[I love books. All kinds of books. So, when a publicist for a publisher asked me if I would be willing to review a book on my blog, there was absolutely no way I could refuse. Of course I told the publicist that I could not guarantee that my review would be positive, but I’d be happy to receive a free copy of the book and read it and put up my thoughts. And guess what, I got a free copy of the book! Woot! Here is the review.]
There are many different interpretations of quantum theory. I’ve been reading about these different interpretations for as long as I can remember and, at various times in my life, I’ve thought one or another of the interpretations worked for me. (A statement, I think, which is at times to cavalier for my opinion about the foundations of quantum theory, but is, at other times, not cavalier enough!) And at times I’d even say that multiple interpretations worked for me (joke about one for each universe deleted.) But there has always been one form of interpretation which I’ve avoided. And that is any interpretation which brings human consciousness into the picture. But I’m not one who likes to leave holes in what I’ve experienced, so I was delighted when I was asked to read and review Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (both from UC Santa Cruz.)
“Quantum Enigma” is basically a popular science book explaining in a nice way the “mysteries” of quantum theory with a slant towards the idea that maybe “consciousness” has something to do with these mysteries. It covers what you might expect from such a book, the two slit experiment, Schrodinger’s cat, EPR, and Bell’s theorem, many with an good dose of humor which makes the book fun to read. The final chapters of the book are devoted to the question of whether consciousness plays a role in quantum theory. Even in these chapters the humor remains:
In class one day, I (Bruce) casually commented that any human could easily pass a Turing test. One young woman objected: “I’ved dated guys who couldn’t pass a Turing test!”
I’m a nitpicker when it comes to popular science, and I will say that the book did tickle some of my nitpicking nerves, but a lot less than the average popular science quantum theory book. On the other hand it did tickle a lot of my “why I don’t like consciousness interpretations” nerve (that one is located on my foot, I think. Some people vote with their feet, apparently I think with my foot?)
Now on to the subject of the book: “consciousness” and quantum theory (sorry I’m going to keep those little quotes around that word because I have no idea what it means.) The book does a fairly good job of pointing out that whenever they bring up “conscinousness” they are venturing into a territory in which most physicists would get up and leave. Indeed the authors have little sympathy for movies such as “What the Bleep do we Know?” and the related mysticism of the Deepak Chopra crowd, which is good, in my humble opinion. Of course the authors could never put in enough caveats to satisfy most physicists on this matter, but I think their honesty and effort helps the book considerably. For example, I doubt there could be enough caveats in the book to satisfy Bob Park, who in one of his recent “What’s New” columns wrote, “In physics, unfortunately, the word “consciousness” is invariably followed by bullshit.” (Ouch.) So putting this question of physicists reaction to “consciousness” on the backburner, the real question, or the one I think is most interesting, is why the authors, in examining the strange object that is quantum theory, come to the conclusion that “consciouness” is important for understanding quantum theory.
So why do they come to this conclusion (and why do I disagree, or at least find myself unsympathetic to their arguments?) Well the basic jist is the same stuff most of us are aware of: observation of a quantum system “creates” a real system, there is no “reality” in quantum theory (unless it is nonlocal), it is absurd to believe that Schrodinger’s cat is both dead and alive, etc. Okay for each of these I have caveats for how the authors present their material, but lets just have fun and go along and take the poison pill they have given us. Why, given this standard line of arguments, do the authors chase this chain of mystery all the way up the ladder to human consciosness (von Neumman’s ladder.)
Part of this, I think, rests upon the semantics we associate with the word observation. We believe (incorrectly I think) that at the human level we are observers par excellence. Somehow, our observations, are defined, ex post facto, as what is real. Thus it is natural that the observation of quantum theory should be connected to the observation we humans do everyday. A second reason that they try to connect “consciousness” with the mysteries of quantum theory is that both of these present problems whose solution (or even whose proper formulation as a question) we do not know, and both involve in a manner some for of observation (quantum theory in the measurement problem, and “consciousness” apparently in “self-awareness” or somesuch.) I call this “argument by similar mystery.”
But I personaly find both of these arguments not very compelling. Of course I am biased. Why am I biased? When I was growing up I used to spend many evenings in our backyard looking up at the stars. “Look at all of those stars,” my father would say. “To think that they are huge balls of plasma unfathomable distances away! And even more important think how many of them there are! We are pretty damn insignificant in the face of such a universe, don’t you think?” And from that time onwards, I’ve had a deep distrust of every philosophic or scientific explanation that invokes a special place for humans.
