Charles Tart wrote:
The "G" word: "GOD" AS DATA vs
"GOD" AS HYPOTHESIS-BELIEF-THEOLOGY vs
"GOD" AS REALITY
This phenomenon is easily understood in the post-quantum physics of back-activity from classical brain to quantum mind. Transpersonal experiences happen when messages are exchanged between different classical brains that share the same quantum mind i.e., wave function. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen "spooky telepathic" objective nonlocal form-dependent intensity-independent "active informational" (Bohm) connection does become a communication channel in the presence of back-activity. Eberhard's theorem which strictly forbids this does not apply because it is only correct in the limit of zero back-activity.
Note, by "brain" I mean any classical material beable that is able to back-act to its attached quantum pilot-wave.
By "material", like Bohm, I include all "beables" not only classical sources like electrons, protons at a moment in their trajectories etc, but also their classical electroweak and strong gauge field configurations on spacelike surfaces.
God is the common wave function shared by all classical brains that were, that are, and that will come. If we include the classical metric of general relativity as a beable, which we must do for quantum gravity, then we are forced to conclude that God's mind is the invisible grand quantum pilot-wave which guides the evolution of the visible material universe. Back-activity is the modern technical formulation of the myth of God's Covenent with Abraham that gives us smaller homomorphic holographic pieces, i.e., fuzzier but faithful images, of the big wave function a limited degree of self-determination allowing us to be morally responsible for our behavior. This answers David Hodge's question at Tucson II.
My theory of every thing is the worst possible theory of every thing except for every other now proposed in all the books by the all the present pundits, many of whom are well-paid and honored. :-) Jack Sarfatti
Commentator
It's all in The Family Subject: Re: The Beauty and The Beable
This should be "The Beauty in the Beable". :-)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 17:08:01 -0800
From:
Jack Sarfatti
Organization:
Internet Science Education Project
Stan Klein wrote:
I can't resist the Monod reference since I am a big fan of Monod's. His
"Chance and Necessity" is one of the not-too-many biology books I've
read. I think Jack's problem here is again a confusion between objective
Free Will and subjective free will. The big question is how does one
connect the lack of Free Will in Monod's 'necessity" of classical
determinism with the presence of subjective free will that some of
us experience. One answer (Sam's) is that subjective free will is an
illusion. That may be a good answer from the objective viewpoint, but
it creates havoc with our subjective world (and some religions and
judiciary systems).
Yes. That was David Hodgson's point at Tucson II. You were there I
think.
Wait a moment. Which Heisenberg ontology? Stapp is using his own
post-quantum ontology that he calls the "Heisenberg-James ontology". It
is not identical with the original Heisenberg idea which is really an
epistemology rather than an ontology. Heisenberg, like Bohr, still
thinks of "potentia" as waves of knowledge. This suggests a subjective
consciousness collapsing the wave function like Wigner proposed. Feynman
is very against this as you know. Stapp should really clarify this. When
I have time, ha! I will go to Stapp's book and do it for him if he does
not take the bait. :-)
Stapp's theory is also post-quantum, not quantum. Stapp agrees that
back-action will reproduce his theory if we require that it objectively
eliminate all the empty eigenfunctions. I am beginning to like Stapp's
idea though I initially resisted it. It is a kind of bootstrap idea that
comes out of his long association with Geoffrey Chew. It has the
advantage that all the major post-quantum theories i.e., GRW, mine,
Stapp's, Penrose's are all in qualitative agreement. Sort of like
Heisenberg matrix mechanics versus Schrodinger wave mechanics in the
1920's. I have simply shown how to recast the Stapp-Penrose "objective
collapse" type of approach for post-quantum theory in Bohmian terms
which is far superior in terms of visualization of what is going on and
which connects with neural-network formalism in a very nice way. Note this modifies my older position with regard to Stapp elsewhere on this web site that I have not yet had time to bring up to date. I tentatively accept Stapp's idea one one basin at a time as a constraint on the back-action theory. I worry about it still, but let's see if it's a good idea.
