From hpstapp@lbl.gov Wed Oct 14 09:38:03 2009
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry P. Stapp <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
To: Casey Blood <caseyblood@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mindful Universe


Dear Casey,

See my answers below.

Thanks for your inquiries.

Henry

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Casey Blood wrote:

> I read the two papers you sent me and found the Budapest one particularly
> clear.  But I have two reservations concerning your scheme.  The first is
> that I don?t understand why one needs collapse, and the second is that the
> collapsing scheme seems so complicated.  Perhaps it is best to illustrate
> using an example.
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose we have a baseball whose center of mass wave function is spread
> out
> over a meter, and we have an observer who perceives the position of the
> baseball.  For our purposes, the basis vectors will be determined by the
> firing pattern of the neurons in the observer?s brain; there will be a
> different basis vector for each firing pattern.  The wave functions for
> the
> different firing patterns are orthogonal, and so the total wave function
> of
> baseball plus observer?s brain will be partitioned into a denumerable
> number
> of different, non-communicating universes.  In each universe, the baseball
> is localized, at a position in accord with the firing pattern of the
> neurons
> in the optic nerve.
> 


HPS:
This way of partitioning the state of the brain into a denumerable
set of orthogonal states corresponding to different experiences is not
satisfactory. Some precise way of specifying at each instant whether a
neuron is firing or not is needed. But then as time advances continuously
there will be abrupt changes in the set of neurons that are firing. The
Schroedinger evolution cannot instantly change a state to an orthogonal
state. Hence the mind-brain connection would depend upon the exact time that
the partitioning is made: a partitioning made at a slightly later time
will specify a different mind-brain connection. And no mind-brain connection
enduring even for a microsecond is well defined. A more realistic connection
would involve, rather, the brain states that persist over intervals of the
order of (at least) a millisecond, and perhaps over 10s of milliseconds.
Is it really one single neuron's firing or not firing that distinguishes one
thought from another?

> 
> Now in my understanding of your scheme, there is a *mechanism*, outside
> the
> laws of QM, which ?asks? Yes-No questions. ?Is this particular pattern the
> ?real? objective pattern??  And the Mind answers yes or no and
> correspondingly reduces the wave function.

> 
> Note: With odds of approximately 1 in 210,000 (assuming just 10,000
> neurons
> in the optic nerve are relevant to perceiving a baseball) for obtaining a
> Yes answer, it seems like the mechanism would have to ask a lot of Yes-No
> questions (in a millisecond) before getting a yes for a pattern.
> 

HPS:
The Yes/No question is of the form

  rho--> P rho P + P' rho P'

where rho is the density matrix of the universe,
P is a projection operator on a brain state that corresponds
to a particular experience, and P'= (I-P).

Thus each "Yes' correspondes to a whole experience.

The pattern picked out by P is, I believe, a persisting macroscopic
oscillating pattern of the electomagnetic field. (See attached paper)
> 
> 
> Why does one need collapse when each version of the observer perceives
> only
> what is in his own universe, and therefore perceives a localized baseball,
> in agreement with experience?  It is not needed to prevent perception of a
> smeared out baseball because such a perception never occurs in QM.  I
> agree
> that just one version needs to be singled out for perception or awareness,
> but I don?t think either collapse or asking a Yes-No question is
> necessary.
> 


HPS:
I regard the Process 1 choice that specifies the mind-brain connection
as the important collapse.  The issue resolved by process 1 is: "What is the
partitioning such that experiences do not involve any cross connections?
Experiences that involve cross-connections between different components of
the partition are ruled out by process 1. Your "individual-
neuron-firing-based" criterion says that no two state that differe by even
a one-neuron-firing can contribute to a single thought: a very strong claim.
I prefer a macroscopic resonance-state-based criterion. The second
(process-3) collapse (nature's choice) is 'needed' only to make sense of the
probability rule: to make sense of the idea/prediction that the 'Yes'
outcome "occurs" (say) 10% of the time.

