Quantum Mechanics as Reality or Potentiality from A Psycho-Biological Perspective

Similar documents
Franz Klaus Jansen. Independent Researcher

Instant Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Cosmology Lecture 2 Mr. Kiledjian

Master Projects (EPFL) Philosophical perspectives on the exact sciences and their history

226 My God, He Plays Dice! Entanglement. Chapter This chapter on the web informationphilosopher.com/problems/entanglement

Quantum Mechanics: Interpretation and Philosophy

Laboratory 1: Entanglement & Bell s Inequalities

A Re-Evaluation of Schrodinger s Cat Paradox

Hugh Everett III s Many Worlds

Looking at Scripture with New Eyes: A Chance Conversation Between Faith and Science

Other Problems in Philosophy and Physics

COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION:

QUANTUM MECHANICS REQUIRES AN OBSERVER CONTEXT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN REALITY AND ITS MENTAL REPRESENTATION

ALBERT EINSTEIN AND THE FABRIC OF TIME by Gevin Giorbran

What is it like to be a quantum observer? And what does it imply about the nature of consciousness?

Spaces and Velocities

Single and Entangled photons. Edward Pei

Partial Isomorphism of Superposition in Potentiality Systems of Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics

Does the ψ-epistemic view really solve the measurement problem?

The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Handout Eight) between the microphysical and the macrophysical. The macrophysical world could be understood

Newton s Gravity from Heisenberg s Uncertainty Principle An In-Depth Study of the McCulloch Derivation

Introduction to Bell s theorem: the theory that solidified quantum mechanics

Failure of psychophysical supervenience in Everett s theory

about Quantum Physics Bill Poirier MVJS Mini-Conference Lawrence Hall of Science July 9, 2015

2 Quantum Mechanics. 2.1 The Strange Lives of Electrons

What does it feel like to be in a quantum superposition?

Enter Heisenberg, Exit Common Sense

ON THE FAITHFUL INTERPRETATION OF PURE WAVE MECHANICS

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... EXISTENCE, PERCEPTION, OBSERVATION, AND PHYSICAL PHENOMENA... MASS AND SPACE... IMPACT ON PHYSICS...

Measurement: still a problem in standard quantum theory

Entanglement and Bell s Inequalities Edward Pei. Abstract

Week 11: April 9, The Enigma of Measurement: Detecting the Quantum World

On the origin of probability in quantum mechanics

Why minds are not emergent in Everett s theory

Quantum Mechanics: Stranger than we can imagine?

Super-intuition and correlations with the future in Quantum Consciousness

Is Quantum Physics Relevant for the Mind-Brain Problem?

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities

A review on quantum teleportation based on: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels

Schrödinger in Nature and the Greeks

If quantum mechanics hasn t profoundly shocked you, you haven t understood it.

On the role of Decoherence in Bohmian Mechanics

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF NONLINEAR QUANTUM EVOLUTION AND SUPERLUMINAL COMMUNICATION

Quantum Physics and the Dream Metaphor

Decoherence and The Collapse of Quantum Mechanics. A Modern View

arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 15 Sep 2016

Quantum Measurements: some technical background

A simple proof that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is inconsistent

Hardy s Paradox. Chapter Introduction

On the possibility of nonlinear quantum evolution and superluminal communication

Properties of the Matter Objects

OBITUARY FOR HEINZ-DIETER ZEH ( )

arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 16 Oct 2018

Yet Another Objection to Fading and Dancing Qualia (5th draft)

Statistical Mechanics

The Measurement Problem

EPR Paradox Solved by Special Theory of Relativity

TRACING THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Dick's PhAQs II: Philosopher-Asked Questions

228 My God - He Plays Dice! Schrödinger s Cat. Chapter 28. This chapter on the web informationphilosopher.com/problems/scrodingerscat

Two-State Vector Formalism

Quantum reality. Syksy Räsänen University of Helsinki, Department of Physics and Helsinki Institute of Physics

11/26/2018 Photons, Quasars and the Possibility of Free Will - Scientific American Blog Network. Observations

Paradoxes of special relativity

The Experiential Basis of Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum Uncertainty, the Creation and Collapse of the Wave Function, and Quantum Nonlocality

The hybrid-epistemic model of quantum mechanics and the solution to the measurement problem

Physical Matter and Entropy Were Made

Our Ultimate Reality Newsletter 1 May 2011

3/10/11. Which interpreta/on sounds most reasonable to you? PH300 Modern Physics SP11