Post-quantum self-determination i.e., free will transcends, is on the edge of, Monod's (quantum) chance and (classical) neccessity.
Furthermore, what is beautiful about what I propose is the very clear
mechanism for self-organization and adaptation already inherent at the
quantum level.
Yes, they do. But all that gets you is a Golem, not a conscious human. Classical neurons are not the right stuff of inner felt experience. They are only the outer classical mechanical transducer of inner post-quantum life to our moter behavior and primary state sense perceptions.
Exactly! I have that book! Don't you think it's interesting and
suggestive that Bohm's post-quantum theory gives the same kind of
qualitative picture at the subneuronal level? Also Amit's picture is
incomplete. It's at the wrong level for consciousness. It is at the
classical motor level transducing post-quantum decision-making into
classical behavior. Amit's theory is local and it has no form-dependence
only intensity-dependence the way Bohm defines these terms.
Murray is a maker of Golem's! :-) Seriously, he did not solve his IGUS
problem correctly in his Quark and The Jaguar and in all his papers with
Jim Hartle. I have solved his IGUS problem correctly using Bohm's
hidden-variable which he thought was unnecessary. That's Gell-Mann's
great error like Einstein not predicting the expanding universe.
Gell-Mann wrongly argues that Bohmian nonlocality is "the story
distorted" (e.g. Ch 12) in fact it is his attempt at a local many-worlds
quantum reality which is "the story distorted" IMHO. :-)
After I wrote the above I received another beautiful piece from Sam
Harris
in which among other things he points out that the decision to have an
abortion isn't free. Of course, objectively, Sam is correct. The neurons
are
doing their deterministic processing, producing all the emotions leading
to
the decision. Not much Free Will there. But what should we do about the
subjective sense of free will. Discard it? That is surely an option. But
my
point is that there are alternative options. Quantum mechanics is
slippery
enough that the solid ground that Sam thinks he is standing on may not
be
quite so solid. I believe it is possible to develop a metaphysics that
allows
subjective free will as a consistent non-reductionist notion, while
still
maintaining the lack of "real" Free Will. [Whenever I point out the cute
role
that quantum mechanics might play I feel I must always point out, as I
did
above, that for the objective question of how does the brain do its
thing
(like decide on abortions) I don't think quantum mechanics plays an
essential role. Classical neurons seem sufficient.]
Classical neurons can never, in principle, account for inner
felt-experience. On this I agree with Stapp.
Date:
Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:10:16 -0800
From:
Jack Sarfatti
To:
"Sam Harris (Kedar)"
Sam Harris (Kedar) wrote:
Einstein in a panegyric to Newton wrote :
I should have also included Einstein's remark:
Bohm uses "informal language" similarly to Einstein's "intuitive
linkage".
Better phrase is "the backactive beable" as in "radioactive nucleus"
etc. Well we physicists have been making this "error" as you call it for at
least 300 years now and we have transformed the world with it. There is
no point me arguing with you. I think my intuition is better than yours
on this. The proof will be in the successful construction of the Q-chip.
So pardon me but I have to get back to the drawing board. :-)
To you, but not to me. Intuition is accurate precognition.
Date:
Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:10:05 -0800
From:
Jack Sarfatti
Organization:
Internet Science Education Project
To:
"Lawrence B. Crowell"
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
To me it is intuitively self-evident that
form-dependence/intensity-independence and back-action are exactly what
Chalmer's has been looking for and that these are fundamental
thoughtlike qualities. I really can't imagine anything more elegant and
neat as a solution of the hard problem especially in view of Stapp's
demonstration of the equivalence of the back-action model with his
ontological collapse model. What is the alternative? Only a real
Cartesian mysticism where consciousness is non-physical.
Bohm clearly shows that nonlocality plus the
form-dependence/intensity-independence are disiderata for any theory of
mind. Operating from the premise of "more with less", it is clear that one should attempt a theory in which the quantum properties of matter are thoughtlike in a fundamental sense. I use "fundamental" the way Chalmers does. In this, Stapp, Penrose, Herbert, Wolf, Josephson, myself and others are all in qualitative agreement.
