Pseudoskeptism and acceptable versus unacceptable science [split from "infant consciousness"]

While it's true that for degenerate eigenstates, such as Ψ_1 and Ψ_2 in your example, any linear combination is also a valid eigenstate with the same eigenvalue, this is actually a manifestation of a more general property in quantum mechanics, not restricted to degenerate states. The principle of superposition tells us that if Ψ_1and Ψ_2 are any solutions (eigenstates) to the Schrödinger equation (or any eigenstates of an operator), then any linear combination of Ψ_1 and Ψ_2is also a solution. This holds true even if the eigenstates have different eigenvalues. It's just that in the case of degenerate eigenstates, the linear combinations share the same eigenvalue as the individual states.

After delving deeper into Sean Carroll's biography, I wonder if his endorsement of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) might be driven by a desire to challenge traditional theological views.

The traditional Copenhagen Interpretation does not mention consciousness. There's a Phd in applied math who recently wrote this comment on the Skeptiko forum regarding the issue of linking quantum mechanics and consciousness:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/di...ost-167806

"I guess the upshot of all this is, if we misconstrue quantum physics as evidence of the spiritual when it actually isn’t, then we can easily fall into a materialist trap, like the one I’ve used NDT to illustrate above. Incidentally, some version of this might be an answer to Alex’s question about why quantum thinking doesn’t protect us from materialist thinking."

I think this writer hits the nail on the head. It seems to me, thinking that quantum physics can explain consciousness completely ignores Chalmers' "Hard Problem" without explaining how it can reasonably be ignored.

Again, it might be my lack of scientific understanding (and when mathematical formulas appear in a forum post my eyes glaze over) but I was under the impression that Copenhagen highlighted the measurement problem. It is further my understanding that measurement is conscious observation (notwithstanding the arguments that lab equipment does the measurement - that's just kicking the can down the road IMHO).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

In his discussion of the measurement problem, von Neumann then distinguished between (i) the system actually observed; (ii) the measuring instrument; and (iii) the actual observer. He argues that during a measurement the actual observer gets a subjective perception of what is going on that has a non-physical nature, which distinguishes it from the observed object and the measuring instrument.
...

Indeed, within philosophy of mind one cannot consistently maintain both psycho-physical parallelism and the existence of an interaction between the brain and the mind. So it is no wonder that Eugene Wigner (1967) followed up on the suggestion of the mind’s interaction by proposing that what causes a collapse of the wave function is the mind of the observer.

While it's true that for degenerate eigenstates, such as Ψ_1 and Ψ_2 in your example, any linear combination is also a valid eigenstate with the same eigenvalue, this is actually a manifestation of a more general property in quantum mechanics, not restricted to degenerate states. The principle of superposition tells us that if Ψ_1and Ψ_2 are any solutions (eigenstates) to the Schrödinger equation (or any eigenstates of an operator), then any linear combination of Ψ_1 and Ψ_2is also a solution. This holds true even if the eigenstates have different eigenvalues. It's just that in the case of degenerate eigenstates, the linear combinations share the same eigenvalue as the individual states.

After delving deeper into Sean Carroll's biography, I wonder if his endorsement of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) might be driven by a desire to challenge traditional theological views.

The traditional Copenhagen Interpretation does not mention consciousness. There's a Phd in applied math who recently wrote this comment on the Skeptiko forum regarding the issue of linking quantum mechanics and consciousness:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/di...ost-167806

I think my real point is that the MWI handles the collapse of the wavefunction as a splitting of the universe (!!) into different realities that don't then interact. However what does that mean if there are an infinite number of such states - you can't really have a linear combination of realities!

I do wonder however, if the MWI interpretation suggests something beyond standard QM. For if reality could split more locally and then maybe re-connect, the result could be very interesting. This in a sense is how I understand a quantum computer to operate.

Of course, I also think the Copenhagen interpretation of QM hints at - well basically dualism.

Sadly, I can speculate on such things, but go no further!

David

While it's true that for degenerate eigenstates, such as Ψ_1 and Ψ_2 in your example, any linear combination is also a valid eigenstate with the same eigenvalue, this is actually a manifestation of a more general property in quantum mechanics, not restricted to degenerate states. The principle of superposition tells us that if Ψ_1and Ψ_2 are any solutions (eigenstates) to the Schrödinger equation (or any eigenstates of an operator), then any linear combination of Ψ_1 and Ψ_2is also a solution. This holds true even if the eigenstates have different eigenvalues. It's just that in the case of degenerate eigenstates, the linear combinations share the same eigenvalue as the individual states.