Coins and Counterfactuals

p. 33 p. 41 p. 59 p. 64

Philosophy of Science, Vol. 43, No. 4. (Dec., 1976), pp

Evidence and Theory in Physics. Tim Maudlin, NYU Evidence in the Natural Sciences, May 30, 2014

A possible quantum basis of panpsychism

Founding quantum theory on the basis of consciousness

Heisenberg s Uncertainty Principle and Human Brain

Limitations of Newtonian Physics

Quantum Mechanics: Observer and von Neumann Chain

A trip to Quantum Physics

Introduction to the strange world of Quantum Physics

Quantization, spatiotemporalization and pure variation

Topic 10: Bohm s Theory

Quantum Physics and Vedanta. Jayant Kapatker

Journal of Theoretics

Predictive Metaphysics: A Quantum Consciousness Model of the Physical Universe

Can Everettian Interpretation Survive Continuous Spectrum?

Reply to Fleming: Symmetries, Observables, and the Occurrence of Events

Quantum Entanglement. Chapter Introduction. 8.2 Entangled Two-Particle States

BUBBLE, BUBBLE, TOIL AND TROUBLE A fresh look at relativity, uncertainty and compatibility

The role of the observer in the Everett interpretation

Super theory of relativity-explanation to rest mass of photon, quantum entanglement and consciousness

Is There Any Evidence for a Creator in the Universe?

Contents Quantum-like Paradigm Classical (Kolmogorovian) and Quantum (Born) Probability

Elements of a Bahá í-inspired Natural Theology

37-6 Watching the electrons (matter waves)

Superposition - World of Color and Hardness

Remote-Sensing Quantum Hyperspace by Entangled Photon Interferometry

Poincaré, Heisenberg, Gödel. Some limits of scientific knowledge. Fernando Sols Universidad Complutense de Madrid

The Liar-paradox in a Quantum Mechanical Perspective

Quantum Teleportation Last Update: 22 nd June 2008

Transcription:

Quantum Mechanics as Reality or Potentiality from A Psycho-Biological Perspective F. K. Jansen 1 Abstract Quantum mechanics are generally interpreted as physical reality with superposition of wave functions, which have to collapse to observable reality. From a psycho-biological perspective, it could also be interpreted as superposition in the mental representation of reality, which corresponds to imagined potentiality and is naturally replaced by reality, when it becomes observable. The interpretation of quantum mechanics as physical reality entails some weird aspects, such as multiple worlds or environmental decoherence. In contrast, mental potentiality would simply be replaced by observable reality and looses all weird aspects of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, a reality or potentiality interpretation remains completely neutral with respect to philosophical or religious world views. Keywords Quantum Mechanics, thought experiment, uncertainty, wavefunction collapse, mathematical formalism, Introduction. Quantum mechanics introduced some weird aspects with respect to classical physics, such as Schrödinger's (1926) superposition of wave functions and Heisenberg's (1927) uncertainty principle. According to Tegmark "the world is weird, and we just have to learn 1 F. K. Jansen, a medical working in in France, doctor and researcher delving deep into the mind and matter, immunology and philosophy of Science.

Quantum Potentiality 281 to live with it." (Tegmark 2014, p 228). From the perspective of psychological and biological considerations, the interpretation of quantum mechanics might be different. Observation with human sense organs allows a mental representation of the extra-mental reality world. Thereafter cognitive mental functions transform observations of regularities, considered as reality, with physical formalism into physical laws, the transformation of irregular observations, like in quantum mechanics, could then be regarded as probability potentiality (Jansen 2014). Under the consideration of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, two systems (such as a quantum particle and a detection device) are in superposition of physical states in Schrödinger's wave function. When they are joined, an interaction takes place, which reduces the superposed states into unique states, although they cannot be observed before a measurement is performed. Only after observing the outcomes, consciousness knows the experimental results (Bass 1971). Linear superposition in physical formalism allows the consideration of at least two or more physical states in superposition for the same time point, but there is no correspondence of the mathematical formalism with observable reality, since superposition has never been observed. This is essentially due to the mathematical treatment of time and space, as can be illustrated in the revisited thought experiment of Wigner's friend (Wigner, 1961). Quantum mechanics and Wigner's friend thought experiment The classical Wigner's friend example indicates that Wigner's friend performs a quantum mechanical experiment, when Wigner himself is absent from the lab. The question is, when does the wave function collapse, when the friend finishes the experiment or when Wigner himself comes back to the lab and obtains all information. Wigner pretends that superposition collapses in consciousness, first in the one of his friend and later in Wigner himself. However, if the friend was substituted by a material device, it would remain in superposition, only consciousness must be in either one state or the other and therefore induces the necessary collapse. Wigner's friend thought experiment can be revisited for explaining some problems for the representation of time and space in quantum mechanics. The friend performs the experiment by