I had a day-long discussion with Euan Squires in which I tried to convince
him that it made rational good sense to say that the 'Yes' outcome occurred
in "my" stream of consciousness in, say, 10% of the trials
within an ontology in which both of the two alternative possible
outcomes---'Yes' and 'No'--- occur in Henry Stapp's brain in each trial, and
in which both a 'Yes' and a 'No' experience occurs to a Henry Stapp in each
trial. His refusal to budge led me to adopt the attitude that, in order to
avoid this controvery about probability in situations where both
alternatives occur in each trial I would go along with the simple (Dirac)
idea that "nature chooses" between 'Yes' and  'No' in concordance with the
quantum probability rule. Then the logical origin and meaning of
the all-important probability rule seems intuitively very clear: one choice
actually happens in (say) 10% of the trial and the other alternative
actually happens the rest of the trials.

Putting this potent choosing power in Nature's hands may seem to you too
fantastic to use merely to make the notion of quantum probability clearer.
But for me it is the process 1 collapse that is really important. Given
this process 1 collapse---which defines the mind-brain connection, and
STRICTLY eliminates the "cross terms" from all computations pertaining to
future human experiences---the notion that "Nature" should have a power
similiar to, but stronger than our own consciousness-related
individual-human power seems rather tame.

Whether process 3 is regarded as an absolute collapse, or as a mere
identification of the disjoint component in which we---a collection of
comunicating experiencers---find ourselves, makes no difference
to practical application. Insisting that some forever-unexperiencible
aspects of "reality" really exist seems to me to be a metaphysical
extravagance that the founder of QM chose to avoid. I see no need to reverse
their practical judgement on this point that makes no
empirical difference.


> 
> Suppose next the observer would rather concentrate on listening to music
> than on watching the baseball.  Then presumably there is a
> *non-mechanistic*question-asker (a ?mind?) who wants to listen to
> music.
> So it keeps asking appropriate questions until the answer comes up Yes to
> the listening template (which one would guess resides in the wave function
> of the thalamus).
> 
> 


HPS: The first question is, as James sees it, generated by a brain process
and it reflects the propensities already imbedded in the state of the brain.
Then a corresponding experience occurs, which evinces feelings. These
feelings, which are a consequence of the brain state, are allowed to
cause the same query to be posed multiple times in rapid succession.
This rapid succession of queries can cause bodily behaviour to differ
from what it would otherwise have been. I allow the passage from the
original brain-generated feeling to the choice to activate a rapid sequence
of similiar queries to have a mental component not causally
determined by the brain state alone. So I have a dynamical scheme that rests
directly on the quantum rules, and is completely concordant with the quantum
laws, but that does admits a very limited input from mind
that is not causally determined by the physically described aspect of
reality alone, and allows the incessantly empirically 'confirmed' conclusion
that "my thoughts can influence my actions" to be dynamically
encompassed within the ontology.



> 
> Again, I don?t see why it is necessary to have a ?question-asker? (which
> has
> both a mechanistic and a non-mechanistic aspect) and a ?collapser.?
> 
> 
HPS: I do not claim that it is *necessary* to have a non-mechanistic aspect.
I claim only that it is *possible* to have a non-mechanistic
aspect, that would violate neither the quantum laws nor the empirical
evidence. The known laws of nature and the empirical evidence ALLOWS
mental realities to influence or physical behaviour in the way that it seems
to do. Conscious will does not NEED TO BE an illusion, in a quantum
world. Whether future scientific developments will find this possibility
useful remains to be seen.

> 
> Why not use a simpler scheme in which there is a ?mind? that concentrates
> on
> (or perceives; or is aware of) just one version of the brain wave
> function?without causing collapse?with the selected version being the one
> we
> are aware of?   This ?mind,? which is not subject to the laws of QM, would
> also be the aspect that ?freely chooses? (where ?free? means not
> determined
> by mathematical or mechanical means, and free choice does not apply to the
> selection of outcome of outer events).  It is the aspect of us that exerts
> ?effort of attention.?
> 
> 
> What are your reservations concerning this simpler scheme?
> 
> 

HPS: I thought that you were trying to argue FOR a many-minds QM!
Now you seem to be going for a ONE MIND approach. My approach is basically
a one-mind approach. But I do not give the mind a free hand. In order to
preserve the basic knowledge acquired by science I explicitly accept all of
von Neumann's formulation of QM, and also the ideas of relativistic quantum
field theory, but exploit certain causal gaps to introduce into the dynamics
the sort of effects of our minds upon our bodies that seem to
be empirically supported by the normal successes of our strong mental
intentions to influence our actions in the intended ways.
This avoids having to regard as illusions these ubiquitous effects
that are the foundation of our reason-directed lives.