Mind is right there. There is plenty of room for mind as a fundamental
physical phenomena "at the bottom". But, conscious mind is not possible
in the world of classical necessity or in the world of quantum chance.
It requires the post-quantum back-action on the edge between chance and
necessity (in Monod's sense).
No it was the other way around. Wigner said that consciousness was
needed to collapse the wavefunction of inanimate matter, not that
quantum mechanics explained consciousness. Stapp is saying that a
self-measuring system is conscious when it collapses itself. Wigner
never, to my knowledge, considered the problem of self-measurement. I
will check on that.
Now it might be that classical
mechanics has some cards up it sleeves. After all the recent development
in chaos theory has lead to a wide frontier in classical mechanics. It
might be that there are other aspects of Newtonian-Hamiltonian mechanics
that we are deaf and blind to.
No, classical chaos theory will not do by itself. Classical chaos still
depends exclusively on form-independent/intensity-dependent forces. If
you read Bohm on "active information" you will get my point. One needs
the nonlocality and form-dependence (i.e. context-dependence) and
intensity-independence as necessary features of mind. One also needs
back-action. In short,
nonlocality, form-dependence/intensity-independence, and back-action
form a sufficient set of physical conditions to solve the hard problem
of mind-brain theory as a purely physics problem. Since this is a
scientific theory it can be proved wrong experimentally.
Not a chance. Bohm clearly shows that classical physics has nothing in
it that is form-dependent. Form-dependence and nonlocality are necessary
features of any physical theory of consciousness. Why look for some Rube
Goldberg artifice like pie in the sky when the the obvious is right in
front of us. If you read Bohm's Undivided Universe you will see how easy
it is to refute any classical explanation of thought. Bohm has really
solved this problem in a way that agrees with Stapp.
Date:
Thu, 09 Jan 1997 19:40:51 -0800
From:
Jack Sarfatti
Organization:
Internet Science Education Project
To:
"Lawrence B. Crowell"
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:
It's not that simple. It is not as if there is an obvious algorithm
independent of theory that will tell Francis Crick and his competent
experimental friends what to rush into their labs to look for. As the
post-quantum theory evolves it will also evolve experimental tests. This
may be a long process and should not be judged in haste since I am the
only one really working on it on a very small budget. One must be
"Chinese" here and take the long view -- unless Bill Gates decides to
give me a few tens of millions this year instead of giving it to Depak
Chopra so he can buy more Rolls Royces - - at least I buy computers and
pay for WIN 95 and give them to the poor deserving misfits! :-)
It is clear that quantum theory describes the lone electron in each
dimer that controls the conformation of that dimer. This is the key
thing to focus on. Are the lone electrons on separated dimers entangled?
What role does spin play. Penrose does not include the spin, only the
spatial position which couples to the Frohlich phonons. This has to be
treated by standard many-body techniques but off-equilbrium so we can't
use temperature dependent Green's functions here without modifying them.
Yes, it is the worst physical theory of consciousness there is, except
for any other. :-)
My faith in it is really based on its Diracian elegance, its Einstein's
"naturalness" and "inner perfection". It is too simple, too direct, too
elegant, too beautiful, not to be confirmed eventually by experiments
that we today have not even dreamed of. Again, it goes against my
deepest intuition to think that Dame Nature would be so gauche and
malevolent to rig up a classical Cargo Cult parody, a Golemesque
classical architecture, of what she has so sweetly constructed at the
most fundamental post-quantum level of physical reality. Mind is as
fundamental as matter in my post-quantum mechanics. It is only that it
is hard for us to break away from the brain-washing of materialist
Marxist teachings, even if subliminal, that we have such a hard time
turning away from the shadows on the wall of the Cave. I hold Excalibur
in my hand. The Sword has been pulled from The Stone! :-)
Crowell: A theory transitions from being tentative to being operational once the
experimeters begin to record events and measurements that are commensurate
with predictions made by that theory. As yet this has not happened.