After delving deeper into Sean Carroll's biography, I wonder if his endorsement of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) might be driven by a desire to challenge traditional theological views.

The traditional Copenhagen Interpretation does not mention consciousness. There's a Phd in applied math who recently wrote this comment on the Skeptiko forum regarding the issue of linking quantum mechanics and consciousness:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/di...ost-167806

I want also to respond to the other points in your reply unconnected with MWI.

It is just over 50 years since I used QM in anger, and I can't see how you can combine two eigenfunctions with different eigenvalues (e.g. Ψ_1 with eigenvalue E_1 and Ψ_2 with eigenvalue E_2). If you can demonstrate this (or provide a link) I would be interested.

The man who wrote a reply on Skeptiko, Jack Boyd, looks very interesting and I'd like to talk to him directly, but unfortunately I'm partially banned from Skeptiko, and can't write posts. If I could reply I think I'd agree that QM doesn't prove the primacy of consciousness, but to make consciousness interact with matter you do need some indeterminacy, which of course QM supplies. The interaction with matter would be impossible in a fully determined world.

Incidentally, Jack Boyd raised Dean Radin's double slit experiment and I once wrote to Dean to ask him how he can distinguish between PK effects that operate on the interference process itself and those that merely distort some part of the apparatus (e.g. the slits). He agreed that his experiments can't do that.

David

Again, it might be my lack of scientific understanding (and when mathematical formulas appear in a forum post my eyes glaze over) but I was under the impression that Copenhagen highlighted the measurement problem. It is further my understanding that measurement is conscious observation (notwithstanding the arguments that lab equipment does the measurement - that's just kicking the can down the road IMHO).

All the measurement problems go away if you apply some extra rules under Consistent Histories, like choosing a single framework and sticking to it, and not mixing and matching operators that don't commute, I don't remember the rest. But you can read about it here...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-co...histories/

On the second point, as you say, I don't think measurement is just conscious observation... I think what's generally accepted is more nuanced than that, which is that at the back end, if you intend to learn anything about the results of your experiments, you'll need to observe them. And at the front end, the experimenter still gets to choose what to observe.

I did a thought experiment I called 'woman in a box' that convinced me that things just work out pretty much the way we expect them to work out classically, without a conscious observer. https://thinkingdeeper.wordpress.com/201...xperiment/

That said, QM and Spacetime seem like they are both about to be generalised into something much more simple and primitive over the the next few decades. I wouldn't waste time arguing about the old stuff - the new stuff is truly beautiful - and I predict it's gonna win out. It's very deep, but very simple.

That said, QM and Spacetime seem like they are both about to be generalised into something much more simple and primitive over the the next few decades. I wouldn't waste time arguing about the old stuff - the new stuff is truly beautiful - and I predict it's gonna win out. It's very deep, but very simple.

I don't know enough to argue the point(s) or predict a direction. I am content to read about what these great minds thought of their research and how it influenced their personal philosophies.  They lived and worked in an age in which they could, to some extent, talk about mind and consciousness without the fear of being excommunicated by an ideological orthodoxy. So Schrodinger could talk about his interest in eastern religions at the same time as explaining how it influenced his thinking on the scientific work he was doing. Pauli could work with Jung on synchronicities without being ridiculed (although I understand he had some sense of that and was careful about what he shared with other physicists).

Shrodinger quote:

“The spirit, strictly speaking, can never be the object of scientific inquiry, because objective knowledge of the spirit is a contradiction in terms. Yet, on the other hand, all knowledge relates to the spirit, or, more properly, exists in it, and this is the sole reason for our interest in any field of knowledge whatsoever.”

I think my real point is that the MWI handles the collapse of the wavefunction as a splitting of the universe (!!) into different realities that don't then interact. However what does that mean if there are an infinite number of such states - you can't really have a linear combination of realities!

I do wonder however, if the MWI interpretation suggests something beyond standard QM. For if reality could split more locally and then maybe re-connect, the result could be very interesting. This in a sense is how I understand a quantum computer to operate.

Of course, I also think the Copenhagen interpretation of QM hints at - well basically dualism.

Sadly, I can speculate on such things, but go no further!

David

Have to defer to my betters on math and physics, but my understanding is you could re-interpret MWI as some kind of Universal Wave Function that doesn't require the alternative universes?

Like you I am wary of the materialist bias that people have, though I would agree partially with @sbu that QM on its own does not strictly give us a reason to doubt materialism...though I would also say we should reject any strictly materialist belief on logical grounds...

