Quantum Mechanics and the Source of Awareness by Casey Blood

Dear Casey Blood,

A number of your points are easy to agree with-- for instance, "collapse of the wave-function" and "many worlds" seem to lack experimental means of verification. You state that "awareness cannot be ignored in physics. While difficult to frame experimentally, this seems intuitively obvious. I believe that the most significant problem in physics is that it fails to address awareness, so I would like to focus on this. You have developed your ideas well based upon your basic assumptions, but I would like to question two of these assumptions:

1.) That particles are not real, and

2.) That the Mind (the source of awareness) is non-physical.

Relevant to the first claim is that, in some sense, the wave-function represents "spreadout matter". You state that, in spite of the "spreadout" nature of the wave-function, "one and only one grain is exposed" and "we perceive a single particle-like trajectory in a cloud or bubble chamber." These are clearly particle like properties and consistent with the real properties: mass, charge, energy and momentum.

To get around the problem that a "spreadout" wave-function is only perceived as a "particle-like" reality, you then note that "the mathematics tells us they [the multiple grains hit by the spreadout wave-function] "exist" in entirely different, non-communicating universes. We perceive the events in only one of them, exactly as if we lived in one universe or another."

You also state that "it is not clear why the branch of the wave-function that has the particle on it is the one we are aware of." nevertheless, you conclude that the current state of physics is that, most likely,

"Only the wave function, with all its branches, physically exists."

If I understand this properly, from your perspective, it is the wave-function that is real, and therefore you are faced with the problem of explaining why all of the grains are hit by the spreadout wave-function, but only one grain is exposed. Clearly the 'non-communicating' nature of these universes prevents physical measurements and I am somewhat confused about how exactly this differs from "many worlds" interpretation of QM.

I find this hard to accept. Perhaps you are familiar with Alfred Korzybski's dictum:

"The Map is not the Territory."

In this case the particle appears to me to be the "territory" possessed of real physical attributes, while the wave-function is the "map", possessed of non-physical aspects such as being spread over space-time in several alternate universes.

This multi-branch character appears to me to be necessitated by the unpredictability of any specific measurement, that is, the essence of QM "probability" is the fact that outcomes of individual measurements are unpredictable, augmented by the fact that, at least for many important cases, the outcomes form a discrete set, not a continuum. If this is the reality [i.e., what we jointly perceive] then our physics theory problem is to draw a map [the wave function] that best describes this physical reality. Because the outcomes are discrete and exclusive [only one will be observed] we assign various 'exclusive' descriptors and this is best done with an orthogonal basis set. The sum of these individual map elements we term the state vector or wave-function and the goal is to derive the "best" map or wave function that corresponds to reality.

James Putnam asks in your forum: "What does a mathematical construct such as a wave function tell us that makes these properties real?"

It seems an inversion of logic to assume that a map containing all components is the fundamental reality rather than the territory which you clearly state is always perceived as a singular state/particle.

If we do assume that the singular (particle) territory is the reality and the multi-component state vector is the map, then the question becomes what causes the particle to "choose" one of the possible outcomes. There is widespread agreement that the behavior is not deterministic/predictable.

You conclude that, to avoid the no-hidden-variable, no-collapse, no-many-worlds barrier to awareness in each branch,

"there is always one quantum version of reality whose characteristics corresponds exactly - qualitatively and quantitatively - to our physical perceptions"

I consider this to acknowledge that we have an "ideal map" that accurately represents the territory. The various interpretations of QM are intended to "explain" this map, which consists of a multi-dimensional state vector, with each dimensional component or branch corresponding in your essay to another universe in which the relevant physics play out.

I believe you are lead to this interpretation by your assumptions concerning awareness.

From the particle perspective, the reality is that one particle hits one grain, but this grain could be one of many, so we need a way to cover all of the many-- this is what the wave-function does, but more explanation is needed.

