Science and Spirit Weekly Post: Quantum Theory and Consciousness
Hi Folks,
Continuing on the theme of consciousness, we inevitably run into ideas in quantum theory. I searched around and found this piece that gives a pretty good foundation to understanding the connection. In this first part, the writer introduces us to the language and ideas of quantum theory, as well as some important interpretations. A good introduction is essential to beginning the conversation about its relationship with consciousness.
I hope you find it helpful and enjoyable.
Tally-ho!
Julia Bystova
Quantum Physics & Consciousness.
By: Mark Bancroft, MA
PART ONE:
"The Precarious Beginnings of Quantum Theory"
To begin to understand what quantum physics is and where this field of study is currently headed it is necessary to begin with an overview of the language used within this area of study. All too often the simple, yet critical first step of establishing clear definitions for terms and phrases describing the subject to be studied is overlooked resulting in collective myopia of the participants. In the study of quantum physics this is a common phenomenon. Apparently there exists a silent agreement which oftentimes goes unquestioned as to the meaning of words, such as: matter, reality, paradox, consciousness, subjectivity, and observation. Even the literal definitions of "science" and "physics" are oftentimes very much different from their implied meanings. Thus, before we undertake the challenge of understanding how quantum physics came to be, the challenges it is now facing, and where it is headed; a foundation must be created from which to explore the dynamic qualities and mysterious discoveries this scientific endeavor has to share.
To begin with we must first consider what is meant by the word "science". It is quite common to think we know what science means, and therefore assume that our meaning of the word is identical to other peoples' interpretation of the word. However, upon examining the literal definition of the word and the actual work being done under the name of "science", two very different pictures are revealed. In The American Heritage Dictionary the literal definition of the word "science" is:
- 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomenon.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomenon.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method.1
Upon closer scrutiny the above definition reveals some interesting discoveries. In the first line we see objectivity being married to subjective interpretation. Thus science, according to strict definition, would mean objective activities (observation & experimental investigation) which are then subjected to mental thought processes (theoretical explanation of phenomenon ). Even more interesting is that in examining the second and third lines we find that science is restricted to a class of natural phenomenon, which appears to require study and method.
The most common definition of science may be found in people's associations to the word. "Science" typically denotes absolute objectivity, unbiased assessments of observable events, and necessary exclusion of a subjective mind. Yet, according to the word's written definition (which contains the words: appears, phenomenon, and explanation ) we may conclude that our inner pictures of what science is- is not the same as what science does. Philosopher Karl Popper is quoted as saying, "Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification."2
Quantum physics is a branch of physics which concerns itself with the study (observation) of the subatomic realm. Physics is defined as, "The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two. Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws. The study of the natural or material world and phenomenon."3 Being a scientific endeavor the above definition appears to fit with the somewhat vague definition of science.
Quantum physics has directly challenged the meaning of matter for more than fifty years. Being defined as, "Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole."4 Thus, matter may also mean the entire universe; including "'not-real' stuff". The atom was considered to be the indivisible building block of the universe up until the discovery of the electron. Now, particle physicists postulate that there are sixty-one elementary particles which make up all matter in the universe.
Rather than a single atom, one must now consider the presence of quarks, neutrinos, gluons, bosons, and higgsons.5 Experiments in quantum physics suggest that the world (the universe) is not made of objects at all, rather it is created out of probability waves.6 It was discovered that as one probes deeper into the subatomic level things become more and more complex until causal reality no longer exists. Ken Wilber explains,
- As scientists began exploring the world of subatomic physics, they naturally assumed that all the old Newtonian laws, or something like them, would apply to the protons, neutrons, and electrons. But they didn't. Not at all, not even a little. The shock was comparable to pulling off your glove one day and finding a lobster claw where you expected your hand.7
According to physicist Leon Lederman there are three qualities we know about quantum theory. 1. It is counterintuitive, 2. It works, 3. It has problems. Lederman goes on to write, "In spite of the great practical and intellectual success of quantum theory, we cannot be sure we know what the theory means."8 It is this ambiguity within the "hard" science of physics that has helped initiate a crisis unlike science has ever encountered. Once concerned with the motion and trajectory of particles, physics is now considering questions which would have been labeled as blasphemy throughout academic circles a hundred years ago. Now, numerous physicists are speculating about the nature of reality, the existence of consciousness, even the existence of God.
