Consciousness in the quantum world
E. M. Ivanov, Saratovš State University, Russian Federation
Email: ivanovem@info.sgu.ru
In this article the
original development of M.B.Mensky' ideas, stated in the article 'Concept of
consciousness in context of quantum mechanics' [1], is offered. Mensky' concept
is based on many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics invented as early as
50-th by the American physicist Hugh Everett [2] as means of conceptual
difficulties' overcoming in the foundations ofš
quantum mechanics, arising in connection with the postulate of wave
function reduction.
The paradoxicality
of the reduction procedure consists in the fact that it by no means can be
obtained as a result of Schrödinger evolution of the state vector both of
the initial system and of the complex system consisting of the quantum system
and the measuring instrument. Measurement from the physical point of view is
interaction of the quantum system with the measuring instrument and as that it,
of course, can be described by means of Schrödinger equation. Let the
instrument be in the quantum state before measurement |ò>, and the measurable quantum system is in the
superposition state |æ> = c1|Æ1> + Ó2|Æ2> (where |Æ1> and |Æ2> - are eigenfunctions of thešš measurand's operator). Then the state of the
complex system 'quantum object + instrument' before measurement is represented
as: |ò> |æ> = |Ó1 |Æ1> + Ó2|Æ2> ||P>. After interaction, owing to linearity of
Schrödinger evolution, we'll get the superposition describing theš state of the quantum system and the
instrument: |G> =c1|Æ1> |p1>
+ Ó2|Æ2> |Ò2>, where |p1>
and |Ò2> - are states
of the instrument after measurement, meaning accordingly: 'the instrument has
shown value Ò1' and 'the
instrument has shown value Ò2'. Thereby, after
interaction with the quantum system the instrument also passes in the
superposition state that contradicts that obvious fact, that having looked at
indications of the given instrument we always find it in a certain state:
either |p1>, or |Ò2>. The situation
does not vary also in case if we try to consider interaction of the system
'object + instrument' with the person-observer who reads out indications of the
given instrument. The quantum-mechanical analysis shows, that as soon as the
observer sees an instrument reading, he also passes in the superposition state
and, hence, he is not able to define in which of two alternative states the
instrument is. All these things obviously contradict common sense and demand
explanation.
The original
solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is given by the
many-world interpretation of Everett. As a matter of fact, it is based on the
literal interpretation of quantum-mechanical description of interaction of the
quantum system, the instruments and the observer. The result of this process is
the superposition state
of such a kind: Ó1|Æ1> |p1> |f1> + Ó2|Æ2> |Ò2>|f2> (where |f1> and
|f2> - alternative states of the observer) which literally means
that the subject with probability |c1|2 observes value Ò1 characterizing the state of the instrument after
measurement and with probability |c2|2 - value Ò2.
šOwing to linearity of Schrödinger
equation no physical process is capable to destroy instantly one of the
superposition components having left the second one invariable. Hence, if we
consider quantum mechanics as the full and closed theory, we should admit, that
both components of the superposition continue to exist after measurement.
Everett interprets this situation as follows: no reduction of wave function
inš the measurement process occurs, but it
occurs Universe 'splitting' in two copies which are identical in every respect,
except for the readings of the instrument, read out by the subject, registering
the result of the given experiment. In the Universe1 he sees value Ò1, and in the Universe 2 - value Ò2. It means that the subject-observer 'is split' in two
copies ('twins') which are identical in every respect except that the first
'twin' finds out himself in the Universe1 and observes value Ò1 and the second 'twin' finds out himself in the
Universe 2 and, accordingly, observes Ò2.
Already in the
As a whole, accepting this idea about connection of consciousness with
the process of 'alternatives selection' in general, we, nevertheless, believe,
that there is no necessity to connect itš
with Everett Universe splitting in 'equally real' duplicates and the
more so with splitting of the subject in great number of 'equally real' twins.
Both these positions are not only unnecessary, but also entail a number of
difficulties, from which, however, it is possible to get easily rid of, if we
represent the process of 'alternatives selection' a little bit differently.
At the
beginning let's note obvious lacks of
How
could this conclusion be combined with the idea that consciousness function
coincides with the function of 'alternative selection' in quantum measurement?
It is clear, that alternatives selection is inseparably connected with sensual
perception of these alternatives. Consciousness chooses exactly what we
sensually perceive. And vise versa, what our consciousness chooses in the
process of alternatives selection is just what we perceive. Hence it is natural
to draw a conclusion that the choice of alternative and sensual perception is
in fact the same thing. Where do other alternatives, which we do not perceive,
disappear in this case? They do not disappear anywhere, and nothing occurs to
them. They remain there where they were - in initial superposition.
Here it
is appropriate to recollect classical Born 'probabilistic' interpretation of
the vector state. According to literal understanding of this interpretation the
quantum state before measurement describes only probability distribution to
obtain these or those results of measurement of the certain physical value.