282 Transformation of Consciousness notifying the precise time coordinates and the pointer positions of the detection device at the beginning and the end of the experiment. The difference between the time points and the corresponding difference of the pointer positions are calculated and expressed as time units and pointer units, thereby the precise individual time coordinates and pointer units are reduced to calculated differences in arbitrary reference frames. When they are expressed as relations, units / time, they explain how many pointer units are acquired during one time unit. Thereby the units / time relation has become time invariant, which means that the precise starting and endpoints of an experiment are eliminated and that a future experiment will acquire new time coordinates, since only relations are maintained. Therefore, the calculated relation no longer indicates the present of the experiment nor its past and future, if it actually is or was or will be performed. Since scientific information is in general reduced to relational concepts (Baird 2013), it automatically looses any notion of the NOW, the past and the future (Jansen 2014). Nevertheless, since Wigner's friend performs the experiment, he has simultaneously the knowledge of both, the present with precise time coordinates and the time invariant relation. The situation of Wigner himself is quite different, since he is lacking all information on time coordinates for the present of the experiment and only knows the unit / time relation established by experiences in the past. Thus, he can only partially imagine what really happens in the lab. Without precise time coordinates, he does not know the NOW nor the past and the future of the experiment, if it is actually performed, had been performed or will be performed. Thus Wigner's simple imagination of a physical experiment without any mathematical formalism already eliminates, present, past and future. As mentioned by Einstein "... The distinction between past, presence and future is only an illusion, however persistent." (Jammer 2002, p 161). Any societal, religious or scientific law is a mental representation of an extra-mental regularity, which is necessarily time invariant. Therefore it cannot indicate the present, past or future, but when the law is applied again in extra-mental reality, a new NOW will be acquired. With the known unit / time relation, Wigner can only imagine potential outcomes. By imagining the experiment, he had several possible outcomes in mental superposition with probability

Quantum Potentiality 283 estimations. At the moment, when Wigner enters the lab again and finds the experimental NOW and the final results, he has simultaneously two different informations, his imagined potential outcomes of several possibilities in superposition for the same time point and his friends reality result with only one outcome. In general, potentiality is assigned much less confidence than observed reality. Therefore the potential outcome has not to collapse, but is simply discarded as irrelevant, when observed reality is known. A probable but uncertain weather forecast has not to collapse either, when the real weather conditions are observed, it is simply discarded from further consideration. Quite naturally, reality is considered as more certain and potentiality as less certain and only probable. Space is also differently perceived in reality and imagined potentiality. When Wigner was absent from the lab, he knew his own space location as a precise "HERE", but can only imagine the space of his friends lab as a less precise "THERE". However, during imagination, Wigner can switch instantly from his HERE to his friend's THERE, which resembles a kind of non-locality. Such a switch can even be much more rapid than the speed of light, for instance, when Wigner switches from his HERE to the Rover on Mars, which is actually working for him. This resembles Einstein's "spooky action at distance". Thus imagined potentiality has indeed the potency to travel faster than light, although this seems to be impossible in reality. Similar to imagined potentiality, linear superposition in the wave function of several locations for the same time point is identical to non-locality, however it is already included as a fundamental base in the formalism of quantum mechanics. Thus it is not surprising that Schrödinger's wave function can only lead to outcomes indicating non-locality. Math-reality correspondence in quantum mechanics Like classical physics quantum physics lost the notions of past, present and future, but there are additional changes. Schrödinger's wave function allows the linear superposition of even contradictory physical states, like a living and dead cat in Schrödinger's famous thought experiment. However, the philosophical concept of reality cannot allow the simultaneous presence of contradictory events. Already Aristotle wrote "... it is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time." (Gottlieb 2011, p.

