Quantum theory is essentially a rationally coherent theory of the interaction of mind and matter, and it allows our conscious thoughts to play a causally efficacious and necessary role in brain dynamics. It therefore provides a natural basis, created by scientists, for the science of consciousness. As an illustration it is explained how the interaction of brain and consciousness can speed up brain processing, and thereby enhance the survival prospects of conscious organisms, as compared to similar organisms that lack consciousness. (...) As a second illustration it is explained how, within the quantum framework, the consciously experienced ``I'' directs the actions of a human being. It is concluded that contemporary science already has an adequate framework for incorporating causally efficacious experiential events into the physical universe in a manner that: 1) puts the neural correlates of consciousness into the theory in a well defined way, 2) explains in principle how the effects of consciousness, per se, can enhance the survival prospects of organisms that possess it, 3) allows this survival effect to feed into phylogenetic development, and 4) explains how the consciously experienced ``I'' can direct human behaviour. (shrink)
REMARKS ON EVOLUTION AND TIME-SCALES, Graham Cairns-Smith; HODGSON'S BLACK BOX, Thomas Clark; DO HODGSON'S PROPOSITIONS UNIQUELY CHARACTERIZE FREE WILL?, Ravi Gomatam; WHAT SHOULD WE RETAIN FROM A PLAIN PERSON'S CONCEPT OF FREE WILL?, Gilberto Gomes; ISOLATING DISPARATE CHALLENGES TO HODGSON'S ACCOUNT OF FREE WILL, Liberty Jaswal; FREE AGENCY AND LAWS OF NATURE, Robert Kane; SCIENCE VERSUS REALIZATION OF VALUE, NOT DETERMINISM VERSUS CHOICE, Nicholas Maxwell; COMMENTS ON HODGSON, J.J.C. Smart; THE VIEW FROM WITHIN, Sean Spence; COMMENTARY ON HODGSON, Henry (...)Stapp. (shrink)
The key difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, at least in the "orthodox" view of Niels Bohr, is tied to the difference within these two theories of the relationship between the observer and the observed. In classical mechanics the observed system is characterized exactly by what an idealized disembodied observer could know about the system without actually interacting with it, or disturbing it. Thus in classical mechanics the physical system is specified by what could be known by an observer (...) that is conceived to stand apart from the observed system. But according to Bohr science is based on what we can learn from experiment: "The argument is simply that by the word `experiment' we refer to a situation where we can tell others what we have done and what we have learned... This crucial point, which was to become a main theme of the discussions... implies the IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY SHARP SEPARATION.. (shrink)
The hidden-variable theorems of Bell and followers depend upon an assumption, namely the hidden-variable assumption, that conflicts with the precepts of quantum philosophy. Hence from an orthodox quantum perspective those theorems entail no faster-than-light transfer of information. They merely reinforce the ban on hidden variables. The need for some sort of faster-than-light information transfer can be shown by using counterfactuals instead of hidden variables. Shimony’s criticism of that argument fails to take into account the distinction between no-faster-than-light connection in one (...) direction and that same condition in both directions. The argument can be cleanly formulated within the framework of a fixed past, open future interpretation of quantum theory, which neatly accommodates the critical assumptions that the experimenters are free to choose which experiments they will perform. The assumptions are compatible with the Tomonaga- Schwinger formulation of quantum field theory, and hence with orthodox quantum precepts, and with the relativistic requirement that no prediction pertaining to an outcome in one region can depend upon a free choice made in a region spacelike-separated from the first. (shrink)
This "axiom" must be used with great care. It is well-known that the formalism of Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (RQFT) is 'Relativistic" in the sense that it allows no "signal" to be transmitted faster than the speed of light. So RQFT does conform to "The FIN Axiom" if by "effectively transmitted" one is referring to the transmission of a "signal". Here a "signal" means a controllable dependence of a faraway observable upon a sender's choices (of how he will act); a (...) dependence that affects the faraway situation in a way that would allow the sender to convey information available to him, the sender, to a faraway observer. (shrink)
The question raised by Shimony and Stein is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of my proof that any theory that conforms to certain general ideas of orthodox relativistic quantum field theory must permit transfers of information over spacelike intervals. lt is also explained why this result is not a problem for relativistic quantum theory, but, on the contrary, opens the door to a satisfactory realistic relativistic quantum theory based on the ideas of Tomonaga, Schwinger, (...) and von Neumann. (shrink)
> What I'm interested in is your response to Tegmark. I haven't yet looked at > the paper you sent me in your email, but one response that I thought of is > this: Tegmark's argument, if cogent, suggests that there can't be neural > indeterminacies based on macro-level superpositions that collapse due to > neural processes. But your view doesn't involve macro-level superpositions; > it involves micro-level superpositions (of presynaptic calcium ions). So > even if Tegmark's argument is sound, (...) it's irrelevant to your view. Does > this sound right to you? (shrink)
> On the question of reasons as causes, philosophers generally acknowledge > that reasons can be considered causes (or antecedents of 'regularities') > only to the extent that the reasons are physically realized (instantiated, > represented, embodied, implemented) in the brain. The problem is trying to > find a neural correlate for a mental state containing a 'reason', such that > the reason can become a ('real', 'physical' ) cause.
Neuroscience is an important component of the scientific attack on the problem of consciousness. However, most neuroscientists, viewing our discussions, see only conflict and discord, and no reason why quantum theory has any great relevance the dynamics of the conscious brain. It is therefore worthwhile, in this first plenary talk of the 2003 Tucson conference on “Quantum Approaches to the Understanding of Consciousness,” to focus on the central issue, which is the crucial role of “The Observer,” and specifically, “The Mind (...) of The Observer” in contemporary physical theory. I shall therefore review here this radical departure of present-day basic physics from the principles of classical physics, and then spell out some of its ramifications for neuroscience. (shrink)
The discussions were obscured by an initial misunderstanding. I made it clear from the outset that I was making here only the claim that " the principles of CM do not *entail* the existence of consciousness", not that "consciouness was *incompatible* with the principles of CM. This weak claim, namely that "CM does not entail C", I thought to be obviously true, and I had taken taken it as a secure starting point of the arguments in my paper "The Evolution (...) of Consciousness" [To appear in the proceedings of Tucson II, and available from my web site]. It was Sarfatti's mention of this point that launched this debate. Pat challenged my claim, which I repeatedly described as point of contention. Then at a relatively late stage (Sept25) Pat said that: "There seems to be basic flaw in Henry's logic throughout this discussion". He pointed out the difference between saying that "CM does not entail C" and saying that "CM is inconsistent with C", and said that he would happily concur with the first claim: At this point he said it was trivially true. So, at least in some first approximation, we had then come into agreement on the issue under discussion: we both agreed that the principles of CM did not *entail* the existence of consciousness. (shrink)
Quantum mechanical theories of consciousness are contrasted to classical ones. A key difference is that the quantum laws are fundamentally psychophysical and provide an explanation of the causal effect of conscious effort on neural processes, while the laws of classical physics, being purely physical, cannot. The quantum approach provides causal explanations, deduced from the laws of physics, of correlations found in psychology and in neuropsychology.
