The Sarfatti-Stapp Dialogues 2
August, 1996
How are our thoughts -- our consciousness -- translated into action?"
I actually have a detailed theory of this based upon an extension of Bohm’s 1952 quantum pilot-wave/classical material hidden variable theory.
Note, the more modern term for "hidden-variable" is John Bell’s term "beable".
The inner quantum information density field I(x,t), whose range is in quantum Hilbert space H and whose domain is in classical configuration space C , is, quite literally, the "field of thought patterns" that make up the implicate order. These patterns of I(x,t) exert a quantum force
Q = -(1/2)[ (GradI)^2 + (Grad)^2I]
on the brain material beable B moving in C. That’s how thought is translated into action.
The field of thought-patterns or qualia I(x,t), together with external environmental classical forces Fe create basins of attraction for the flow of the brain system point B in C. Qualia are encoded in these attractors. When B occupies a given attractor basin the corresponding thought-pattern is felt i.e., experienced. This attractor structure in C is the quantum version of the fractal strange attractors of classical chaos theory which leaves out the thought-field force from I(x,t). In the classical limit only Fe creates the attractor structure in C. The pattern of classical Fe forces represent the Darwinian natural selection pressures of the environment. To complete this model of a complex conscious adaptive system, we need a mechanism for self-organization. Without self-organization there is no conscious intent, no purposeful explicate behavior, and no "felt" implicate conscious experience. I have shown how implicate thought becomes explicate action. We now have to show how the brain-beable B in C literally and directly changes its thought-field I(x,t) whose range is quantum Hilbert space H. This is the back-action b mechanism by which the structure of H is modified by the actual path taken by B in C. But, that path of B in C is determined by both the implicate Fq = - Grad Q and the explicate Darwinian Fe. Therefore, Fq,Fe, from I(x,t) to B, together with back-action b from B to I(x,t) is a self-organizing cybernetic feedback-control creative strange loop that creates the conscious experience and allows the I-B system to make freely-willed choices which are the results of classically nonalgorithmic quantum computations. Now I can prove rigorously, that only when such a strange loop of Godel self-reference is operating, is there an experience of one actual world. This is a Bohmian ontological model that derives Wigner’s and von-Neumann’s epistemological idea that "consciousness collapses the wave function". The strange loop means that the mind (I)-brain (B) complex adaptive system is continually measuring itself. Only then, is there the inner "felt" experience of "qualia". This is the quantum dynamo generating our streams of consciousness.
"the wave function is linear or passive in that it requires an outside agent to select events ....."
That is exactly what back-action is -- it is the "outside agent", except it is really inside. It is the generator of consciousness.
To be more precise. The usual picture of quantum measurement has a measuring apparatus M and the system being measured N. They are not the same system. That leads to the measurement problem which you discuss pretty well in its different aspects. Now Bohm thought he had solved this measurement problem and up until recently I thought he was correct. But now, in dialogue with Henry Stapp, I see a non-fatal, but serious, flaw in Bohm’s argument. Bohm is able to correctly show why it is that fringes disappear in the double slit experiment if a measurement of "which slit 1 or 2?" the particle P passes is made even though the particle wave packets
Therefore,
So,
because (m1|m2) = 0. That is, the two measuring wavepackets have zero overlap in their classical configuration subspace Cm. The EPR correlation between M and N implies an incoherent superposition of the particle wave packets (x|n1) and (x|n2) even though they do overlap in their classical configuration subspace Cn.
Bohm then makes an incorrect next step for the actual path of the hidden variable P in Cn. He says that one can think that P is really in either (x|n1) or (x|n2) . The occupied wave packet is the "active information" and the empty one is "inactive information". Bohm is trying to establish that only one of the wave packets for P is totally determining the classical mechanical, possibly chaotic, attractor structure for the path of P in Cn. That is, Bohm wrongly thinks that, because of the EPR correlation of N to nonoverlapping packets in Cm, that the attractor structure in Cn is in 1-1 correspondence with the P wave packets (x|n1) and (x|n2). But what is true for the wave is not true for the particle. A careful analysis of Bohm’s equations of motion for P under the action of the nonlocal quantum force - gradQ show that both (x|n1) and (x|n2) contribute to the quantum force on P in the region of overlap in Cn. Of course, the details of the quantum force pattern on the possible paths of P in the incoherent case is very different from what it is in the coherent case where no measurement of which slit is made. The serious problem however, is that both classically incompatible worlds continue to influence the motion of P. This is not a problem in "collapse" models because one of the packets (x|n1) or (x|n2) miraculously vanishes. But Bohm’s theory cannot make this Deux ex Machina. The only consistent way there can be a 1-1 correspondence between the wave packets or "channels" and the attractor structure is if there really is no overlap in Cn. This is generally not the case in orthodox linear passive quantum mechanics. The only way to solve the problem is to consider complex systems that are able to measure themselves. Such a complex system is conscious almost by definition. That is, if N is the same as M the problem is solved because then there is only one classical configuration space C and a good "self measurement" means no overlap in C of the different wave packets that correspond to classically incompatible worlds. The hidden-variable must be in only one of those wave packets. It can never escape that particular packet because the quantum repulsive force is infinite at the edges where the wave packet is zero. But how can this happen? This can only happen if there is a direct back-action b from the path of P in C to the total wavefunction. As explained earlier this results in the self-organizing ability of all living systems. Back-action is the universal physical mechanism for life. What happens is that the self-measuring system self-organizes its wave function so that it splits into nonoverlapping wave packets. That is, the system creates its own measuring observable N in a self-consistent way and then chooses which channel to occupy. This is free will. Only conscious systems can do this trick. Without back-action beyond orthodox quantum theory there is never an effective collapse into one actual classical world.
So your "level one" is the hidden-variable material system of classical particles and classical fields. Your "level two" is the "passive" quantum pilot wave. Finally, your "level three" is the back-action b which enables the coming into being of the conscious self-organizing adaptive system that selects its own destiny. This is the physical meaning of freedom.
Date:
Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
From:
STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov
To:
sarfatti@well.com
Dear Jack,
Your message of Aug 25 indicates that you have come to a better understanding
of my words. To stay focussed on the basic issue I first answer the question
you raised at the beginning of your August 24 message, and then go onto the two
key questions from the August 25 message.
JS: Brief Preface by Sarfatti. (Aug 24)
Henry keeps getting back to basic question, why is back-action required for
conscious experience? In his orthodox quantum model it is not.
HPS Reply:
It is important to distinguish my (Bohr/Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner) collapse
model from the Bohm+CS model that I have described in earlier posts. This
Bohm+CS model has consciousness appended to the Bohm model in the same way that
it is normally appended to classical physics. It has no back action and no
collapse: it is thus just the Bohm model with consciousness appended.
As Jack says, my collapse model has no back action. But it does have collapses,
and collapses are just what Sarfatti's back actions generate. In my collapse
model these collapses are required for conscious experiences. Analogously,
Sarfatti takes the collapses that arise from his back action to be the
prerequisite of consciousness. So his model is basically the same as mine on
this score: in both models a collapse is the prerequisite for consciousness.
But in the Bohm+CS model there is no such collapse, or collapse requirement,
for consciousness.
My question was why does Sarfatti insist on having both a classical world AND
back-action/collapse, when either one alone is enough to do the job of
reconciling the quantum character of nature with the classical character of our
experiences of nature: the classical world does the job in the Bohm+CS model,
by being the reality that our thoughts are tied to, and collapses do the job in
the collapse models. Thus having both a classical world AND collapses is
redundant, as far as this essential task is concerned.
I shall address later the issue of the need for back action for
self organization and adaptive behaviour.
In response to your remarks of Aug 25 let me say right away that the assumption
in my Bohr/Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner collapse interpretation is certainly
that the mind/brain is in your words (Aug 25) a self-measuring system: there
is no device around that is supposed to measure it, and no infinite regress.
That has certainly been central to my approach: the actualization of some
particular pattern of brain activity is the physical side of the event whose
other side, or aspect, is the experiential event. This is the vonNeumann/Wigner
part of my theory.
The collapse models connect certain collapses associated with human brains to
human conscious experiences. In these models the classical character of human
thoughts is a consequence of the fact that the relevant collapses are to states
where certain key bulk properties of the newly created brain state are
`classically describable': the brain state corresponds to the observer's
perceiving an alive cat, not a dead cat, or perceiving the pointer on a device
to be pointing to the right, not to the left. These alternative possible
perceptions, like some thinker's ideas of `to be' or `not to be', or of
`freeedom' or `slavery', will, according to the precepts of these collapse
models, be represented by different `branches of the wave function' in the
sense of Bohm's or von Neumann's theory of measurement: they will represent
different brain states that are distinguishable by the fact that they
correspond to different, and well separated, intervals in the values of certain
macroscopic and slowly changing---on the scale of neural dynamics---variables.
The separation in these variables entails that the alternative brain states are
orthogonal.
Bohm's theory of measurement, like von Neumann's, is based on the idea of
different branches, which correspond to different `pointer positions'. For a
`good' measurement-type physical situation, the different pointer positions
occupy different positions in 3-space, and, in any case, different regions in
the 3n-dimensional configuration space. Hence they are orthogonal.
In the brain there are billions of such pointers. Each neuron has a huge number
microchannels with, it is believed, some sort of macro-molecular gate that can
be open or closed, with the state (open or closed) of these gates coordinated
to the action-potential pulses flowing along the neurons. Different patterns of
quasi-stable neural activity will have different patterns of open and closed
micro-channels, and will thus be orthogonal, so that the Bohm/vonNeumann/Wigner
theory will apply. If even just one such microchannel is open in one state but
closed in the other then the two states will be essentially orthogonal.
Which one of the various branches generated by the Schroedinger equation is
associated with conscious experiencee is determined, within the Bohm model, by
which of these branches the trajectory of the classical-world enters, and
becomes trapped within. The chance is essentially zero that the state (open vs
closed) of *all* of the billions of microchannels channels, will ever come to
be identical for the evolutions of the states corresponding to two distinct
experiences. Even if all the gates *were* to become identical, account would
then have to be taken of all of the particles in the brain, and eventually the
entire world, with which the two initially different states have interacted.
