At Scientific American: Quantum theory does not require a conscious observer

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 10, 2018

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Mind, Philosophy, Physics, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double-slit.svg — double slit experiment

Science writer Anil Ananthaswamy Intro of surveys current theories:

If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.Anil Ananthaswamy, “What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?” at Scientific American

One wants to ask, if we cannot make any claims about the nature of reality and there is no agreement about the nature of consciousness, how does Ananthaswamy know that claims about the role of consciousness are “premature,” “misleading,” or “wrong?” Hasn’t he ruled out any basis for such decisions?

See also: At Nature: For now, “uncertainty seems the wisest position” on the implications of quantum mechanics

and

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Comments

More on this. A number of physicists take the view that we shouldn't even bother thinking about what is "really" going on, and only deal with the mathematical descriptions, which work with astonishing accuracy. Others, however, don't accept that and want to discuss what quantum reality might really be like, and not just calculate. In different ways, two books I have read recently are about this: "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and "What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics". I'm thinking I'd like to read Anil's book also.jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Yes, Dave, I think it is agreed that we don't really know, and can't really describe, what is actually happening as a photon travels along without interacting with anything else. But I think it would be quite ponderous to talk about all this if that disclaimer had to be made all the time. However, here's my attempt to describe the situation.: "The position of the photon, as it moves from the source to the screen, is represented by a mathematical function, the wave function, even though we don't know what exactly a photon is as it does this. It's resultant behavior is sometimes as a wave would behave and sometimes as a particle would behave, but we can't actually say that it is a particle or a wave. Since we don't know what it is, we use the wave function as a "substitute entity", so to speak, in talking about the photon.jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

jdk, That is indeed a strange paragraph. The wave function doesn't move through space or hit anything, obviously, just as the function f(x) = x^2 can't hit my car windshield. I can see how it would be difficult to describe all this, especially in a SA article though.daveS_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

For those interested (if there are any) the mistake that Anil made, which BA claims is "sufficient to discredit the ’empirical credibility’ of his entire article", is to omit the word I have added in bold in the following paragraph.
Mathematically speaking, however, what goes through both slits is not a physical particle or a physical wave but something called a wave function—an abstract mathematical function that represents the photon’s state (in this case its position). The wave function behaves like a wave. It hits the two slits, and new wave functions emanate from each slit on the other side, spread and eventually interfere with each other. The combined wave function can be used to work out the probabilities of where one might find the photon.
Now I know just adding this one word might still be not as accurate as it could be, because this is a difficult subject to describe accurately, especially since one of the issue is in fact what is going on when the photon travels. If ba still objects to the paragraph as I have revised, it (and he may be satisfied), I wonder how he (in his own words) would want to state the situation. And, backing up,ba, have I stated your position accurately in the penultimate paragraph of 10? And last, do you have anything to say about the various points in the article that show that in the scientific community the claim that consciousness is a necessary component of the wave collapse is in fact not the consensus, or universally settled as a conclusion?jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Thanks.bornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

I said I was wrong. I apologize for being wrong.jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

I still see no apology!bornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

You posted all that before, but I don't see any of that addressing consciousness. And to dismiss his whole article because of one sentence where he makes it sound like an actual wave rather than the wave function, whatever that is, passes beyond the slits, is pedantic. The point you objected to, to which I replied, is that I have now stated that you believe that the scientific evidence conclusively establishes that "consciousness creates reality," to use your own words. Is this a true statement about your beliefs?jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Moreover, when Feynman (and others) unified Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity into Quantum Electrodynamics, it still took "an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do".
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
“Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." of note: ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic. So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions. In fact, as a Christian Theist, I find both the double slit and quantum electrodynamics to be extremely comforting for Christian concerns. In the double slit experiment we found that while a photon and/or electron is "traveling" in the double slit experiment it is mathematically required to be defined as being in an infinite dimensional space. And we also found that the photon is also mathematically required to be described by an infinite amount of information. And then we also saw that when Quantum Mechanics and special relativity were unified into quantum-electrodynamics, (which many consider the most precisely tested theory ever in the history of science), that it still took an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do. Now all this is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see under Christian presuppositions. But, on the other hand, under Atheistic materialism and/or naturalism, and the presuppositions therein, there simply is no rational explanation for why we should find these things to be as they are. Moreover, the basics of quantum wave collapse dovetail perfectly into some of the oldest philosophical arguments that were made by Aristotle and Aquinas for the existence of God, and even offers empirical confirmation for those ancient philosophical arguments. Michael Egnor states that 'Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,,'
Stephen Hawking: "Philosophy Is Dead" - Michael Egnor - August 3, 2015 Excerpt: The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas is far and away the most successful framework on which to understand modern science, especially quantum mechanics. Heisenberg knew this (Link on site). Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/stephen_hawking_3098261.html "In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts … The probability wave … mean[s] tendency for something. It’s a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle’s philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin. (1958), p. 41
Here is a technical explanation and video of Aquinas’ First way argument for God where you can, at your leisure, see just how well the argument from motion dovetails into what we are seeing in quantum mechanics
Aquinas’ First Way 1) Change in nature is elevation of potency to act. 2) Potency cannot actualize itself, because it does not exist actually. 3) Potency must be actualized by another, which is itself in act. 4) Essentially ordered series of causes (elevations of potency to act) exist in nature. 5) An essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act cannot be in infinite regress, because the series must be actualized by something that is itself in act without the need for elevation from potency. 6) The ground of an essentially ordered series of elevations from potency to act must be pure act with respect to the casual series. 7) This Pure Act– Prime Mover– is what we call God. http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html Aquinas’ First Way – (The First Mover – Unmoved Mover) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmpw0_w27As
Or to put Aquinas' argument for God much more simply "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.":
"The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html
Verses:
Acts 17:28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
I'm sure the author of the article in the OP made more errors than just the one error of him assuming the physicality of the "abstract" mathematical wave function, but I hold that that one error on his part is in and of itself sufficient to discredit the 'empirical credibility' of his entire article.bornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