Quantum mechanics unites epistemology and ontology: it brings human knowledge explicitly into physical theory, and ties this knowledge into brain dynamics in a causally efficacious way. This development in science provides the basis for a natural resolution of the dualist functionalist controversy, which arises within the classical approach to the mind brain system from the fact that the phenomenal aspects are not derivable from the principles of classical mechanics. A conceptually simple causal quantum mechanical theory of the mind/brain is described, (...) and used to examine the necessity and function of consciousness in brain process. (shrink)
_René Descartes proposed an interactive dualism that posits an interaction between the_ _mind of a human being and some of the matter located in his or her brain. Isaac Newton_ _subsequently formulated a physical theory based exclusively on the material/physical_ _part of Descartes’ ontology. Newton’s theory enforced the principle of the causal closure_ _of the physical, and the classical physics that grew out of it enforces this same principle._ _This classical theory purports to give, in principle, a complete deterministic account (...) of the_ _physically described properties of nature, expressed exclusively in terms of these_ _physically described properties themselves. Orthodox contemporary physical theory_ _violates this principle in two separate ways. First, it injects random elements into the_ _dynamics. Second, it allows, and also requires, abrupt probing actions that disrupt the_ _mechanistically described evolution of the physically described systems. These probing_ _actions are called Process 1 interventions by von Neumann. They are psycho-physical_ _events. Neither the content nor the timing of these events is determined either by any_ _known law, or by the afore-mentioned random elements. Orthodox quantum mechanics_ _considers these events to be instigated by choices made by conscious agents. In von_ _Neumann’s formulation of quantum theory each such intervention acts upon the state of_ _the brain of some conscious agent. Thus orthodox von Neumann contemporary physics_ _posits an interactive dualism similar to that of Descartes. But in this quantum version the_ _effects of the conscious choices upon our brains are controlled, in part, by the known_ _basic rules of quantum physics. This theoretically specified mind-brain connection allows_ _many basic psychological and neuropsychological findings associated with the apparent_ _physical effectiveness of our conscious volitional efforts to be explained in a causal and_ _practically useful way.. (shrink)
Quantum approaches to consciousness are sometimes said to be motivated simply by the idea that quantum theory is a mystery and consciousness is a mystery, so perhaps the two are related. That opinion betrays a profound misunderstanding of the nature of quantum mechanics, which consists fundamentally of a pragmatic scientific solution to the problem of the connection between mind and matter.
René Descartes proposed an interactive dualism that posits an interaction between the mind of a human being and some of the matter located in his or her brain. Isaac Newton subsequently formulated a physical theory based exclusively on the material/physical part of Descartes’ ontology. Newton’s theory enforced the principle of the causal closure of the physical, and the classical physics that grew out of it enforces this same principle. This classical theory purports to give, in principle, a complete deterministic account (...) of the physically described properties of nature, expressed exclusively in terms of these physically described properties themselves. Orthodox contemporary physical theory violates this principle in two separate ways. First, it injects random elements into the dynamics. Second, it allows, and also requires, abrupt probing actions that disrupt the mechanistically described evolution of the physically described systems. These probing actions are called Process 1 interventions by von Neumann. They are psycho-physical events. Neither the content nor the timing of these events is determined either by any known law, or by the afore-mentioned random elements. Orthodox quantum mechanics considers these events to be instigated by choices made by conscious agents. In von Neumann’s formulation of quantum theory each such intervention acts upon the state of the brain of some conscious agent. Thus orthodox von Neumann contemporary physics posits an interactive dualism similar to that of Descartes. But in this quantum version the effects of the conscious choices upon our brains are controlled, in part, by the known basic rules of quantum physics. This theoretically specified mind-brain connection allows many basic psychological and neuropsychological findings associated with the apparent physical effectiveness of our conscious volitional efforts to be explained in a causal and practically useful way.. (shrink)
Science is basically about correlations between conscious human experiences: that is what makes it both useful and testable in the realm of our expanding human knowledge. Explicit recognition of this understanding lies at the core of the formulation of quantum theory that was originally developed during the twenties by its founders.
In this book, which contains several of his key papers as well as new material, he focuses on the problem of consciousness and explains how quantum mechanics...
Replies are given to arguments advanced in this journal that claim to show that it is to nonlinear classical mechanics rather than quantum mechanics that one must look for the physical underpinnings of conscious ness..