Professor of Mathematical Physics, Frank Tipler, confidently proclaims that physics can and will lead to the immortality of humankind. He shares on page three of his book, The Physics of Immortality ,
Either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content, or else theology must ultimately become a branch of physics…The Goal of physics is understanding the ultimate nature of reality. If God is real, physicists will eventually find Him/Her.9
As the objects of observation became smaller physicists have had to rely more upon axioms (statements true by definition) than ever before. Given the probabilistic nature of the quantum level the Newtonian model of "cause and effect" lost its predictive powers. In quantum-land there apparently are no causes. Because of this, classical language cannot be used to accurately describe quantum events.10
The reason classical language is insufficient to convey quantum discoveries is that a probabilistic universe is one in which definite boundaries (outer & inner, objective & subjective) collapse. In this sense the physicist and mystic confront a challenge; both are forced to use boundary laden language to describe a realm where there apparently are no boundaries.
- A language possesses utility only so far as it can construct conventional boundaries. A language of no boundaries is no language at all, and thus the mystic who tries to speak logically and formally of unity consciousness is doomed to sound very paradoxical or contradictory. The problem is that the structure of any language cannot grasp the nature of unity consciousness, any more than a fork could grasp the ocean.11
Because of this, the mystic trying to describe unity consciousness often sounds like the quantum physicist trying to explain a probabilistic world immersed in an "and/both" paradox rather than the familiar "either/or" orientation. The inadequacy of language is just as real for the physicist as it is for the mystic; even though they are not attempting to describe the same world.
- "The world of physics and mysticism are similar" is a wild over-generalization and is based, as one physicist recently put it, "on the use of accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply rooted connections.12
Quantum physics dates back to the late nineteenth century and is associated with the work of German physicist Max Planck. In the 1890's Planck set out to explain the phenomenon of blackbody radiation; the observation that the color of light emitted from an object did not change in a linear fashion to its temperature. Planck provided an explanation for the phenomenon in 1900 by postulating that light is emitted or absorbed in packets of definite size, which he called a quanta.13 Thus light, once considered a wave, was now being described as a particle (photon) in order to solve the riddle of blackbody radiation.
During the 1920's it became clear that electrons also exhibit wave-like characteristics. This meant that particles, not just light (which has no mass), can be considered to function as particles and waves. The wave/particle duality was directly observed in 1987 through the double slit experiment. Demonstrated in the double-slit experiment are photons and electrons displaying both particle and wave behavior.
- In the two-slit experiment, if the physicist looks for a particle (uses a particle detector), he will find a particle; if he looks for a wave (uses a screen), he will see a wave pattern before him.14
This implies that reality can be a wave or a particle depending upon the observer. It also suggests that: either particles can travel beyond the speed of light (a theoretical impossiblity), or that everything is connected, joined together. Richard Feynman, considered to be one of the greatest physicists of his generation, begins his Lectures on Physics with, "The central mystery of quantum theory is encapsulated in the experiment with two holes."15 This means that if one can fully understand the double-slit experiment, then one will understand quantum physics. The strangeness of the double-slit experiment makes it apparent that at the subatomic level discrete objects do not exist; our perception of reality may be an illusionary phenomenon.