As you state: QM prohibits the simultaneous perception of two versions of reality; QM does not say how the version we perceive is "selected"

If I have represented your essay accurately I would like to proceed to discuss the "awareness" aspects, beginning with your Non-Physical Mind Interpretation.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Casey Blood,

Your key point is that:

Only the wave function, with all its branches, physically exists.

and claim it's reasonable that only the wave function, with all its branches, exists, so something besides the wave function must exist and must be responsible for our awareness of one specific branch, because in any given instance, there is always one quantum version of reality corresponding exactly to our physical perceptions: "This tells us that existence is constructed exactly as if there were a non-physical Mind looking in from outside physical reality"

You suppose a non-physical Mind, not subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, that rides along on one branch, and further "this Mind picks out only one version of the wave function."

This non-physical Mind [per person] perceives only the wave function of the individual brain (brain-body); it does not directly perceive the quantum state of the external world. Further, "each Mind is a fragment or facet of a single overarching MIND" [accounting for agreement between two observers]

This leaves unanswered -- why the probability law holds.

If "the Map is not the Territory", assume the particle is the "territory" possessed of real physical attributes, while the wave-function "map" is possessed of non-physical aspects -- being spread over space-time in several alternate universes.

Then the singular (particle) territory is the reality and the multi-component state vector is the map, and the question becomes what causes the particle to "choose" one of the possible outcomes, based on widespread agreement that the behavior is not deterministic or predictable.

You claim that the reality is the many branched wave-function [one universe per branch] and the problem is to explain how Mind selects only one of these branches to be aware of, and further that two such Minds [in different brain-bodies] will agree upon this reality.

Consider Mind and awareness. I define consciousness as

consciousness = awareness plus volition,

where volition is the "ability to act" and specifically, the ability to act freely, i.e. free will.

You seem to separate awareness and volition -- placing awareness outside the physical universe and ignoring volition. But consider experience -- when I consciously decide to "raise the mass of my arm against the force of gravity", I am aware of the act and freely will the act [ I reject current "zombie" theories of consciousness as nonsense.]

Let's model consciousness as a "field" in the physical sense, with properties of the physical field being awareness and volition. For purposes of discussion, conceive of the gravitational field in these terms -- then gravity is "aware" of other masses at a distance, and "acts" upon these masses. The presumed difference is that the gravitational field acts deterministically and in predictable fashion, whereas the consciousness field acts unpredictably and therefore in a manner best described probabilistically. In this theory awareness is physical -- coupled to physical reality.

Our "particle" (the singular reality, not the multi-universe "component" of some state vector) has mass and therefore [see my essay] couples to the consciousness field. This coupling produces the probabilistic behavior described by quantum mechanics. Since one single-valued function cannot describe all possible outcomes, we use multiple orthogonal functions and find that the interaction of the function with itself (psi-star-psi) represents the presumed interaction of the consciousness field with itself (and with the particle).

Note that the interaction of the consciousness field with mass is a physical coupling, with increase in local consciousness field strength and effective force applied locally to mass, according to the equations in my essay. This local interaction and awareness is in contrast to your non-physical Mind that stands outside the universe but does not take part, because you say that "the Mind only perceives, it does not alter the wave function in any way."

In our model the consciousness field perceives (senses) AND interacts with moving mass. Because the energy of the field has equivalent mass, the field interacts with its own mass, thereby modeling 'self-awareness'. The combination of these dynamic behaviors leads to an unpredictability that requires probabilistic treatment, hence quantum mechanics.

Note that, contrary to the discussion in your forum, the "particle" is not conscious--the field is the source and repository of consciousness. The self-interaction of the field with itself plus the interaction of the field with local "structure" leads to "variable density" local consciousness, with the body-brain structure preserving a self-interacting, self-aware local "maximum" for non-trivial periods of time, but (per your Mind/MIND assumption) still connected to the universal consciousness field which gives rise to the "shared reality" by which two observers experience the same universe (in spite of brains that have different genetic structure, differrent learning history, different ideas, etc).

I believe that the above outline describes an interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not require "collapse of the wave function" or "many worlds" but does allow/explain real physical particles. It may be said to have some "hidden variable" aspect, but I'm sure that Bohm did not anticipate a hidden variable possessed of free will/volition.

Thank you for emphasizing in your essay the important fact that physics *must* begin to take conscious awareness into account. I enjoyed your exposition of one model, and hope you enjoy mine.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Casey,

Do you think that the universe's creation was a pure physical process when we do not know anything about what exited prior to it. Physics is just a desriptional science about the physical nature in our visible tiny part of the Universe. We are still in the dark about the 96% dark matter/energy.

