%REPORTMASTER (revised 8/24/88) \documentstyle[12pt]{article} %\input math_macros.tex \def\baselinestretch{1.2} \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}} \begin{document} \begin{center} {\bf Keynote address to conference\\ ``Fundamental Principles of Cosmology;\\ The Foundations of a Conscious Universe''\\ October 14-16, George Mason University\\ \vspace{.15in} How Our Thoughts Can Guide Our Actions\\ Henry P. Stapp\\ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\\ University of California\\ Berkeley, California. 94720\\ ABSTRACT} \end{center} The principles of relatistic classical physics take the physical world to be an aggregation of miniscule localized components each of which evolves mechanistically under the influence solely of its immediate neighbors. Large collections of these microscopic elements are perceived by us to be large objects, such as rods or pistons, or large systems, such as oceans or hurricanes. These objects and systems can be considered to exert causal influences on surrounding objects and systems. But, according to the principles of classical relativistic physics, these influences are completely determined by local mechanical interactions between microscopic neighbors. Likewise, according to this theory, our thoughts can guide our actions only insofar as these thoughts redundantly reaffirm the consequences of the local mechanical processes. Quantum mechanics constitutes a radical departure from the classical ideal. The thinking human observer is brought into the actual dynamics in two important ways. First, he must choose a question that will be put to nature. Second, he must recognize the answer that nature returns, and increment a body of knowledge accordingly. These functions of the conscious human observer in quantum dynamics provide the basis, within contemporary physical theory, for allowing a person's thoughts, not fixed by local mechanisms and random chance, to guide his actions. The details of this possible physics-based influence of mind upon matter will be described. \newpage The precepts of contemporary relativistic classical physical theory (CPT), postulate that the physical world is composed of tiny localized parts that interact only with their immediate neighbors. Big physical objects and systems are conceived to be built up out of many of these tiny parts, and all properties of the large parts are direct consequences of the motions the small parts. According to CPT, nature contains, in addition to these physical parts, also experiential parts. The `Physical Parts', according to CPT, are completely characterized in terms of EXTENSIONS IN SPACETIME: i.e., by Geometric Properties Alone. Our consciously experienced human KNOWINGS are not contained within this physical part of nature, as it is conceived in CPT, because they are not fully characterized in terms of geometric properties. Given a complete (according to CPT) description of the history of the physical world, the non-geometric features by which we characterize certain aspects of our consciously experienced KNOWINGS could be absent from nature (i.e., be nonexistent) without contravening or contradicting the principles of CPT. So some ``extra principle'', outside CPT, would be needed to make the aspects of our experiences that are NOT characterized in geometric terms be part of the causal structure described by CPT. OUR CONSCIOUSLY EXPERIENTIAL KNOWINGS stand logically and conceptually outside the physical world, as that world is represented by CPT: \newpage BUT STANDARD QUANTUM THEORY IS EXPLICITY ABOUT `OUR KNOWLEDGE', PER SE! The philosopher of science Mario Bunge(1967) remarked that: ``The physicist of the latest generation is operationalist all right, but usually does not know, and refuses to believe, that the original original Copenhagen interpretation --- which he thinks he supports --- was squarely subjectivist, i.e., nonphysical.'' At the 1927 Solvay Conference Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, and Born described a concordance that came to be called ``The Copenhagen Interpretation''. Historian John Hendry 1984 says: ``Dirac, in discussion, insisted on the restriction of the theory's application to OUR KNOWLEDGE of a system, and on its lack of ontological content." Hendry summarized the concordance by saying: ``On this interpretation it was agreed that, as Dirac explained, the wave function represented OUR KNOWLEDGE of the system, and the reduced wave packets OUR MORE PRECISE KNOWLEDGE after measurement." \newpage Let there be no doubt about this key point: In Copenhagen quantum theory the mathematical structure is asserted to represent ``our knowledge'' itself, not some imagined-to-exist, knowledge-independent reality. \begin{center} {\bf Quotes} \end{center} Heisenberg (1958a): ``The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior." Heisenberg (1958b): ``...the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function...takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change in our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function." Heisenberg (1958b:) ``When the old adage `Natura non facit saltus' is used as a basis of a criticism of quantum theory, we can reply that certainly our knowledge can change suddenly, and that this fact justifies the use of the term `quantum jump'. " Wigner (1961): ``the laws of quantum mechanics cannot be formulated ... without recourse to the concept of consciousness." Bohr (1934): ``In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of our experience." Science, after all, is about what we can KNOW! \newpage EINSTEIN'S VIEWS. These are quotes from supporters. To confirm the key point it is useful to see what detractors had to say. Einstein had a famous long debate with Bohr about quantum theory and the Copenhagen interpretation thereof: He certainly knew what the Copenhagen view was, and objected: ``What does not satisfy me, from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude toward what seems to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation)." (Einstein, 1951, p.667) and ``What I dislike in this kind of argumentation is the basic positivistic attitude, which from my view is untenable, and which seems to me to come to the same thing as Berkeley's principle, esse est percipi." (Einstein, 1951, p. 669).[Translation: To be is to be perceived] Einstein struggled until the end of his life to get the observer's knowledge back out of physics. But he did not succeed! Rather he admitted that: ``It is my opinion that the contemporary quantum theory...constitutes an optimum formulation of the [statistical] connections." (ibid. p. 87). He referred to: ``the most successful physical theory of our period, viz., the statistical quantum theory which, about twenty-five years ago took on a logically consistent form. ... This is the only theory at present which permits a unitary grasp of experiences concerning the quantum character of micro-mechanical events." (ibid p. 81). One can try to say that these problems concern only atoms and molecules, and not things built out of them. Of this possibility Einstein said: ``But the `macroscopic' and `microscopic' are so inter-related that it appears impracticable to give up this program [of basing physics on the `real'] in the `microscopic' alone." (ibid, p.674). \newpage CONCLUSION Copenhagen QT is about ``our knowledge'': it is Epistemological! Ontological commitment is eschewed! The theory claims nothing about the `reality' behind our observations, beyond the fact that it leads to human experiences that are in accord with its predictions. It eschews even a physical/mathematical description of our measuring devices, and of our brains. But to explain the mind-brain connection we need to include OUR BRAINS in the mathematical description of nature. A quantum theory that includes a mathematical representation of our brains was developed by John von Neumann (1932/1955). It was explicated by Eugene Wigner (1967-9), who named this version {\it Orthodox Quantum Theory}. THE MAIN FEATURES OF ORTHODOX/ONTOLOGICAL QUANTUM THEORY. 1. Everything made out of atoms (etc.) is treated quantum mechanically: The quantum state is the state of THE WHOLE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. 2. But as in Copenhagen quantum theory, this state represents KNOWLEDGE: The quantum state represents an OBJECTIVE `COMPENDIUM OF KNOWLEDGE'. 3. Each SUBJECTIVE `increment of knowledge' contributes to this COMPENDIUM. THIS THEORY IS THUS A `PHYSICAL IDEALISM': It is an ``Idealism'' because the basic ontological reality is ``knowledge'', rather than classically conceived `matter'. It is ``Physical'' because it incorporates a natural generalization of the laws of CPT, and it mathematically entails, to high precision, all of the valid predictions of CPT, plus many other effects that are incompatible with CPT. \newpage A FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN PERSPECTIVE. CQT=Copenhagen Quantum Theory: OQT=Orthodox/Ontological Quantum Theory. Within CPT and CQT ``our knowledge'' of the physical world is, in effect, our knowledge of the SOURCES of the (electromagnetic) fields that ACTIVATE OUR SENSORS. Thus, in those theories, the interface between physics and knowledge normally lies OUTSIDE the brain of the person who is acquiring the knowledge. von Neumann brought the entire physical universe into the quantum system, and thereby shifted the interface between physics and knowledge to the brain of the person who is aquiring the knowledge. Thus in OQT puts the connection between physics and knowledge AT THE BRAIN/MIND INTERFACE, WHERE IT BELONGS ! \newpage ABOUT ``ABOUTNESS''. What an experience is ABOUT is, IN ALL CASES, a figment of the imagination: all CONTENT is on the same ontological footing. an IDEA of ``a unicorn in a garden'' is ontologically the same sort of thing as an IDEA of ``a falling apple.'' The creators of CPT took certain aspects of the CONTENT of our ideas, namely the geometric aspects, and imagined these aspects to characterize features of reality that exist independently of our knowledge of them. But that theoretical invention was found by scientists to be incompatible with the empirical data! They then created a revised theory, quantum theory, that is compatible with all empirical data. But it is DIRECTLY ABOUT KNOWLEDGE that is NOT REDUCIBLE TO, or EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF, classically conceived matter. Within this new framework a person's thoughts can play AN IRREDUCIBLE CAUSAL ROLE in guiding his actions. BECAUSE of this IRREDUCIBLE CAUSAL EFFICACY of thoughts SPECIES can NATURALLY EVOLVE so that the brains of the organisms can support thoughts that can guide the organism's actions in ways that are useful to the species. How could it work? \newpage TRIPARTITE BRAIN PROCESS. Niels Bohr (1951, p.223), in recounting the important events at the Solvay Conference of 1927, said: ``On that occasion an interesting discussion arose also about how to speak of the appearance of phenomena for which only predictions of a statistical nature can be made. The question was whether, as regards the occurrence of individual events, we should adopt the terminology proposed by Dirac, that we have to do with a choice on the part of `nature' or, as suggested by Heisenberg, we should say that we have to do with a choice on the part of the `observer' constructing the measuring instruments and reading their recording.'' Bohr stressed this choice on part of the observer: ``...our possibility of handling the measuring instruments allow us only to make a choice between the different complementary types of phenomena we want to study.'' The observer plays TWO crucial roles in Copenhagen quantum theory. One is the passive role of observing outcomes delivered by Nature. The other is the active role of {\it choosing a question}: ---i.e., of selecting which aspect of nature will be probed. WITHOUT SOME PROCESS OR PRINCIPLE THAT ``CHOOSES THE QUESTION'' THAT IS PUT TO NATURE, QUANTUM PROCESS GRINDS TO A HALT! THE THREE PROCESSES: 1. The Schroedinger Process: This process fixes, deterministically, the temporal development of the state of the universe between quantum events/jumps. 2. The Heisenberg Process: This process chooses the Yes-or-No question that is put to nature. 3. The Dirac Process: This is nature's process of picking the answer, either Yes or No, to the question posed by the Heisenberg process. \newpage EACH PROCESS IS DESCRIBED MATHEMATICALLY: The Schroedinger process: $ S(t)= U(t)S(0)U(t)^{-1}$. Here $U(t) =\exp (-iHt)$, and H is the Hamiltonian. The Heisenberg Process: $S\rightarrow PSP+(1-P)S(1-P)$. (von Neuman process I). Here $P=P^2$ is the projection operator defined by the Yes-or-No question. The Dirac Process: $ [PSP + (1-P)S(1-P)] \rightarrow$\\ $\rightarrow PSP$ with probability $Tr PS/Tr S$, or\\ $\rightarrow (1-P)S(1-P)$ with probability $Tr (1-P)S/Tr S.$ THE KEY POINTS: The Heisenberg process is REQUIRED to make quantum theory work. In Copenhagen quantum theory this choice is done by the conscious human agent. The conscious human agent: 1. Decides which aspect of nature will be probed, 2. Recognizes nature's answer, and 3. Interpretes that answer as an increment in knowledge. von Neumann quantum theory formalizes this process, and by bringing the observer into the theory in at the level of brain process, rather than at the level of the external sources, opens the door to a TWO-WAY causal connection of a person's conscious thoughts to the physical aspects of nature described by contemporary physical theory. DIAGRAM: $(H,S)\rightarrow (D,E)\rightarrow(H,S)\rightarrow (D,E)\rightarrow$ (H,S) represents the PARALLEL Heisenberg and Schroedinger processes. (D,E) represents the Dirac choice that specifies the ``Event/Jump'', \newpage HEISENBERG PROCESS AND ATTENTION. I identify ``posing a question'' with the psychological notion of ``Attending