You should therefore not find it surprising that I have the biggest beef with the human “consciousness” being important for interpretations because I cannot fathom that we are special enough as to be central to a major component of how the universe opperates. Why must we always encounter human consciousness? Why not a rabit’s consciousness or a robots consciousness or a railroad track’s consciousness? The authors try to get around this question by proposing that any demonstration of a robot causing “the collapse of the wavefunction” (for want of better words) could necessarily be questioned as to whether this solved the quantum measurement problem because a human observor would always need to be involved. Quoting “Consider whether this robot-performed experiment avoids the encounter with consciousness from a human perspective, the only meaningful perspective.” This seems to me a particularly harsh for of solipsism for me to swallow. That a robot or a rabbit cannot be responsible for collapsing the wavefunction but that a human can, because the only meaningful question is what is real for humans? Bah! That doesn’t seem to me to be a logical argument, but more of a way of defining science in a narrow human centered sense.
So what do I come away from “Quantum Enigma” with? Well for one, I would recommend this book for any of the “What the Bleep” crowd as a way to ween them towards more reasonable discussions. As a popular science explanation of quantum theory the book succeeds. As a new revelation which convinces me that the answer to quantum theory lies down the road of “consciousness,” I’m not sold.
Update: Chad over at Uncertain Principles also received a review copy and his review is listed here.
Inquiring shamans want to know… is it possible to set up an experimental lab next to a railroad track, with a live rabbit… collect data (including weather patterns) and see if there’s any collapse of the wavefunction?
I think it depends on the weather, but I’m just a theorist, not an experimentalist, so what do I know?
In theory, you could find out!
Wow, it is a small world. I had QM from Rosenblum back when I got my Bachelors. Even then, he was big on interpretations when I wanted more shutting up and calculating. Strangely, all of the many worlds of QM interpretations did not serve me well in grad school.
Interestingly I myself had a lot more about interpretations before I learned quantum mechanics. I mean I read ALL of the popular science books on quantum theory I could get my hands on. I think this actually helped when I started learning the actual theory because it helped me quickly get the conceptual frame right for the theory or at least to understand what it was that was strange and what is was that wasn’t strange.
On the other hand, after taking a single semester intro, I also spent a summer trying to do a two-photon absorption cross section calculation in H2 and H2+ and that was like taking a firehose straight into my mouth. Thanks to the patience of James Babb it was during that summer, before I took my main quantum course, that I learned most of the basics of quantum theory (though I could never get the different types of spin and their couplings right!)
Hmmm. Interesting response to the book (which I immediately confess I haven’t read). I have a slightly more sympathetic response to the appearance of consciousness in physics, which I’ll try to explain here as devil’s advocate. Let it be noted that I have no sympathy for “What the Bleep,” or for any variety of fruitcake connection between consciousness and quantum anything!
Dave, I thoroughly share your early-inculcated view that human beings are too insignificant a part of the universe to be a key ingredient in any fundamental physics. However… my reaction to that is humility, and with humility (for me) comes the admission that I’ve got no idea whether my perceptions are telling me anything TRUE about the universe.
It seems to me that, indeed, “man is the measure of all things.” Only, mind you, because “all things” means “all things of which I am aware,” and all such things are filtered through my personal experience. My senses were not created by a benevolent god/universe for the purpose of perceiving, glorifying, or understanding that universe. Rather, they evolved out of a series of lumps of meat, for the purpose of helping me and my ancestors to produce similar lumps of meat. Apparently, those senses are all plugged into a brain that is, for lack of a better word, conscious. That “consciousness” ties together all my senses, and the upshot is perception. Observation. Experiences. One of which experiences is (in theory) the click of a photon detector.
So, it’s not in any sense that I think MY perceptions are important to fundamental reality. Rather, I’m a rat in a dark box, peering out through the watered glass of my perceptions. I’ve got this great theory about how the universe works, but at the end of the calculation is, inevitably, some statement like “…and then the photon whacks me in the eye.” Why the hell should I expect that I can explain why the universe looks the way that it does, when I don’t know how the eye that I use to look at it works?