Thus I am challenging those philosophers who seem to believe that---
apart from some uncontrollable quantum fluctuations---our actions MUST,
according to the precepts of modern science, be completely specified by
purely physically described dynamical laws.


> 
> 
> Casey
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Henry P. Stapp <hpstapp@lbl.gov> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Casey Blood wrote:
> > 
> >  Thanks for the supplementary papers.  I will be traveling for the next
> > > three
> > > days, so my response to them will be somewhat delayed.  There is,
> > > however,
> > > a
> > > view of quantum mechanics and its interpretations that I think is
> > > useful
> > > to
> > > spell out, to make certain I understand your starting point and goal.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The first part of this point of view is:
> > > 
> > > The strategy in constructing a satisfactory interpretation is
> > > three-fold.
> > > 
> > > 1. To show that quantum mechanics cannot be successfully supplemented
> > > by
> > > hidden variable (particle) or mathematical collapse theories (your ch.
> > > 10).
> > > 
> > > Is your point here that you believe that you can show that my
> > VN-Heisenberg-James-Tomonaga-Schwinger-Collapse-based approach
> > cannot work? Or are you rather agreeing with me that some mind-based
> > process must be included in the dynamics?
> > 
> > 
> > > 2. To show (by debunking the Everett interpretation) that quantum
> > > mechanics,
> > > by itself, cannot account for our perceptions (your ch. 11).
> > > 
> > > 3. To find a credible scheme?involving some ?non-physical? (beyond QM)
> > > aspect, related to awareness-consciousness-perception?that can account
> > > for
> > > all our perceptions, and perhaps our emotions and free will as well
> > > (summarized in your ch. 3).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The second part of this point of view consists of two principles which
> > > would
> > > seem to be central in the construction of a satisfactory
> > > interpretation
> > > (with the probability law being a third principle which I think can be
> > > left
> > > out at first):
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1. QM gives many (potential) versions of reality.  In all those cases
> > > where
> > > the calculations can be done and the observations made, there is
> > > always
> > > one
> > > version of reality whose characteristics correspond
> > > exactly?qualitatively
> > > and quantitatively?to our physical perceptions.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2. Each version of reality is in an entirely different universe, and
> > > there
> > > can be no communication between them.  So if you perceive what is in
> > > one
> > > universe, one version, you cannot (communicably) perceive what happens
> > > in
> > > any other version.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Do you agree with this simple summary?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > Basically Yes. I think, if I understand you correctly, you are
> > just saying part of what I am saying. I have also the probability
> > rules of VN, and the detailed understandings of ftl connections
> > associated with Fig 13.1 of MU: i.e., the detailed tie in to
> > relativistic
> > quantum field theory.
> > 
> > Henry
> > 
> > 
> > > Casey
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Henry P. Stapp <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > See note below.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Casey Blood wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Dr. Stapp,
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just a couple of remarks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I didn?t make clear that in the paragraphs after point 7, I was
> > > > > proposing
> > > > > a
> > > > > different scheme, trying to get away from the necessity for
> > > > > collapse
> > > > > (with
> > > > > the ?mind? *focusing* on just one version instead of collapsing
> > > > > the wave
> > > > > function to just one version).
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > There was one surprise in your reply.  I had not understood that
> > > > > you
> > > > > postulated a physics-based process that poses the questions.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > See the two attached papers for recent formulations
> > > > of my ideas.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > ?the initiation of the awareness is done mechanically by the
> > > > > brain. I
> > > > > have accepted
> > > > > that idea, which avoids having to talk about consciousness somehow
> > > > > activating itself, via some virtual exploratory process.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This mechanical initiation process is not described by the
> > > > > Schroedinger
> > > > > Eqn.
> > > > > which just generates continued evolution via the Schr. Eqn. So the
> > > > > implication is that there is some other physics-based process that
> > > > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > the Schr. Eqn, but that, on the basis of the structure of the
> > > > > brain and
> > > > > of
> > > > > conscious experiences associated/associable with brain states,
> > > > > poses the
> > > > > first question of a possible sequence of questions.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This allows the brain dynamics to be governed mainly by mechanical
> > > > > brain
> > > > > processes, via a mechanical/physical process that supplements the
> > > > > Schr.
> > > > > Eqn?.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This raises a question.
> > > > > 
> > > > > How does the mechanistic asking of the question fit in with the
> > > > > ?willed?
> > > > > concentration of your quantum Zeno effect?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > See Attached Papers. The point is that, in accord with James's