From the article in the OP we find that the author claims:
"Mathematically speaking, however, what goes through both slits is not a physical particle or a physical wave but something called a wave function—an abstract mathematical function that represents the photon’s state (in this case its position). The wave function behaves like a wave. It hits the two slits, and new waves emanate from each slit on the other side, spread and eventually interfere with each other. The combined wave function can be used to work out the probabilities of where one might find the photon."
Okie Dokie, if he claims that the abstract mathematical function is not a physical wave, then how can he possibly claim that "The wave function behaves like a wave. It hits the two slits, and new waves emanate from each slit on the other side, spread and eventually interfere with each other." He denies the physicality of the abstract mathematical wave function on the one hand and then, without missing a beat, proceeds to act as if the mathematical wave function has the physicality of a wave. That is a flat out contradiction. The best thing one can say about the "abstract" wave function is what leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger stated, "The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable."
"The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable." - Anton Zeilinger Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0
In fact, (in the following experiment which extended John Wheeler's delayed choice experiment to atoms instead of just photons), it is stated that “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Moreover, we know that while a photon is doing whatever it is doing in the double slit, while it is in its "abstract" quantum wave state, between emission and absorption, that the photon is also mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional state,,,
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics? You need an infinite dimensional Hilbert space to represent a wavefunction of any continuous observable (like position for example). https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149786/why-do-we-need-infinite-dimensional-hilbert-spaces-in-physics
,, an infinite dimensional state that also takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (quantum) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the superposition of the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark Excerpt: real numbers with their infinitely many decimals have infested almost every nook and cranny of physics, from the strengths of electromagnetic fields to the wave functions of quantum mechanics: we describe even a single bit of quantum information (a qubit) using two real numbers involving infinitely many decimals. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344
Now, saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, sounds very much like the theistic attribute of omnipresence.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away?” “Can a man hide in secret places where I cannot see him?” declares the LORD. “Do I not fill the heavens and earth?” declares the LORD.…
And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe it sounds very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience to me.
Psalm 139:4-6 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it. Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; his understanding is infinite
bornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