Anyway, upshot is, I suspect that quantum mechanics is just plain right. Schroedinger’s equation is right, Hilbert spaces are right, unitary evolution of closed systems is right, and Born’s rule is right. But, at the end of the day, Born’s rule is saying something about the probability of ME observing something, and I don’t think I’ve got a satisfactory explanation of that until I’ve got some sort of theory of me… which would have to include an explanation of what it means for me to experience something. What’s the operational interpretation of “My eye got entangled with the photon?” I think that, like a legged ferret, I go down one leg of the trousers of time, or something similar, but I’m not entirely sure.
So this is why I’d like to understand more about consciousness. Not because I think my consciousness affects the world, but because I think the world affects my consciousness… and that affect includes the sum total of all the physics that I’ve observed.
[There. That oughta ensure I never get a job…]
I guess I also have a problem because I don’t know what consciousness means in your context of “the world affects my consciousness.” I mean, it seems to me that the universe might be so filled with different forms of life that I’d be amazed if each path of evolution leads to organism where our particular puny form of consciousness is responsible for any particular physical law. I mean it seems that to get to this you’d want to argue that there is a universal result of the laws of physics that beings intelligent enough to reason about quantum theory are also responsible for the way in which that theory works (or the way they understand how it works, I guess.) Putting such a heavy burden on Darwin seems to me to much for the old boy to handle.
Oh and thanks for the long reply, Robin. But now you’ve got me looking for ferrets.
I’ve got another take on all this: it appears indisputable that there exists some vaguely defined “thing” out there usually referred to as consciousness. As a scientist, pure and simple (yes, I just opened myself up to a plethora of jokes with the “simple” part), I want to know how it (consciousness) works. Certainly QM offers (at least to some people) some intriguing ideas in relation to consciousness. On the other hand, if it is assumed (and this is a broad assumption) that consciousness (or at least thought) is associated with the firings of neurons and other information transfer processes in the brain, I have a vague recollection that Max Tegmark proved a few years ago that these things weren’t quantum processes (something to do with the time scales involved??). Now, if I were a good scientist, I would have had the cite right here ready to stick into this post…
As for interpretations, as one who practices moderation in nearly everything (Moxie and Logenberry being two exceptions – they’re drinks), I think it is important in QM courses to balance interpretation and calculation. First, one must understand what is happening if one hopes to make meaningful (read: useful) calculations. So, for instance, in my introductory physics class, I “spot-check” concepts in every class before doing serious calculations. It’s a little tough with QM, though, since there are so many interpretations (and there are plenty of books out there that have poked legitimate holes in the Copenhagen one, even if it still is the best). In addition, it is quite clear that certain calculations depend on the interpretation being used.
Well, take the Afshar experiment, for example. Interesting stuff, but I believe his point (if I understood it correctly from the March Meeting) was that the idea might be to test complementarity as opposed to Bell’s inequalities. In that case you’re hanging your hat on complementarity which has some fairly gaping holes (see Beller, 1995). Complementarity is supposedly the “foundation” of the Copenhagen interpretation (or one of them). Aside from that, most of the entanglement work, particularly experimental in nature, assumes Bell’s inequalities are the “be-all-end-all” and a violation proves non-locality. I will publicly admit here and now that I’m not 100% convinced (not that I believe in hidden variables, just that I have doubts). The problem is that the inequalities are a result of the interpretation! And non-contextuality is probably more fundamental anyway since entanglement can occur for a single particle in its degrees of freedom. I’m straying a bit off-topic here, but the idea can be applied to more basic things: now, experiments “prove” the Born probabilistic interpretation, but who’s to say there’s not another interpretation that matches the same data? Calculating a probability depends on the interpretation (in this case Copenhagen), regardless of whether or not it is a correct interpretation. I’m not sure if any of that made sense or was clear. It was probably muddled (as it is in my head) but I really think Beller’s book deserves a read by anyone working on QM (full title: Quantum Dialogue: the making of a revolution).
“…certain calculations depend on the interpretation being used.” Do you have an example of this? The only thing I can think of are some of the nonlinear modifications of quantum theory which give different results than ‘standard’ quantum theory.