Other quirky experiments throughout the twentieth century have antagonistically confirmed that the quantum realm is inhabited not by logic and common sense; rather, by mystery, contradiction, and paradox. Einstein did not like the subjectivity inherent in quantum theory. He could not believe that the physical world was founded upon probability waves that were affected by an observer and could not be fully known. Einstein, along with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published what is known as the EPR thought experiment in 1935, designed to show that the world actually does exists at the quantum level. Einstein proposed that the cause of the subatomic strangeness was simply due to unknown 'hidden variables'; one's ignorance of such variables does not mean the world does not exist. The EPR experiment was based on the idea that by exploding an electron it would be possible to measure both the position and momentum of a subatomic particle. Studying photon 'A' could provide the position, while its counterpart, photon 'B', would remain to provide the momentum of a subatomic particle due to the photons' polarized nature (coupled opposites).
Although the EPR experiment was theoretically plausible the hidden-variables theory was not taken seriously until 1966, by John Stuart Bell. John Bell discovered a mathematical mistake made by mathematician John von Neumann in 1932 (known as von Neumann's silly mistake) which falsely conceded that hidden variables could not be possible. Upon discovering the mistake, Bell finally proved that hidden variables could describe quantum events if non-locality was included.16 Intrigued with impossibility proofs, Bell managed to devise one that rejects all models of reality based on locality. The proof (Bell's theorem) states that the assumption of locality must satisfy a mathematical inequality, known today as Bell's inequality. In general, "Bell's theorem says that reality must be non-local."17 For Henry Stapp quantum non-locality means that, "the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time but generates events that can be located in space-time."18
In 1981 the EPR thought experiment was finally conducted by Alain Aspect and his colleagues. "They demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that common sense (and Einstein) were wrong, and that non-locality really does rule in the quantum world."19 Put another way,
- If you want to believe there is a real world out there, you cannot do without non-locality; if you want to believe that no form of communication takes place faster than the speed of light, you cannot have a real world, independent of the observer.20
The double-slit experiment, Bell's theorem, blackbody phenomenon (The UV Catastrophe), and the EPR experiment which was carried out in the early 1980's, comprise the mysteriousness of quantum reality which refuses to be ignored. To explain the results and findings of quantum investigation physicists have had to compose elaborate theories which often appear to be no more than fictitious stories. But, no matter how strange the stories appear, keep in mind that each one is the result of the scientific method being used to investigate the subatomic universe.
The Copenhagen Interpretation: Created by Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born in 1930, the Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of the quantum world. The theory maintains that reality exists in the form of probability waves. Physical objects only "appear" due to the collapse of their probability waves by a conscious observer. In its simplest form it means that any quantum experiment must include everything about the experiment's setup, including the experimenter.21
The Uncertainty Principle: Developed by Werner Heisenberg the principle states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a quantum object. When one measures the position of an electron it will destroy information about the electrons momentum; your observation disturbs it.22
Many Worlds Theory: As an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation the many-worlds theory, created by Hugh Everett, Wheeler, and Graham, posits that whenever the universe faces a quantum choice, the entire universe splits into as many copies of itself as necessary to carry out every possible alternative- we experience only one world, while, in fact, for every possible quantum choice another world exists so that all probabilities are manifest.23 We get to experience only one of the many existing worlds. An associated quote regarding the theory by Francois Mauriac reads, "What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe."24
Transactional Analysis/ Interpretation: Presented in 1986 by John Cramer, transactional analysis offers an explanation of 'advanced waves' (waves traveling backward in time) and 'retarded waves' (waves moving forward in time) converging to create an experience of reality that has already happened. All outcomes are predestined because the future, which has already happened, is communicating quantumly with the present through the advanced waves.25
Morphogenic Fields: Introduced by Cambridge biologist Rupert Shelldrake, a person's unique genetic structure acts as an 'antenna' through which we 'tune into' a universal broadcasts known as morphogenic fields (soul?).26