Give it time. I only got the idea in the Caffe Trieste a little more
than a year ago. The appeal to experiment is much too premature.
Yes, we all know that.
The main ideas are very compelling if one simply understands Bohm's
point on active information and form-independence.
You seem to have made an artificial division between nature and quantum
wholeness? To me the connection is obvious. Remember we are not talking
logic here, we are talking "meaning" in Einstein's sense which is
"purely intuitive".
Subject:
Re: AH+: Sarfatti on Einstein
Date:
Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:41:13 -0800
From:
Jack Sarfatti
To:
"Lawrence B. Crowell"
Crowell wrote:
Yes, of course. That does not apply to the actual situation of
post-quantum mechanics at this early stage.
Yes, and no, with general relativity we do have the preferred global
rest frame of the Hubble flow in the expanding Friedmann Big Bang
solution where the cosmic black body radiation is isotropic to 10^-5. MM
abolished the classical instensity-dependent form-independent ether, but
not, it would appear, the form-dependent intensity-independent quantum
ether which is the seat of Bohm's thoughtlike "active information".
Chalmers has been looking high and low for this active information. The
Hubble flow is still compatible with SR locally but not globally. Bohm
posits that the quantum potentials are instantaneous in the Hubble flow
global frame. Stapp discusses this also in his book.
Is it?
Maybe maybe not. It depends upon the details of the experiment which you
have not specified. Remember, the part of the microtubule which is
clearly quantum is the lone electron in each protein dimer that controls
the classical conformation of that dimer. Here you have a quantum switch
controlling, and being controlled by, a classical switch. Also we have
the Bose-Einstein Frohlich phonon condensate coupled to the electrons.
So what specific measurements do you have in mind that are relevant to
this system that forms the "Eccles' Gate".
Also remember that the Bohmian active information is organizing the
local energy of the lone electrons including Casimir zero point energy
inside the microtubule cavities. It's a very intrigueing but complex
system to analyse. I doubt you can come up with any correct crucial
measurement easily at this stage of the game.
It is Bohm's active information on the lone electrons inside each dimer
that I think is the seat of the soul or conscious mind. Back-action of
these electrons on their guiding active information results in our
inner-felt experience. That is we experience subjectively the changes in
the active information of th electrons switches wrought by back-action.
These electrons are protected against the usual sources of environmental
decoherence. This how universal intrinsic back-action (e.g.
GRW-Nanopoulos) can do its thing. It is not washed out by thermal noise
from the environment.
Cross that bridge when we come to it. Frankly I don't think that will
happen. So, at this stage, it is better to take a positive attitude on
this. Keep the obvious stuff on the back burner.
Yes, it is the worst physical theory of consciousness there is, except
for any other. :-) My faith in it is really based on it Diracian elegance, Einstein's
"naturalness" and "inner perfection". It is too simple, too direct, too
elegant, too beautiful, not to be confirmed eventually by experiments
that we today have not even dreamed of. Again, it goes against my
deepest intuition to think that Dame Nature would be so gauche and
malevolent to rig up a classical Cargo Cult parody, a Golemesque
classical architecture, of what she has so sweetly constructed at the
most fundamental post-quantum level of physical reality. Mind is as
fundamental as matter in my post-quantum mechanics. It is only that it
is hard for us to break away from the brain-washing of materialist
Marxist teachings, even if subliminal, that we have such a hard time
turning away from the shadows on the wall of the Cave. I hold Excalibur
in my hand. The Sword has been pulled from The Stone! :-)
Yes, but that is hardly an apt comparison. First of all the hard problem
of consciousness as a physics problem is many orders of magnitude more
complex than measuring the bending of light with a telescope on the
African plains. Second, I am one man working essentially alone outside
the university physics system with minimal funding. So one could hardly
expect me to do in three years what armies of well paid scientists
should be doing. I think I have done rather heroically as it is. Third,
as you well know the physics support system even for traditional work is
decaying rapidly into a Dark Age.
I was about to stop this wonderful exchange with Jack Sarfatti and get
back to some urgent matters, but what do you know, in his last response
Jack sends out two sentences that I can't resist:
Jack to Sam Harris: How do you explain the well known argument that free will is not only
incompatible with classical determinism i.e., with Monod's
"necessity", but it is also incompatible with quantum indeterminism e.g. Monod's
"chance".
Stan Klein: As I've said before (probably too many times) this duality between
the lack of Free Will in classical determinism and the presence of
free will in subjective experience sounds like a duality. And quantum
mechanics knows how to make consistent dualities. It seems to
me that the Heisenberg-von Neumann ontology that Stapp has been
advocating is close to being able to do the job.
Stan Klein: We differ on some
details, but it seems to me the main point is that one can have both
the lack of objective Free Will and the presence of subjective free
will in a manner not achievable by classical physics, and in a
manner that maintains present quantum mechanics rather than
some modified quantum mechanics, of the Sarfatti, or Penrose-
Hameroff sort.
Stan Klein: So that is my advocacy of how the metaphysics of quantum mechanics is helpful for understanding some philosophical questions such as free will. Now to the opposite point of why quantum mechanics is not needed for
understanding how the brain does its "chance and necessity". Jack
follows his above sentence with:
>
Stan: Jack may have what he considers to be a beautiful quantum dynamics
for self-organization and adaptation, but classical neurons have the
same capabilities without any need for quantum.
Stan: Danny Amit's wonderful
book "Modeling Brain Function" shows how classical neural networks can do
all sorts of wondrous things including basins of attraction, adaptation
and
even back action.
Stan: Neural networks are even being used for precognition.
I
wouldn't be surprised if there is a group at the Santa Fe Institute that
are
using classic neural network technology to create a complex adaptive
system for predicting the stock market (don't expect to see the
algorithm
published soon).
Stan: I call this type of precognition VSP (very sensitive
perception). Most of the "ESP" experiences that ordinary people report
are
VSP rather than ESP, and are able to be handled by classical complex
adaptive systems of the type Monod understood.
Subject:
Re: Armistice on the quantum front.... and their challenge could
only be adequately met by you, were you to produce a clear explanation,
in purely empirical terms, of wherein freedom of will is to found in the
stream of conscious events.
“The concepts that you created are even today still guiding our thinking
in physics, although we now know that they will have to be replaced by
others father removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim
at a profounder understanding of relationships.”
This is why Sam Harris has taken the wrong path. You cannot explain immediate experience with immediate experience. This is a form of Godel's incompleteness theorem. "I see on the one side the totality of sense experiences and, on the
other, the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid down
in books. The relations between the concepts and propositions among
themselves are of a logical nature, and the business of logical thinking
is strictly limited to the achievement of the connections between
concepts and propositions according to firmly laid down rules, which are
the concern of logic. The concepts and propositions get 'meaning,' or
'content,' only through their connection with sense experiences. The
connection of the latter (sense experiences) with the former (concepts
and propositions) is purely intuitive, not itself of a logical nature.
The degree of certainty with which this connection, or intuitive
linkage, can be undertaken, and nothing else, differentiates empty
fantasy from scientific 'truth'."
I must say I fully agree with the above--and feel that it substantiates
my position rather well.
I am not surprised. You see what you want to see.Sam: My point, all along, has been that your notion
of free-will is born of a misperception of the flow of experience--thus
the intuitive linkage to theoretical constructs is a nothing more than a
marriage of error and theory. This is ambidextrous folly, O' Jackson of
the Back-action Beable.
Sam: And whatever the "truth" of the quantum world turns out to be
(Copenhagen, many-worlds, many-histories, many-beables, beables and
weavils, etc.) The above will remain unassailable by logic or
experience--because intuition, of which science is the rather sullen
child, is a mystery.