So, for all practical purposes, one can assume that the different branches
never come back together again.
The Bohm+CS model is essentially the classical epiphenomenal model corrected to
incorporate, a la Bohm, the quantum corrections: one retains the classical
notion of the connection of consciousness to the classically described state of
the brain, but just adds an extra force, the quantum force due to the quantum
potential. All quantum effects are included by just adding this extra force.
The theory is still deterministic, though no longer local. Consciousness still
seems to be an epiphenomenal sideshow, determined *by* the physical aspects,
rather than determining them, although one can still argue, as I did in an
earlier post, that the felt self is, in a certain sense, in control.
There is a natural connection between the Bohm+CS model and the
Bohr/Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner collapse model: the "branches" would be the
same. In the Bohm+CS model the branch that will "be illuminated by the light of
conscious" will be deterministically picked out by the deterministically fixed
trajectory. In the collapse model, on the other hand, the way of selecting the
branch can be controlled by a rule that assigns a more basic causal role to
consciousness. A fundamentally random selection, based on unexplained quantum
probabilities, would, of course, not give consciousness a more basic role.
The Bohm-Sarfatti model has both a trajectory and a "back action". Your
recent posts indicate that the back action produces a collapse to the "correct"
branch, namely to the branch "occupied" by the trajectory. Thus the B-S model
is a hybrid of the Bohm and collapse models: there is both the classical
trajectory, which in Bohm+CS determines which branch is chosen, and also the
back-action induced collapse, which is what does this same job in the collapse
models.
In the B-S model consciousness is LESS FREE than in the collapse model,
since in B-S the collapse is "largely" determined by where the trajectory goes,
and where this trajectory goes is also "largely" deterministically fixed. The
nondeterministic collapses via GRW gaussians may add some randomness, but this
would not seem to inject meaningful freedom of choice.
Thus the injection in this way of the classical trajectory of Bohm seems, in
this context, to be a throwback to classical mechanics that needlessly limits
the possibility of giving a more independent causal role to consciousness
itself.
The term basin of attraction is from Chaos Theory, which is classical
mechanics, not really quantum theory. The way I use the term in the present
context is to denote one of the small regions that the top level control system
might migrate to: one of the quasi-stable basins into which the top level
control system can fall in the brain's search for a suitable next action in the
situation in which the brain/body finds itself. This is explained in my book.
These basins are, in my parlance, the same thing as the branches of the brain
state discussed above.
The other main point is that the evolving brain/mind is a self organizing
adaptive system. It has strong internal energy sources and the brain has a
built-in drive to grind out sequences of events that allow the system to adapt
to the situation in which it finds itself. Even classical system with strong
internal energy sources self organize, so the is no reason why the Bohm+CS
system and the Bohr/Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner collapse systems would not
both be self organizing adaptive systems. Due to the fatigue characteristics of
the neurons that are sustaining some particular pattern, the basin of
attraction will not be able to stay viable indefinitely: the basin will fade
away, pushing the brain into a seach for some alternative basin, etc.. There is
no demonstrated need to go outside of standard quantum mechanics to get a
self-organizing brain that constructs adaptive solutions to the succession of
problems that face the organism.
So I suggest that occam's razor would call for the elimination of Bohm's
classical world, which is not needed to account for the empirical facts (that
is the conclusion of the Bohr-Einstein debate), and thus the elimination also
of the back action, in favor of the Bohm/Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner theory,
which brings consciousness into the foundations from start, and in the context
of not just the epistemological framework of Bohr, but also in the ontological
framework of Heisenberg/vonNeumann/Wigner. This collapse theory seems to have
the capacity to do whatever the Bohm theory with back action can do, but with
consciousness no longer either an ad hoc superfluous appendage, or `enslaved'
by its close bondage to the nearly deterministic motion of the classical
trajectory.
Best regards, Henry
I also show that, in Bohm’s theory, if the measuring apparatus is different from the system being observed, then, in fact, it is not generally true that the attractor structure for the hidden variable B in classical configuration space C is in 1-1 correspondence with the different eigenfunctions of the measurement observable K in quantum Hilbert space H. The exception to this is when the system consisting of the quantum potential Q and its attached hidden-variable or "beable" B literally measures itself in a Godelian "strange loop" of "self-reference". In this, situation, which is the defining characteristic of a "conscious system", the measurement observable K is "self- superselected" in such a way that there is no overlap, i.e., no common domain support in C of different eigenfunctions of K whose range is in H. This then explains why we experience only one classical world when all inanimate systems would experience a coherent superposition if they could experience which, of course, they can’t. Therefore, the defining characteristic of conscious systems is the Godelian "self-measuring process" which can be precisely defined in Bohm’s theory. This is then a Bohmian mechanical model equivalent to Wigner’s conjecture that only "consciousness" can "collapse the wavefunction" i.e., select out a "classical world". Note I did not intend to show this when I started. It popped out of its own accord when I tried to reconcile what Stapp is saying below with what I am saying.
Subject: stapp to sarfatti 5
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov
To: sarfatti@well.com
Dear Jack,
HS: I think this dialog is probably getting too boring for everyone, and we should wrap it up. But there are some technical points that need clearing up. So I'll go this one more time.
JS: Any one with a serious interest in seeing how physics connects to the mind-brain problem will not be bored as we are breaking new ground relative to discussions on JCS, Psyche, alt.consciousness etc. Besides, all they need do is send a message to be taken off the list - "they’ll none of 'em be missed". (Mikado)
The idea that a conscious experience happens when the brain system point is in a basin of attraction, which I think that we are now both agreed in a qualitative way, is not exactly a familiar and commonly acknowledged concept in the consciousness research community.
HS: I give some passages from your posting of 23 Aug 07:05:56, and insert pointers [n] to my comments.
HS: The attractor structure has attractors corresponding to all of the alternative classically incompatible possibilities, whereas the thought seems to center on just one,
JS:(previous post) Not always, many times people have contradictory thoughts simultaneously, e.g., Hamlet's indecisiveness.[1]
HS: [1] In the Bohm model, with consciousness added on in the way I have described, indecisiveness between two clearly perceived alternatives would correspond to the brain's hopping from one basin to another, not to the brain's being in one basin and mind experiencing the thoughts corresponding to another basin. After all, Bohm's equation of motion for the brain is local in configuration space, so there is no influence upon the brain of a distant basin: the brain must move over to the other basin to be affected by its presence.
JS: OK, you make a good point. Now, you are assuming that there is a 1-1 correspondence between the alternative eigenfunctions of the measurement observables in Hilbert space H and the basins of attraction for the paths of the brain-beable B in classical configuration space C -- at least this should be the case for orthodox quantum mechanics. In fact, I initially took it for granted that it was a true assertion. Larry Crowell (lcrowell@unm.edu) says it is not obviously true. Do you have a simple proof? I mean what you say about the basins in C above is obviously true, but the important question here is: What is the precise relationship between the attractors in C and your "alternative classically incompatible possibilities" in H?
First, it is not clear that we can use traditional von-Neumann measurement theory for the brain-mind system. How are the commuting measurement observables {K} defined? What selects the eigen-basis {|k)}? This is not obvious to me for the mind-brain problem. If you have a definite idea here I would like to know what it is. But suppose, we can give a clear criterion for selecting {K}.
Then, using traditional Copenhagen ideas, we can suppose that there are random relative phases between the different eigenfunctions |k) of {K}. This is caused by EPR correlations to non-overlapping (orthogonal) states of the measuring system which may be the mind-brain system itself, or the environment. That issue is not settled. My back-action would be a kind of "self-measurement". Take a simple 2-state (a and b) case.
where @ is a random relative phase. Let a = b = 1/sqrt2. Therefore, averaging over the random phase @:
The total quantum potential Q is (taking hbar and m as 1):
Where it is understood that "Lap" is the sum of the single-particle 3D-Laplacians "lap" for all n point particles. Each Laplacian is the scalar product of the spatial gradient "grad" with itself. I suppress the single-particle indices in the following. I don’t think there is any room for confusion in doing so and it is much more efficient. Note that Grad means sum over the n grads, and (Grad...)2 means the incoherent sum over the n grad^2, e.g. (Grad f)^2 = (grad1f)^2 + (grad2f)^2 etc.
Therefore, the total Q in classical configuration space C is:
depending on squares of the first spatial derivatives and the second space derivatives of the new funda-MENTAL "Chalmers" quantum information density field which is non-zero inside a pure state. In contrast, the outer "explicate" thermodynamic entropy of the pure state is zero. So indeed, I will call I(x) the quantum information density of Bohm’s "implicate order".
Now,
I have not carried this through to the end, but it appears unlikely that there will be any simple connection between Q, Qa and Qb even in this incoherent case of a perfect measurement. If the measurement is not perfect, so there is still some coherence, then the relationship gets even more complicated involving Sa - Sb and pa - pb. So my remark on "leakage" in which several alternative "classical worlds" influence the same attractor in configuration space still appears to stand unless a miracle happens at the end of this algebraic algorithm. It is not clear, by any means, that one classical world from Hilbert space H creates only one attractor for the brain state x of B in C. Do you have a clear mathematical proof of your above remark that there is a 1-1 correspondence between the branches of the wave function and the attractors? That is:
HS: The attractor structure has attractors corresponding to all of the alternative classically incompatible possibilities, whereas the thought seems to center on just one, .....
JS: It appears that several alternative classically incompatible possibilities in H contribute to the same attractor of B in C. Now one can say that the attractor determines the experience, but in that case, there is no clear connection of this experience to a single classically incompatible possibility. Unless you have some constructive proof, that given a total Q and external gauge couplings, determine the attractor structure in C, and from that, construct a unique incoherent decomposition of the original psi such that one attractor in C matches only one eigenfunction in H. Do you have such a proof? It’s not good enough to say that the different branches of the wave function in H do not overlap in C. For example, that would not explain the loss of fringes in the double slit experiment in a quantum eraser situation. One can lose the fringe pattern even though the wave packets from each slit overlap at the screen because each packet is EPR correlated to nonoverlapping wave packets of the measuring system. But maybe that is the clue about how to solve this problem. If the mind-brain, i.e., the Q-B system measures itself, then the actual eigenfunctions in H that get self-superselected will not have any common support in C. If that happens, then it certainly seems clear that there is a one-one correspondence between the alternative branches of the wave function in H and the attractor structure in C. But you need this Godel type self-reference to reach that conclusion. That is, if the measuring apparatus K is different from the observed system Q-B, then there is no clear mathematical reason why there should be a 1-1 correspondence between the branches in H and the attractors in C. I am not sure, but I think I just derived Wigner’s consciousness interpretation in terms of Bohm’s theory consistent with what you are trying to say.
