Pegs and holes: In defense of quantum mysticism

[schrodingerserection]

The following quote has been credited to the author found at this site: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread591189/pg1 (WARNING: multiple pop-ups appeared at this address.)

When Heisenberg first demonstrated his uncertainty principle, disproving classical determinism (the idea that the universe is basically a fully predictable giant 3-D billiards table), he may or may not have had an inkling of the can of worms he was opening up. Mystics of all stripes latched on to this because it seemed to vindicate their sometimes bizarre beliefs.

Others reacted to this uproar, coining the (originally) derogatory term quantum mysticism. They insisted that science does not support any of these fanciful ideas, and that the universe is still mathematical but the math is just different than before. Now properties of particles are described using probability functions rather than absolute values. But it's still predictable in this regard. If a particle has a 40% chance of being measured as being in State A vs. State B, and you have 1000 of those particles, the amount that are in State A has an extremely good chance of hovering around 400, give or take. The more particles you aggregate together, the more likely the overall outcome will coincide with the probability of an individual particle being in one state or the other (this is a law of statistics). Thus, on the so-called "macro scale", where billions of particles are aggregated together, things start to behave in a manner that better conforms to classical determinism. The gist of all this is that the universe is still orderly and predictable; we don't need to bring in supernatural entities to confound the issue.

This is an understandable and probably even appropriate response to attempts by various mystics to claim "Hey, look, we're scientific!" But I think the people who stick hard and fast to this viewpoint, and refuse to even consider some of the things the new science might allow for, have not yet undergone the five stages of grief at the death of classical determinism. Specifically, they're still in the denial stage. And indeed, the loss of classical determinism is a loss worth mourning for those who seek the truth about the universe. Einstein's statement about God not playing dice is I think a very understandable reaction of grief to this loss. The 1800s were a wonderfully optimistic time for science; we really began in earnest to discover the laws of nature and for a while it seemed obvious that the universe was as a pool table: if hypothetically someone outside existence could know everything in existence now, he could predict the future and the past to absolute perfection. It was a beautiful idea.

But it is impossible. We need to give up that idea, not only because it's no longer even hypothetically possible, but because it's become for many an unhealthy attachment that closes their minds to the possibilities that modern physics allows. It's emotional baggage that prevents us from moving forward in our quest for the truth.

Having given that background to what I want to say, I'm now going to shift gears a bit. I am not going to take advantage of the confusion by proposing a theology, declaring "QM makes it possible" and demanding that people believe. This sort of behavior I think is responsible for the negative reaction to quantum mysticism. I just want to offer food for thought. Digest it your own way.

Specifically, I want to offer an argument, that I think is convincing, about why QM may be compatible (that is, not mutually contradictory) with some forms of mysticism, and even that taking a mystical angle to the laws of nature provides something that is missing from science: a possible way to bridge physical reality with philosophy of mind. Not the way, mind you, but a possible way.

In philosophy of mind, the greatest puzzle is the so-called "hard problem of consciousness". This is the question of how raw experience arises from "inanimate" matter. So far, the best any scientist or philosopher has been able to do is describe the neural correlates of conscious experience. That is, what's going on in the brain when something is experienced. Some (Dennett for instance) have even proposed entire logical architectures to describe how the brain, as just a machine, can do what it does, and have proposed that any machine with the right architecture will have raw conscious experience.

And I think this is probably true. Neuroscience has made it quite clear that consciousness and physical reality are closely intertwined. With the right kind of brain damage you can change a whole personality. It seems a certain reductionism can be applied to consciousness as it is to matter in general. If the right structure produces consciousness, and damaged pieces of that structure produce an altered consciousness, it stands to reason that consciousness is a fundamental factor in the universe, and that even subatomic particles possess it to some rudimentary degree.

If I may be so bold, it may be that when a quantum measurement is made on a particle to determine whether it's in State A or State B, in some rudimentary way the particle chooses A or B. The degree of "incentive" to be A vs. to be B corresponds with the probability calculated from theory. You could call it a dilemma. If the probabilities are not 50/50, it's a weighted dilemma (it's "emotionally" "leaning" one way), but still a dilemma in which a choice must be made.