b>: Replacing faulty nineteenth century physics by its orthodox quantum successor converts the earlier materialist conception of nature to a structure that does not enforce the principle of the causal closure of the physical. The quantum laws possess causal gaps, and these gaps are filled in actual scientific practice by inputs from our streams of consciousness. The form of the quantum laws permits and suggests the existence of an underlying reality that is built not on substances, but on psychophysical events, (...) and on objective tendencies for these events to occur. These events constitute intrinsic mind-brain connections. They are fundamental links between brain processes described in physical terms and events in our streams of consciousness. This quantum ontology confers upon our conscious intentions the causal efficacy assigned to them in actual scientific practice, and creates a substance- free interactive dualism. This putative quantum ontology has previously been shown to have impressive explanatory power in both psychology and neuroscience. Here it is used to reconcile the existence of physically efficacious conscious free will with causal anomalies of both the Libet and Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky types. (shrink)
It is argued that the principles of classical physics are inimical to the development of a satisfactory science of consciousness The problem is that insofar as the classical principles are valid consciousness can have no e ect on the behavior and hence on the survival prospects of the organisms in which it inheres Thus within the classical framework it is not possible to explain in natural terms the development of consciousness to the high level form found in human beings In (...) quantum theory on the other hand consciousness can be dynamically e cacious quantum the ory does allows consciousness to in uence behavior and thence to evolve in accordance with the principles of natural selection However this evo lutionary requirement places important constraints upon the details of the formulation of the quantum dynamical principles.. (shrink)
Arguments pertaining to the mind-brain connection and to the physical effectiveness of our conscious choices have been presented in two recent books, one by John Searle, the other by Jaegwon Kim. These arguments are examined, and it is explained how the encountered difficulties arise from a defective understanding and application of a pertinent part of contemporary science, namely quantum mechanics. The principled quantum uncertainties entering at the microscopic levels of brain processing cannot be confined to the micro level, but percolate (...) up to the macroscopic regime. To cope with the conflict between the resulting macroscopic indefiniteness and the definiteness of our conscious experiences, orthodox quantum mechanics introduces the idea of agent-generated probing actions, each of which specifies a definite set of alternative possible empirically/experientially distinguishable outcomes. Quantum theory then introduces the mathematical concept of randomness to describe the probabilities of the various alternative possible outcomes of the chosen probing action. But the agent-generated choice of which probing action to perform is not governed by any known law or rule, statistical or otherwise. This causal gap provides a logical opening, and indeed a logical need, for the entry into the dynamical structure of nature of a process that goes beyond the currently understood quantum mechanical statistical generalization of the deterministic laws of classical physics. The well-known quantum Zeno effect can then be exploited to provide a natural process that establishes a causal psychophysical link within the complex structure consisting of a stream of conscious experiences and certain macroscopic classical features of a quantum mechanically described brain. This naturally created causal link effectively allows consciously felt intentions to affect brain activity in a way that tends to produce the intended feedback. This quantum mechanism provides an eminently satisfactory alternative to the classical physics conclusion that the physical present is 1 completely determined by the physical past, and hence provides a physicsbased way out of the dilemma that Searle and Kim tried to resolve by philosophical analysis.. (shrink)
Quantum theory can be regarded as a rationally coherent theory of the interaction of mind and matter and it allows our conscious thoughts to play a causally e cacious and necessary role in brain dynamics It therefore provides a natural basis created by scientists for the science of consciousness As an illustration it is explained how the interaction of brain and consciousness can speed up brain processing and thereby enhance the survival prospects of conscious organisms as compared to similar organisms (...) that lack consciousness As a second illustration it is explained how within the quantum framework the consciously experi enced I directs the actions of a human being It is concluded that contemporary science already has an adequate framework for incorporat ing causally e cacious experiential events into the physical universe in a manner that puts the neural correlates of consciousness into the theory in a well de ned way explains in principle how the e ects of consciousness per se can enhance the survival prospects of organisms that possess it allows this survival e ect to feed into phylogenetic de velopment and explains how the consciously experienced I can direct human behaviour.. (shrink)
Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’ and ‘effort’) are not included as primary causal factors. This (...) theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.. (shrink)
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe (...) privately owned rights. Reference herein to any speci c commercial products process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authorsexpressed herein do not necessarily state or re ect those of the United States Government or.. (shrink)
David Bourget has raised some conceptual and technical objections to my development of von Neumann’s treatment of the Copenhagen idea that the purely physical process described by the Schrödinger equation must be supplemented by a psychophysical process called the choice of the experiment by Bohr and Process 1 by von Neumann. I answer here each of Bourget’s objections.
Two fundamental questions are addressed within the framework orthodox quantum mechanics. The first is the duality-nonduality conflict arising from the fact that our scientific description of nature has two disparate parts: an empirical component and a theoretical component. The second question is the possibility of meaningful free will in a quantum world concordant with the principle of sufficient reason, which asserts that nothing happens without a sufficient reason. The two issues are resolved by an examination of the conceptual and mathematical (...) structure of orthodox quantum mechanics, without appealing to abstract philosophical analysis or intuitive sentiments. (shrink)
Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a ‘consistent quantum theory’ that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues, on the basis of his examination of certain arguments that claim to demonstrate the existence of such nonlocal influences, that such influences do not exist. However, his examination was restricted mainly to hidden-variable-based arguments that include in their premises some essentially (...) classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system that are logically incompatible with some premises of the proof. Hence Griffiths’ argument regarding hidden-variable proofs has a secure base. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his ‘consistent quantum theory’ shows that the cited proof is valid within that very restrictive framework. This necessary existence, within the ‘consistent’ framework, of long range essentially instantaneous influences refutes the claim made by Griffiths that his ‘consistent’ framework is superior to the orthodox quantum theory of von Neumann because it does not entail instantaneous influences. (shrink)
A criterion for the existence of human free will is specified: a human action is asserted to be a manifestations of human free-will if this action is a specific physical action that is experienced as being consciously chosen and willed to occur by a human agent, and is not determined within physical theory either in terms of the physically described aspects of nature or by any non-human agency. This criterion is tied to the structure of a physical theory. It is (...) noted that the orthodox quantum mechanics that flows from John von Neumann’s analysis of the process of measurement in quantum theory is described in terms of three processes that are effectively based on a three-level conception of reality. Von Neumann’s “Process 2” is the deterministic evolution, via the Schroedinger equation, of a physically described aspect of reality, the quantum state. His “Process 1” is the physically described aspect of a psychophysical probing action whose psychologically described aspect is an increment in the knowledge of a probing agent/observer. Process 3, in Dirac’s words, is “a choice on the part of nature” of the response to such a probing action. It is argued here that all three levels of this quantum structure, the physically described quantum state, the probing knowledge-acquiring agents, and the response-choosing nature, are all best conceived as idea-like in character. Quantum mechanics, though puzzling when viewed from the inappropriate perspective of the mechanistic classical physics, becomes rationally coherent when the underlying reality is conceived to be not a physically described classical monism, but rather an ideabased quantum triality. This idea-based conception of reality evades the pitfalls of nonphysics-based idealism by being erected directly upon the basic concepts of pragmatic empirically validated quantum mechanics. However, the dynamical structure of quantum theory contains certain causal gaps.. (shrink)
How is mind related to matter? This ancient question in philosophy is rapidly becoming a core problem in science, perhaps the most important of all because it probes the essential nature of man himself. The origin of the problem is a conflict between the mechanical conception of human beings that arises from the precepts of classical physical theory and the very different idea that arises from our intuition: the former reduces each of us to an automaton, while the latter allows (...) our thoughts to guide our actions. The dominant contemporary approaches to the problem attempt to resolve this conflict by clinging to the classical concepts, and trying to explain away our misleading intuition. But a detailed argument given here shows why, in a scientific approach to this problem, it is necessary to use the more basic principles of quantum physics, which bring the observer into the dynamics, rather than to accept classical precepts that are profoundly incorrect precisely at the crucial point of the role of human consciousness in the dynamics of human brains. Adherence to the quantum principles yields a dynamical theory of the mind/brain/body system that is in close accord with our intuitive idea of what we are. In particular, the need for a self observing quantum system to pose certain questions creates a causal opening that allows mind/brain dynamics to have three distinguishable but interlocked causal processes, one micro local, one stochastic, and the third experiential. Passing to the classical limit in which the critical difference between zero and the finite actual value of Planck's constant is ignored not only eliminates the chemical processes that are absolutely crucial to the functioning of actual brains, it simultaneously blinds the resulting theoretical construct to the physical fine structure wherein the effect of mind on matter lies: the use of this limit in this context is totally unjustified from a physics perspective. (shrink)
The mainstream view today in neuroscience, biology, psychology, and philosophy, is that your conscious will has no effect upon your bodily actions beyond what is already caused by purely mechanical processes acting alone. Thus you are claimed to be, in essence, a mechanical automaton, with perhaps some elements of pure chance thrown in. Your natural belief that your willful efforts can have physical effects is called, accordingly, “The Illusion of Conscious Will”.