to'': To `attend to' is to inquire about something. Then the H lines in the diagram represent a mental (experiential) component of the dynamics that carries forward the attentional process that chooses the questions that are put to nature. THIS IS A PROCESS THAT IS NOT DETERMINED BY A COMBINATION OF THE SCHROEDINGER PROCESS AND THE DIRAC PROCESS. This indeterminateness of `the question posed' constitutes a lacuna in the structure of quantum theory. In Copenhagen Quantum Theory this gap is filled by the human observer, who stands outside the quantum system. I exploit this looseness in the theory to bring `intentions' into the dynamics without disturbing the tightknit logical and dynamical structure of quantum theory: Intentional control of attention (choosing the question) can influence brain activity without violating the quantum laws or principles! \newpage PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS. Attention can keep brain process focussed. It can curtail: 1) uncertainty-principle broadening, 2) thermal diffusion, 3) effects of noise. The key process is the Quantum Zeno Effect:[Chiu (1977), Itano (1990)]. Posing the same question P with sufficient rapidity effectively induces $H \rightarrow PHP + (1-P)H(1-P)$ The effect is to CONFINE the state to the subspace defined by P, or by (1-P), even in the face of strong mechanical forces that would otherwise rapidly take the brain state out of this subspace. Thus a strong (rapid-fire) focus of attention on a task could tend to keep the brain focussed on that task, in spite of very strong countervailing mechanical forces. It can induce a certain sort of ``persistence'' caused directly by focus of conscious attention. CONSEQUENCES FOR MIND/BRAIN STUDIES: The basic problem is no longer to comprehend how KNOWINGS can come out of a classically conceived material process. Rather, onscious knowings are conceived to be IRREDUCIBLE REALITIES that are tied in mathematically constrained ways. to an INTERPERSONAL REALITY that is represented in a way that well suited to represent INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE, but is not well suited to represent material reality. The basic mind-brain problem thereby becomes shifted from that of explaining how conscious experience can arise from, or be built out of, classically conceived material processes, to the elucidation of the details of the relationships between two aspects of an information-theoretic representation of nature. \newpage CONSEQUENCES FOR MAN'S SELF IMAGE: The POSSIBILITY that nature COULD be represented in the way suggested by quantum theory means that: SCIENCE DOES NOT LOGICALLY ENTAIL that we MUST BE, essentially, mechanical robots wholly controlled by local mechanical causation. Contemporary physical theory OPENS UP THE LOGICAL POSSIBILITY that our thoughts MIGHT BE CAUSALLY EFFICACIOUS REALITIES that are NOT causally reducible to local mechanical effects of the kind that, according to the precepts of classical physical theory, rule the universe. MIND can be more than a mere puppet controlled by a blind chance and myopic mechanism. \newpage {\bf References.} Bohr, N (1934), {\it Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bohr, N (1951), in Einstein (1951), p. 223. Bunge, M. (1967), {\it Quantum Theory and Reality} (Berlin: Springer). Chalmers, D, (1996), The Conscious Mind, In search of a Fundamental Theory (Oxford: Oxford). C.B. Chiu, E.C.G. Sudarshan, and B. Misra, (1977) Phys. Rev. D {\bf 16}, 520. Einstein, A. (1951) {\it Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist} ed. P.A. Schilpp (New York: Tudor). Heisenberg, W. (1958a) `The representation of nature in contemporary physics', {\it Deadalus} {bf 87}, 95-108. Heisenberg, W. (1958b) {\it Physics and Philosophy} (New York: Harper and Row). Hendry, J. (1984) {\it The Creation of Quantum Theory and the Bohr-Pauli Dialogue} (Dordrecht: Reidel). Itano, W, Heinzen, D, Bollinger J, and Wineland, D, (1990), Phys. Rev. {\bf 41A}, 2295-2300. Wigner, E. (1961) `The probability of the existence of a self-reproducing unit', in {\it The Logic of Personal Knowledge: Essays presented to Micheal Polanyi on his seventieth birthday} (London: Routledge \& Paul) pp. 231-238. Wigner, E. (1967) `Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem' in {\it Symmetries and Reflections}. (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press). Wigner, E (1969) `Are We Machines' in Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. {\bf 113}, 95-101. von Neumann, J, (1932/1955) {\it Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics} (Princeton: Princeton University Press) \end{document}