> > > > > ideas,
> > > > AFTER
> > > > the *initiation* of the sequence of queries by the brain, there can
> > > > be
> > > > follow-up queries, and the timing of these is controlled by
> > > > conscious will.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Also, as you implied, this raises questions about the circumstances
> > > > 
> > > > > (quantum
> > > > > state of nervous system?) under which the second mechanical
> > > > > process
> > > > > kicks
> > > > > in.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes indeed! But the unresolved aspects of the dynamics are
> > > > > 
> > > > all concentrated in this problem of the timing and the
> > > > content of the queries: the rest is fixed by the von Neumann rules,
> > > > and is thus completely compatible with QM. Science need not be
> > > > complete
> > > > today: questions can be left over for future developments.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Looking forward to your talk.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Casey Blood
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Henry P. Stapp <hpstapp@lbl.gov>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dear Professor Blood,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Many thanks for your communication. I shall
> > > > > > insert comments/answers below.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Henry
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Casey Blood wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Dear Dr. Stapp,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >         I am re-reading your book, *Mindful Universe*, in
> > > > > > > preparation
> > > > > > > for attending your talk at the nonduality conference in San
> > > > > > > Rafael.
> > > > > > >  We
> > > > > > > have communicated briefly before but I?m still not sure I
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > your ideas.  So with your indulgence, I would like to outline
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > scheme as
> > > > > > > understand it.  Perhaps you can correct any misunderstandings
> > > > > > > and answer few questions.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1. We do a spin 1 Stern-Gerlach experiment.  The detector
> > > > > > > detects the
> > > > > > > outcome and displays it on a read-out device which displays
> > > > > > > the result
> > > > > > > (1,0,0), (0,1,0), or (0,0,1).  Then the observer perceives the
> > > > > > > read-out
> > > > > > > and,
> > > > > > > over a period of, say, 200 milliseconds, becomes ?conscious?
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > result.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: You say that the device displays one of the three
> > > > > > > altermative
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > possible read-outs. That raises already THE central issue
> > > > > > of the quantum-measurement problem. At what point in the
> > > > > > dynamical hierarchy from elementary particle to conscious
> > > > > > perception
> > > > > > does the "reality" get reduced from a collection of three
> > > > > > alternation
> > > > > > possible outcomes to the one outcome that is perceived. Since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > measuring device is itself made out of elementary physical
> > > > > > constutients,
> > > > > > interacting with a physical environment that is composed of many
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > elementary physical particles, we can elect to treat the whole
> > > > > > system
> > > > > > of elementary spin-one particle plus its physically described
> > > > > > environment as a physical system plus physical environment, all
> > > > > > evolving via the Schr. Eqn, for this whole system. If this is
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > then no single one of the three alternative possibilities is
> > > > > > singled
> > > > > > out:
> > > > > > all three remain, each on a par with the other two. The state of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > spin-one particle is reduced to a statistical mixture of the
> > > > > > three
> > > > > > alternative possible states, with no one picked out from the
> > > > > > three
> > > > > > alternatives! And, correspondingly, there will be no reduction
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > state of the macroscopic measuring device to just one of the
> > > > > > three
> > > > > > alternative possible macroscopic states of the measuring device:
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > three alternative possible macrostates of the device will be
> > > > > > generated
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > the Schroedinger equation, with no one singled out from the
> > > > > > other two.
> > > > > > Yet all communicating observers will agree that one and only one
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > of these three alternative possible classically described states
> > > > > > appears
> > > > > > in their consciousness. The quantum measurement problem is to
> > > > > > reconcile
> > > > > > this disparity between what is entailed at the macroscopic
> > > > > > obsevable
> > > > > > level by the physically deterministic Schroedinger equation, and
> > > > > > what is observed and reported by a set of comunicating
> > > > > > observers.
> > > > > > If one simply applies the Shroedinger equation to the entire
> > > > > > physically
> > > > > > described world, including the (physically described aspects of
> > > > > > the)
> > > > > > bodies and brains of the observers, then the entire physically
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > world decomposes into the three part, with each of these three
> > > > > > parts
> > > > > > corresponding to one of the three alternative possibilities. The