re 7: You are correct, ba, that it is not your stated position that it is an "established consensus" that consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse”. You personally believe that is true about consciousness, and you believe the evidence fully supports that conclusion and no other, but you do not claim that is the "established consensus." For instance, consider this thread by News, based on something you sent her: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/inspiring-philosophy-on-quantum-mechanics-and-the-death-of-materialism/ It begins,
Philip Cunningham kindly forwarded this, noting that “Quantum mechanics has repeatedly confirmed the startling conclusion that (material) reality cannot exist without consciousness.
And in a comment 2, you wrote,
Those who hold to the belief that reality can exist without consciousness have been repeatedly falsified by experimental evidence. Some scientist[s], and Seversky in particular, may not like the experimental results one bit, but that is anti-science. The experimental results are what they are. To quote Bernard Haisch after the Leggett inequality was violated. Experiments in Quantum Mechanics now rule “out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.”
So I was wrong when I said that you believe that it is the "established consensus" that consciousness is a necessary component of the wave collapse, as you recognize, it seems, that there are those in the QM field who don't accept that, but I believe it is correct to say that you believe it is a scientifically settled matter, and therefore those who believe otherwise are wrong. Is that a more accurate statement?jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Pedro Jorge Romero Retweeted Anil Ananthaswamy Anil Ananthaswamy @anilananth Why the double-slit experiment should NOT be used to make definitive statements about #consciousness or the nature of #quantum reality: The experiment can be interpreted in many different ways and each offers a different view of what's going on. @sciam From what I gather from both articles and his Twitter is that we should not jump to conclusions about quantum mechanics when we ourselves are not sure on how consciousness works in the first place. I both agree with this statement and his reasoning but I disagree with it. I feel it falls under the statement of “not even wrong“ The results still show that and observer does affect the outcome of the experiment, that hasn’t gone away. So this is All fine and well, but it should not just apply to quantum mechanics and the consciousness it should also apply to all forms of science about different forms of interpretations. One such field for example is the neuroscience of free will which is often interpreted that we have none and then years later after many misquotes of Libet’s original experiment, And multiple experimental errors and bias, which was pointed out recently at medical express on the topic, it turns out that many of the interpretations were incorrect. So in my personal opinion what’s good for the goose is good for the gander not just when it suits you, Yes quantum mechanics does appear to fly in the face of many philosophies of materialism, but exercising caution now after so many times before when caution was thrown to the wind and interpretations were made very blatantly in one direction is kind of annoying. Again I agree with him but it needs to be taken In consideration all the timeAaronS1978_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

BA @ 7, "The descent thing to do". You clearly meant "decent". But then I've spent WAY too many years as an editor.vmahuna_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

jdk, first off you claimed that I believe "consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse” is an "established consensus". That is a flat out lie. I have never held the position that it is an "established consensus". If you disagree with me calling you a liar then please provide the exact post of mine where I claimed that. Here is the middle of our last debate on the subject of quantum mechanics, search the thread to your heart's content for me making the claim you falsely attributed to me,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-nature-for-now-uncertainty-seems-the-wisest-position-on-the-implications-of-quantum-mechanics/#comment-662909 The decent thing to do would be for you to apologize for your bad faith in debating me. I won't be holding my breath.bornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

From a link in the OP
Anil Ananthaswamy is an award-winning journalist and former staff writer and deputy news editor for the London-based New Scientist magazine. He has been a guest editor for the science writing program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and organizes and teaches an annual science journalism workshop at the National Centre for Biological Sciences in Bengaluru, India. He is a freelance feature editor for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science’s Front Matter. He contributes regularly to the New Scientist, and has also written for Nature, Nautilus, Matter, The Wall Street Journal, National Geographic News, and the UK’s Literary Review. His first book, The Edge of Physics, was voted book of the year in 2010 by Physics World, and his second book, The Man Who Wasn’t There, won a Nautilus Book Award in 2015 and was long-listed for the 2016 Pen/E. O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Award. Through Two Doors at Once will be published on August 7, 2018.
jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Did you read the article, ba? Do you discount what it says?jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

"and contrary to bornagain77, it is not an established consensus that consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse”." HUH???? oh its jdk Never mindbornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

This article is a pretty good summary of current thinking, and consistent with a couple recent books on QM. We really don't know what the situation is, and contrary to bornagain77, it is not an established consensus that consciousness is a necessary component of the "wave collapse". Those interested should read the article carefully.jdk_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Q, those should be chiseled in stone at some university somewhere (if they are not already) :)bornagain77_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Of course, Anil Ananthaswami is correct. Since "science" is what we study together, establishing a consensus determines scientific truth. These truths are of necessity compatible to our politico-philosophical perspectives, which we know to be true and self evident. The purpose of Scientific American is to enlighten and guide its readers in celebration of new Scientific discoveries and interpretation based on the fundamental axioms of Science: I. All true Science is based on materialistic determinism. We no longer need to invoke the irrational belief in God. II. All Truth is Scientific truth. III. Science is guided and guarded by an elite circle of Experts in each field as determined by the weight of their referenced papers, awards, and presentations. IV. It is the responsibility of each scientist and academic to submit their speculative observations to someone with greater recognition in their discipline for approval or amendment. V. It is the fundamental responsibility of each scientist and academic to support the consensus in other disciplines as well as their own in their presentations, classes, and publications. This is a brief summary of the Five-Fold Path to Scientific Enlightenment and Acceptance into the Scientific and Academic community. ;-) QQuerius_{September 10, 2018
September
09
Sep
10
10
2018
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply