Essay Abstract

Although quantum mechanics can accurately predict the probability distribution of outcomes in a large number of identical systems, it cannot predict the result of individual experiment. So, Schrodinger and others had hypothesized the existence of free will in every particle which causes randomness in individual results. This free will theory however failed to quantitatively explain the quantum mechanical results. In this article, by assuming the will of particles to be biased to satisfy the goals of the collective system or universe, we mathematically derive the correct spin probability distribution without using quantum mechanical formalism (operators and Born's rule). Similarly, by using biased will, we exactly reproduce quantum mechanical spin correlation in entangled pairs of particles. Finally and most importantly, using the biased will approach, we develop a scientific justification for the form of quantum mechanical wave function of free particle (which is conventionally and till date a postulate of quantum mechanics). Thus, we prove that the will of the object biased by universe is the origin of quantum mechanical results. So, we can say that mindless mathematical laws of quantum mechanics give rise to aims and intention in complex systems because the microscopic entities from which the larger system is made up of, are biased to contribute in achievement of the collective goal of the system. Finally, in this paper we show that by using our biased will theory, we can find answers to many important philosophical questions such as how life and intelligence could have been created in nature.

Author Bio

Author has a PhD degree in Engineering and graduation degree in Electrical Engineering. Presently, he is working as a Scientific Officer in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai and is recognized as Associate Professor of Homi Bhabha National Institute, India. He has published a good number of papers in peer reviewed journals on topics related to foundations of physics. His current interests include quantum mechanics, quantum biology, quantum field theory and philosophical aspects of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

This essay for the first time mathematically proves that (even for nonliving fundamental particles like electrons, protons, photons etc) collective goal affects the individual behavior in quantum mechanics. So, through this essay, it is scientifically proved that we all (irrespective of living or nonliving collection of particles) are always unconsciously approaching towards achieving certain goals. Thus, the topic of essay is related to "Wandering towards a goal".

Hi, I am sorry but Your essay is obscure and doesn't seem to prove what you say. You say we all are unconsciously approaching towards achieving certain goals and that demonstrates wandering towards a goal. But wandering means aimless and pointless or having no goal. So I am not convinced this relates to the topic specified.

You are using a circular logic in this article, ".....instead of taking the will of nature as completely free, we have taken it to be biased to satisfy some laws and intentions (or motivations) of the universe. By this, we could form a foundation on which the postulates of quantum mechanics can stand..."

First a "biased will" cannot be "Free Will". Secondly, a biased will towards universal laws will of course follow the universal laws. Bias predetermines the outcome, hence a circular logic.

Moreover, QM is a statistical theory while Free Will is founded on certainty and not uncertainty. Hence, they are not compatible concepts.

    Thanks for the submission. I thought it was pretty interesting. Could you further explain your assumption?

    e.g. "assuming that the inanimate particles have a will and that is biased to

    satisfy the laws of universe such as conservation laws and symmetry of space."

    I am reminded of Einstein adding in a t dimension to account for time, then finding it all works well with t just added in there, and of course it had to.

    Best,

    Jack

    I want to clarify your three doubts. First, you have written that "biased will" cannot be "Free Will" ". Of course, in this essay, I have nowhere written that particles have free will. I have written that particles have "biased will". Because it is a will, at the individual level, particle behavior looks random or aimless. Because this will is biased, the whole or collective result progresses towards a goal.

    Second you have written that "Bias predetermines the outcome, hence a circular logic". I emphasize that, by taking bias, I could mathematically derive exact quantum mechanical results which has never been done earlier. Thus, I prove the existence of biased will in nature.

    Lastly, I don't agree with your statement, ".... while Free Will is founded on certainty". Actually, free will is completely random or uncertain. But, QM has a specific probability distribution i.e. collective behavior along with randomness at the individual level (For example, interference by particles). In my case, "biased will" correctly reproduces the QM results because I take partial randomness in form of "biased will".

    Dear Biswaranjan Dikshit,

    You write:

    "...since all processes occurring in the universe are governed by quantum physical laws which incorporate the biased will of the nature (as demonstrated in this paper), every system is inherently goal oriented whether we are able to perceive it or not."

    Does your work involve "fixed points?"

    That is, "Wandering towards a goal" in the context of mathematical physics suggests to me the "fixed point problem."

    Say that in a shopping mall your goal is the sporting goods store. So you stand in front of the map of the mall.

    What enables you to plan a path towards your goal is that there is, on the map in front of you, the point "You are here." Which is where you are actually standing in the mall.

    Without this "fixed point" you would be faced with a random walk towards the goal (unless you are willing to ask strangers).

    The fixed point-- "You are here"-- enables you more efficiently and effectively to move towards your goal.

    Then to me, the key in an effective use of a map for moving towards a goal is FIRST to know where you are. (So I focus on "self.")