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > worlds option keeps the Schr. Eqn. inviolate, and hence this
> > > > > > splitting
> > > > > > of the world (and reality) into the three parts. The orthodox
> > > > > > (von
> > > > > > Neumann) interpretation introduced violations of the
> > > > > > Schroedinger
> > > > > > equation in order to keep the physically described state in
> > > > > > accord with
> > > > > > our growing knowledge, derived from our experiences. This is
> > > > > > just a
> > > > > > review
> > > > > > to make sure we uderstand your statement 1 in the same way: any
> > > > > > disparity
> > > > > > at this stage would generate confusion down the line.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > At point 5 you ask: How closely does the observer have to be
> > > > > > paying
> > > > > > attention to trigger the collaspes?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On page 37 of MU I give a long quote from Wm James that claims
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > the initiation of the awareness is done mechanically by the
> > > > > > brain. I
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > accepted that idea, which avoids having to talk about
> > > > > > consciousness
> > > > > > somehow activating itself, via some virtual exploratory process.
> > > > > > This mechanical inituation process is not described by the
> > > > > > Schroedinger
> > > > > > Eqn. which just generates continued evolution via the Schr. Eqn.
> > > > > > So the implication is that there is some other physics-based
> > > > > > process
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > is not the Schr. Eqn, but that, on the basis of the structure of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > brain
> > > > > > and of conscious experiences associated/associable with brain
> > > > > > states,
> > > > > > poses the first question of a possible sequence of questions.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > allows
> > > > > > the brain dynamics to be governed mainly by mechanical brain
> > > > > > processes,
> > > > > > via a mechanical/physical process that supplements the Schr.
> > > > > > Eqn.
> > > > > > and keeps the quantum state in general alignment with a general
> > > > > > feature
> > > > > > of the universe that we might call "Mind" that defines a
> > > > > > "reality"
> > > > > > relative to which the physical world as described by the
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > quantum
> > > > > > state constitutes a "potentiality".  This step is the major step
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > separates a fundamentally "mind-based" conception of reality
> > > > > > from a
> > > > > > fundamentally physical-descrition-based conception of reality.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There are, in my opinion, many reasons for opting for this
> > > > > > mind-based
> > > > > > conception of nature as contrasted to the
> > > > > > physical-description-based
> > > > > > conception of reality, The first and foremost is that the
> > > > > > alternative
> > > > > > many-worlds option leads, I believe, to unsolvable problems,
> > > > > > based
> > > > > > essentially on the difficulty in getting the effective
> > > > > > discreteness
> > > > > > aspect of observered reality out of the essentially continuous
> > > > > > Schr.
> > > > > > Eqn, dynamics without bringing in another process that disrupts
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Schr.
> > > > > > Eqn. I believe that no solution of this difficulty has been
> > > > > > found and none is likely to be found. I have discussed these
> > > > > > problems
> > > > > > in MU. Beyond the technical issues there are general question
> > > > > > about how
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > purely mechanical scheme can generate its own laws and intitial
> > > > > > conditions. I think the extrapolation from the approximately
> > > > > > deterministic
> > > > > > laws of planetary motion to the conclusion that the entire
> > > > > > universe is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > deterministic mechanical system is gigantic leap that is worth
> > > > > > trying, but that was, during the twentieth century, found to
> > > > > > fail.
> > > > > > And the working replacement brought "mind", "knowledge", and
> > > > > > "choice"
> > > > > > into the dynamical conception of nature. I think this
> > > > > > alternative
> > > > > > approach is worth pursuing, and that it leads naturally to a
> > > > > > mind-based
> > > > > > reality, with the mathematical structure of the physical
> > > > > > description
> > > > > > perfectly congruent with the idea that it represents, as
> > > > > > Heisenberg
> > > > > > suggested, "potentialities" for real events to occur, not the
> > > > > > basic
> > > > > > reality
> > > > > > itself.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So in answer to your question 5 about "how closely", the answer
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > presumably given by the supplementary process that is postulated
> > > > > > to exist, but about which much needs to be learned. But that
> > > > > > process is
> > > > > > supposed to determine what question will be posed, and when it
> > > > > > will be
> > > > > > put to nature.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Your question 6 is: At what precise point in the process of
> > > > > > becoming
> > > > > > aware
> > > > > > of the result does the query and resulting collapse occur?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Each query and collapse is supposed to occur in some particular
> > > > > > spacelike surface, as indicated in Fig.13.1 of MU. But the
> > > > > > psychic
> > > > > > content
> > > > > > will seem to have a duration as explained on p.132 of MU (third