HS: The whole reason for introducing the Bohm classical world is to account for the fact that we do not experience the many alternative possible worlds that the Schroedinger equation generates.
JS: Maybe so, but I have just demonstrated mathematically that there is no simple relationship between the attractor structure in classical configuration space C for the motion of the brain-beable B, and the alternative classical worlds of quantum measurement theory which are defined as the eigenfunctions of a complete set of commuting observables {K} in quantum Hilbert space H if the measuring apparatus is different from the system being measured. Only when the system measures itself is there an experience of only one classical world. This is because the alternative possible worlds are self-superselected in such a way that their eigenfunctions do not overlap in classical configuration space C. Only then can we say that one eigenfunction in H determines only one basin of attraction in C. One simply cannot say, in the general case, that we can forget the other eigenfunctions because they are "inactive".
HS(continued): and that one is specified by, or fixed by, the state of the brain,
JS: (previous post) What do you mean by "state of the brain"? [2] In the context of Bohm's theory, the "material state" of the brain-beable B is where it is in classical phase space. This has two components. First, where it is in configuration space, and second where it is in momentum space which is determined quantum mechanically by p = grad S - eA where psi = Re^iS, and A is the mostly Darwinian EM gauge potential.[2] So, the classical location in momentum space of the hidden-variable (i.e., beable) B is determined quantum mechanically.[2]
HS: [2] In classical mechanics two ``momenta'' are defined: the canonical momentum P, and p=mv=P-eA. One can read p=mv off the trajectory of the particle: this gives v, and the mass m is assumed to be given. Then P can be determined from the electromagnetic potential A. The state of the brain is thus determined from its trajectory and A, and the mass m and charge e of the particle. Bohm's model says that trajectory is determined by the wave function by the condition that the value of P is equal to the gradient of S, at the
point in configuration space that the world-line trajectory is passing through. So the state of the brain is determined by the trajectory of the brain and A.
JS: Fine, I agree with that.
JS:(continued previous post) In contrast, the "quantum state of mind" is simply the TOTAL psi pilot wave psi attached B.[3]
HS: [3] That is your proposal, but I do not think it makes sense. For ``mind'' should correspond to experience; to what we are experiencing.
JS: Certainly the conscious mind should correspond to that. So I will agree, that the path of B in C traces out the history of the stream of consciousness of that individual Q-B system.
HS: And the whole purpose of bringing the classical world into Bohm's model is specifically to account for the fact that we do not experience all of the branches of psi, but only one: Bohm's whole treatment of the measurement problem is based on the premise that our experiences correspond to the branch in which the classical world lies, *not* to the other branches.
JS: Well we seem to have a problem in really proving that unless you bring in self-reference which leads us to an ontological reformulation of Wigner’s interpretation that Godelian "consciousness" is where to make the von Neumann cut - that’s where the Buck stops.
HS:... in Bohm's model: in Bohm's model, as I interpret it, the conscious thought should occur when the brain gets into a basin of attraction (specified by the wave function, which controls the dynamics),
JS: OK, we seem to agree on that. But the problem I have pointed out with that is that the different eigenfunctions that are orthogonal in quantum Hilbert space H, which is an integral over the entire classical configuration space C, will generally overlap or have common support in C. If they have common support, then in general, the quantum force -grad Q on B at a particular local point x in C will have contributions from several eigenfunctions. With such local overlap in C, you cannot say that one attractor for B in C maps uniquely to only one eigenfunction of the observable. The only way this 1-1 correspondence of B-attractors in C with different eigenfunctions in H is possible is it they do not have any overlap in C. This will automatically happen if the Q-B system measures itself in a Godelian strange loop as defined by Doug Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach.
HS: and the content of the thought should be determined by the information that is contained in the motion of the brain, as it moves around, trapped in the basin.
JS: Now I agree with you with this new qualification of self-reference linking Godel’s theorem with Wigner’s consciousness interpretation of quantum measurement in a Bohmian ontological paradigm. The missing link in the logic of your argument was the "self-measurement" idea. The next thing for me to prove is that self-measurement is not possible without back-action. I do not have that rigorous proof yet.
JS: (previous post) OK, we seem to agree on that. But now you seem to contradict your earlier statement above that "The brain should have enough information to specify the content of the thought; the extra information in the wave function should not be needed, I would think." because "the motion of the brain, as it moves around, trapped in the basin" is partly determined, via - grad Q, precisely by
"the extra information in the wave function" which you say "should not be needed". This seems inconsistent to me.[4]
HS: [4] The trajectory of the brain is determined by the wave function: that is Bohm's central idea. But the question is whether the trajectory (and A) determines the thought, or whether the thought accesses something else beyond the information that resides in the trajectory (and A). I would say that
it is central to Bohm's position that the trajectory (and A) is what controls our thoughts. There is no need to bring the wave function back in again: it has already done what it needs to do to fix the thoughts by fixing the trajectory.
JS: Well if that’s what you mean, I have no objection. The issue I was struggling with above is precisely what you mean by "the wavefunction"? The theory says it is the total wave function. The only way this total wavefunction splits into alternative classically incompatible worlds is if that particular complete set of eigenfunctions has no local overlaps in configuration space. That can only happen if the system is complex enough to measure itself! This is analogous to Godel saying that there is a threshold for the set of formal systems above which there are true, but undecidable, propositions. These self-measuring systems are what Penrose is looking for in his anti-strong AI "nonalgorithmic" charaterization of how conscious systems "understand" a problem. Now I bet we cannot have such self-measurement without back-action in which the path X(t) of the brain beable B in C is continually directly modifying the total wavefunction psi, hence Q, to self-organize, under external Darwinian pressure from A, a set of alternative eigenfunctions in H with essentially no overlap, or very small overlap of their domains in C. Now since this is a dynamic highly nonlinear feedback-control problem this Q-B-A system may not always perform this quantum computations perfectly at every moment. That’s when certain psychic phenomena cutting across parallel universes happen. Precognitive remote viewing and retroactive psychokinesis can only happen if there is such back-action which over-rides the Eberhard-Stapp theorem.
HS: Then one understands why our experiences of the world are essentially classical, even though the wave function, and Q etc., consists of a superposition of many contradictory possible classical worlds.
......
JS: (previous post) So you mean what I mean? That is, the flow in configuration space from - sum grad Q plus the external gauge forces etc?
HS: Of course. That is the Bohm model. (As long as you don't add your back action).
JS: (previous post) Well that is an important point of agreement. I don't think Hameroff agrees with this, for example.[5]
HS: [5] Am talking here about Bohm's model, not about collapse models.
HS: In Bohm's model the classical character of our thoughts, and memory formation etc., is explained by the brain's falling into a basin of attraction: the classical character is a consequence of the classical character of the brain.
JS: And what I have been arguing above is that you cannot carry through that kind of argument in a mathematically consistent way without adding the new feature of self-measurement which gives new force to Wigner’s interpretation, but in a Bohmian ontological framework. I think we will need back-action here. Crowell seems to think this too, but I have not yet understood his mathematics.
JS: (previous post) I don't understand "the classical character of the brain". In my theory B is made from the electrons controlling the dimer conformations in the microtubules at the nanometer scale. So B is essentially a quantum system.
....[6]
HS: [6] The classical character of the brain, in the context of Bohm's theory, refers to the fact that in that theory we have brain-beables that are describable in the language of classical physics, even though the equation of motion for these beables is not exactly the normal one, there being an extra ``quantum potential'' contribution to the force.
JS: Fine.
HS: I pointed out that basins of attraction would automatically fade away in Bohm's model due to fatigue characteristics of the neurons, without any extra back action,
JS: You say it, but I don’t see any detailed mathematical model showing it. What I think you are saying is that the neuron pulses change A. That, in turn, changes the Hamiltonian of the electron quantum computer switches that control the classical shapes of the protein dimers in the microtubules. The change in the Hamiltonian which is changing thecommon thermally protected macro-Q of the electrons via "ordered water" -- perhaps. Well yes, something like that certainly happens, but that is what I call the external Darwinian natural selection force. There is no self-organization from that alone.
HS: and the progression of the stream of consciousness from one thought to the next would arise naturally in the Bohm model, i.e., without back action.
JS: (previous post) OK, I agree with that up to a point. If there is no back-action then consciousness really is epiphenomenal. In your model our we experience qualia as passive bystanders. [7]
HS: [7] Not *my* model: I am merely contrasting your model with Bohm's model, extended in the simplest way to include thoughts.
JS: Yes, that is the simplest Bohm model, but it is not complete. It is not enough to explain the biological evolutionary models found in Stuart Kauffman’s book, The Origins of Order (Oxford). That’s the evidence for my back-action.
HS: But Bohr builds physics from thought, whereas Bohm's theory has no thought:
thought is added on ad hoc; it is not intrinsic to Bohm's theory itself.
JS: (previous post) Bohr simply makes the axiom connecting the physical world to thought sooner than I need to do using Bohm. But Bohr does need the axiom since as Bohm showed, you don't need thought at all for orthodox quantum mechanics.[8]
HS: [8] Well, we do need to connect the theory to our experiences. And certainly you do need thoughts in the most orthodox interpretation, that of Bohr, for thoughts are the basis of Bohr interpretation: that was the radical departure from scientific tradition that Einstein fought against so strongly.
JS: Agreed. Bohr’s position is essentially idealistic and spiritual in that it elevates epistemology over ontology. Therefore, Fred Alan Wolf, Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav, and Nick Herbert, really do have a solid foundation in Bohr for making the connections they do. Actually, Bohm’s ontological nonlocality and context dependence lead to similar mystical conclusions. Back-action makes the universe even more amazing and interesting.
HS: There is a very essential question here as to whether the basic realities in an adequate scientific account of nature should have any idealike qualities.
JS: I am saying that thought-like structures, let’s call it "thought-stuff" do play a fundamental role in the basic realities. I define the "thought-stuff" in a given quantum wavefunction as the "implicate" quantum information density field I(x,t) = log|psi|^2 in classical configuration space C. This ontological quantum thought-stuff, with Darwinian "neural" A, sets up attractors in C for the brain substrate B whose momentary state is X(t) in C. The thought stuff I(x) in the basin of attraction is transduced into a conscious "felt" experience when B is in that basin of attraction. This experience will not generally correspond to a "classical world" unless the I(x)-B system measures itself in a Godel strange loop. Only then will there be a self-generated set of brain observables K whose eigenfunction domain supports in C do not overlap, or overlap very little most of the time. My conjecture is that direct back-action, from B to I(x), is needed to get this trick of self-measurement to work.
HS: Bohm did not actually show that you could get along without thoughts. True, his theory does not contain them, but then one must add them onto his theory in order to tie his theory into empirical (i.e., experienced) reality. The present dialog is testimony to the fact that this completion of the Bohm's theory is nontrivial. It is nontrivial precisely because the Bohm model itself does not strictly entail how thoughts are to be added on, though Bohm's treatment of the measurement problem, which ties his theory to Bohr's rules pertaining to the empirical predictions, certainly places strong constraints on how thoughts
are to be added.
HS: And Bohr is more parsimomious, not needing a classical world.
JS: That remark of your throws me for a loop. I thought it was just the other way around. See Gell-Mann's The Quark and The Jaguar, for example. You mean Murray got it wrong? Gell-Mann talks about Bohr needing a classical world apriori and all that. Also Bohm and Hiley say the same thing in The Undivided Universe as I think you also do.[9]
HS: [9] Yes, the basic problem in the interpretation of quantum theory is how to comprehend the classical character of our perceptions of a world ruled by the quantum laws. Gell-Mann takes the many minds/worlds tack, and Bohm takes the tack that ``there really is a classical world out there, and that is what we perceive (i.e., that is what specifies what our thoughts will be), but that that classical world doesn't behave in the way that classical mechanics says it does: there is an extra "quantum force''. Bohr, on the other hand, took our knowledge to be the foundation upon which science rested, ...
JS: Echoing Pontius Pilate, I ask "What is knowledge?" I say it is the I(x,t) field of implicate order in classical configuration space C. That noble field of qualia that David Chalmers, Parsifal-like, set out on his Grail Quest for. I showed him the Grail in my Castle in the Clouds, but he was not ready to receive it. Youth is wasted on the young. I certainly wasted mind, as I sit Faust-like in my Wizard’s Lair with Modem, Keyboard and Screen weaving the WEB, instead of casting my Magick without Magic with Bell, Book, and Candle. Meantime, Young David plays with hair dryers, instead of Harps, pretending they are "consciousness detectors" trying to hear the Unitary Music of the Hyperspheres.
HS: …. and appealed to the empirical fact that our experiences that we call "our experiences of the
physical world about us'' can be formulated as experience of a world that conforms to the concepts of classical physics. Thus the classicality then arises from the fact that our thoughts are the way they are. Einstein, Bohm, and Gell-Mann did not like the Bohm approach. Neither did I, the way he
formulated it. But I think there is a germ of truth in it.
JS: Henry, in your words above I hear shades of Prospero’s final speech in The Tempest renouncing his Miraculous Magic, or was it a "little touch of Harry in the night"?
Subject: stapp to sarfatti 4
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: STAPP@theorm.lbl.gov
To: sarfatti@well.com
Dear Jack,
I think it will clarify matters if I reply to the paragraph that you
added at the beginning of the public version of a previous letter.
(23 Aug 05:10:19)
I shall insert into your text pointers [n] to my appended comments.
You wrote:
-------
Henry - there are some new additions in this public version that were not in
the private version I already sent you. Also all your originals also forwarded
separately in their entirety.
We seem to agree that one can think of Bohm's Q for the brain as the mind.[1]
As you emphasize the external environment can change Q.[2] These external
changes in Q can happen in two distinct ways. First, external gauge fields are
part of the Hamiltonian, so changes in them will change the Hamiltonian and,
therefore, change psi which changes Q. Second, the boundary conditions on psi
can also change in an information-rich way also changing Q. These two kinds of
changes in Q are part of orthodox quantum mechanics and are, therefore,
consistent with local conservation of quantum probability current in classical
configuration space. If Q is fundamentally sentient in Chalmer's sense, then I
suppose that these external changes in Q can produce perceptions and other
qualia. So I may be going too far in demanding that a back-action change in Q,
which violates orthodox quantum mechanics because probability current is no
longer conserved, is necessary to experience qualia. However, the external
orthodox changes in Q do not make the Q/beable system into an active
SELF-organizing adaptive system. [3] Your picture keeps the Q-mind/brain-beable
system passive. The external environment changes Q, these changes in Q
translate to changes in the motion of the brain-beable in configuration space.
But this motion has no intentional self-autonomy, no self-determination in it.
[4] Your orthodox picture makes us mere passive puppets blowing in the wind of
external Darwinian environmental selection pressures. We have no "True Grit" in
your orthodox quantum picture. We have no "character structure", we have no
"self-determination", we have no "free-will", because there is no DIRECT
dependence of Q-mind on the motion of its attached brain-beable which is the
definition of "back-action". The brain-beable is totally the slave of external
forces and is not able to act on its own. This is bad biology. At this point,
you should read Stuart Kauffman's The Origins of Order, Ch 5. So, back-action
is required for autonomous self-determination resisting the external Darwinian
selection pressures.[5] This essential feature is a fact of biology and it is
left out of your theory. Self-determination requires the back-action beyond
orthodox quantum mechanics. Since back-action is a form of dissipation, it
connects to Prigogine's theory of dissipative structures in a precise way as
Nanopoulos pointed out at Tucson II.
END of your addition.
Henry Stapp’s comments with my responses:
Jack: (previous post): We seem to agree that one can think of Bohm's Q for the brain as the mind.[1]
Henry: [1] No! This is precisely the point of disagreement.
Jack: OK. What do you mean by the mind? To review my theory: I say the pilot-wave (or Q) is the "funda-MENTAL" mindstuff in Chalmer’s sense. That is, Q is the objective (i.e., ontological) structure of the universe at the fundamental level of quantum reality where the qualia, ( i.e., sources of our felt-experiences) are. This is an axiom that I make in addition to anything Bohm does. Note that the quantum pilot wave psi whose range is quantum Hilbert space H, but whose domain is classical configuration space C, is
where
is defined by Crowell (lcrowell@unm.edu) and myself as the Chalmers "fundamental information field" for qualia. This field is local in the classical mechanical configuration space C of the brain-beable, but it is highly nonlocal in physical spacetime.
The material hidden-variables, or "beables" are on the "brain" side of the "mind/brain" duality. The Bohm quantum force -grad Q is the force on mind on the brain-beable. The non-orthodox back-action is the direct "self-organizing" force of the brain on the mind causing the adaptive change &Q, which in turn causes a modifed mind force -grad&Q on the beable. This sets up a direct feedback-control cybernetic loop between the Q-field of qualia and the material brain-substrate beable. I say that -grad&Q is the mechanism for self-determination resisting external Darwinian selection on occasion. In addition, there are the indirect orthodox external Darwinian natural selection forces from the environment. They operate in two distinct ways. First, modification of the Hamiltonian of the brain-substrate beable, and, secondly, modification of the boundary conditions on the pilot wave psi of the control electrons forming the brain-substrate. That is, the brain-substrate is probably the electrons controlling the dimer protein switching conformations in the microtubules. These control electrons are the "Eccles gates" directly connecting Q-mind with the material brain-beable. The external orthodox changes in Q do feed environmental information into Q, but do they result in the experience of qualia? I am not so sure. Q is simply a passive slave to external forces with no internal self-organizing "self-structure" able to resist outside changes if my back-action &Q is missing.
Henry: We must distinguish four different models: Classical model; Bohm's model; Your model; Collapse models. Bohm's model, like the classical model, does not explicitly bring in
consciousness (phenomena, experiential-felt reality).
Jack: Agreed. I said I bring it in as an explicit axiom. I think my axiom plus Bohm’s model without my back-action &Q addition will simulate everything in your "collapse" model, but without a literal collapse of the superposition of Heisenberg potentia to a single classical actuality. The entire structure of psi, all the alternative branches are still there, but they are inactive. Nevertheless, that can be reactivated by recombination because psi is protected against environmental decoherence or the whole Q-mind idea fails. In other words, what we have here is a very complex "double slit experiment quantum eraser" system in which the information as to which slit the system passes can be erased restoring the interference fringes.
Henry: The natural way to add it [i.e., consciousness (phenomena, experiential-felt reality )] onto those theories is to assert that when the brain state (trajectory in 3n dimensional space for some appropriate set of n variables) get trapped in a basin of attraction, so that there is some sort of temporary stability that will allow certain structural changes that hold memories to form, there will be a conscious experience.
Jack: Yes, so far I will agree with that. It is very close to what I have been saying. The issue is, where are those "structural changes", where are the "basins of attraction"? I say they form the shape and topology of the fitness landscape which is a hypersurface in the classical mechanical configuration space C. I now define this hypersurface, by explicit mathematical construction, in detail. This "mindscape" hypersurface is determined by -gradQ(x,t), where x is a point in 3n configuration space, and by the external Darwinian selection forces Fe. That is, we have the coupled system of 3n quantum-Newtonian equations of motion for B, the brain-substrate beable (i = 1 .. 3n)
where
for n identical point particles of mass m.