It is just over 50 years since I used QM in anger, and I can't see how you can combine two eigenfunctions with different eigenvalues (e.g. Ψ_1 with eigenvalue E_1 and Ψ_2 with eigenvalue E_2). If you can demonstrate this (or provide a link) I would be interested.

When discussing degenerate eigenstates, we are referring to multiple eigenfunctions, e.g., Ψ_1 and Ψ_2, associated with the same eigenvalue (e.g., E, not different eigenvalues). In the case of degeneracy, linear combinations of such eigenfunctions will still be eigenfunctions of the same operator with the same eigenvalue. However, if Ψ_1 and Ψ_2 have different eigenvalues, their linear combination will not be an eigenstate of the same operator with either of those eigenvalues.

Sbu,

I think there is some confusion here between our views. First you wrote:

While it's true that for degenerate eigenstates, such as Ψ_1 and Ψ_2 in your example, any linear combination is also a valid eigenstate with the same eigenvalue, this is actually a manifestation of a more general property in quantum mechanics, not restricted to degenerate states. [b]The principle of superposition tells us that if Ψ_1and Ψ_2 are any solutions (eigenstates) to the Schrödinger equation (or any eigenstates of an operator), then any linear combination of Ψ_1 and Ψ_2is also a solution. This holds true even if the eigenstates have different eigenvalues. It's just that in the case of degenerate eigenstates, the linear combinations share the same eigenvalue as the individual states.

[/b]

Then you wrote:

When discussing degenerate eigenstates, we are referring to multiple eigenfunctions, e.g., Ψ_1 and Ψ_2, associated with the same eigenvalue (e.g., E, not different eigenvalues). In the case of degeneracy, linear combinations of such eigenfunctions will still be eigenfunctions of the same operator with the same eigenvalue. However, if Ψ_1 and Ψ_2 have different eigenvalues, their linear combination will not be an eigenstate of the same operator with either of those eigenvalues.

I think the part of your first statement that I have bolded is a contradiction to the second statement - which I believe is correct - it is the degenerate states that make MWI so hard because they imply a continuum of different realities!

My QM may be pretty rusty, but I think it would be nice to clarify this point.

David

@Ninshub

Wouldn't it be better to call this thread "Discussion of the relationship between QM and consciousness"?

Have to defer to my betters on math and physics, but my understanding is you could re-interpret MWI as some kind of Universal Wave Function that doesn't require the alternative universes?

I think the point is, that the alternative universes come in if you want to include wavefunction collapse. One of the most basic QM experiments involves wavefunction collapse. At some point the photons (or electrons) that are diffracted seem to arbitrarily choose where they ultimately go, based on the wavefunction.

My own view about all this is that if we had a totally deterministic theory of physics, there would be no room for consciousness - it is the fact that QM theory produces a probability distribution (rather than a precise answer) that is a strong hint that QM and consciousness are intimately connected - I agree with Jack Boyd (see the link to Skeptiko) that this is just a hint, not a proof.

Every theory of physics that has been around for a bit, is ultimately shown to be an approximation of some sort - basically because there is more underlying physics that complicates the picture. As an example, I was excited as a kid to find the gas law PV=nRT, which predicts a volume/pressure of any gas at a given temperature. I was quite disturbed to learn shortly afterwards that this wonderful law was only an approximation because molecules have a finite volume, and there are intermolecular forces between the molecules molecules. I am sure working physicists must have suffered the same let-down several times over their careers. I suspect that the basic equations of QM may also be approximations of something deeper. (I also suspect the same fate will befall Einstein's general theory of relativity - indeed the evidence for so called 'dark matter' may actually turn out to be evidence that GR has a limited range of applicability).

As Jack Boyd noted, QM predicts a sort of instantaneous action at a distance known as entanglement, it comes with a peculiar twist to it, which is that you can never transmit information through an entanglement channel. Obviously PK may or may not contain the same twist, but if it does it would be a strong hint that QM and consciousness are indeed very closely related, and if it does not, it might suggest that if there is a link to QM, the theory underlying QM might allow information to be transferred over an entanglement channel. I guess all that is needed is to focus some meditators on some part of a deep space probe attempting to force some change to take place (Remember that Psi forces are not supposed to diminish with difference. Note also that entanglement effects are also supposed not to decay with distance!

Since 'Hidden Variables' have been ruled out (I think) any underlying layer will not restore common sense, but will presumably make QM even more obscure!

David