> > > > > > ed.
> > > > > > p.160
> > > > > > of 2nd ed)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2. ?The observer? consists of the wave function of the observer
> > > > > > plus a
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ?mind? that perceives the wave function of the observer?s
> > > > > > > brain.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 3. Just after the observer first looks, but before he is fully
> > > > > > > conscious
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the outcome, there are several quantum versions of the
> > > > > > > observer.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 4. At some point in those 200 milliseconds, the observer?s
> > > > > > > ?mind?
> > > > > > > asks:
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > the first digit a 1?  If the answer is Yes, Nature collapses
> > > > > > > the wave
> > > > > > > function to the +1 branch.  If the answer is No, Nature
> > > > > > > collapses the
> > > > > > > wave
> > > > > > > function to a combination of the 0 and -1 branches.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 5. Presumably there is no collapse until the observer
> > > > > > > consciously
> > > > > > > looks.
> > > > > > > How closely does the observer have to be paying attention to
> > > > > > > trigger a
> > > > > > > collapse?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: See Above
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 6. At what precise point in the process of becoming
> > > > > > > consciously aware
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the result does the query and resulting collapse occur?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: See above
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 7. It seems implicit in your scheme that the ?mind? perceives
> > > > > > the wave
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > function.  Does it perceive just one branch or several
> > > > > > simultaneously?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: The brain, before the query is posed, contains all the
> > > > > > > branches,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > hence the physical process that poses the initial query of a
> > > > > > > sequence
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > access to all branches. But it will pose a query that singles
> > > > > > out (for
> > > > > > acceptance or rejection by (nonlocal) nature) a particular
> > > > > > substate
> > > > > > specified by a particular projection operator P acting on the
> > > > > > "brain"
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > "observing" system. How "observing" systems are identified is a
> > > > > > key
> > > > > > question.
> > > > > > But all such open questions are concentrated in the single issue
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > laws of operation of the supplementary process that poses the
> > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You say that you disagree with my italicized statement on page
> > > > > > 81 of
> > > > > > MU:
> > > > > > "Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von
> > > > > > Neumann
> > > > > > form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord
> > > > > > with all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > laws of physics." You object that the von Neumann form violates
> > > > > > the Schroedinger equation. But the vN form postulates the
> > > > > > exitence
> > > > > > of collapse events that are essential to practical quantum
> > > > > > theory, and
> > > > > > contrues the Schr. Eqn. to be precisely the dynamical rules that
> > > > > > control
> > > > > > the evolution of potentialities between such events. The law of
> > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > of the probability/potentiality for an event to occur holds
> > > > > > *prior* to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > occurrence of that event.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >          I agree that one needs a ?mind? outside of quantum
> > > > > > > mechanics,
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > ?mind? that perceives the wave function of the brain, to
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > agreement
> > > > > > > between the mathematics and our perceptions.  But there is no
> > > > > > > evidence
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >  collapse.  So I disagree with your italicized
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > statement on page 81; the most
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > basic law of all, the Schrödinger equation, from which all other
> > > > > > laws
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > follow, is violated in your interpretation.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: The issue is whether the Schr. Eqn. is "the most basic
> > > > > > > law from
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > all other laws follow". My study of this question, from 1959
> > > > > > 'till the
> > > > > > present, have led me to a contrary conclusion. But if you can
> > > > > > see how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > resolve the difficulties (described in MU, for example) between
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Schr.
> > > > > > Eqn. and the predictions of QM pertaining to correlations
> > > > > > between our
> > > > > > human
> > > > > > experiences, then you have achieved something truly remarkable
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > has,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > believe, eluded the other supporters of the many-worlds
> > > > > > interpretation
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         Further, it seems the ?nonphysical? ?mind? is affecting
