The Quantum Pontiff

[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.