, between "maverick" and "fringe". Zizzi's work is interesting, but I do not believe that it is a correct or even particularly rigorous interpretation of LQG: it's ad hoc and seems to set out to prove something by assuming aspects of it to be true to start with (which is not a reason to delete the article: I could be wrong, after all). The arXiv paper linked to in the article also doesn't talk about consciousness at all...it offers us a "minimal model of quantum gravity": using quantum computers and black hole entropy to address issues of the Immirzi parameter in LQG. On the other hand, this paper does talk about Penrose Orch-OR stuff (and barely touches on LQG except for spin network blab, which could come from anywhere), but it is bollocks, as far as I am concerned. It is based on a most tenuous analogy (which is not strictly formal), and the argument is unconvincing. But again, that isn't a reason to delete the article: it just needs a lot of help to come straight, because the article is only barely talking about what the papers are saying. And this is help I am not sure is merited, because...

This theory is not sufficiently notable at the moment, and nor is this particular research program yet developed and prominent enough, to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia: it seems to largely be limited to Zizzi. Citebase mentions 10 cites of the LQG paper, 4 of which are papers with Zizzi as author [1], and 6 cites of the consciousness paper, with 3 of those by Zizzi [2]. NeuroQuantology publishes more bunk than reasonable content. Articles on subjects like this shouldn't be listed under their "colloquial names", either. Scientific American is also a popular science publication, and qualified to judge neither the accuracy nor the importance of developments in quantum gravity/cosmology and so forth: we are already having a huge problem with New Scientist "legitimising" dodgy articles on Wikipedia (see this thread).

Why not just do an article on Penrose's stuff, if that's what the original idea was? Byrgenwulf 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not scientific well founded while being original many of the ideas or concepts contained within need to have more proof or at least more citations as evidence in support of conclusions raised. Also does not take adequate account of Kalibi-Yau manifolds.--Mr Maxim 20:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mr Maxim ReverendG 21:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncertain I believe Byrgenwulf's assessment of the ad-hoc nature of Zizzi's line of reasoning is a legitimate claim. It is somewhat tenuous, if taken as a proof of validity, but if the paper is viewed as attempting to show the feasibility of the universe having the capacity for reaching the computational threshold for conscousness, during the inflationary period, it does this fairly well. I do agree that the "Emergent Consciousness.." (Big Wow) paper is not a particularly satisfying formulation of LQG, but it does highlight some interesting possiblities about how consciousness might first arise, and her later "Minimal Model" paper does the LQG thing more justice. It's possible the focus on this topic should center on Penrose's work, as this subject does evolve from his "The Emperor's New Mind" book, which I particularly enjoyed. I jumped in with something, when I noticed a RED link on the Orch-OR page for this topic.

For the record, I believe a complete unifying theory will reveal 'Stringy' aspects to reality, and a real value to the LQG approach. It may well be that Noncommutative Geometry may leapfrog both, in addition to being a part of the underpinnings for both String Theory and LQG. I don't claim to have those answers yet, but I know the various contenders well enough. No unique Calabi-Yau space has been found, and a hundred thousand answers that work (from M-theory) is no answer at all, or no usable one. I do acknowledge that Strings are still considered a 'safer' bet and are considerabley more mainstream than LQG, at this point. Insofar as Zizzi's paper draws several of its conclusions from work of Whitehead and Chalmers that is not widely regarded as factual, I feel it could suffer deletion, for being tenuous.

If the test is whether this idea has captured the popular imagination, and is a jumping off point for more legitimate work on the possible quantum origins of consciousness, it may pass that test. This is not to say that the quantum mechanical nature of consciousness has been proven, but it has not been disproved either, at least not in a satisfying way. In this regard; Zizzi's paper may be a significant landmark for consciousness researchers. JonathanD 04:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look. I brought up the issue of LQG because my own research interests are tangentially linked to the LQG program, and I would dearly like to see more balanced reporting of it on Wikipedia. Just properly done. Although I don't think that this "big wow" stuff has very much of any worth to offer at the moment (and have my doubts that it ever will). I read the "minimal model" paper, and I don't think it does LQG very much "justice" at all. I also brought up LQG to try to illustrate the difference between a "non-mainstream" but respectable theory, and something that is so obscure and "fringe" as not to merit inclusion.