There are no grounds to think that this value exists in fact as something
definite before we have made measurement. Moreover, such assumption leads to
the contradiction with formalism of quantum mechanics. Hence, before
measurement the quantum system exists only in the form of collection of 'real
possibilities' (potentialities) and only measurement transfers one of these
possibilities in the real actual state.
Actualization is connected with observation, and observation is always
associated with sensual perception. Therefore we can assume quite legally that
actualization and sensual perception is in fact the same thing. Perception
transfers one of the superposition components into the act, whereas all the
rest (inconceivable) components of the superposition are still there where they
were - in the sphere of potential being. At that perception (actualization)
does not have any physical influence on the state vector, including the
component which it actualizes. Actualization (i.e. 'sensual recognition') just
simply 'marks' one of a superposition component that does not influence in any
way physical state of the quantum system, evolution of its quantum state, but,
however, influences the subsequent actualizations. Everything looks as if at
calculations we simply 'mark' with a marker one of a superposition component,
that would not influence in any way the further calculations, but would
essentially influence the subsequent marks done by us.
To obtain the realistic theory of quantum measurements, we should impose
on the processes of actualization ('marking'), at least, two conditions:
self-consistency and intersubjectivity. The self-consistency condition demands
that each subsequent actualization be conformed to the results of the previous
actualizations. For example, if in the first measurement (of the same quantum
system) actualization 'signed' ("marked") component Æ1 (that in our example corresponds to perception
ofš p1) and, respectively,
'did not mark' component Æ2, then
in the following measurement it can 'be marked' only that component of the new
superposition which evolutionally descends from the 'marked' state Æ1 but it will never be 'marked' anyš component which descends from the earlier
'not marked' state Æ2 though its
'descendants' do not disappear anywhere and on equal rights with 'descendants'
of Æ1 are present in the
final superposition. Actually, exactly this condition of self- consistency
generates illusion of the state vector 'reduction': as the 'not marked'
components of the superposition never give 'marked' 'descendants', then the
corresponding components and their 'descendants' never become the object of
perception and, hence, they can be simply neglected.
The condition of intersubjectivity demands the results of different
subjects' perception be mutually coordinated. That is, if I in theš quantum measurement have seen that the
instrument shows value p1 (and, hence, state Æ1 was actualized) my friend, who observes my experiments
will also see the same thing. Thus, all actualizations of quantum Universe
states are mutually coordinated, and it creates the general for everybody
intersubjective 'visible world'.
Our concept, thereby, essentially differs from the Multiverse theory.
First of all, in our model nothing is split: either the Universe, or the
observer. Secondly, in the Multiverse concept each observation 'singles out' a
certain 'classical alternative', describing the Universe state as a whole. In
our model as actualization coincides with sensual perception, it is enough only
transition of the physical state of that part of brain which is responsible for
sensual perception ('sensorium') in 'the actual plan of being'. Hence, each
measurement fixes not 'the Universe state', but only particular, attached to
the certain subject 'the Universe perception state' represented in 'sensorium'.
It should be also noticed that if no observation is made, there is no reason in
describing the quantum state in the form of any superposition. The
superposition states make sense only in relation to any kinds of measurements -
as a result of the given quantum state decomposition on eigenvectors of the
measurand' operator. ôhereby instead of
Multiverse (set of the parallel Universes) we have simply the Universe quantum
state describable by a state vector. If we imagine that this Universe quantum
state is defined at every moment of time then the corresponding 'all-time' state
vector will describe all possible (physically permissible) results of any
possible measurements carried out at any moments of time (the Universe of
physically possible).
As this 'all-time' Universe state vector represents a certain
self-identical stationary structure, it can be represented as a 'crystal' in
which any possible 'perceptions of the Universe' are initially 'written down'.
We'll call this structure
'the Quantum
crystal'. It is possible to represent the process of actualization
(perception), in this case, as a certain 'excitation wave' which extends inside
the Quantum crystal along the time vector and it moves as an aggregate of
'points' (each of which represents individual consciousness) which move not
chaotically but along certain self-consistent and mutually coordinated
trajectories and at that do not have any influence on the Quantum crystal
itself.
It is clear that the consciousness should execute some work useful to
its carrier, realize some important functions. Intuitively it seems obvious
that consciousness is that in me, what perceives, thinks, understands and made
the behavioral decisions on the basis of understanding and comprehension of the
apprehended things. However earlier we, after Mensky, connected function of
consciousness exclusively with actualization of the quantum alternatives. At
that function of consciousness is only a selection of the quantum superposition
elements of the human brain state, singling out ('marking') of one of this
superposition elements and its actualization (perception). Under the
self-consistency requirement the subsequent actualizations depend on previous
ones, and that creates illusion of 'state reduction'. Thereby function of
consciousness is a state reduction. But reduction, according to the principles of
quantum mechanics, is implemented in a random way (taking into account the
weight factors attributed to the members of the superposition). Then it turns
out that consciousness function, figuratively speaking, comes to 'throwing of
dice' and, then, 'marking' of the element of the superposition chosen in a
random way. It is clear that it is not enough to assert that consciousness
'comprehends something', 'understands' or 'makes a decision'. Of course even
such primitive function as 'random selection of the superposition components
and reduction of other members' as Mensky [1] noticed, is also rather useful
for a living organism, as it (under the conditions of self-consistency and
intersubjectivity) leads to stabilization and continuity of the visual environment
picture.