284 Transformation of Consciousness 3/14), which is known as the law of non-contradiction for the same time point. In contrast, superposition of contradictory events is possible in mental potentiality. If in reality only one president can occupy the White House, several Presidents can be mentally imagined in potentiality to occupy the White House, before the election is finished. Since only potentiality can superpose contradictory events, Schrödinger's wave function, illustrated by a simultaneous living and dead cat, cannot represent reality, but only mental potentiality. Extra-mental reality and mental potentiality have completely different properties. Observable reality is limited to the present, when there is direct contact between extra-mental reality and its mental representation through all sensory organs. However, if sense organs become inactive, as with closed eyes, the direct contact to extra-mental reality is lost, then past and future events can be imagined with the help of memorized observations (Jansen, 2014). Under the condition that past observations were regular, they can be extrapolated into the future with great certainty and represent expected reality. However, irregular observations, as in quantum mechanics, only allow an extrapolation in the future with uncertain probability estimations, which precisely corresponds to mental potentiality. Conclusion One weird aspect of quantum mechanics is based on linear superposition of contradictory physical states in Schrödinger's wave function, which led to Everett's multi-world interpretation (Everett 1957) or to environmental decoherence (Zurek 1981). The philosophical law of non-contradiction does not allow considering superposition of multiple events in extra-mental reality for the same time point. Nevertheless, mental potentiality in the mental representation of extra-mental reality can allow predictions of the future, but only with probability estimations (Jansen 2008). The interpretation of the wave function as physical reality would be an ontological interpretation, which holds the physical formalism as a direct description of nature's behaviour. In contrast potentiality would be an epistemic interpretation with limited knowledge on extra-mental reality. Nevertheless, the behaviour of nature can be

Quantum Potentiality 285 approached to a considerable degree with mathematical models based on superposition and probability. The interpretation of quantum mechanics as reality or potentiality remains neutral with respect to philosophical or religious world views, which can neither be confirmed nor refused. The reality or potentiality interpretation of quantum mechanics does not change its intrinsic properties of uncertainty and probability, they are only attributed to different realms either to extra-mental reality or to its mental representation. Quantum mechanics as the most fundamental concept of the physical universe have to be considered when explaining the beginning of the universe. Thus either reality or potentiality could be the starting point of the universe and considered as primary. The primacy of reality or potentiality essentially depends on the underlying world view, which differs in western and eastern countries. Western science is essentially based on the reality interpretation, by considering physicalism as the dominating concept followed by Darwin's evolution of life as random genetic mutations and environmental selection. To the contrary, religions are essentially based on potentiality by attributing the creation of the universe by a design to an omnipotent, eternal God. Eastern Vedanta philosophy would also expect potentiality as the main characteristic of a prior existing consciousness-as-such (purusha), responsible for the creation of the physical universe (Rao 2005). Potentiality is a normal mental function allowing creation by first designing and then realizing the design in extra-mental reality. However, a fundamental condition for any creation is the presence of prior knowledge, which allows a preview of the final construct thereby avoiding major errors during its construction. In humans, knowledge arises only progressively and is still absent in the young child, so that potentiality becomes a secondary mental function based on acquired experience. The question on primacy of reality or potentiality in quantum mechanics cannot be experimentally solved. Nevertheless, the reality interpretation has some weird aspects, which are completely lacking in the potentiality interpretation. Although the primacy question depends on the world view, potentiality will always remain completely different from reality. Thus potentiality can be considered as a probabilistic mental model for predicting extra-mental reality and can be

286 Transformation of Consciousness expressed in the form of imagined prediction or mathematical modelling, like quantum mechanics. References Baird, P. (2013). Information, universality and consciousness: a relational perspective. Mind and Matter, 11.1, 21-43. Bass L. (1971) The mind of Wigner's friend, Hermathena, cxii, www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/bass_1.pdf (1975) A quantum mechanical mind-body interaction. Foundations of Physics. 5.1, p.159, Einstein, A.,Podolsky, B. and Rosen, N. (1935) Phys. Rev. 47, 777. Everett H. (1957) Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 29: 454-462. Gottlieb P. (2011) Aristotle on Non-contradiction. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/ Heisenberg, W. (1927) Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172-198 (English translation in Weeler and Zurek, 1983, 62-84) Jansen, F.K. (2008). Partial isomorphism of superposition in potentiality systems of consciousness and quantum mechanics. NeuroQuantology, 6.3, 278-288. Jansen, F.K. (2014) The Observer's Now, Past and Future in Physics from a Psycho- Biological Perspective. Cosmology 18, 376-401. http://cosmology.com/conscioustime112.html Jammer M. (2002) Physics and Theology. Princeton University Press, "The separation between past, present and future is only an illusion (Einstein 1955, p.161). Rao, K.R. (2005). Perception, cognition and consciousness in classical Hindu psychology. J. Consciousness Studies, 12.3, 3-30.

Quantum Potentiality 287 Schrödinger, E. (1926). "An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules". Physical Review 28 (6): 1049 1070. Tegmark M. (2014) Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf A., New York. Wigner, E. (1961): Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem, in The Scientist Speculates, I. J. Good, ed. pp. 284-302, Heinemann, London (1961); Zurek, W.H. (1981) Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: into what mixture does the wave packet collapse? Phys Rev, D24, 1516-1525