There are some proposals that the structure of the brain allows quantum uncertainty to "bubble up" to the macro scale, that the brain may be a big "quantum computer" so-to-speak. See quantum mind. It would not surprise me if this turned out to be the case.

Basically what I'm saying is, I think we have a peg and a hole. And we don't know what hole the peg belongs to, and what peg the hole is for. But we have both, and many refuse to even consider the possibility that the peg and the hole might go together.

The peg is consciousness, whose unknown hole is how it arises from matter. The hole is physics including quantum mechanics, whose unknown peg is the correct interpretation of the discovered laws of QM.

Could we at least try to fit the peg we already have in the hole we already have and see if they fit? Before we go off searching for "some other hole" for our peg and "some other peg" for our hole?

[Ben Davis]

to the forum! It's normal form to post an introduction before diving in to a subject. Feel free to tell us all about yourself here: Introductions

Looking at your post:

If the right structure produces consciousness, and damaged pieces of that structure produce an altered consciousness, it stands to reason that consciousness is a fundamental factor in the universe, and that even subatomic particles possess it to some rudimentary degree.

You reduce too far. As far as we can demonstrate, based on the most comprehensive current definitions, consciousness is a property of 'brains' (or similar 'experience handling' hardware); it's only observed in life that has brains and seems to be expressed differently depending on the complexity of the 'brain'. Therefore it stands to reason that it's not a fundamental factor in the 'universe', just in 'brains'. Consequently, subatomic particles won't have consciousness because they don't have brains.

If I may be so bold, it may be that when a quantum measurement is made on a particle to determine whether it's in State A or State B, in some rudimentary way the particle chooses A or B.

Without a demonstrated mechanism to conduct choices, this statement doesn't stand. Do you have any evidence to support this or is this pure supposition?

As the rest of your post is based on the errors above, your conclusions can't stand.

[Cato]

Cut and paste much?

If I may be so bold, it may be that when a quantum measurement is made on a particle to determine whether it's in State A or State B, in some rudimentary way the particle chooses A or B. The degree of "incentive" to be A vs. to be B corresponds with the probability calculated from theory. You could call it a dilemma. If the probabilities are not 50/50, it's a weighted dilemma (it's "emotionally" "leaning" one way), but still a dilemma in which a choice must be made.

This is wild speculation which could never be proven precisely because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The 50/50 bit betrays a lack of understanding of the function of probabilities in QM.

At first I concluded that you were sympathetic to the idea of emergent properties as an explanation for consciousness; however, I realized this can't be true since you go straight from QM to decision making. I think it is a mistake to not consider brain construction, composition, and function since we don't have evidence of consciousness in anything not having a brain (some things having a brain don't exhibit what we call consciousness).

Until we learn more I consider consciousness to be a property of the brain, not an unproven characteristic of QM. Your post is mysticism precisely because you are taking a poorly understood phenomenon of QM and applying it to events perceived on a much larger scale. It's like saying there is something about a particular rock that gives a pyramid its shape.

[Alex K]

While it is tempting to search for the ineffable "thereness" of consciousness in the realm of quantum states, where due to their seemingly nonlocal nature (one joint wavefunction for the entire brain?) they appear to correspond to the perceived one-ness of the self, I don't quite see how this is viable. Stuff the size of the brain with the temperature of the brain should decohere instantly (i.e. develop strong entanglement with the environment), so it would first of all act like a classical non quantum system, and second of all, the new wavefunction must be one of the brain and the surrounding world including all other people jointly - this breakdown of individuality is not observed subjectively though, making me think that quantum plays no essential part in the brain at scales beyond a neuron.

[Autumnlicious]

Locked pending verification of actual user.

[Cinjin]

Staff amended. Thread reopened.

[Odysseus]

Mysticism is okay imo because Atheism 2.0 has to allow that some are highly likely to remain religious. This gives the wiggle room for those for whom it would be advantageous to believe for both themselves and others