If
consciousness is really the subject of comprehension, understanding and
decision-making then it should not simply 'throw dice' and 'mark' the chosen
state (transferring it into sensually perceivable state), but it should also be
capable to implement state selection deliberately, reasonably and expediently.
If we attribute such reasonable and expedient selections to the process of
sensual perception of visual environment we come to rather a fantastic
hypothesis, that consciousness is able to influence the choice of surrounding
reality purposefully.
But
consciousness function, obviously, does not reduce to perception function.
Consciousness does not only perceive, but also understands the apprehended
things and on the basis of this understanding makes the deliberate behavioral
decision. It is natural to assume, that if in the act of sensual perception of
the outer world the selection of the superposition member is implemented purely
randomly (in conformity with predictions of quantum physics) then in the course
of perception of own behavioral decision the selection of the actualizable
superposition component occurs already 'deliberately', i.e. reasonably,
expediently, considering possible consequences of the given selection etc. The
selection is implemented on the basis of
understanding of the
perceivable information and estimation of supposed action importance.
The
understanding act assumes correlation of the percept with all possible
contexts. Set of all possible contexts forms 'a semantic field' which is
substantially identical to 'a set of all possible worlds', i.e. to expanded
Multiverse, including, besides physically possible worlds, physically
impossible ones as well. Meaning of any thing is its relation to all
conceivable real and possible things, i.e. its relation to 'a semantic field'
as a whole [3]. 'The Quantum crystal' can be considered, in that case, as a
certain area 'inside' 'the semantic field' which isšš distinguished by the fact that only in this
area actualizations are possible. At thatš
probability of actualization (perception) of any superposition
components, obviously, will not be entirely defined by predictions of quantum
mechanics (as alternatives selection in this case is implemented intelligently
and expediently - with correlation of each alternative with all 'semantic
field' as a whole, but not in a random way). Mechanism ofš 'the accepted decisions' perception (unlike
the mechanism of the external world perception) will, thereby, create illusion
of physics laws' violation which the observer can interpret as a result of
influence on the brain of a certain extraneous 'force' essentially changing
probability distribution ordered by quantum mechanics. It should be underlined
that this 'probabilities shifting' will occur only in the subject's perception
(and also in perception of other subjects - under the condition of
intersubjectivity), but will not have any influence on real physical processes.
It
turns out that every our action which seems to us deliberate and reasonablešš (produced just by our 'Ego' and not by
corporeal automatics) is such only in our perception. Purely physically our
body 'implements' (in the potential plan, of course) all actions at once (both
reasonable and unreasonable) which are ordered to it by the laws of quantum
physics. For example, if a stone flies at me and I deliberately avoid collision
with it then this action purely physically exists as a part of superposition
with other possible actions, a part of which are less reasonable and lead to
damage of my organism. However my consciousnessš
perceives only that action which seems to me the most intelligent and
expedient. Under the condition of self-consistency only this action will be
fixed in memory, and also under the condition of intersubjectivity it will be
fixed in perception and memory of other subjects.
The proposed concept of 'consciousnesses in the quantum world' resolves
the basic conceptual problems which arise both in connection with the analysis
of the mind-body problem and in connection with the measurement problem in
quantum mechanics. The analysis of the measurement problem leads to two
conclusions contradicting each other:
1. Consciousness (of the observer) should inevitably be considered in
the physical picture of the world.
2. Consciousness can't be described and explained by means of the
mathematical apparatus of the quantum theory.
The analysis of the mind-body relation also leads to the similar
paradox. Here we also obtain the contradiction:
1. Consciousness should operate
in the physical world.
š2. The physical world is causally
closed and, hence, consciousness influence on physical processes is impossible.
Both these contradictions in our model are easily resolved.
Consciousness is not described by physical formalism, but it should be
considered at the analysis of sensual perception of physical reality.
Consciousness does not influence physical processes, but selectively
influencing the process of physical reality's perception, it creates illusion
of psychophysical interaction. Every action of consciousness in the world is
only a selection and actualization (perception) of thosešš components of 'the Quantum crystal' ('the
Universe of physically possible') in which this action is already physically
(potentially) implemented. For example, my consciousness does not influence my
hand typing this text, but only actualizes that part of the Universe of
possible in which I have already been 'depicted' typing this text.
Consciousness simply selects for perception that part of the reality in which
my body implements action wished by me.
Literature
1. Mensky M.B., Consciousness
concept in context of quantum mechanics//UFN ('Advances in physical sciences')
- 2005 - V. 175. - ? 4. - p. 413-435.
2.
3. Ivanov E.M. Ontology of subjective.
http: // ivanem. chat.
ru/ontology 1.htm
23.06.2009. ššIvanov Evgeny M. šé×ÁÎÏ×