Classical physics is a theory of nature that originated with the work of Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century and was advanced by the contributions of James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein. Newton based his theory on the work of Johannes Kepler, who found that the planets appeared to move in accordance with a simple mathematical law, and in ways wholly determined by their spatial relationships to other objects. Those motions were apparently independent of our human observations of them.
Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behaviour generally posits that brain mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena. This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus, terms having intrinsic mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g. ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’ and ‘effort’) are not included as primary causal factors. This (...) theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs profoundly from classic physics on the important matter of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for describing neural processes. Indeed, owing to certain structural features of ion channels critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used when analysing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics. It is able to represent more adequately than classic concepts the neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.. (shrink)
It is emphasized that a many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory exists only to the extent that the associated basis problem is solved. The core basis problem is that the robust enduring states specified by environmental decoherence effects are essentially Gaussian wave packets that form continua of non-orthogonal states. Hence they are not a discrete set of orthogonal basis states to which finite probabilities can be assigned by the usual rules. The natural way to get an orthogonal basis without going outside (...) the Schroedinger dynamics is to use the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix, and this idea is the basis of some recent attempts by many-worlds proponents to solve the basis problem. But these eigenstates do not enjoy the locality and quasi-classicality properties of the states defined by environmental decoherence effects, and hence are not satisfactory preferred basis states. This core problem is obscured by approaches that treat the universe as a quantum computer, but it needs to be addressed and resolved before a many-worlds-type interpretation can be said to exist. (shrink)
A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person’s classically described perceptions and that person’s quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann’s theory of measurements and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face (...) of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized. (shrink)
The principle of sufficient reason asserts that anything that happens does so for a reason: no definite state of affairs can come into being unless there is a sufficient reason why that particular thing should happen. This principle is usually attributed to Leibniz, although the first recorded Western philosopher to use it was Anaximander of Miletus. The demand that nature be rational, in the sense that it be compatible with the principle of sufficient reason, conflicts with a basic feature of (...) contemporary orthodox physical theory, namely the notion that nature’s response to the probing action of an observer is determined by pure chance, and hence on the basis of absolutely no reason at all. This appeal to pure chance can be deemed to have no rational fundamental place in reason-based Western science. It is argued here, on the basis of other basic principles of quantum physics, that in a world that conforms to the principle of sufficient reason, the usual quantum statistical rules will naturally emerge at the pragmatic level, in cases where the reason behind nature’s choice of response is unknown, but that the usual statistics can become biased when the reason for the choice is empirically identifiable. It is explained here that if the statistical laws of quantum mechanics were to be biased in this way then the basically forward-in-time unfolding of empirical reality described by orthodox quantum mechanics would generate the appearances of backward-time-effects of the kind that have been reported in the scientific literature. (shrink)
Orthodox quantum mechanics is built upon psychophysical collapse events that are the close analogs, within contemporary physical theory, of the the Whiteheadian actual occasions, with their mental and physical poles. This article describes the way in which these events enter into quantum theory, and mediate the emergence of actuality from potentiality.
A profound change in our scientific understanding of the role of human beings in the unfolding of our streams of conscious experiences was wrought by the 20th-century switch from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. The streams of consciousness thoughts of human beings were converted from causally inert passive witnesses of the unfolding of a mechanically controlled and causally self-sufficient physical universe into logically needed dynamical inputs into the physical aspects of nature. These physical aspects, as they are now understood, contain (...) causal gaps that are neatly filled by inputs from the realm of our conscious thoughts in a way that allows our conscious intentions to tend to produce their intended consequences. (shrink)
The aim of this talk is to provide a rationally coherent physics-based understanding of the manner in which our conscious thoughts can influence our physical actions. An incidental aim is to expose the profoundly illinformed understanding behind the quip that “The claim of quantum physicists that consciousness is related to quantum mechanics comes from the idea that because quantum mechanics is a mystery and consciousness is a mystery, maybe the two are related.”.
A variation of Bell's theorem that deals with the indeterministic case is formulated and proved within the logical framework of Lewis's theory of counterfactuals. The no-faster-than-light-influence condition is expressed in terms of Lewis would counterfactual conditionals. Objections to this procedure raised by certain philosophers of science are examined and answered. The theorem shows that the incompatibility between the predictions of quantum theory and the idea of no faster-than-light influence cannot be ascribed to any auxiliary or tacit assumption of either determinism (...) or the related idea that outcomes of unperformed measurements are determinate within nature. In addition, the theorem provides an example of an application of Lewis's theory of counterfactuals in a rigorous scientific context. (shrink)
Orthodox quantum mechanics is technically built around an element that von Neumann called Process 1. In its basic form it consists of an action that reduces the prior state of a physical system to a sum of two parts, which can be regarded as the parts corresponding to the answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to a specific question that this action poses, or ‘puts to nature’. Nature returns one answer or the other, in accordance with statistical weightings specified by the theory. (...) Thus the standard statistical element in quantum theory enters only after the Process-1 choice is made, while the known deterministic element in quantum theory governs the dynamics that prevails between the reduction events, but not the process that determines which of the continuum of allowed Process-1 probing actions will actually occur. The rules governing that selection process are not fixed by the theory in its present form. This freedom can be used to resolve in a natural way an apparent problem of the orthodox theory, its biocentrism. That resolution produces a rationally coherent realization of the theory that preserves the basic orthodox structure but allows naturally.. (shrink)
Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical rules that describe connections between our observations. Many physicist have believed that this renunciation of the attempt describe nature herself was premature, and John von Neumann, in a major work, reformulated quantum theory as a theory of the evolving objective universe. In the course of his work he converted to a benefit what had appeared to be a severe deficiency of (...) the Copenhagen interpretation, namely its introduction into physical theory of the human observers. He used this subjective element of quantum theory to achieve a significant advance on the main problem in philosophy, which is to understand the relationship between mind and matter. That problem had been tied closely to physical theory by the works of Newton and Descartes. The present work examines the major problems that have appeared to block the development of von Neumann’s theory into a fully satisfactory theory of Nature, and proposes solutions to these problems. (shrink)
The Solvay conference of marked the birth of quantum the ory This theory constitutes a radical break with prior tradition in physics because it avers if taken seriously that nature is built not out of matter but out of knowings However the founders of the theory stipulated cautiously that the theory was not to be taken seriously in this sense as a description of nature herself but was to be construed as merely a way of computing expectations about future knowings (...) on the basis of information provided by past knowings There have been many e orts over the intervening seventy years to rid physics of this contamination of matter by mind But I use the reports at this Sym posium to support the claim that these decontamination e orts have failed and that because of recent developments pertaining to causal ity the time has come to take quantum theory seriously to take it as the basis for a conception of the universe built on knowings and other things of the same kind Quantum theory ensures that this con ception will yield all the empirical regularities that had formerly been thought to arise from the properties of matter together with all of those more recently discovered regularities that cannot be understood in that mechanical way Thus I propose to break away from the cau tious stance of the founders of quantum theory and build a theory of.. (shrink)
John Searle begins his recent article “Dualism Revisited” by stating his belief that the philosophical problem of consciousness has a scientific solution. He then claims to refute dualism. It is therefore appropriate to examine his arguments against dualism from a scientific perspective.
Ethical decisions related to computer technology and computer use are subject to three primary influences: (1) the individual's own personal code (2) any informal code of ethical behavior that exists in the work place, and (3) exposure to formal codes of ethics. The relative importance of these codes, as well as factors influencing these codes, was explored in a nationwide survey of information system (IS) professionals. The implications of the findings are important to educators and employers in the development of (...) acceptable ethical standards. (shrink)
I shall describe the beautiful fit of the ideas of Alfred North Whitehead and William James with the concepts of relativistic quantum field theory developed by Tomonaga and Schwinger.The central concept is a set of happenings each of which is assigned a space-time region.This growing set of non-overlapping regions fill out a growing space-time region that advances into the still uncreated and yet-to-be-axed future.Each happening has both experiential aspects and physical aspects,which are jointly needed to generate the advance into the (...) future.This conception is useful in passing from the pragmatic interpretation of science to a putative understanding of the reality beyond phenomena,and of our role within it. James' ideas about attention and volition are naturally implementable within this framework,and make us into agents that can act eficaciously upon the physical world on the basis of felt values, rational reasons,and conscious understandings. (shrink)
The problem at issue here is the nature of connection between the features of the experiments described in psychological/mentalistic terms and the features described in spacio-temporally-based physical terms. This question is an aspect of the long-standing problem of the relationship between mind and matter, which has a history dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks. The issue was rekindled by the rise of Newtonian physics during the seventeenth century, and it generated a huge body of speculation and argumentation (...) during the second half of the twentieth century. It is neither appropriate nor feasible try to review or explain here the complexities of contemporary philosophical opinions on this question, except to say that the reigning view is “materialism,” and that: (1), there is no agreement among its proponents as to how to make rational good sense of this doctrine (Horgan, 1994); and (2), the doctrine, and its supporters, seem, nevertheless, to have strongly influenced the thinking of many neuroscientists. The central thesis of materialism is that: “The human body is a causally complete physico-chemical system: although the body is highly susceptible to external causal influences, all physical events in the body, and all bodily movements are fully explainable in physico-chemical terms.” (Horgan, 1994:472). (shrink)
In the context of theories of the connection between mind and brain, physicalism is the demand that all is basically purely physical. But the conception of “physical” embodied in this demand is characterized essentially by the properties of the physical that hold in classical physical theories. Certain of those properties contradict the character of the physical in quantum mechanics, which provides a better, more comprehensive, and more fundamental account of phenomena. It is argued that the difficulties that have plagued physicalists (...) for half a century, and that continue to do so, dissolve when the classical idea of the physical is replaced by its quantum successor. The argument is concretized in way that makes it accessible to non-physicists by exploiting the recent evidence connecting our conscious experiences to macroscopic measurable synchronous oscillations occurring in wellseparated parts of the brain. A specific new model of the mind-brain connection that is fundamentally quantum mechanical but that ties conscious experiences to these macroscopic synchronous oscillations is used to illustrate the essential disparities between the classical and quantum notions of the physical, and in particular to demonstrate the failure in the quantum world of the principle of the causal closure of the physical, a failure that goes beyond what is entailed by the randomness in the outcomes of observations, and that accommodates the efficacy in the brain of conscious intention. (shrink)
Norbert Wiener and J.B.S. Haldane suggested during the early thirties that the profound changes in our conception of matter entailed by quantum theory opens the way for our thoughts, and other experiential or mind-like qualities, to play a role in nature that is causally interactive and effective, rather than purely epiphenomenal, as required by classical mechanics. The mathematical basis of this suggestion is described here, and it is then shown how, by giving mind this efficacious role in natural process, the (...) classical character of our perceptions of the quantum universe can be seen to be a consequence of evolutionary pressures for the survival of the species. (shrink)
This is a brief account of a theory of presentiment/retrocausation in the context of a proposed binocular rivalry experiment. According to orthodox (classical or quantum mechanical) physics there can be no retrocausal effects. In order to accommodate such effects one must go beyond/outside orthodox theories. The simplest way to modify QM in a way that would permit such effects is to accept the hypothesis of Eccles (1987) that mental involvement (mental effort or emotion) can alter the orthodox statistical weighting factors (...) associated with the observed outcomes of our experimental probing actions. (shrink)
Alfred North Whitehead in his book Process and Reality describes the history of the universe in terms of a process of ‘creative advance into novelty.’ This advance is produced by a collection of happenings called ‘actual occasions’, or ‘actual entities’. Each actual entity has an associated actual world, and it arises from its own peculiar actual world. (PR 284). Two occasions are termed ‘contemporary’ if neither lies in the actual world of the other. A key issue is whether the words (...) in Process and Reality commit Whitehead to the relativity-theory idea that, at least in our present epoch, the creative advance into novelty is not serially ordered, or whether, alternatively, the logical developments in Part IV entail, at a deep metaphysical level, that the facts specified by two contemporary occasions become fixed and settled in some definite order. Irresolution on this basic question renders Whitehead’s theory obscure and plagued with controversy. I argue, in opposition to another paper in this issue, that Whitehead endorses the relativistic viewpoint, and consistently adheres to it. This makes Whitehead’s theory compatible with relativistic quantum theory. Combining Whitehead’s relativistic process theory with relativistic quantum field theory is therefore possible, and it holds the promise of producing a rationally coherent understanding far richer than what is provided by either theory alone of the relationships between the physically described aspects of the universe and human knowledge and intentions. (shrink)
A physics-based understanding of how our conscious thoughts can affect our physically described brains is described. This understanding depends on the shift from the mechanical conception of nature that prevailed in science from the time of Isaac Newton until the dawn of the twentieth century to the psychophysical conception that emerged from the findings of Planck, Bohr, and Heisenberg.. This shift converted the role of our conscious thoughts from that of passive observers of a causally closed physically described universe to (...) that of active participant in an essentially psychophysical understanding of nature. (shrink)
It is argued that the principles of classical physics are inimical to the development of a satisfactory science of consciousness The problem is that insofar as the classical principles are valid consciousness can have no e ect on the behavior and hence on the survival prospects of the organisms in which it inheres Thus within the classical framework it is not possible to explain in natural terms the development of consciousness to the high level form found in human beings In (...) quantum theory on the other hand consciousness can be dynamically e cacious quantum the ory does allows consciousness to in uence behavior and thence to evolve in accordance with the principles of natural selection However this evo lutionary requirement places important constraints upon the details of the formulation of the quantum dynamical principles.. (shrink)
According to a common conception of causality the truth of a state ment that refers only to phenomena con ned to an earlier time cannot depend upon which measurement an experimenter will freely choose to perform at a later time According to a common idea of the theory of relativity this causality condition should be valid in all Lorentz frames It is shown here that this concept of relativistic causality is incompatible with some simple predictions of quantum theory..
Michael S. Gazzaniga is a renowned cognitive neuroscientist. He was Editor-in-Chief of the 1447 page book The Cognitive Neurosciences, which, for the past decade, has been the fattest book in my library, apart from the ‘unabridged’. His recent book The Ethical Brain has a Part III entitled “Free Will, Personal Responsibility, and the Law”. This Part addresses, from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, some of the moral issues that have been dealt with in the present book. The aim of this (...) Part III is to reconcile the materialist idea that brain activity is determined with the notion of moral responsibility, which normally depends upon the idea that we human agents possess free will. (shrink)
Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp, in a recent essay in this journal1, issued a challenge to “those who call upon consciousness to carry the burden of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.” Lest absence of a response be construed as admission of a failure of the idea that consciousness can play, via quantum measurement effects, a crucial role in neurodynamics, or that this idea has been in any rational way damaged by the arguments put forth in the cited article, (...) I respond here to that challenge. (shrink)
I have written extensively of the topic of this tutorial. But in order to reach a broad audience I have in many of my more recent works refrained from using equations. That approach makes those works accessible in principle both to readers who are repelled by equations, and also to quantum physicists who are sufficiently familiar with the details of the quantum theory of measurement to be able to fill in for themselves the omitted equations. However, that approach means also (...) that an important class of potential readers is not being optimally reached. This class consists of persons having an engineering or mathematical background, and possessing perhaps even some familiarity with classical physics, but who have little knowledge of quantum mechanics. (shrink)
Quantum theory has been formulated in several different ways. The original version was ‘Copenhagen’ quantum theory, which was formulated as a practical set of rules for making predictions about what we human observers would observe under certain well-defined sets of conditions. However, the human observers themselves were excluded from the system, in much the same way that Descartes excluded human beings from the part of the world governed by the natural physical laws. This exclusion of human beings from the world (...) governed by the physical laws is an awkward feature of Copenhagen quantum theory that is fixed by “Orthodox” quantum theory, which is the form devised by von Neumann and Wigner. This orthodox form treats the entire world as a quantum system, including the brains and bodies of human beings. Some more recent formulation of quantum theory seek to exclude from the theory all reference to the experiences of human observers, but I do not consider them, both because of their technical deficiencies, and because they are constitutionally unequipped to deal adequately with the causal efficacy of our conscious thoughts.1 The observer plays a central role in both Copenhagen and Orthodox quantum theory. In this connection, Bohr, describing the 1927 Solvay conference, noted that: “…an interesting discussion arose about how to speak of the appearance of phenomena for which only statistical predictions can be made. The question was whether, as to the occurrence of such individual events, we should adopt the.. (shrink)
Erwin Schroedinger and Werner Heisenberg were the originators of two approaches, known respectively as “wave mechanics” and “matrix mechanics”, to what is now called “quantum mechanics’ or “quantum theory”. The two approaches appear to be extremely different, both in their technical forms, and in their philosophical underpinnings. Heisenberg arrived to his theory by effectively renouncing the idea of trying to represent a physical system, such as a hydrogen atom for example, as a structure in space-time, but by instead, following the (...) lead of Einstein’s 1905 theory of relativity, representing only empirically observable properties, such as the transition amplitudes between the stationary states of the atom. These amplitudes can be arranged in square arrays of numbers. In Heisenberg’s scheme these arrays, and other like them, are combined according to certain rules that were later recognized by Max Born to be the rules of matrix multiplication. The whole scheme is abstract and mathematical, and avoids using any space-time picture of what is going on at the atomic level. Schroedinger, on the other hand, represented the electron in an atom by a cloudlike wave surrounding the nucleus. This is a space-time structure that, superficially at least, is more in line with the classical physical theories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (shrink)
The data emerging from the clinical and brain studies described above suggest that, in the case of OCD, there are two pertinent brain mechanisms that are distinguishable both in terms of neuro dynamics and in terms of the conscious experiences that accompany them. These mechanisms can be characterized, on anatomical and perhaps evolutionary grounds, as a lower level and a higher level mechanism. The clinical treatment has, when successful, an activating effect on the higher level mechanism, and a suppressive effect (...) on the lower level one. (shrink)
David Mermin suggests that my recent proof pertaining to quan tum nonlocality is undermined by an essential ambiguity pertaining to the meaning of counterfactual statements in quantum physics The ambiguity he cites arise from his imposition of a certain criterion for the meaningfulness of such counterfactual statements That criterion con ates the meaning of a counterfactual statement with the details of a proof of its validity in such a way as to make the meaning of such a statement dependent upon (...) the context in which it occurs That dependence violates the normal demand in logic that the meaning of a statement be de ned by the words in the statement itself not by the context in which the statement occurs My proof conforms to that normal requirement I describe the context independent meaning within my proof of the counterfactual statements in question.. (shrink)
Classical mechanics is based upon a mechanical picture of nature that is fundamentally incorrect It has been replaced at the basic level by a radically di erent theory quantum mechanics This change entails an enormous shift in our basic conception of nature one that can profoundly alter the scienti c image of man himself Self image is the foundation of values and the replacement of the mechanistic self image derived from classical mechanics by one concordant with quantum mechanics may pro (...) vide the foundation of a moral order better suited to our times a self image that endows human life with meaning responsibility and a deeper linkage to nature as a whole.. (shrink)
I have been encouraged by John Range, as part of the preparation for my talk in Paris on May 20 to some French philosophers, to look into Kant's position. This look has been a very brief one, considering the enormous amount written on the subject, so maybe I can get some useful corrections from this group..