If we continue to fix the methodology for doing Physics what has been done thus far, we will be stopping ourselves from solving the unsolved mysteries. Path breaking ideas may well involve modifying the methodology being adopted. We ahve encountered such things already in Physics when we needed to understand things that defied existing concepts in the explanation. Just see what was the need for Einstein to express an opinion that he thought that one day an alternate theory will replace Quantum echanics. He simply did not like that everything has a 100% random origin. Just a look at the evolution design of the universe thus far, we sense a highly intelligent logical component in it.Can we attempt to say why the universe pattern had to be like it is. We study onlt the what's and how's and not the why's in all sciences. The creator has kept something to Himself. Let us broaden our approach continuously,as i feel close collaboration of Physics with life sciences is bound to benefit Physics of today. Life force is truly a mystery to quantify!

Hi Nath,

Not sure I understand where you are going with your remark.

Quantum mechanics is a very successful theory.

What I'm trying to do is show it is incomplete; it cannot account for everyting about our perceptions.

Then I'm arguing that, to complete it, something outside current physics (quantum mechanics), something like a "mind," is needed.

Casey

Hi Darryl,

Thanks for your post.

In such a theory, one ewould expect one version of reality to be singled out--either the Sch cat alive version or the Sch cat dead version. I couldln't see how the singling out is done in a quick read of your article. Is there collapse?

Also, how do you handle probability?

And free will?

Dr. Casey Blood,

Hello again. I am preparing to write an opinion of your essay. I think your work along with some other participants who are attempting to move beyond mechanical style theoretical physics and account for the existence of intelligent life is an important contribution to this contest. For the moment though I have a single question. I must assume this is the fault of my own limitations. The question is: You state that "We know from everyday experience that observer 1 and observer 2 (and the cat) must be in agreement. And we know from quantum mechanics itself that two observers can never disagree. ..." Can you please say something about why your second sentence is true? What is it about quantum mechanics that does not allow two observers to disagree? Thank you.

James

Hi James,

Thanks. I also believe an accurate non-mechanistic view of existence is extremely important at this time.

To illustrate the two-observer *problem*, suppose we do Sch cat with two observers. Then the wave function/state vector is

[|obs 1, v1 sees cat alive> |obs 2, v1 sees cat alive> |cat alive>]

[|obs 1, v2 sees cat dead> |obs 2, v2 sees cat dead> |cat dead>]

We then have the second observer ask the first observer what he saw. The point is that the two versions of reality are in entirely different, non-communicating universes. So |obs 2, v1> can only ask |obs 1, v1> (and not |obs 1, v2>) and

|obs 2, v2> can only ask |obs 1, v2>. Thus, on each branch of the wave function, what obs 1 tells obs 2 will always agree with obs 2's perceptions.

Casey

Dr. Casey Blood,

I think that your work recognizing the existence of intelligent life and its interrelatedness as a central part of the nature of the universe advances theoretical physics beyond its current limitation of mechanical type ideas. I see various efforts in this contest to move this obvious need forward. It is heartening. I do not know what the best path is; and, I have not reached the point where I can show this kind of progress. So, I am very appreciative of the work by others to bring ourselves, i.e. intelligent human life, into the solutions of theoretical physics.

We are definitely here. We must be accounted for. Any final or even near final theoretical explanation of the universe must be able to show a clear, direct connection between us and the fundamental nature of universe. Mechanical theories that lay claim to bringing intelligence into existence are, I think, trying to grab credit simply by association. The universe is usually defined mechanically and yet it is clearly seen that intelligent life exists. The conclusion that this association shows that mechanics leads to intelligence is unscientific.

You are not shackled by this artificial constraint, and, your work to bring intelligent effects and mechancial level effects together is an important contribution to scientific learning.

James

Thanks again.

As you can see from the ratings, there is an enormous amount of resistance to a non-mechanical theory. I just don't understand it, either from a common-sense point of view, or from a detailed technical analysis. Fear of, or scorn for religion, I guess. But *religion* is very different from the real understanding. I hope you keep at your quest. **When you can tell the container from the contents, then you will have knowledge.**

Casey

Hi Casey. Thoughts are bodily (and physically) interactive. The natural and integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought go hand-in-hand.

Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. The brain is vision/a visual experience. Thought(s) are not identical with vision(s).

Kindly consider rating and commenting upon my essay. It is the fourth from the top. Thanks.

Schrodinger suggested "a new type of physical law" regarding life/thought and inanimate/animate. The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light in a fourth dimension of space is this new physical law. The physical structure, form, and sensory experience of this law is/occurs in dream experience.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for your comments.

I would be more comfortable with your essay if I understood how the ideas relate to what is known about the brain. Sensory perceptions, reasoned thoughts, and emotions all have neural correlates--the firing of neurons in certain specific areas of the brain. All indications are that the same is true of dreams; the visual and emotional regions in particular are activated. How does this relate to your ideas? Why should the firing of neurons relate to theories of electromagnetism and gravity?

Casey

Hi Casey. I will gladly review and comment on your essay. The following will be of use to you.

I discuss the relative disintegration of vision in dreams, including the fact that the dream is an emotionally centered experience. I explain how all of this relates to, and involves, the [gravitational] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought and sense. I also explain how dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (includng gravity and electromagnetism/light). The firing of neurons is not necessary/essential to my position. That is clear when carefully reading and considering the essay. The [waking] extensiveness of thought is reduced by the higher (and emotional) feeling of the dream.

What certain essay contestants on here fail to realize is that time has 3 parts -- past, present, and future. Any TOE must not only address the integrated extensiveness of experience in general, but it must address this as well. You cannot have a TOE whereby time is dimininished, in other words. The integrated extensiveness of being/thought/experience must address the integrated extensiveness of time. The totality of time must be understood in conjunction with, and inseparable from, the present. Physics, to date, has failed miserably at this.

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

This is a FACT, and it is perfectly written. The limits of both physics and the understanding in general cannot be properly understood apart from this central and most important idea.

The mathematical union of gravity AND electromagnetism/light with the addition of a fourth dimension of space to Einstein's theory is undeniable. The physical reality, structure, and sensory experience of this unification occurs in/as dream experience. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). To think that the unification of Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light is not plainly and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest blunders/omissions of common sense that has ever occurred.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by making gravity repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light is required. I have clearly and thoroughly demonstrated this, including demonstrating electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space (in the experience of dreams). The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space in dreams is central to balancing/unifying scale in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. You have to read, and very carefully consider, my entire essay (including ALL OF my posts underneath it.)

Hi Casey. I am reviewing your essay, and I will provide more comments.

Thought(s) is/are different from vision/visual experiences. (Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.) However, there is no denying the fundamentally interactive nature of being, thought, experience, and space.

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." -- Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell - "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows:

This physical and "general" law is the known unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis of this law (and unification) is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

What are your thoughts on all of this please?

Hi Frank,

My thoughts.

Perceptions, emotions and thoughts have a neural correlate.

The trick is to try and deduce FROM QM that there is some intelligence,

awareness and emotion in addition to the brain.

But you must know how the brain functions pretty well before you can begin

to draw conclusions.

Casey

Dear Casey,

i am happy to visit yo u again. Do you associate mind with the organ brain entirely or you differentiate between the two and if so how? It seems you agree that consciousness is playing a discrete role in our knowledge of Physics. Klingman has explained in detail what he feels on the subject. yes, QM has been successful to explain things in the microworld but only when we take illustrative help from the classical picture, to accept the concepts involved.

There has been a Internet site report attributed to a Nobel Leaurete, Prof. Eccles of Oxford. While studying the Supplementary Area (SMA) of the brain, he observed unlikely activity of the neurons therein. he attributes it to some kind of external signals affecting that activity inside the brain. He further believes that such interactions appear to get recorded in a non-physical sheath covering the SMA.That record therefore does not die with the death of that body. It is an intersting statement from a biological scientist that may help us understand the human mind and consciousness associated. it is for this reason and others that i suggest in my essay on this forum that physicists need to colloborate closely with the lfe scientists and not just provide them the sophisticated physical instruments they use to their studies