Subject:
Re: AH+: Sarfatti on Einstein I agree with the motivation for examining quantum mechanics as being
involved with consciousness. Indeed, I agree with the requirement that a
self-referential quantum mechanics becomes quantum mechanics that is no longer quantum mechanics in the usual sense. It would be really nice if
all of this insight turned out to be true. However, I think there is a
regrettable, often tragic, trend for physicists to chase after something
compelling for long period of time only to find that things just don't
work that way.
Crowell: Maybe, but maybe not. The earliest ideas of collapse seemed to bring an
element of observation, or even consciousness, into the picture. This has
caused some physicist, such as E. Wigner, to posit that quantum mechanics
plays a role in consciousness.
Crowell: I state that there is no proof that QM
plays an active role in consciousness, but there are some compelling
reasons to think that it might. Check out Stapp's web sight for a more
complete arguement. In effect a classical "nearest Neighbor" approach is
not capable of giving the sort of wholeness of the integral mind the
quantum nonlocality appears to be capable of.
Crowell: You never know. It just might be that classical mechanics has features to
it that we just don't know about.
Subject:
Re: AH+: Sarfatti on EinsteinIn a sense what I was saying was off-hand comment, but then again maybe
not. If the experimental world tells us that there are no quantum effects
associated with microtubules or any other aspect of molecular biology and
neurophysiology, then we do have a kind of paradox.
Crowell: Stapp's arguments for quantum consciousness is that the nonlocality of
psi(x, t) means that information associated with consciousness exists in
superpositions and nonlocal entanglements. This allows for the unity of
consciousness as an integral whole. This is not possible with classical
mechanics; or better put classical mechanics as we currently understand
it. Yet the final verdict on these issues is after all the
experimentalist. As yet no realistic tests have been made in the lab to
determine if quantum mechanics is at all involved with microtubule
function.
Crowell: If future tests should give a negative verdict then we are
faced with a serious intellectual problem: how to get contextuality in a
classical system. To quite honest this would be as interesting as the
whole issue of quantum consciousness is now. It should be remembered by all that the whole idea that consciousness is a
quantum, or post-quantum, effect is still a tentative theory.
Crowell: Further if the experiments negate the most basic predictions of a theory then that theory is simply wrong.
Crowell: Again, as yet this has not happened.
So here we are in the zone of uncertainty: where there are some compelling
ideas and reasoning, but that the final arbiter, which is nature herself,
has not yet spoken to us.
Crowell: Nature is ultimately a hell of a lot smarter than any of us are. Further,
when she speaks her voice can not be drowned out. We are guided by our
own conviction that consciousness is a contextual wholeness. As Fred
Rogers says,"You are all one piece." Believe me when you have kids you
end up watching things like "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood." To be honest Mr.
Rogers says some rather profound things. So we are compelled to say that
consciousness and even living organisms have a wholeness that is not
duplicated by machines. So quantum mechanics appears to be the best
candidate to finding that sort of wholeness. Yet in the end it is nature
that tells us about these things.
The whole thrust of Thomas Kuhn is that there really is not some sort of
unifying logic to the scientific method. Yet the one thing that can be
said is that a null experiment on a theory is fatal to that theory.
Crowell: TheMichelson-Morely experiment utterly buried aether theory.
Crowell: The future is an open possibility.
Crowell: Yet if interference experiments are performed with microtubules and there is no recorded quantum statistics then our whole program here is history.
Crowell: If future tests should give a negative verdict then we are
faced with a serious intellectual problem: how to get contextuality in a
classical system. To quite honest this would be as interesting as the whole issue of quantum consciousness is now.
Crowell: It should be remembered by all that the whole idea that consciousness is a
quantum, or post-quantum, effect is still a tentative theory.
Crowell: But then again Einstein got experimental confirmation of the optical
effect of general relativity within 3 years of his publication of the
general theory of relativity. Everyone had to wait for the first world
war to end.