claims to show that contemporary quantum theory, viewed as a set of rules that allow us to calculate statistical predictions among certain kinds of observations, cannot be imbedded in any rational framework that conforms to the principles that (1) the experimenters' choices of which experiments they will perform can be considered to be free choices, (2) outcomes of measurements are unique, and (3) the free choices just mentioned have no backward-in-time effects of any kind. This claim is similar to Bell's (...) theorem, but much stronger, because no reality assumption alien to quantum philosophy is used. The paper.. (shrink)
"Indeed I have very little idea of what this means. I do not understand in what sense the word `mechanical' is used, in characterizing the disturbances that Bohr does not contemplate, as distinct from those he does. I do not know what the italicized passage means--- `an influence on the very conditions...' . Could it mean just that different experiments on the first system give different kinds of information about the second? But this was one of the main points of (...) EPR, who observed that one could learn *either* the position *or* the momentum of the second system..... Is Bohr just rejecting the premise--- `no action at a distance'---rather than refuting the argument?". (shrink)
This question is important because our beliefs about our relationship to the world underlie our values, and our values determine the sort of world we strive to create.
There is already in quantum theory the huge *fact* of the apparent nonlocal (faster than light) connections: if one rejects the many worlds notion that all things happen [and I believe that that idea must be rejected for technical reasons --but that is a whole long argument itself] then there is an absolute need for some sort of FTL transfer of information. There simply must be a strong interconnectedness of the universe: FTL influence is unavoidable in quantum theory, if many (...) worlds is rejected. (shrink)
The classical mechanistic idea of nature that prevailed in science during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was an essentially mindless conception: the ...
Physical scientists were driven during the late twenties to abandon a fundamental idea that had reigned since the time of Issac Newton To obtain a rationally coherent and practically useful theory of all physical phenomena they turned to a pragmatic approach The core idea was that the basic physical theory was no longer directly about a physical world that was conceived to exists apart from anyone s knowledge of it Rather the theory was regarded as being directly about certain of (...) our knowings This switch appears to be exactly what is needed to establish a rationally coherent theoretical foundation for the science of consciousness For it converts the immediate objects of psychological and physical theories into things of the same kind namely human experiencings rather than things of disparate kinds separated by an unbridgable conceptual gap Within this pragmatic quantum approach certain particular aspects of human brain structure entail the existence of macroscopic quantum e ects that are linked to our conscious experiences Moreover our conscious thoughts have causal e ects that can both enhance our prospects of survival and work e ectively against thermal noise in the creation of the brain states that guide our behaviour.. (shrink)
His words effectively assert, within a scientific context, that the mental realities that comprise a person’s stream of conscious experiences can influence the state of that person’s physically described body. That claim neither follows naturally from, nor meshes rationally with, the basic physical theory that, in 1799, had prevailed in science for more than a century---since the 1687 publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia---and that would continue to prevail for an additional century, until its replacement during the twentieth century by quantum (...) theory. It is this later theory that, according to the precepts of contemporary physics, must in principle be used to describe the dynamics of the ions and other microelements that underlies the brain processes associated with the mental realties. Unlike its predecessor, quantum mechanics was specifically designed to deal with the complex relationship between the empirical aspects of science represented in our sensory experiences and the physically described properties represented in our physical theories. This incorporation of the mental allows quantum theory to provide a rationally coherent understanding of influence mind upon body identified in the epigraph. The aim of this presentation is to describe this quantummechanical understanding to an audience of neurologists. (shrink)
The data emerging from the clinical and brain studies described above suggest that, in the case of OCD, there are two pertinent brain mechanisms that are distinguishable both in terms of neuro-dynamics and in terms of the conscious experiences that accompany them. These mechanisms can be characterized, on anatomical and perhaps evolutionary grounds, as a lower-level and a higher-level mechanism. The clinical treatment has, when successful, an activating effect on the higher-level mechanism, and a suppressive effect on the lower-level one.