Let’s start at t = 0, with a given pilot wave psi(x,0) of the brain-substrate beable B. Let’s do ordinary Bohm theory, with no back-action. So psi(x,0) gives us the initial Q(x,0). This Q(x,0) is an objective scalar field in the classical mechanical configuration space of B, defined for all possible x. Let the initial position of B be given as x(0). Remember, this is a thought experiment at this stage. Let’s assume we can solve this system for a short time dt into the future giving approximately,
We keep doing this with some ideal super-computer up to some finite time t. So what we have here is a single possible path of the brain-beable system point in its configuration space. Now we have to repeat this computation a large enough number of times with different initial conditions x(0). Remember that, since there is zero back-action, psi(x,0) is independent of the choice of x(0). Also, for simplicity, keep the external forces time-independent and keep the boundary conditions on psi(x,t) time-independent. The attractor structure in C can only be detected by looking at the global picture of a large number of possible paths from the set {x(0)} of initial conditions of B. It is also certainly of interest to plot the equipotential surfaces of Q(x,0) and its gradient field -sum grad Q(x,0) in C, although doing that does not suffice to give us the global attractor structure of the possible paths of B in C. Note that Richard Bader in his book "Atoms in Molecules" (Oxford) has a scheme that is almost like the Q(x,t) equipotential surfaces which gives practical results in quantum chemistry. It is this global hypersurface that I call the "Q-mindscape" or "mental fitness landscape" that B is confined to in C. It seems to me that the contents of the total mind (conscious plus subconscious), i.e., the qualia, are stored, or encoded in the shape and topology of this total fitness landscape that the motion of B in C is confined to. Why? Because the fitness landscape is really determined largely by the set of equipotential surfaces of Q(x,t) in C. Remember, and this is all important, Q(x,t) is a real field, i.e., an ontological, physical structure in 3n dimensional C. C is as objective as is spacetime in Bohm’s theory.
Recall that the Chalmers fundamental quantum information field I(x,t) of qualia is
in C. We can also plot its equipotential surfaces in C, and I say that is another useful representation of how the qualia are encoded. The qualia are not encoded in spacetime as Hameroff keeps saying. The qualia are encoded as a "funda-MENTAL" scalar quantum information field I(x,t) in the classical-mechanical configuration space of the brain-substrate beable B. Therefore, the qualia patterns in an actual physical field which is nonlocal all over the brain in space. This precisely explains the binding problem and the "holographic" metaphor for the mind used by Bohm and Pribram.
Now, how does this picture change, if we go beyond Bohm’s model for the orthodox quantum mechanics of a complex many-particle system, to include back-action? We now have to add an additional dependence to the pilot wave. Remember the pilot-wave is a real field in 3n dimensional C. That is x is the field-point for the pilot wave. We define X as the source point for the psi-field. X will be the actual position of B in C. That is since both psi (and Q and I) have objective existence as fields in configuration space C, they exist apart from the actual position of the individual brain-beable B in C. So we have Q(x,X,t) and I(x,X,t). Therefore, Q and I are essentially matrix-like structures in C. The coupled Newtonian equations of motion only depend on the diagonal parts of the matrix. That is,
Henry: The natural way to add it [i.e., consciousness (phenomena, experiential-felt reality )] onto those theories is to assert that when the brain state (trajectory in 3n dimensional space for some appropriate set of n variables) get trapped in a basin of attraction, so that there is some sort of temporary stability that will allow certain structural changes that hold memories to form, there will be a conscious experience.
Jack: Yes, and I show above that it is psi (or, Q or I) that mostly determine the structure and topology of that basin of attraction in C. The conscious experience is held in the quantum information field I(x,t). Furthermore, when you add in back-action, Q is a matrix Q(x,X,t). Therefore, the global Q mindfield changes when the actual brain state at X changes. In my theory since all of Q or I has its own existence, its structure at x different from X is storing qualia forming the contents of the subconscious mind. This content is changing as X moves through the mental landscape. This is clearly an adaptive learning mechanism. The self-consistent motion of B as it modifies Q globally, moving into regions of the landscape it has modified (and will modify in the future if there is retro-psychokinesis), and being in turn modified by its past (and perhaps future) modifications, we have a highly nonlinear, self-referential globally self consistent organizing mechanism for purposeful behavior with the experience of qualia naturally attached. The non-orthodox back-action is the quantum mechanism of the self. It’s what makes "I" possible. In fact we can think of I(x,X,t) as the "I" field, or the "ego-field" in C. I(x,t) is not a self-conscious ego-field in this sense. Without backaction there is no sense of self and no feeling of freedom to act in the world. Ok, remember that book on the breakdown of the "Bi-Cameral Mind"? Now I am not saying that book is correct. I an just using it as an analogy. Without the X dependence of back-action, I(x,t) is like a TV screen you stare at without any sense of self. You are sort of like a zombie. This diminished form of consciousness really is epiphenomenal. You are a feather blowing in the wind. You watch passively as the Big Parade unfolds. It’s like amnesia. You cannot even form the questions "Who am I?" "What am I doing here?". "What is this?" etc. In contrast, as soon as the back-action X-dependence kicks in, you awaken to self-consciousness and take command of your destiny - at least up to a point. You are not morally responsible for your behavior unless there is the back-action X dependence in the I-field of the quantum pilot-wave attached to your material brain.
Henry: In the classical theory it should be the brain that is connected in this way to consciousness. This carries over naturally to the Bohm model. In the Bohm model this association of consciousness with the classical brain accounts for the classical character of our thoughts.
Jack: I do not think our felt-experiences (qualia), thoughts etc. are classical. Our muscular behavior and speech is classical but not our thoughts. Not even our perceptions are fundamentally classical as the ingestion of psychedelics dramatically proves.
Henry: Of course, in the Bohm model the motion (trajectory) of the brain is control by a different law of motion: one must add Bohm's quantum potential in order to get the quantum effects. That is, the basin of attraction must be defined so as to include the quantum force. But the content of consciousness will be defined in terms of the actual trajectory of the brain, not in terms of all possible trajectories, which is what the wave function (and hence Q) represents.
Jack: What you say here makes no sense to me for reasons I have given above. You seem to be saying that somehow the contents of consciousness are encoded in the actual single path of the brain beable in configuration space. But you must show how? So, you are going to be forced to introduce a new kind of consciousness information structure on this path that is different from Q. This seems excess metaphysical baggage, very ad hoc, getting less with more, when my I or Q field is already there doing the very job naturally. That’s why God put it there! God is very efficient doing more with less. Also you need to add some new force for mentality to influence behavior. Bohm’s -grad Q already does that. You do violence to Bohm’s vision that Q is an ontological structure in C in addition to B. Also, I have shown that the basin of attraction must be defined in terms of all possible paths which is why we need a real objective ontological Q all over C. All the possible trajectories are really there because the Q field in C is as real as the electromagnetic field is in physical space. This is really what the Bohm picture is telling us.
Henry: In collapse models of the Bohr/Heisenberg/von-Neumann/Wigner type that I consider, consciousness is associated with a collapse of the state to a state in which the brain state is confined to a basin of attraction.
Jack: Fine, and that is an axiom, more or less, equivalent to the axiom I make. No physical theory of consciousness is free from such an axiom somewhere in the model. The "hard problem" is a delusion because somehow philosophers wish not to make that axiom. But theoretical physics depends on judicious axioms that yield enormous spin off. For example, Einstein’s axiom that the speed of light is the absolute speed limit for ordinary matter in the classical limit. But what you don’t seem to understand, which I showed by explicit mathematical construction above, is that you cannot even define your "basin of attraction" without looking at "all possible trajectories". Thinking of the basin of attraction of the single actual trajectory of the brain, as you do, is like thinking of the temperature and the pressure of a single isolated atom. The beauty of Bohm’s theory is that you do not have to invoke some airy fairy mystical magickal realm of "Heisenberg potentia" for the "possible" as distinct from the "actual" trajectories. This is because the wave function is not simply and completely an epistemological invention of the human mind, au contraire Monsieur, the wavefunction psi (and Q, and I) is a real ontological structure that lives as a field in a real configuration space C of which physical 3D space is a projection. All possible trajectories of B are really there in the geometry and topology of this ontological quantum information field that is local in ontological C, but nonlocal in physical space and time. Now you can use your Heisenberg potentia, if you like, as a romantic metaphor for Bohm’s ontology.
Henry: Your model has back action instead of collapse, although I have not seen a clear claim by you that it does achieve the same sort of irradication of the ``other'' branches that the collapse models postulate.
Jack: Forget all about back-action for the moment. Only think of Bohm’s version of orthodox quantum mechanics in which is no back-action. Bohm and Hiley show that their version of the orthodox theory does not have any actual collapse. But they can simulate collapse. They have "collapse without collapse". That’s all I ever mean. Since, the alternative branches of the wave function of the brain beable encode all possible "thought worlds" i.e., all possible internal representations of the historical experience of the mind/brain system, and since the wavefunction of the brain must be protected against environmental decoherence in order to maintain a robust continuous identity of memories during the entire lifetime of the organism, we do not want a literal collapse ever except at death – which we don’t want either! Therefore, the alternative branches that are not occupied by the brain beable B are part of the subconscious mind. They can always be reactivated upon quantum erasing and recombination so that B is in an overlapping region of several branches of the wavefunction in C. Alternatively, B may wander out of the region of influence of one branch into the region of influence of the other in what may be experienced as a dramatic change of subjective reality. Something like this may happen in multiple personality disorder, memories of past and future lives etc. Now, as we will see below, back-action does introduce, as you indicate, a new kind of objective non-orthodox decay obliterating all branches of the wave function. But in practical terms, in the specific context of my model for the qualia experienced by the quantum nanometer biocomputer embedded in our microtubule system, the time scale for this is much longer than the time scale for the orthodox "collapses" that are simulated "collapses without collapse". Specifically, the real objective GRW-type decay time is only 100 years if we use every last electron in our body as a "quantum transistor" in the hardware wiring of the biocomputer, whereas the experiences of qualia are simulated "collapses without collapses" on the scale of 1 second. Using 10^24 electrons gives a GRW decay, in the Nanopoulos version of a million years! More on this below.
Henry: In fact, sometime you seem to suggest that your back action produces a GRW effect, which is essentially a Heisenberg collapse to a state where some bulk properties are classically describable, but in other places you deride the idea of such collapses.
