From stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Tue Oct 13 14:04:05 1998 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:56:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Henry Stapp To: quantum-mind Subject: Reply to Wolf and Sarfatti---Henry Stapp (fwd) I sent this in back on Oct 8 in connection with "World as Knowings", which was posted. But this part was never posted. I now resubmit it, with a few small improvements. Henry ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Henry Stapp To: quantum-mind Subject: Reply to Wolf and Sarfatti---Henry Stapp From: Fred Alan Wolf Subject: Libet data and causation. ..... [Stapp] By orthodox quantum theory I mean what Wigner meant: essentially what I have been calling the pragmatic vN/W interpretation. [The entire universe is represented by a quantum state S(t) that evolves in accordance with the Schroedinger equation between jumps . . . [Wolf] Although this is in my opinion a correct view, it is arguably one that is outside of standard quantum theory in that it essentially deals with noncontinuous time evolution (P_e S P_e) of wave functions. Standard quantum theory predicts through continuous time evolution (Stapp's S). Quantum theory does not deal with these events (P_e S P_e) other than say that they exist. [Stapp] Orthodox quantun theory was formulated directly in terms of experiential increments of knowledge e and the representations (P_e S P_e) of these increments within the mathematical formalism. (See "The World as Knowings") [Wolf] It cannot predict them. It can provide statistics for them. But I hardly see that as explaining anything about consciousness. [Stapp] In the vN/W formulation the mapping e-->(P_e S P_e) is a mapping from an experience e to a reduction of the state of the associated brain to that component of this brain state that is compatible with that experience e. This connection between experience and the corresponding brain state is exactly what experimenters who are trying to map out the neural correlates of consciousness are trying to determine: this connection, which is the core of vN/W pragmatic QT lies right at the heart of the scientific study of consciousness. [Stapp-prev] Each jump is associated with an experiential increment in knowledge, and with an associated "physical" event (P_e S P_e), where P_e acts on the degrees of freedom associated with some brain. [Wolf] Again, although I can agree with this, I point out that "experiential increment in knowledge" is not a concept defined within standard quantum theory and I don't see it in any text on quantum mechanics. If Stapp means a single bit, 0 or 1, "popping" into existence in the physical world such as is elicited in a spin-1/2 measurement on a particle I can agree. But if this means a change in the observer's subjective awareness, I raise a flag of doubt. Where is that subjective awareness occurring? Is that location of the subjective awareness mappable in the brain? This may be Stapp's theory, but it lies outside standard quantum theory, Wigner's or anyone elses, as far as I know. Again I reemphasize there is an added assumption when you attempt to put objectively viewable events into the same hat as subjectively experienced events. The founders did not attempt to do this as far as I know. They may have talked about this, but no one formed a theory. [Stapp] The founder's of quantum theory based QT directly upon this connection between our increments in knowledge and corrsponding reductions in a Hilbert space: vN/W made it about the mind-brain interface. [Stapp-prev] Eventually, some generalization must be made, as explained previously, but at present this pragmatic approach will do. It is an unavoidable consequence of intrinsic features of the Hilbert-space structure that the transformation S-->(P_e S P_e), acting on the entangled state S of the universe will automatically bring the state of the entire universe into accord with the increment of knowledge `e' associated preferentially with the one brain on whose degrees of freedom P_e acts. [Wolf] This quote, "bring it into accord with the increment of knowledge `e' that was associated preferentially with just one brain" is pure Stapp and lies outside of standard quantum theory. [Stapp] I have posted above (The World as Knowings) some small part of the voluminous literature that documents the fact that the incorporation of our experiential increments of knowledge was the ESSENCE of the Copenhagen interpretation, as it emerged at its birth at Solvay 1927. Let me quote also from von Neumann's book (Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton U.P.) "Let us now compare those circumstances to those which actually exist in nature or in its observation. First, it is inherently entirely correct that the measurement or the related process of subjective perception is a new entity relative to the physical environment and is not reducible to the latter. Indeed, subjective perception leads us into the intellectual inner life of the individual. "p.418 Speaking of the boundary between the part of the physical world represented in terms of the quantum formalism and the part represented by the subjective perceptions, and pushing it finally to the limit he says: "And were our physiological knowledge more precise than it is today, we could go still further, tracing the chemical reactions which produce the impression of this image on the retina, in the optic nerve tract and in his brain, and then in the end say: these chemical changes of his brain cells are perceved by the observer." p.419 Later on, referring to this final placement, he says that in this case the observing system is "his abstract `ego' ." p.421 This is the placement that Wigner refers to when he claims that there should be not only an action of matter upon mind, as in classical mechanics, but a back reaction of mind upon matter. This position, which I call the vonNeumann/Wigner pragmatic quantum theory, is thus directly based, first of all, on the essential core pragmatic (ala Wm James) idea of the Copenhagen interpretaion, as it was born at the 1927 Solvay conference, namely that the theory be construed as a theory of connections between experiential increments of knowledge, but now pushed in the direction of a complete ontology by adopting the nonNeumann/Wigner position that puts the entire brain into the "physical" universe, and thus avoids the whole discussion about where to place the otherwise mysterious division of the universe into two parts, one described quantum mechanically, the other classically. [Stapp-prev] That is how the von Neumann rigorous formulation of quantum theory works. [Even though this formalism was originally placed in a nonrelativistic context, it can be used in relativistic quantum field theory, modulo difficulties at Planck scale seemingly associated with a breakdown of the idea of space-time at such tiny scales. If these problems at very tiny distances, and hence very large energies, are ignored then one has a beautiful and consistent mathematical formalism that accounts for all empirical data that is accounted for by either classical or quantum theory.] [Wolf] I agree, but again what does this have to do with subjective awareness? [Stapp] Empirical data means experiential increments in knowledge: Quantum theory is a calculus for computing statistical connections between experiential increments of knowledge of the kind that we can describe to ourselves and to our colleagues: it is directly ABOUT the experiential realities upon which science is based. ********************************************************************************************** From: Jack Sarfatti Subject: [q-mind] Libet data and causation -- Henry Stapp Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 +0000 [Stapp-prev] Perhaps this "retroactive" effect WITHIN orthodox causal quantum theory is important enough to warrant a review. [Jack] That is the understatement of the year. :-) [Stapp-prev] By orthodox quantum theory I mean what Wigner meant: essentially what I have been calling the pragmatic vN/W interpretation. [The entire universe is represented by a quantum state S(t) that evolves in accordance with the Schroedinger equation between jumps that occur at a sequence of times ...., t_{n-1}, t_{n} ,t_{n+1},... [t_{n} is t subscript n etc.] Each jump is associated with an experiential increment in knowledge, and with an associated "physical" event (P_e S P_e), where P_e acts on the degrees of freedom associated with some brain. [Jack] OK I did not sufficiently understand before that you use the quantum state of the "entire universe" in a vital way so that you have quantum gravity and Hawking's "Mind of God" built into the foundation of your Bishop Berkeleyan "quantum animism". This makes a big difference. [Stapp] I specifically said that I was neglecting Planck-scale effects. I was referring there to effects associated with general relativity. My presumption is that gravity, except in the simplest direct way of the earth's pull upon our bodies, is not important in the mind-brain interaction. [Stapp-prev] [Eventually, some generalization must be made, as explained previously, but at present this pragmatic approach will do]. Nevertheless, the transformation S-->(P_e S P_e), acting on the entangled state S of the universe will, *automatically within the quantum formalism*, act on the state of the entire universe, and bring it into accord with the increment of knowledge `e' that was associated preferentially with just one brain. [Jack] It's this last step that requires more explanation. I suppose you mean the Everett "relative state" idea? [Stapp] No! Just the opposite! Everett's central idea is that there is no collapse or reduction: I am speaking exactly about the reduction, which is an effect of an increment in knowledge, according to orthodox quantum theory. [Stapp-prev] That is how the von Neumann rigorous formulation of quantum theory works. [Jack] Well you extended it to the entire universe of quantum gravity. Gell-Mann says you can't do that in his "The Quark and the Jaguar" - but what does he know? His Ch 12 is for the birds. :-) So, anyway, this also connects with Penrose's orch OR. You are also saying that quantum gravity is fundamental to consciousness in this very deep sense. [Stapp] The entire universe, Yes: but I have assumed that gravity is not important, and hence have used here normal quantum theory in a flat space-time. [Stapp-prev] I assume that the quantum rules hold exactly: if one relaxes this condition then tremendous flexibility ensues; one can allow one's imagination to run wild. [Jack] Well Wheeler's quantum geometrodynamics may be wrong, and Sidharth's application of it may be wrong, and Penrose's idea may be wrong, Modanese's idea may be wrong, and now this guy Woodward's idea may be wrong, and I may be wrong. That is all possible I agree. [Stapp-prev] But the proper way of science is first to see whether the data can