Werner Heisenberg was, from a technical point of view, the principal founder of quantum theory. He discovered in 1925 the completely amazing and wholly unprecedented solution to the puzzle: the quantities that classical physical theory was based upon, and which were thought to be numbers, must be treated not as numbers but as actions! Ordinary numbers, such as 2 and 3, have the property that the product of any two of them does not depend on the order of the factors: (...) 2 times 3 is the same as 3 times 2. But Heisenberg discovered that one could get the correct answers out of the old classical laws if one decreed that certain of the numbers that are used in classical physics to describe the physical properties of a material system are not ordinary numbers. Rather, they are actions having the property that the order in which they act matters! (shrink)
Copenhagen is the perfect setting for our discussion of matter and information. We have been charged by the organizers “to explore the current concept of matter from scientific, philosophical, and theological perspectives.” If by “current” one means quantum mechanical, then an essential foundation for this work is the output of the intense intellectual struggles that took place here in Copenhagen during the twenties, principally between Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfgang Pauli. Those struggles replaced the then-prevailing Newtonian idea of (...) matter as “solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable particles” with a new concept that allowed, and in fact demanded, the entry into the process governing the motion of matter of the consequences of decisions made by human subjects. This change in the conception of nature swept away the meaningless billiard-ball universe, and replaced it with a universe in which we human beings, by means of our intentional effort, can make a difference in how the “matter” in our bodies behaves. (shrink)
This talk is about you as a human person. It is about science’s conception of you as a human person. It is about what makes you different from a machine. It is about your mind, and how your mind influences your bodily actions. It is about.
This talk is about you as a human person. It is about science’s conception of you as a human person. It is about what makes you different from a machine. It is about your mind, and how your mind influences your bodily actions. It is about.
About "now", I agree with Pat that the idea of "the present now" is pretty incomprehensible within the "standard" picture, where one just adds a fourth dimension to the three spatial dimensions. This simple addition of time to the spatial dimensions is sometimes called the spatialization of time, and although Einstein himself generally avoided making ontological commitments he is sometimes credited with believing that this mathematical step is somehow closely connected to ontology. I think this attribution is merely on the (...) basis of a letter of condolence to the widow of a colleague: the letter suggested that "now" was an illusion. (shrink)
Consider the case of the double slit expt where a single photon lands on the film and twenty years later the film gets developed and a human observer looks at it. Question: What is the state of the universe during those twenty years ? (The Schrodinger cat business).
In order to derive any conclusions from CM about a specific system one must, of course, specify what the system is, and do so within the language and conceptual framework of that theory. These specifications within the mathematical framework of CM are the `boundary conditions' that a physicist must introduce to make the problem mathematically well defined.
William Robinson has asked some detailed and pertinent questions that probe essential features of the quantum mind matter synthesis I proposed. They demand detailed answers, which I shall give here. These answers rest on technical properties of quantum theory. But I believed I can describe the points in a way will be clear to non physicist.
It is widely believed by both scientists and philosophers that consciousness, as we experience it, was not always present in this universe, but emerged gradually from a more purely physical stratum in conjunction with the development of biological systems, and, in particular, nervous systems. But if one assumes that the physical foundation from which consciousness emerged is adequately described by classical physical theory then one is put in a quandry by the deterministic character of that theory. For the dynamical completeness (...) of classical physical theory entails that either the emerging structure causes actual violations of the deterministic laws or that this emerging structure makes no actual difference to the course of physical events. The second option seems implausible, because then there could be no feed back that would allow survival considerations to lead to the gradual development and.. (shrink)
When faced with an ambiguous ethical situation related to computer technology (CT), the individual's course of action is influenced by personal experiences and opinions, consideration of what co-workers would do in the same situation, and an expectation of what the organization might sanction. In this article, the judgement of over three-hundred Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP) members concerning the actions taken in a series of CT ethical scenarios are examined. Respondents expressed their personal judgement, as well as their perception (...) of their co-workers' judgement, and their understanding of the organization's judgement of the actions described in the scenarios. The findings show that there are differences in respondents' judgements for self, co-workers, and organization. Definitive patterns were also found between groups with and without organizational codes related to CT. (shrink)
Clifton, Butterfield, and Redhead [1989] have constructed two separate arguments that bear some resemblances to a proof of mine pertaining to the nonlocal character of quantum theory. Their arguments have flaws, which they point out. I explicate my proof by explaining in detail both how it differs logically from the two arguments they have constructed, and how it avoids the pitfalls of both. *This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, (...) Division of High Energy Physics of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO3-76SF00098. (shrink)
David Bourget has raised some conceptual and technical objections to my development of von Neumann’s treatment of the Copenhagen idea that the purely physical process described by the Schrödinger equation must be supplemented by a psychophysical process called the choice of the experiment by Bohr and Process 1 by von Neumann. I answer here each of Bourget’s objections.
Zurek: "In other words, a question that is unaddressed and, indeed, obscured by MWI is the very central question of the interpretation of quantum theory: How does the unambiguous correspondence between the theory and our individual perceptions come about? The Many Worlds Interpretation avoids this issue by tacitly assuming the "consciousness" will perceive the wave function of the universe "branch by branch." In other words, the properties of consciousness are being in the end blamed for what appears to have happened (...) in the course of the measurement. ...coupling to the environment does not settle all the problems of quantum measurement. ... Environmental superselection appears to me to be a hint about how to proceed rather than a means to settle the matter quickly.". (shrink)
Thank you for bringing Bigaj’s book to my attention. I promised to give you my comments after I got hold of it. As you indicated, Bigaj’s book seems largely devoted to analyzing my various arguments that the non-locality claim [that theories that reproduce certain predictions of quantum, and that embrace the idea that choices of experiments can be treated, effectively, as localized “free choices”, must allow some sort of faster-than-light transfer of information] can be strengthened by using the framework of (...) counterfactual reasoning [as contrasted to hidden-variable frameworks that effectively assume the existence of an underlying “reality” that determines, for each of the (four) alternative possible combinations of measurements between which the experimenters are considered able to freely choose, which outcome appears.] The non-existence of an underlying ‘determining reality’ would nullify the Bell-type (hidden-variable) proofs of the need for some sort of faster-than-light transfer of information. But counterfactual-based proofs can overcome that limitation. (shrink)
It is argued on the basis of certain mathematical characteristics that classical mechanics is not constitutionally suited to accommodate consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics is. These mathematical characteristics pertain to the nature of the information represented in the state of the brain, and the way this information enters into the dynamics.
I have looked over, as I promised, Searle's "The Mystery of Consciousness", and his attack therein on Chalmers. They come to a similar main conclusion, which, in accordance with our own position, is that consciousness is not logically or ontologically reducible to the objective aspects of nature.
Quantum theory has been formulated in several different ways. The original version was ‘Copenhagen’ quantum theory, which was formulated as a practical set of rules for making predictions about what we human observers would observe under certain well-defined sets of conditions. However, the human observers themselves were excluded from the system, in much the same way that Descartes excluded human beings from the part of the world governed by the natural physical laws.
{\large \bf The Emergence of Consciousness} \footnote{This work is supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098}.