Jack: OK thank you, you are correct. I have been sloppy about that, from now on I shall be more careful. I am talking about simulation of collapse, or "collapse without collapse" for the orthodox case of zero back-action only. For example, here is how Bohm and Hiley define "collapse without collapse" (my Wheelerism), note their use of the words "as if", that’s what I mean by "simulation". But this simulation does not apply to the non-orthodox Nanopoulos-GRW/back-action extension of orthodox quantum theory where back-action implies a really fundamental quantum friction, or dissipation, violating local conservation of probability currents in C. Larry Crowell (lcrowell@unm.edu) has a very elaborate mathematics involving the Riemann Zeta function, KAM surfaces, etc. on this that I do not yet understand.
Bohm and Hiley introduce the source points X needed for back-action into equation 14.1. They call this source point the "centre … which is distributed at random. Thus, they start with the n-particle wavefunction psi(x,t) where x is a point in 3n dimensional classical configuration space C. Break this into n 3D-space vectors instead of the 3n components I used above. So we have psi(x1, x2, ... xn,t). They then choose only one of these n particles. Say the nth particle. The objective reduction process, i.e. Penrose’s "OR" for that single particle "can be regarded as transforming the original wave function psi(x1, x2, ... xn,t) into a new wave function"
Note, the matrix-like Xn, xn dependence in this back-action equation in the subspace of the nth particle. Xn is a back-action "source point" for the actual position of the beable, and xn is the "field point" for the objective pilot wave in the Bohm way of looking at quantum reality. So far, this is only in a single-particle subspace of C. f is normalized to unity and taken as the Gaussian Ke^-|x-X|^2/2a^2 . Rn(Xn) is a normalization factor (i.e., eq. 14.4). The "center" Xn "is distributed at random with probability |Rn(Xn)|^2. Bohm and Hiley then say:
Jack (previous post): As you emphasize the external environment can change Q.[2]
Henry: [2] Of course the external variables feed into Q, and this allow the brain to respond to the effects of the environment, ....
Jack: Yes, OK, but that is a passive response, no self-determination, no free will. That kind of response is the response of a puppet on the strings of Darwinian natural selection forces as explained by Stuart Kauffman in The Origins of Order.
Henry: but I was stressing something else, namely the dynamical evolution and change of the basins of attraction in the brain due to the changing characteristics of the neurons over time, such as fatigue effects.
Jack: How precisely do you define a basin of attraction using only one actual path for the brain state in configuration space? As I show above in detail. This is not possible.
Henry: (In doing calculations, and qualitative estimates, it is important to use the appropriate variable, and in this case one should think of the neurons as entities with certain properties rather than trying to deduce their properties, in the dynamical context of the evolving brain, from the properties of the electrons and protons and neutrons.)
Jack: I have no doubt that the neuron pulse codes modify the Hamiltonian of the microtubule control electron switches and maybe even the boundary conditions of their macroscopic protected quantum pilot wave in an informationally vital way. But as I have said, the back-action is required, I conjecture, for the creative, purposeful, intelligent, and morally responsible, response.
Jack (previous post) : However, the external orthodox changes in Q do not make the Q/beable system into an active SELF-organizing adaptive system. [3]
Henry: [3] The environment changes, and this changes the brain and its Q, and then the brain and its Q evolve in accordance with the internal quantum dynamics of the brain, with attractors coming into existence and passing out of existence in accordance with the changing states, hence properties, of the neurons, and the brain therefore being bumped from one basin to another, and hence with the mental state jumping from one thought to the next.
Jack: Yes, but with no self-determination. We are then mere passive puppets, not the Lords of Creation and the Masters of Destiny. This is a picture of slaves thrown to the lions in the Coliseum. It is not fit for the those made in the image of God. A direct back-action between Q-mind in H and B-brain in C leads to unexpected creative decisions on where B "chooses" to move next in C, sometimes in defiance of the sensory inputs from the neurons and the neurotransmitter flows across the synapses. You might say that back-action as self-determination in the organism is the Promethean Principle.
Jack (previous post): Your picture keeps the Q-mind/brain-beable system passive. The external environment changes Q, these changes in Q translate to changes in the motion of the brain-beable in configuration space. But this motion has no intentional self-autonomy, no self-determination in it. [4]
Henry: [4] Bohm's model is indeed deterministic. On the other hand, the
self-organizing brain is playing a key and very important dynamical role.
Jack: My point exactly, but I think back-action is necessary to achieve that kind of self-organization. It’s obvious that if Q is the mind, and there is back-action, then we have a self-organizing loop above and beyond your passive orthodox inputs.
Henry: This role involves the dynamical effects that arise from the formation of thoughts that are images of projections into the future, and the weighing of these future possibilities in the light of various values that the organism feels.
Jack: That’s fine functional phenomenology. But where is your physical mechanism if you do not admit that Q is the field of qualia in Hilbert space H that projects into configuration space C modifying the motion of the brain beable B which in turn modifies Q and so on. What is the physical basis of your thought? I say it is Q. Some how you have it all in the single path of B in C which to me looks like a miracle. My Q-model explains your phenomenology simply in accord with Occam’s razor. I see no connection of your above fine words to any definite quantum mechanical model.
Henry: So it is no illusion that the self-organizing felt self is making the choices, in spite of the fact that the whole dynamical scheme (Bohm's model) is strictly deterministic.
Jack: I agree it is not an illusion in your above word-picture, it is a miracle, in the sense of "..and then a miracle occurs".
Henry: It is not clear to me that this state of affairs is completely unacceptable or irrational.
Jack: I do not think what you are saying is either unacceptable or irrational. I think it is fine as a criterion to test any specific model. You do not give any specific model. I do. My Q-B model with the back-action satisfies your criterion. I don’t see how your picture does. I have a clear physical structure Q (or I) that I identify with thoughts. I have a clear physical quantum force of this thought pattern on the brain beable B’s motion in C. I have a clear definition of the basin of attraction that B moves into. I don’t see any such clear picture in what you have said since you seem to think that the thought pattern has nothing at all to do with the structure of an ontological Q which is a new real quantum information field in C coming from H.
Henry: This model would seem to place us more in control of our destiny than one in which pure willy-nilly random chance fixes things.
Jack: Which model? I don’t see that you have given any definite model. You have only given some general criteria that the model must obey. I have a definite model that does so with fewer ad hoc assumptions then you will have to make once you have a more definite model in which thought is not encoded in the structure of Q.
Jack (previous post): So, back-action is required for autonomous self-determination resisting the external Darwinian selection pressures.[5]
Henry: [5] I see no need for back action here. That would seem to inject some yet to be specified causal influence into the Bohm model. Such a thing may of course be present in nature: we may still be a long way from a true understanding of how nature really works. But Bohm's model without back action, but with some stipulations about the conditions for, and content of, experiences, seems in principle to provide a rationally complete account of all the data currently accepted by most scientists. Some empirically detectable effect of the back action you espouse seems necessary to justify dumping Bohm's closed dynamical scheme. That is, once one has accepted the basic ideas of the Bohm model, Occam's Razor cuts out back action.
Jack: The evidence you seek I think is in Stuart Kauffman’s book, The Origins of Order. What you call "Bohm’s model", in Kauffman’s terms is only half the story. It models only the external Darwinian selection pressures on the evolution of both the complex adaptive individual and the species. It leaves out any mechanism for self-organization because there is no direct influence of the material state of the organism back on its mental state. Also, where is the mental state in your picture of what "Bohm’s model" is since you said at the beginning that Q is not where the mental state is. That is,
Jack: (previous post): We seem to agree that one can think of Bohm's Q for the brain as the mind.[1]
Henry: [1] No! This is precisely the point of disagreement.
Henry: Of course, there is the problem that consciousness is ad hoc in Bohm's model.
Jack: It’s equally ad hoc in your Heisenberg potentia model, only its hidden more cleverly. Even there I think you imply that thoughts are potentia? If so, then thoughts are also Q in the Bohm model. Let’s see you say the conscious experience is in the "collapse", i.e., that miraculous transition from potentia to actua. Well then, the qualia that are thus experienced in the collapse must reside in the potentia - which means in my Q. Therefore, I think you are inconsistent.
Also with regard to back-action. Yes, as you pointed out, back-action, since it results in a GRW kind of objective decay of the wave function, really is a new kind of ontological decay of Q not found in the orthodox model in which there is only the illusion of collapse. So, if the really new physics of back-action is not needed, then neither is Penrose’s "orch OR" really needed. In my Bohmian approach, "orch OR" on the scale of a second or so, is not due to the electron switches, but to the protein dimer switches that they control. The heavy mass of the proteins make their back-action objective decays about 10^26 times faster than the electron wave decay time if the dimers are about 10^2 protons for the same n. This estimate is from using the Nanopoulos formula with the 1/m^6 dependence. Therefore, the macro-electron wavefunction, whose Q is the long-term mind, must have a beable whose motion is only weakly coupled to the rapid decay of the dimer switches themselves which form the short-term memory and the experience of the "present" on the scale of one second or so.
Henry: An alternative approach is to accept Bohr's idea that physics should rest on our knowledge, and then bring in the classical aspect through efficacious experiences, rather than through Bohm's classical world.
Jack: Never! That really is "... and then a miracle occurs".
Henry: This approach would perhaps fit better with your idea of a dynamical role of consciousness that
reaches beyond pure (Bohmian) mechanism.
Jack: Saying that the experience is in the collapse, is no better than saying that Q is the field of qualia in Hilbert space H that is experienced in consciousness when the brain-beable B is momentarily captured by a basin of attraction in configuration space C that is set up by Q. They are two ways, Bohr and Bohm, of saying much the same thing. Bohm’s is better because it is more detailed, and can even lead to better computer simulations of toy mind-brain complex adaptive systems that could result in conscious computer chips. I have evidence for this from Bader’s work in quantum chemistry that NASA’s AMES Creon Levit (creon@nas.nasa.gov) has told me about, which while not strictly, a Bohm Q-theory, is very close to being one. Bader is able to predict practical things that other chemists using the Bohr approach cannot do easily. Bader has the "Feynman diagram" for chemistry.
Henry: It would be parsimonious in accepting at a basic intrinsic level something that we know to be present, consciousness, while rejecting the classical world of Bohm that plays no role in the computations of the predictions of quantum theory.