    After "self" is identified both in the real world and on the map, then a goal can be located on the map and a route in the real world planned towards that goal.

    But first-- you have to know where the "self" is, and where it is imaged on the map.

    (There is a potentially useful mnemonic-- When going towards a goal, first know what the self is, so you can locate it in both places: "Know thyself.")

    Since you specifically say "all processes," I think of two equations where things usually thought of as "objects" can, instead, be modeled as processes:

    The quantum particle as a process:

    particle = (physicalExtension, particle)

    The observer as a process:

    self = (goal, self)

    (Other equations like this are also possible. These describe processes called "streams" in language of hypersets.)

      Thanks for interest in my essay. I agree with you that knowledge of the "self" is required to choose a particular path out of many options. Perhaps, this self consciousness exists in every (inanimate) objects in the universe !

      "I agree with you that knowledge of the "self" is required to choose a particular path out of many options."

      I would respectfully add: "By following a 'map' in which the self has the possibility to see itself represented"-- perhaps like the "map" a person of that day could have experienced when listening to Parmenides express a version of his poem for a particular time, place and audience, which would be lost to us today because we lack not only the accurate translation but also the required context of time, place and feeling expressed at that time in the voice and body language of the poet's moment-- poetic feeling which would have been required in order to convey the non-verbal knowledge of which Parmenides was speaking, and the map to it, which he was trying to convey.

      "Perhaps, this self consciousness exists in every (inanimate) objects in the universe !"

      Perhaps. But I suspect most people, creatures, and somehow analogically, quantum particles are unconscious of such a map, even if they have been lucky enough to see it, but instead are driven in their choices by unconscious fear, mostly of being wrong, fear which binds many of us to some group whose strongly emotional beliefs we share. Living in constant fear, like the laboratory animal being observed in experiments on "probability learning," we seem to behave as in the Nash equilibrium evident in foraging experiments, where the animals congregate in stable groups around various probabilistic feeding stations. I may be afraid, but at least I'm together with others who express a terrifyingly strong reaction to that fear.

      Hence (and perhaps sadly) the title of my essay.

      Dear Mr. Biswaranjan Dikshit

      Article is brilliant. That's how I imagined an essay on a given topic. Everything is rational and logical.

      However, I would reformulated two of your conclusion. I would say a) The answer to first question (a) is that since all processes occurring in the universe are related.

      In my essay, you can see my definition of the Mach principle and mathematical proof of this assertion.

      biased will of the nature resulting from the interaction of the whole and the parts of the universe. Part can not be the cause of the whole, but related with the whole.

      In the b) I use Occam's razor and say: Answer to second question (b) is that some amount of goal oriented behavior is there in every system.

      Regards,

      Branko

      Dear Professor Dikshit,

      Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

      Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

      One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible "quantum particles."

      The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      I am curious to know what the author means by the term 'will' and 'free will'. What does it mean for particles to have a 'will' and 'biased will' on top of that?

      Is the author suggesting, that the 'will' in all particles is some kind of fundamental property of everything in the universe? Are they only limited to particles or do fields and waves have a 'will' too?

      Can we measure the actual 'will' of a particle, or only infer it from how it follows the laws of the universe?

        Dear Prof Dikshit,

        You say - "Because it is a will, at the individual level, particle behavior looks random or aimless. Because this will is biased, the whole or collective result progresses towards a goal."

        A biased free will at the individual level must also be biased towards a goal because it is not absolutely free will. Why do you say that particle behavior is random but system is not while both have biased will?

        A theory that has to be biased to achieve a desired result is not a real theory but an empirical correlation. That is a real weakness of the QM theory. Another huge weakness is that QM predicted vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude higher than the observed vacuum energy density of the universe. When Einstein had to use a bias or fudge factor of cosmological constant to achieve the observed vacuum energy results, he called it the biggest blunder.

        Regards

        Avtar

        Dear Mr Natesh Ganesh,

        Thank you very much for reading my article and for asking the specific questions. The 'will' is a kind of creativity which is fundamentally present in everything in this universe. If this 'will' were free, it would have led to purely random results everywhere. But practically, we see a specific probability distribution which is conventionally explained by quantum mechanics. However in this essay, I have mathematically proved that not only the observed probability distribution but also the postulates of quantum mechanics can be derived just by taking the 'will' biased by the whole or collection.

        To answer your second question,since everything (including particles, fields, waves etc) obey quantum mechanics, all of them have 'biased will'.

        Your third question 'Can we measure the will?' is very interesting. To answer this, let us understand what do we mean by measurement. In any measurement process, we first predict the consequence of a particular value of variable and compare it to experimental observation. If the prediction and observation match, we take that the assumed value of variable is correct. For instance, how do we measure position of a stationary particle? We predict that if another moving particle hits the stationary particle at assumed position, the moving particle should be deflected. If this happens in experiment, we take assumed position as the measured value. To cite another example, how will you measure temperature of your body? You predict that if the mercury level in a glass thermometer touching your body reaches the mark 98.6 0F, your temperature is 98.6 0F. Similarly, as the assumed existence of "biased will' in nature predicts exactly correct and experimentally verified probability distribution of events, we take that 'biased will' does exist in everything.

        Dear Professor Dikshit,

        Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible "quantum particles."

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Biswaranjan, you claim to present `a scientific proof´ that some `will´ is active in each particle or microscopic object, and that this will is biased by the `will of nature´, or biased `to satisfy ... intentions (or motivations) of the universe´.

        Note that you could present by exactly the same arguments `a scientific proof´ that the course of events in this world is steered by the will of God. You merely need to replace `will of nature´ and `will of the universe´ by `will of God´ everywhere in you article, and the proof is complete. Does it mean that you presented a scientific proof for the active presence of God in this world?

        Alternatively, you could replace `will of nature´ and `will of the universe´ everywhere in you article by `chance´. Then your your article would become `a scientific proof´ for the fact that the course of events in this world is steered by chance. And now you can see why your alleged `proof´ is so flexible: In physics, the word `chance´ is nothing but a shortcut for `not ruled by deterministic laws of nature´. I.e. it is something negative. Twentieth century physics achieved a truly scientific proof for the fact that the outcome of single measurements is not ruled by deterministic laws of nature.

        `not ruled by´ is something negative. Of course we would like to know a positive answer. Is the result of a single measurement ruled by the will of the universe? Is it ruled by the will of God? Is it ruled by mindless chance? Within science, we can only find the negative answer `not ruled by deterministic laws of nature´. If we want to find a positive answer, we must search beyond the application range of science.

        Two remarks of minor importance:

        (1) You mention the `superiority of law of quantization of spin over the law of conservation of angular momentum.´. No such superiority of laws does exist nor is needed in physics. In interactions of photons with charged matter, angular momentum is strictly conserved at any time, as you can see in the formalism of quantum electrodynamics. The conservation of angular momentum merely becomes invisible in the photon polarization measurement, because the photon angular momentum is negligible versus the macroscopic analyzer's angular momentum.

        (2) You write `... discovery of first quantum mechanical formalism by Schrodinger in 1926´. Actually Heisenberg invented quantum theory in the mathematical form of matrix mechanics in summer 1925. In winter 1925/26 Schrödinger invented quantum theory in the mathematical form of wave mechanics. Some weeks later Schrödinger detected that both quantum theories actually were completely equivalent, i.e. he had merely invented Heisenberg's quantum theory a second time in a different mathematical disguise. With two equivalent mathematical forms of the identical theory available, of course everybody --- including Heisenberg --- switched to wave mechanics, because Schrödinger's formalism of operators and differential equations was much more elegant and efficient than Heisenberg's tedious matrix calculus.

          Dear Gerold Gruendler,

          Thank you very much for your interest in my essay. Of course, if we want, we can replace the "will of nature" in my essay as "will of God" provided we assume that nature having a will is same as God . I would also like to point out that nature here simultaneously refers to microscopic particle on which experiment is carried out, other particles/systems which are in quantum coherence with it and the whole universe that tries to impose conservation laws. But, I don't agree with you that "will of nature" can be replaced by "chance" as in my essay it is the "will of nature" that imparts a goal oriented behavior leading to quantum mechanical probability distribution where as "chance" is completely random.

          You have commented- "´superiority of law of quantization of spin over the law of conservation of angular momentum.´. No such superiority of laws does exist nor is needed in physics.".

          I agree that presently no such law now exists in physics. But you can conclude about the truth by following reasoning. Suppose initially a single electron spin is oriented along Z-axis so that its spin along Z-axis is +1/2. Now you try to measure the spin of same electron along X-axis. Naturally, by conservation of angular momentum, you will expect spin angular momentum to be zero where as practically you will get +1/2 or -1/2. How will you understand this? This can be understood by accepting the superiority of law of quantization of spin over the law of conservation of angular momentum.

          You say "In this paper, by assuming that the inanimate particles have a will..."; but why should we assume any such thing? And if we did make that assumption, and if it was true, it would just move the puzzle of the origin of will back into the question of how do inanimate particles possess "will".

            Since the assumption of 'will' in fundamental particles has led to exactly correct and experimentally verified probability distributions in my essay, I take that my assumption is correct.

            Main motivation of this method is that it provides a mathematical justification for basic form of quantum mechanical wave function.

            You have also raised the question "How do inanimate particles possess "will"?". My answer is that every fundamental or inanimate particle in this universe inherently posses 'will' just like it contains energy. It is present in the particle since the time of its creation. When in an assembly of such particles, these 'will' of different members become coherent, the assembly shows a life like behavior such as that of a living cell.