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ?physical? wave function, and such an interference in the
> > > > > > physical
> > > > > > > world
> > > > > > > by the nonphysical is one of the main criticisms of dualism.
> > > > > > > So one
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > motivated to try a different interpretive scheme in which
> > > > > > > collapse
> > > > > > > does
> > > > > > > not occur.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: Is this a sensible criticism? Our thoughts certainly
> > > > > > > seems to
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > influence our behaviour! Our entire productive lives are based
> > > > > > on the
> > > > > > incessantly empirically reconfirmed presumption that our
> > > > > > conscious
> > > > > > mental
> > > > > > efforts to move in a certain way has a tendency to make that
> > > > > > movement
> > > > > > happen. And how do our intentional thoughts stay aligned with
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > effects
> > > > > > if their is no natural selection feedback. And why should
> > > > > > something as
> > > > > > unique and complex as our streams of consciousness exist if they
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > now
> > > > > > useful function? A priori, the idea that our thought can
> > > > > > influence our
> > > > > > bodily actions is the more reasonable and sensible guess,
> > > > > > that the highly theoretical notion that our thoughts cannot
> > > > > > affect our
> > > > > > bodies.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >          Suppose, as in your scheme, there is a ?mind,? outside
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > laws of quantum mechanics,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > HPS: In my scheme, the laws of quantum mechanics are basically
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > connections between thought-like things5B. Our choices and the
> > > > > > resulting
> > > > > > perceptions are what orthodox quantum mechanics is ostensibly
> > > > > > about.
> > > > > > The old classical idealization that our our perceptions can be
> > > > > > considered
> > > > > > to exist apart from the the physical universe that they inform
> > > > > > us about
> > > > > > failed. Our thoughts are integrally connected with our brain
> > > > > > processes:
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > ideas are parts of the real world, not disconnected outside
> > > > > > observers.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > the quantum laws reflect this intimate connection between the
> > > > > > perceptual,
> > > > > > conceptual, and potentiality aspects of the united whole. "Mind"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > "inside"
> > > > > > the laws of QM , not "outside the laws".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > that mind perceives the wave function of the brain.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > HPS: Psychophysical events occur, and each such event has a
> > > > > > psychological
> > > > > > aspect and a physical aspect. It is not that "Mind" observes
> > > > > > "Matter"!
> > > > > > It is Mind/Matter evolving, with the matter aspect being a
> > > > > > physically
> > > > > > describable "potentiatities" for upcoming unfoldments of this
> > > > > > mindlike
> > > > > > reality that is intimately entwined with "potentialities" that
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > described by an evolving quantum state.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There is, initially, a separate ?mind? for each observer.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: Each "real event" is associated with a region of space
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > contains
> > > > > > some physical "system".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > At some point in the perception process, the ?mind? decides
> > > > > > (process
> > > > > > zero)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > to concentrate on just
> > > > > > > one version of the observer?s brain, and the reality perceived
> > > > > > > by that
> > > > > > > version becomes the reality we are conscious of in the normal
> > > > > > > sense.
> > > > > > > (The
> > > > > > > preferred-basis problem can be addressed, but it is a little
> > > > > > > long for
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > email.)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The ?mind? does not collapse the wave function in this scheme,
> > > > > > > so there is no objective reality (and no suspension of the
> > > > > > > Schrödinger
> > > > > > > equation).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What scheme are you talking about? Mine? In my
> > > > > > > VonNeumann/Heisenberg
> > > > > > (relativistic quantum field theory) scheme each event occurs in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > spatial
> > > > > > region, and along some spacelike surface sigma. The projection
> > > > > > operator
> > > > > > P
> > > > > > acts in this region, but if there is entanglement there are aslo
> > > > > > effects
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > away on Sigma. The full objective reality is changed by this
> > > > > > action: there is a collapse. So I do not know what you mean when
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > that there is no collapse: each psychophysical (i.e., real)
> > > > > > event
> > > > > > involves a
> > > > > > collapse. You have somehow gotten off-track in following my
> > > > > > description!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This implies one person?s ?mind? might concentrate on one branch
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > and another person?s ?mind? might concentrate on another branch,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > seems most undesirable.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Each event is associated with one region, which includes one