What Tegmark argued was simply that decoherence is so fast that processes in the brain are, for all practical purposes, classical, i.e. decoherence is like 10^{-15} seconds and brain functions like neurons firing are 10^{-2} seconds. This is the reason most people think the brain is not a quantum computer. On the other hand, it is not clear, given the threshold for fault-tolerant quatnum computation that this is the proper question. I certainly would be surprised, but it is entirely possible that there are structures in biological systems which maintain quantum coherence for much longer than what the “bare” processes of neurons firing take. That said, I’ve seen no evidence that this is true. But it is something to keep in the back the head, I suppose 😉
A reference for Tegmark is http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009
Drg Drshsa Viveka is a sanscrit text “The Discrimination Between the Seer and the Seen.”
Only a few verses in length . Everything can be doubted or denied except that beginning SEER
All experience is ultimately SUBJECTIVE. All observation has one Necessary and Sufficient condition; the OBSERVER
its point is similar to the old Cartesian one; You can doubt what you are seeing even who is seeing but you cannot doubt the act of doubting. The doubter cannot be doubted.
That quantum reality is ultimately and absolutely based on subjective consciousness may be empirically trivial but subjective [yours] consciousness is nonetheless the irreplaceable ground of any and all experience whether partying dreaming or stargazing It is pointless to conjectiure about rabbitts or railroad ties being conscious -but since YOUR consciousness is what they consist of it is, in point of fact, true that not only do they HAVE consciousness —they ARE consciousness.
Take cyanide and ‘they’ vanish for ever.
There is a VAST conceptual gulf between all
reductionist views of consciousness and
the a priori view .
Either one gets it or one does not.
No middle ground
“you cannot doubt the act of doubting”
Sure I can! The metalevels go on forever.
Why does consciousness have to be human? It is no surprise that the experience of consciousness is unfathonable, but exclusive? Furthermore, why define consciousness in terms of ego (I think, therefore I am)? Even though many people haven’t experienced it, universal consciousness is not an oxymoron.
“Consciousness” does not have to be human, certainly! But then again, it doesn’t even have to exist, as far as I’m concerned.
Historical fact re: ” I think therefore I am” — I read that Decarte died of food poisoning. He thought the food was OK. Hmm . . .
I don’t know what consciousness IS, but I know what it is NOT. It is not confined to the “black box” of skull or even body. Many years ago I read that one could, on the right kind of calm day, make a small cloud disappear by staring intently at it for 3 or 4 minutes. So I tried it, and darned if it didn’t happen. Being trained in the elementary scientific practice of keeping a control element in an experiment, I noted half a dozen small clouds, selected one to stare at, and observed it disappear while the others remained. I repeated this many times until I was convinced — then thought “Damn! Now I have to reorder everything I know about reality.” ( I have told many people about this, and they can do it too, even children can; it has failed only with those who are intensly pre-determined against it.)
I am still working on that reordering project — it is hard to wake oneself from the Cartesian dream while avoiding buying into some new enchantment. It is terra incognita. I have found some touchstones. It helps to think of INTENT rather than consciousness. EMERGENCE is a key. RECIPROCITY is built into the structure of reality. There is something like a ‘field’ which gives rise to intelligence, and is deeper than intelligence, more harmonious than logical, the source of effortless synchronicity. It is not far away, it is closer to us than our own thought.
I think we can discard the concept “consciousness” because it is a product of the Cartesian world view. What is feeling, what is intent, what is the seeker of pattern? What sucks the bones of symbols?
“‘you cannot doubt the act of doubting’
Sure I can! The metalevels go on forever.”
Whoa, that’s interesting . . . maybe even startling!
Okay, what if somebody said to you that ‘you cannot be wrong about your own existence . . . because if you ARE in error . . . you ARE’ ?
By the way . . . do you really not believe in consciousness . . . not even one’s own consciousness? It’s interesting, some people refer to “consciousness” in ways that make it very hard, if not impossible to define. But, other people define “consciousness” very simply. Maybe the “simple” definitions might just be incomplete working definitions that don’t every last detail of “consciousness,” but provide us with a model to talk about.
For example, a simple definition of “consciousness” would be: feeling and perceiving. So, and please excuse an attempt at humor, if one sits on a hot stove and “feels” something that makes one jump off – that’s consciousness! Or, if one looks at a website and “perceives” a discussion about quantum theory, that is also consciousness.
But, anyway, that’s just my guess . . . .
I’ve constructed a new quantum theory from time sequence alone, and published it as “A Theory of Everything for Physics.” Energy is derived from relative frequencies. The background that produces this theory is Russell and Whitehead’s eventism, constrained to finite sets of events. Eventism was constructed to accommodate mental events and serve as a foundation for physics. The sensory qualities, such as colors, are not addressed by physical theory, and this is called “the hard part” of the mind-body problem. Russell worked out the solution very clearly in his last two books on the subject.
The solution to physics is a further reduction of Newton’s space/time/matter. The quantum is definable as a step in time, and time sequence patterns consist of such quanta. The whole theory can be conveyed with arrow diagrams, which are a simplification of Feynman diagrams, there being only one type of arrow. The electron has a simple quantum structure that doubles as the fabric of a 4-dimensional time lattice, or what we call “space-time.” Charge quanta are symmetry-breaking quanta, and they are distinguished solely by their orientation in the electron’s structure. The search for the quantum structure of the quark can proceed along the lines of the known structure of the electron/neutrino.
My TOE booklet has a diagram in which Bohr’s formula for the spectral lines of atomic emission is illustrated. Here we have the inverse square laws for gravity and electromagnetism derived from the same structure that accounts for the squares in Bohr’s formula. If anyone has a grounding in philosophy of science, they know that something key to the heart of physics has been uncovered. I’d be glad to email this diagram (“A Topological Derivation of Atomic Spectral Data”) to anyone interested, since I have it in PDF form. You can also browse my two books on Amazon.
There is a physicist named Rafael Sorkin, at Syracuse University, who works with the same minimal basis as I do, under the name “causal sets.” His results in cosmology, involving calculations of the Gravitational Constant and Hawking radiation, can be merged with mine, since our various results are derived from an identical basis. If you Google “Rafael Sorkin,” you will find a very good summary of his work posted. He explains in general how it is that a discrete manifold like ours can have an inherent metric, which helps a person understand how it is that I have derived our metric from discrete time sequence alone. — Carey R. Carlson
Classical Physics vs Modern Physics Seminar
I just want to say that I believe the Schrodinger’s Cat problem is faulty because the cat is conscious (if it’s alive) and will collapse its own wave function by being aware of being alive (if it’s alive).
What if it’s a human in the box instead of a cat? Would that make a difference?
I would be very much obliged if someone would solve this problem. I’ve been stuck in this box now for over seventy years and I need to get out for a pee!
I don’t know what conciousness is. However, it is clear that there is some level of awareness that goes from those things that are completely inert to those who have the capacity to understand and some how feel what others are feeling. Some people can really feel something when other people feel pain. and I am not talking of physical pain, but that type of feelings like desperation or sadness when a love one dies.
Perhaps conciousness is the capacity of feeeling, again not talking about physical pain. For example, a person that owns a bird as a pet or a rabbit can never see their pet jumping of happines as soon as they enter their home, yet my dog do it. Feelings is what set apart higher living beings. So far in the universe, and untill proven otherwise, some humans are the ones who have the highiest fellings powers. Probably if indeed some non physical live exist and also can feel. Whatever that is, I guess that we could call them higher beings or angels.
To Annie, who makes the clouds disappear, it sounds to me that you are maneuvering the cloud into your blind spot, in which case the blue surround would fill in, and the phenomenal cloud disappear. — Carey
Dave, just curious: if consciousness does not exist, how do we make sense of the felt difference between (a) facing your ceiling with your eyes open while asleep (thus not seeing it-I’ve seen people do this, myself too) and (b) same as (a) but awake (thus seeing the ceiling)? Isn’t there in (b) something not present in (a)? What is it? The best word I have for it is ‘consciousness’. You may not like the word – call it something else; but do you deny the felt/experiential difference?
@D.p. No one would deny the experiences as different (though it’s odd that you define consciousness as the absence of sleep 🙂 but the word “consciousness” is applied much broader than this simple distinction. It is the magic sauce that somehow explains an entire complex biological entity. I’d just argue that it is unlikely that there is a single thing called “conciousness” and that it has some nice simple explanation.
having dealt with this guy in person and as a teacher, i cannot recommend listening to anything kuttner has to say (though i cannot comment on the other guy)
i believe that kuttner is knowledgeable and even reasonably competent as a physicist, but he tends to make statements such as “physics is really, really hard” and “observing the natural world has no place in modern science” which i fundamentally disagree with — and that’s just a few of the things he’s let out of his mouth. i’ve heard him refer to atomic theory as a “belief” multiple times too…
fyi i’ve had stints as scientific support staff for government research, and observing the natural world was all we ever did apart from real basic equipment maintenance