Strong Anthrophic Principle: Put forward by John Wheeler, this theory tells us that our consciousness loops back into the past and creates reality, including the Big Bang. By consciously asking where do we come from, we create it all. Consciousness looks back on itself and in so doing creates all the conditions needed for the evolution of the universe, and the conscious observer.27
The Matter-Mind Connection & Monistic Idealism: The matter-mind connection takes many different forms. The theory is the counterpart to superveinence which maintains that brain states give rise to mind states. The general view is presented by Wigner, Safatti, Walker, and Muses. Sarfatti explains, "In my opinion the quantum principle involves mind in an essential way…mind creates matter."28 The top-down approach of monistic idealism goes a bit further by making a distinction between mind and consciousness. "According to monistic idealism, the consciousness of the subject in a subject-object experience is the same consciousness that is the ground of all being. Therefore, consciousness is unitive. There is one subject-consciousness, and we are that consciousness."29
The Implicate Order: David Bohm's implicate order is the most accepted explanation for coming to terms with quantum strangeness. His theories of an implicate order and the existence of a "pilot wave" mean that there is no need for hidden variables to exist; particles do not travel faster than the speed of light. The universe is seen as a giant web. Upon the web are individual particles which receive and transmit information through a pilot wave. Because the information is present in the wave it is immediately available to every single particle throughout the universe. Therefore, the wave "tells" all the particles what every other particle is doing- all the information is stored creating an implicate order.30
If we recall the working definition of science which reads, such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomenon , and contrast it to the actual work being done in quantum physics, it becomes apparent that science is extending its reach into blatantly subjective areas. Quantum physics has created a probabilistic world and is using this world to explain what we perceive to be reality. However, quantum physics tells us nothing about the world in which we live. At the quantum level the cause of everything is no-cause; yet, our experience of the world is one predominately ruled by "cause and effect".31
Because of the inherent subjectivity of quantum physics speculation has emerged over whether science is reaching an end. Nobel prize winner Sheldon Glashow, head of Harvard Universities physics department lectured at a 1989 symposium entitled, The End of Science? His view is that science is "certainly slowing down" and that any new breakthroughs in physics apparently will be so far detached from any practical value that the field will become unimportant. An essay written by Glashow and a fellow colleague proclaims that, "for the first time since the Dark Ages, we can see how our noble search may end, with faith replacing science once again."32 In 1969 UC Berkeley biologist Gunther Stent wrote,
- If there are any limits to science, any barriers to further progress, then science may well be moving at unprecedented speed just before it crashes into them. When science seems most muscular, triumphant, potent, that may be when it is nearest death.33
Fred Alan Wolf concludes that, "something is going to emerge from this," and sees the fabric science falling apart like tissue paper.34
for footnotes and part 2, go here
Re: Science and Spirit Weekly Post: Quantum Theory and Consciousness
Great stuff! Thirty years ago Fred Wolf's book "Space, Time and Beyond" (theoretical physics in cartoon form!) gave me the first explanation of some things that I could understand just a little bit...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by JuliaB:
Hi Folks,
Continuing on the theme of consciousness, we inevitably run into ideas in quantum theory. I searched around and found this piece that gives a pretty good foundation to understanding the connection. In this first part, the writer introduces us to the language and ideas of quantum theory, as well as some important interpretations. A good introduction is essential to beginning the conversation about its relationship with consciousness.
I hope you find it helpful and enjoyable.
Tally-ho!
Julia Bystova
Quantum Physics & Consciousness.
By: Mark Bancroft, MA
PART ONE:
"The Precarious Beginnings of Quantum Theory"...
Re: Science and Spirit Weekly Post: Quantum Theory and Consciousness
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by JuliaB:
Continuing on the theme of consciousness, we inevitably run into ideas in quantum theory.
because both are hard to understand? and because the analogies used to try to talk about quantum theory do draw from the way people talk about consciousness; analogies about love draw on the way people perceive beauty, forces of nature, etc. but you can't understand love by understanding sunsets. I notice this guy's an MA in something; not an MS or PhD in any particular science. Why add the meaningless MA without further qualification?
this starts with a red flag: a pre-emptive attempt at belittling any resistance and establishing a position of being the wise outsider, ignored if not persecuted by the powers that be.