Jack: First you are grossly distorting the reality of Bohm’s theory, and second you appear to contradict yourself. Thus, on the first point, the classical world of Bohm, in this context, is B the brain-beable which moves in classical configuration space C. But it’s motion is mostly determined from quantum Hilbert space H by the nonlocal contextual quantum force that acts in C and which totally transcends classical physics and contains the predictions of quantum theory. Second, you seem to contradict your earlier statement "The natural way to add it [i.e., consciousness (phenomena, experiential-felt reality )] onto those theories is to assert that when the brain state (trajectory in 3n dimensional space for some appropriate set of n variables) get trapped in a basin of attraction, so that there is some sort of temporary stability that will allow certain structural changes that hold memories to form, there will be a conscious experience. In the classical theory it should be the brain that is connected in this way to consciousness. This carries over naturally to the Bohm model. In the Bohm model this association of consciousness with the classical brain accounts for the classical character of our thoughts."
What you do not seem to get is that the basin of attraction is made mostly by Q, so the "association of consciousness with the classical brain accounts for the classical character of our thoughts" makes little sense. The experience of consciousness in the Bohm theory involves the Q from quantum Hilbert space H acting on the classical brain state X of B in C, because it is that Q that is forming the basin of attraction for B to fall into.
On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
Yes, I understand that analogy here.
OK, I understand that motivation.
Cool!, Ok I understand that. :-)
Ok now put psi = e^(r + iS), with hbar = 1, into the Schrodinger equation
and you get
Now the quantum potential is expressed as
Let me check this. "I will a little think." To quote Einstein. :-)
but,
Therefore, I get
So I understand your two terms now, but I get a different relative sign and, of course, the coefficient 1/2m.
Whose algebra is right? I think mine is. I used to sit beside Hans Bethe in his office at Newman Laboratory for Nuclear Studies in 1960 watching him doing really complex calculations like Paginni doing "The Devil's" violin cadenza - that WAS amazing! So now I will think like Bethe. :-)
Now the momentum operator, p_op = -i grad, when it acts on psi gives
which is the momentum eigenvalue for the wave function.
OK, I don't follow this last remark. If psi is a momentum eigenfunction |p>, then you get the eigenvalue multiplied by psi. In general you cannot make that assumption. psi is definitely not an eigenfunction of momentum for interesting problems. So, decomposing psi into a superposition of momentum eigenfunctions we get all possible momentum eigenvalues, i.e.,
I don't understand this remark either. The Copenhagen (Bohr-Born) expected value is
Wait, we have to be very careful here with notation.
OK, let me try to do this.
Therefore,
It follows that, the Copenhagen expectation is
Since {p} is real, unless I made a mistake in algebra, we have a curious constraint that
This is the hermiticity condition in a new form. I have never seen this done in any text book this way.
OK, now I am getting something like what you are getting, but you were a bit too quick for my older semi-senile :-) 56 year old brain mit der formalism und der physicalischte interpretation. :-)
and so,
Wait, like Frank Sinatra sings let's "walk a little slower" and be more precise, because something interesting physically is coming from your intuition here. In Bohm's hidden-variable or "beable" theory
is the non-statistical individual actual momentum of the beable if it is actually at the given point in configuration space where S is evaluated. It is independent of the statistical ensemble averaged expectation value {p} which, according to the correspondence principle (Ehrenfest's theorem) you can call the classical value. Remember the beable surfing the pilot-wave in configuration space has a definite position and momentum at any instant. The uncertainty principle does not apply down at this level. The uncertainty principle only applies for the statistical ensemble root mean square deviations when strong canonical von Neumann measurements are made.
So, OK define a "Bohm smear" [...], I am not sure if we should call it a statistical average yet, as
where S is a function over all configuration space even though the beable is only at one point in that space at any instant. Similarly, for grad r
So OK now I have a physical picture, of sorts, for the formal expression
That is, the orthodox Copenhagen expectation splits into two Bohmian pieces. Your i[gradr] term looks like the non-transverse part of the electromagnetic vector potential in p -> p + (e/c)A for minimal coupling to a gauge field. You know this is exactly what I was looking for in my Ph.D. thesis on critical speed for superfluids. So my intuition was correct then after all. My Ph.D. idea was a remote-precognition of this event over 25 years later!
Look, what you have found is the back-action gauge field that Feynman first told me about in 1963 when we went for the ride in my Jaguar. I don't think Feynman had the math then either. It was Feynman who planted the seed of my back-action idea that led to my Ph.D idea which was incomplete. But I knew I would come back to it someday. My idea was that there was some kind of a minimally coupled Galilean (not Lorentz) gauge field responsible for the breakdown of frictionless superfluid flow in small tubes. This is because Feynman used the words "back-action" to me in the Jag in 1963 and also before as he was talking to a bunch of people in the archways at Cal Tech. I had come up from Ford Philco Aeronutronics in Newport Beach. It must have been an APS meeting or something. I forget exactly which.
OK, now I see what's turning you on. This is a fabulous synchronicity. Orthodox quantum mechanics has no back-action here because hermiticity, i.e., unitarity, local conservation of quantum probability currents in configuration space demand that
OK , so in orthodox quantum theory this "fluctuation" must be zero because of the i.
That is, you should write
where
and in orthodox reversible quantum mechanics which corresponds to the zero back-action regime of sub-critical superfluid flow.
Therefore, your &p "fluctuation" is the back-action term here, and if we locally gauge it, to keep the action invariant, we should get a kind of transverse roton or vortex turbulence field - which is what I was looking for in my Ph.D. research over 25 years ago. Your grad r term is, of course, not transverse, but is longitudinal. I am still; looking for the transverse Galilean roton field responsible for the breakdown of superfluidity. i.e., quantized vortex generation as a back-action effect which was the idea of my Ph.D. in 1969 from my discussion with Feynman in my Jaguar.
By doing this transformation the quantum potential is telling us much more
than before, and it all stems from expressing the wave function totally
according to group generators so that all variables come from the algebra
rather than from a group and an algebra.
The next step ....
OK later. I have to sit back and digest this little session which was totally psychic -some might say "psycho" or "wacko" - but this stuff is beginning to sound crazy enough to be true! :-)
To, summarize, using my expression for the quantum potential Q, which has opposite relative sign between the two terms than yours
Where-(hbar^2/2m)(grad r)^2 is the square of the new non-orthodox back-action term grad r, for the imaginary momentum fluctuation, not found in Bohm's original theory at the level of ensemble statistical averages that you have come up with. That is, the expectation value of grad r must be zero in orthodox quantum mechanics though not in the new mechanics. This is the term that enforces the feedback-control loop between Q-mind and brain beable. The amazing synchronicity is that this term is the square of grad r , which, I think, is the longitudinal part of a massive back-action Galilean gauge field that has a transverse vorticity part that should show up when we locally gauge this theory. That is, I want a massive Galilean collective superfluid mode that looks like what Maxwell's field would be if the universe really was Galilean instead of locally Lorentzian. The speed of these collective modes is the speed of sound since we are in a medium with a fundamental rest frame.
The result for the Copenhagen statistical ensemble average is
Note, the first term is the expectation of the square of the momentum back-action fluctuation grad r which need not be zero in orthodox quantum mechanics even though the expectation of the back-action fluctuation itself must be zero.
What is the meaning of r?
where rho is the Born quantum probability density in configuration space.
But log rho is essentially the Shannon entropy or information I divided by Boltzmann’s constant k^3N for N point particles in translational motion. Extra degrees of freedom, like rotation and vibration of molecular structures, will increase 3. This number decreases for 2D and 1D systems. What about quantum dots?
So, in the simplest case,
showing that the quantum pilot wave really is a wave of fundamental information in the higher-dimensional configuration space of classical chaos theory.
Therefore, the full quantum potential in proper units whose gradient is directly felt by the beable, prior to the Copenhagen statistical averaging is
where hbar is Planck’s constant, k is Boltzmann’s constant, and I is the Shannon information in configuration space. This should convince David Chalmers.
To which Crowell, on Aug 10, 1996, added:
On Aug 11, 1996
Sarfatti wrote
r = log R = log rho^1/2 = (1/2) log rho
where rho is the Born quantum probability density in configuration
space.
But log rho is essentially the Shannon entropy or information I divided
by Boltzmann’s constant k^3N for N point particles in translational
motion. ...
Close, but this is an interesting idea. If you have an alphabet of
characters {n} and a symbol string comes at you where any given character
has a probability p = p(n) of occurence then the Shannon formula for the
entropy is
S = -k SUM P(n)log(P(n)).
Yes, I was well aware that the entropy and Shannon information is actually the expectation value of the log of
the probabilities. This is when there is a mixture of pure states. Here, if we have only one pure state the
entropy is zero. I was speaking loosely. I should define your r as a new kind of "quantum information density
field" in configuration space, motivated by the above Shannon formula. I am thinking of what David Chalmer's is
looking for in his Dec 1995 Scientific American article. The Shannon formula is for "outer" objective
information which is zero for a pure quantum state. This new thing based on your r is fundamental "inner"
subjective "sentient" information density inside the pure state. There may be a flow between the two types of
information having something to do with the black hole horizon problem.
We then have the integral of r e^2r as the total quantum information inside the pure state. So this is a new
kind of "hidden information" if you like.
As I read further down Crowell's message, I saw that he had the same thought, but took it farther mathematically.
Crowell wrote:
S = - kTr(rho log rho),
where in this case rho = |psi>
where the integration over configuration space assumes the same role as
the trace. Then the differential of the entropy on some small region of
R^3 space is
In general this is R^3N configuration space, and rho = |psi)(psi| is in the configuration space representation, i.e.,
(R^3N|psi)(psi|R'^3N).
Now r = r(x) so d/dr = (dx/dr)d/dx, and so
dS = kd^3x (grad r)^{-1}*grad(e^(2r)), * = dot.
Now the (grad r)^{-1} might look odd, but such thinks show up in QED. so we will let this go for now. ZAP!!
This might not be the best way to go. Why don't we instead think of
e^(r + iS) in terms of a partition function. Then a partition funciton
looks like
Z[psi] = int d[psi]e^(r + iS)
The the energy is
E = dlog(Z)/d(kT) = int d[psi]dr/d(KT)e^(r + iS)
What does T mean here inside a pure quantum state? Is it inverse imaginary hidden time?