> > > > > > > physical
> > > > > > system; e.g., one brain. But the evolving quantum state is
> > > > > > highly
> > > > > > correlated. The structure of the Schr. Eqn. ensures that each of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > three states of the device plus multiple observers will evolve
> > > > > > into a combination of three parts, so that in one part the
> > > > > > brains of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > observers correspond to all of them seeing the first possible
> > > > > > outcome.
> > > > > > the second part corresponds to the brains of all observers
> > > > > > seeing the
> > > > > > second alternative possible outcome, etc, for the third part of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > state. This is all automatic and rigorous, not conjectural.
> > > > > > If the first event corresponds to the first onbserver
> > > > > > experiencing.
> > > > > > say, the first of the three alternative possible outcomes that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > whole
> > > > > > global state will collapse to the first of the three parts of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > state.
> > > > > > This is strictly automatic, not conjectural, within the orthodox
> > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > Thus if any other observers observers the outcome, he will
> > > > > > surely seen
> > > > > > the same outcome, because the other parts of his brain state
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > eliminated by the earlier collapse. This is all automatic. The
> > > > > > entailed
> > > > > > action-at-a-distance is interesting, and has been much
> > > > > > discussed.
> > > > > > It is a feature of relativistic quantum field theory that at the
> > > > > > root of all the discussions about "spooky action at a distance".
> > > > > > Entanglement plus collapse entails action at a distance. But
> > > > > > the formalism ensure that no "signal" (message controlled by the
> > > > > > sender)
> > > > > > can act faster-than-light.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To fix this problem, we are apparently forced to assume
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > each individual ?mind? is simply an aspect of a single,
> > > > > > overarching
> > > > > > > Mind.
> > > > > > >  And when one aspect concentrates on a particular branch, the
> > > > > > > Mind,
> > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > with all its other, individual aspects, must concentrate on
> > > > > > > the same
> > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > HPS: No! This is not how it works!!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         The introduction of an overarching Mind, of which we are
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > aspects, is the price one must pay for foregoing collapse.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > HPS: Well, there is one overarching (objective) reality that
> > > > > > > each
> > > > > > event
> > > > > > influences, but each stream of consciousness is associated with
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > individual brain.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But your ?mind?-Nature-collapse scheme has a correspondingly
> > > > > > awkward
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > assumption;
> > > > > > > overarching Nature answers a ?query? from individual ?minds?
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > selectively collapsing the wave function.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > HPS: Each collapse is associated a human being is associated
> > > > > > primarily
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > his own brain (P act of that brain) But the effect on reality is
> > > > > > global,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         Free will.  Each individual ?mind? has some freedom of
> > > > > > choice
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > which branch to concentrate on within the thinking and deciding
> > > > > > part of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > wave function of the individual?s brain (but there is little
> > > > > > > or no
> > > > > > > freedom
> > > > > > > in choosing the branches concerned with perception of ?outer?
> > > > > > > events).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > HPS: Yes, focussed effort can cause the initial event of the
> > > > > > sequence
> > > > > > to be followed by other similar ones, and this can strong
> > > > > > influence
> > > > > > the person's physical behavior.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         There is one advantage of the ?mind?-Mind
> > > > > > interpretation.
> > > > > >  Under
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > a fairly weak additional assumption, the probability law can be
> > > > > > > derived.
> > > > > > > This leads to a way, using the probability law, of
> > > > > > > experimentally
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > . testing the interpretation.  See arXiv:quant-ph/0901.0952v2.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What are your objections to this ?mind?-Mind interpretation?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I certainly agree with the conclusion stated in the abstract
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > that the many-worlds interpretation fails!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for considering these thoughts.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Casey Blood
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 

    [ Part 2, "Philosophy.doc"  Application/MSWORD  234KB. ]
    [ Unable to print this part. ]