Quote:
.. it is necessary to begin with an overview of the language used within this area of study. All too often the simple, yet critical first step of establishing clear definitions for terms and phrases describing the subject to be studied is overlooked resulting in collective myopia of the participants. In the study of quantum physics this is a common phenomenon. Apparently there exists a silent agreement which oftentimes goes unquestioned
now a section creating and playing with a straw man, claiming there's ambiguity where there's really very little. Why argue a dictionary definition??? Using a poorly written definition to base your case is silly - there's no point in examining each line for subtle interpretations as if you're studying the Torah or Koran. Random quotes from actual scientists are thrown in for implied endorsements too.
Quote:
.. we must first consider what is meant by the word "science". .... In The American Heritage Dictionary the literal definition of the word "science" is:.... In the first line we see objectivity being married to subjective interpretation. Thus science, according to strict definition, would mean ... Even more interesting is that in examining the second and third lines we find that science is restricted to...
Then it brings in quantum physics. Mixed in with factual citations here, there are a ton of claims that are essentially independent assertions, not particularly related to the facts around them, heavy on the "shock" physicists felt when classical physics principles were shown as special cases (NOT being "overturned", however). Even some of the 'facts' are only somewhat true, at least as cited here.
Quote:
... experiments in quantum physics suggest that the world (the universe) is not made of objects at all, rather it is created out of probability waves.... It is this ambiguity within the "hard" science of physics that has helped initiate a crisis unlike science has ever encountered. Once concerned with the motion and trajectory of particles, physics is now considering questions which would have been labeled as blasphemy throughout academic circles a hundred years ago. Now, numerous physicists are speculating about the nature of reality, the existence of consciousness, even the existence of God.....
this dichotomy of physics/"nature of reality" is false; physics is about the nature of reality and always has been. Mystics who know nothing of physics but parrot their language sound as silly as physicists using mystical language to describe phenomena they observe and attempt to measure.
Quote:
Because of this, the mystic trying to describe unity consciousness often sounds like the quantum physicist trying to explain a probabilistic world immersed in an "and/both" paradox rather than the familiar "either/or" orientation. The inadequacy of language is just as real for the physicist as it is for the mystic; even though they are not attempting to describe the
same world.
- "The world of physics and mysticism are similar" is a wild over-generalization and is based, as one physicist recently put it, "on the use of accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply rooted connections.12
Re: Science and Spirit Weekly Post: Quantum Theory and Consciousness
Thanks Julia, for the interesting post.
"The reason classical language is insufficient to convey quantum discoveries is that a probabilistic universe is one in which definite boundaries (outer & inner, objective & subjective) collapse. In this sense the physicist and mystic confront a challenge; both are forced to use boundary laden language to describe a realm where there apparently are no boundaries. "
- "A language possesses utility only so far as it can construct conventional boundaries. A language of no boundaries is no language at all, and thus the mystic who tries to speak logically and formally of unity consciousness is doomed to sound very paradoxical or contradictory. The problem is that the structure of any language cannot grasp the nature of unity consciousness, any more than a fork could grasp the ocean.11"
The limitation is not in language, but in the underlying assumptions of the concepts we use to explain, to make sense-of with. These deep assumptions constitute a functional ground for having, thinking and saying. Philosopher Eugene Gendlin does the unthinkable in his A Process Model (https://www.focusing.org/process.html ) developing an alternative basic ground from which a vastly different kind of conceptual development and sense-making can follow. I understand this to be the first time someone has developed a full-functioning alternative model at such a basic level. One of my students called it "the hardest book you don't need a dictionary for." Also on the same website, Gendlin has a paper, "A Critique of Relativity and Localization" relevant to this discussion.