be accommodated within the most orthodox framework, without allowing violations of the *predictions* of the theory, which is something that "all" quantum physicists agree about, no matter which ontological or interpretive framework they may favor. [Jack] Correct, but evidence on precognitive remote viewing violates the passion-at-a-distance of orthodox quantum theory. {Stapp] I have repeatedly pointed out that the Eberhardt theorem of "orthodox quantum theory" is based on the extra assumption of "good measurements"; my vN/W theory is completely othodox, but it relaxes the requirement that every experience corresponds to a "good measurement" in the sense of von Neumann's theory of measurement. Consequently, it can, if certain assumptions about the absence of relevant proto-experiences (and hence reductions) are made, automatically accommodate the purported evidence. [Jack] So this is experimental violation of orthodox quantum theory, or, it is bad experimental data. It's one or the other. [Stapp] No! IF the data are good, then it points to a failure of certain intuitions that are widely held by most practicing experimental physicists, namely that reduction actually do occur already when physical records are made. There has never been a shred of empirical evidence that supports that "common sense" notion. I see as one important virtue and value of returning to the pragmatic stance the fact that it does not inject this classical-type prejudice, which has no empirical basis, into the basic theoretical structure. Injecting this prejudice creates ambiguities, because it introduces into the theory an alien a pure prejudice, that has no empirical backing. This injection of an alien element into the purity of the quantum structure disrupts the logical coherence of the theory without creating any benefit at all. .... [Jack] So I strongly differ with Stapp that the backward causation is only "apparent". This is not the optimum way to understand Libet's raw data. You can choose to understand it that way given the traditional causal paradigm that Stapp embraces, but then you come to Hodgson's dilemma that free will in the brain-mind system is a delusion in a causal world, at least for quick decisions. [Stapp] No! The exact point of my target article was to show that the vN/W quantum theory does allow mental-force and free-will to enter into the causal process in a way that "supervenes" on the physical (i.e., on the quantum theoretical representation S(t) of the evolving state of the universe) and hence is tightly bound to the physical, but is nevertheless NOT causally determined by the physical. [Sarfatti] This is now a clash of paradigms. Stapp's quantum paradigm forbids normal free will as well as the paranormal. My post-quantum paradigm demands both normal free will and the paranormal. Which do you free choose? [Stapp] As regards my theory that description is upside down: the orthodox vN/W pragmatic theory can accommodate both, completely within the orthodox quantum theory, without violating any principle of orthodox quantum theory and without adding anything to the orthodox theory, except for a postulated connection between the intentional-attentional aspect of an experience `e' and an otherwise-undefined feature that MUST BE DEFINED SOMEHOW in order to make complete the quantum dynamical equations The addition is this: the experienced intention in `e' to attend to a possible experience e~ is assumed to identify the experience e that occurs in the question to be put to nature "Will e occur next?" Quantum dynamics stalls unless some definite question like this is is put to nature, but there is nothing else within vN/W quantum theory that fixes these questions. This same intentional mental process that exercises important control over the brain process, but is not wholly controlled by brain process, would, if not blocked by reductions associated with physical recordings ---such as (unobserved) printings out of results onto sheets of paper---, automatically extend out from the brains into the environment, in the way discussed in my Phys. Rev. A paper. Here the direct effect of the intentional effort replaces the effect of the non-Hermitian term in the Hamitonian that I there postulated to exist. There I assumed that this that this extra term, which violated the quantum princilples, was "somehow" associated with volition. Now I require no violation of quantum theory, but require rather a *completion* of quantum quantum theory. A "free" volition is brought in not in some mysterious way through the introduction of some extra term whose connection to the consciousness we feel would just be a new puzzle, but by exploiting the fact that quantum theory is basically about consciousness, and about the rules connecting experiences to later experiences. The question posed to nature at the Copenhagen level is whether an experience of some specified is going to happen. But if the question is of the form "Will experience e happen?", and the variable e is an experience, then that experience should be, or could be part of an earlier experience. This opens the door to a vein of causal influence that goes from experience to experience without descending to the physical level. But mind still "supervenes" on the brain, and is closely linked to it, because each experience e is represented in the physical domain by a reduction of the brain state S_b-->(P_e S_b P_e), and we can suppose that no two different e's will give the same reduction.