This is also not the place for baseless, armchair speculations on "quantum consciousness" and unified field theories. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal opinions on string theory are, as informed (or not) as they may be. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and this is an editorial discussion to do with whether or not a given article should be included, not a sophistic agora.

Penrose's views on "quantum conciousness" are notable: he has written widely-read books on them (arguably to avoid peer-review - but that's another matter), and people are aware of them. I understand that you "jumped in with something" to fill a red link. That is commendable. The problem is that the article as it stands doesn't say very much of anything, and certainly is not a viable reflection of the contents of Zizzi's papers. It is also obscure enough that it doesn't warrant fixing. Do an article on Penrose, name it something decent, and I'm sure everyone will be happy. No, strike that. This link should be exactly what you are looking for. Put this link into the article where the red link was, and your problem is solved. Byrgenwulf 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or modify and change name. I am the framer of the original posting here, and I'm glad the article has sparked some debate, if not a lot of support as it stands. I agree with some of Byrgenwulf's most recent comments, though perhaps not his conclusions about what to do. I would agree that Penrose certainly deserves a lot more attention than Zizzi, and should perhaps be the main focus of any writing on this subject. I had prepared some material offline which I pasted into the article before reading his most recent post. It was my attempt to address some of his earlier comments, to allow for possible inclusion under the current name. I would be happy to expand, edit and/or re-direct the content that has been originated here, given a clearer idea of what is called for. I did receive an e-mail confirmation from Paola Zizzi that the earlier posting (first paragraph) accurately reflects her intended meanings of the "Emergent Consciousness" (Big Wow) paper, and I added the second paragraph just today, with conciliatory remarks about the relative acceptance, and an explanaton of why it is called by that colloquial name. Please remember that the Big Bang was also just a fanciful way of descibing something that didn't have a name before.

Let it be known that I did a more thorough search for papers inspired by the Big Wow theory concepts using a web seach for Paola Zizzi and paring down to references that pertain to the line of reasoning explored by that paper, and I found a lot more material than I expected, and quite a few more citatons of this work. And the term 'Big Wow' seems to have been a catalyst, as well. Perhaps there is no other single term which sums up this concept so aptly, just as the 'Big Bang' did. Perhaps that was not the most apt despcription either, but the name stuck. I shall include a few more references and citations, if I have time later today. If I am not compelled to recuse myself, I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. JonathanD 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete on the grounds explained by Byrgenwulf. Anville 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it because Paola is not having a nice zizi like yours that your are practicing mental masturbation on her ideas? I vote to keep this article, or modify it for possible inclusion under a different name. Hervey from Canada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.64.248 (talk • contribs).

For future reference, making uncivil remarks and personal attacks is not a good way to make people take you seriously. Anville 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Keep - Important Citation Discovered! Jonathan back again, respectfully requesting that this work's impact be re-assessed. I was about ready to throw in the towl on this item myself, but have discovered a bunch of additional citations and derivative work. Note that her work was cited in Gregory Chaitin's Alan Turing Lecture last year in Sweden, entitled "Epistemology as Information Theory: From Leibniz to Ω". She was listed among the 'real physicists' who are working seriously on researching the view that the universe is made of information. Ergo; I would state that it's becoming more clear that the Big Wow is indeed a seminal landmark, and clearly does not fall in the category of NN, as Wikians like to put it. I'll try to weed out the lower quality external links, once I get time. Again; please reconsider the question of this article's relevance as someone of Chaitin's caliber would not cite her work in this way, if that work was not significant. Perhaps changing the title to Big Wow hypothesis would be more accurate. JonathanD 00:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.