S = (kT)E + logZ = int d[psi](r + iS) + kTdr/d(1/kT))e^(r + iS)
So what to do with this? Well the system is on an energy surface in phase
space whose topology is a torus.
Why must it be a torus? Can't it have many wormhole handles in general?
Do you mean it has a Lyapunov exponent only when there is back-action beyond orthodox quantum mechanics?
Is I the total inner subjective information integrated over all configuration space for the given single pure state psi? That is, the inner information is the information of the hidden-variable beables which is absent from the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation where the wavefunction is everything. How dumb, all the big shots were and are! Those Emperors have no clothes. :-)
E = dlog(Z)/d(kT) = int d[psi]zeta dF(w)/d(1/KT)e^(r + iS)
and
S = (kT)E + logZ = int d[psi](r + iS + ktdF(w)/d(1/kT))e^(r + iS)
In effect F(w) is a polynomial on the "fractal mode" w, and treat w as a
temperature, or some power there of. We might then have F(w) = T^3, and it
this is so then the energy goes as
E ~ T^4 (Wein's law)
and the entropy as
S ~ T^3
Wait! Hold on. I just saw what this means in a flash, like Mozart seeing the whole cantata with the enchilada! :-)
2r = log rho
Is the inner information density field of the hidden-variable beables. Your Wein's law etc formulas are assuming a black body thermal equilibrium inside the outer Copenhagen pure state of the inner beables. This is like Valentini's thesis. This will be true only in orthodox quantum mechanics when the Born probability rule rho = e^2r is obeyed. Back-action means a departure from this thermal equilibrium. So at some point we need to perturb this e^2r transform. In general we need something like e^2(sum cnr^n) maybe, where orthodox QM is c1 = 1 and all the other c's = 0? This will change the Schrodinger equation??? We need something dramatically different here.
r ~ T^3 and S ~ T^3
which still gives something to the effect that r ~ I that you derived. so
looks as if we are on the right track.
OK, well the T^3 dependence must only be for orthodox quantum mechanics on the outer Copenhagen level. You got a sub-quantum theory here. I am still not sure what T is mathematically. Back-action must be "non-thermal" in the sense you have here.
On the other hand, I may be all wrong. Maybe this inner information has nothing to do with the beables, but is a property of the pilot-wave itself in configuration space where it is a real field.
--
Jack Sarfatti, sarfatti@well.com,
http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/index.html
"Perhaps I did use such a philosophy earlier,
and even wrote it, but it is nonsense all the same."
Einstein on Bohr's positivism to Heisenberg in 1926.
Subject:
Stapp/Sarfatti
On the Mathematical Meaning of Bohm’s Implicate Order
Q = -(1/2)[(Grad I/2)^2 + Lap I/2]
psi = e^I/2e^iS
I = log |psi|^2
dpi/dt = Fei - gradi Q(x,t)
Q(x,t) = Q(x1,x2, x3, ..x3n-2, x3n-1, x3n, t)
xi(0+dt) = xi(0) + dt(dxi(0)/dt) = xi(0) + dt(Fei - gradi Q(x(0),0))/m
I(x,t) = 2log|psi(x,t)|
dpi/dt = Fei - gradi Q(x,x,t)
"We treat this as an objective process in which the measuring instrument and what is observed interact in a well-defined way. We show that after the interaction is over, the system enters into one of a set of ‘channels’, each of which corresponds to the possible results of the measurement. The other channels are shown to be inoperative. There is never a collapse of the wave function. And yet everything behaves as if the wavefunction has collapsed to one of the channels." p.6 The Undivided Universe (Routledge).
So that settles that orthodox part with zero back-action. Now let’s settle the back-action/ Nanopoulos-GRW connection. In section 14.6 "Extension of our approach beyond the domain of current quantum theory" of The Undivided Universe you will find:"One way to make Schrodinger’s equation dependent on the particle positions (so that there would be a two-way relationship between wave and particle) can be seen by considering equation 14.1…" p. 346
Note the words "so that there would be a two-way relationship between wave and particle". That’s the simplest physical way of defining "back-action". Orthodox quantum theory is a one-way relationship of wave to particle. That is, there is the nonlocal context dependent wave force -grad Q on the particle beable. In my theory, from my axiom that the quantum wave is the field of qualia, i.e., the quantum wave states in Hilbert space H are "mental states". Therefore, -grad Q is the physical nonlocal contextual force of physical thought from quantum Hilbert space H on the physical material brain state which is the position of the beable in classical mechanical configuration space C. Therefore, orthodox quantum theory has the force of thought on the brain automatically built into it in the action of H on C. But, there is still no direct self-organizing compensating influence of the material state of the brain in C back on the quantum state of the mind in Hilbert space H. It is this lack of back-action in orthodox quantum mechanics which causes the uncontrollable random measuring interactions that Bohr wrote about. It is this lack of back-action which prevents the faster-than-light and backward-in-time control required to use quantum nonlocality as a communication channel. It is the absence of back-action which allows the Eberhard-Stapp theorem , which asserts that faster-than-light quantum communication is impossible, to be true. It is the absence of back-action which precludes claims of retroactive psychokinesis and precognitive remote-viewing to be possible in principle. It is the absence of back-action which, in my theory, prevents self-determination of an organism and which prevents morally responsible free will. Furthermore, if Hameroff is wrong about his claims of thermal protection of the quantum wave function by "ordered water", etc., then there is no time for back-action to kick in before being drowned in environmental decoherence. So there is a lot riding on this issue of back-action! So let’s return to Bohm and Hiley. Equation 14.1 is found on page 327 in section 14.3 called "The Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber approach" (i.e., "GRW"). Remember now that Bohm and Hiley only aim to simulate the actual reduction or collapse of the original GRW model. It’s only "as if" there were this new non-orthodox collapse that Roger Penrose calls "OR" as distinct from the orthodox "R". So Bohm and Hiley, using a model from John Bell, write:"The wave function is assumed to evolve according to the Schrodinger equation. However, there is a further process which reduced the spread of the wave function over each particle coordinate xn, to something of the order of a new universal constant "a" … this is happening in general and not just in a measurement process, and .. this process constitutes a well-defined extension of the quantum mechanical laws of the development of the wave function. … if a is chosen small enough to bring about the kind of localization needed for a classical object, then this might contradict the quantum mechanical predictions of interference over fairly large distances … However, … quantum mechanical interference properties over long distances have been extensively tested for the case of a single particle and at most for a few particles …We can avoid this difficulty by supposing that the rate of decay 1/T depends on the number of particles, n, involved. Thus we can write 1/T(n) = n/T(1), where T(1) … is a new constant of nature."
*Note, that this GRW model is phenomenological and ad hoc, needing two new universal constants a = 10^-5 cm and T(1) = 10^16 sec. Nanopoulos derives the essential features of GRW in a more fundamental bottom-up way using superstring theory at the quantum gravity level. This adds some real cash to Penrose’s credit card theory of gravitational self-collapse, i.e., "orch OR" in Shadows of the Mind. The Nanopoulos formula for T(1) has a single particle mass dependence of 1/m^6. Think of a quantum computer of n identical particles. They have time T(n) = T(1)/n to do a coherent computation if they are protected against environmental decoherence with a disruption time shorter than T(n). For a fixed n, an electron quantum computer has a longer coherence time by a factor of about 10^20 compared to a similar proton computer in the Nanopoulos variation on the GRW model. So you want electron computing for long-term memory storage and proton or even protein computing for short-term rapid response computing with coupling between the two kinds of quantum biocomputers.psi’(Xn, x1,... xn,t) = f(Xn - xn) psi(x1, x2, ... xn,t)/Rn(Xn) (14.1)
Go to Review of Stapp's book, Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics.
Lawrence B. Crowell (lcrowell@unm.edu) wrote:The point is that the quantum potential contains information that concerns
the quantum corrections to a classical path,Start out with the wave function psi = Re^iS , where R = e^r. The point
of doing this is to write the amplitude according to a generator, or
rapidity (if that word is appropriate).
so that r and S are on the same
footing. r and S are generators of the wave function.
When you work with
psi =Re^iS you have part of the wave function on a group level and the
other on the algebra level.
It occurred to me some time back that this is
really a rather inconvenient way of doing things.
and is the same quantum potential as before. If you let r = lnR it is
easy to show.
Let this value be
{p}. expected value.
then
Then,
and as such is
identified as a quantum fluctuation where
It is from this that I come to write Q as
Well &p is such that <&p> = 0. It is much like a delta function
correlated term in a Langevin equation. Back action, and presumably
quantum chaos, is a situation where this fluctuation can promote itself.
In the case of quantum chaos this fluctuation has a Lyapunov exponent
associated with it and so its statistics are no longer Markovian. For
back action this needs to be the case. Then you get this nonhermitian
term propagating itself forward so that fluctuation at one time are
correlated to those at a subsequent time. The crucial difference between
back action and chaos is that with back action these fluctuations carry
information that feed back on the system in a control loop. With pure
chaos, certainly for the case of Hamiltonian chaos, these fluctuations are
just wild.
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
What is the meaning of r?
Now let's see... We know about the Von Neumann formula for the entropy of
a statistical ensemble of wave functions
dS = k d^3x (2r)e^(2r) = kd^3x de^(2r)/dr
and
So then the modes of the system are much
like a quantum particle in a box. Then let us write a plausible wave
function that includes these modes plus modes that pertain to an
exponential separation of momentum. The fluctuation in mometum is
associated with a Lyapunov exponent
l = lim(t--> inf)log(sqrt(&p^2))
so &p ~e^(lt) with time. So write r = A*prod_j(j^s)F(w), so now r is
related to modes tied to the Lyapunov exp. I also have written r this way
since I am quite convinced we can write this as a zeta function, where the
integrations of the partition function can be performed simply on the
poles of zeta. To be looked at later. Then our thermodynamic quantities
become
which conform to well known thermodynamic quantities. Now if this is
obtained then
I did some of this zeta function stuff some time back, and if memory
serves me the partition function is essentially Z = const*T^3. Indeed I
have thought that the proof for the zeros of the Reimann zeta function might lie with quantum mechanics.
CONTINUE TO PART 3