SciPhysicsForums.com

Here are some edited excerpts from Tegmark's paper
viewable at:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1219v3.pdf

A commonly held view is that consciousness is irrelevant
to physics and should therefore not be discussed
in physics papers. One oft-stated reason is a perceived
lack of rigor in past attempts to link consciousness to
physics. Another argument is that physics has been managed
just fine for hundreds of years by avoiding this subject,
and should therefore keep doing so. Yet the fact
that most physics problems can be solved without reference
to consciousness does not guarantee that this applies
to all physics problems.

. . . attempt. . .
to rigorously define what constitutes an observer.

What is the solution to the
quantum measurement problem? This again hinges crucially
on the role of observation: does the wavefunction
undergo a non-unitary collapse when an observation is
made, are there Everettian parallel universes, or does it
make no sense to talk about an an observer-independent
reality, as argued by QBism advocates

Is our persistent
failure to unify general relativity with quantum
mechanics linked to the different roles of observers in the
two theories? After all, the idealized observer in general
relativity has no mass, no spatial extent and no effect
on what is observed, whereas the quantum observer notoriously
does appear to affect the quantum state of the
observed system.

This “quantum
factorization problem" appears intimately related to
the nature of an observer.

The only issue there is consensus on is that there is
no consensus about how to define an observer and its
role. One might hope that a detailed observer definition
will prove unnecessary because some simple properties
such as the ability to record information might suffice;
however, we will see that at least two more properties of
observers may be necessary to solve the quantum factorization
problem, and that a closer examination of consciousness
may be required to identify these properties.

Another commonly held view is that consciousness is
unrelated to quantum mechanics because the brain is a
wet, warm system where decoherence destroys quantum
superpositions of neuron firing much faster than we can
think, preventing our brain from acting as a quantum
computer [4]. In this paper, I argue that consciousness
and quantum mechanics are nonetheless related, but in
a different way: it is not so much that quantum mechanics
is relevant to the brain, as the other way around.
Specifically, consciousness is relevant to solving an open
problem at the very heart of quantum mechanics: the
quantum factorization problem.

Why are you conscious right now? Specifically, why
are you having a subjective experience of reading these
words, seeing colors and hearing sounds, while the inanimate objects around you are presumably not having any
subjective experience at all? Different people mean different
things by \consciousness", including awareness of
environment or self. I am asking the more basic question
of why you experience anything at all, which is the
essence of what philosopher David Chalmers has termed
\the hard problem" of consciousness and which has preoccupied
philosophers throughout the ages (see [5] and
references therein). A traditional answer to this problem
is dualism | that living entities differ from inanimate
ones because they contain some non-physical element
such as an anima" or soul". Support for dualism
among scientists has gradually dwindled with the realization
that we are made of quarks and electrons, which
as far as we can tell move according to simple physical
laws. If your particles really move according to the laws
of physics, then your purported soul is having no effect on
your particles, so your conscious mind and its ability to
control your movements would have nothing to do with a
soul. If your particles were instead found not to obey the
known laws of physics because they were being pushed
around by your soul, then we could treat the soul as just
another physical entity able to exert forces on particles,
and study what physical laws it obeys, just as physicists
have studied new forces fields and particles in the past.

The key assumption in this paper is that consciousness
is a property of certain physical systems, with no \secret
sauce" or non-physical elements.1, This transforms
Chalmers' hard problem. Instead of starting with the
hard problem of why an arrangement of particles can
feel conscious, we will start with the hard fact that some
arrangement of particles (such as your brain) do feel conscious
while others (such as your pillow) do not, and ask
what properties of the particle arrangement make the
difference.
This paper is not a comprehensive theory of consciousness.
Rather, it is an investigation into the physical
properties that conscious systems must have.

Here are some of my thoughts:

While Tegmark is apparently formulating a proto-theory that
consciousness arises from physical substance,
it seems to me that he is unintentionally going in the
opposite direction.

My inexpert view is that consciousness is at least as fundamental as are
quarks, space and energy. In other words, materialist physics does not
explain consciousness, rather, consciousness gives rise to
much of physical phenomena.

I am not a physicist, but I have presented my view in detail here
and elsewhere.

Comments are solicited.
.

RArvay wrote:...materialist physics does not explain consciousness, rather, consciousness gives rise to much of physical phenomena.

I agree with the first half of your sentence, with the qualification "as yet" added to it. But I do not see how the audacious second half of your sentence is justified.

Can you please explain very briefly how "consciousness gives rise to much of physical phenomena"? I will be happy with a derivation of just one simple phenomenon.

The only link between consciousness and physics I can think of is this free will theorem by Conway and Kochen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

Wikipedia says it was published in Foundation of Physics.

http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx09 ... kLOdg12LRQ

"-if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles-"

Although this is probably philosophical territory, I know that physicists have recently done a 'loophole-free" Bell experiment which was also reported here on this forum, and in that experiment they used a quantum random number generator instead of the human decisions, so I can only think that previous human decisions in the Bell experiments had as much "free will" as a quantum random number generator.

RArvay wrote:Here are some of my thoughts:

While Tegmark is apparently formulating a proto-theory that
consciousness arises from physical substance,
it seems to me that he is unintentionally going in the
opposite direction.

My inexpert view is that consciousness is at least as fundamental as are
quarks, space and energy. In other words, materialist physics does not
explain consciousness, rather, consciousness gives rise to
much of physical phenomena.

I am not a physicist, but I have presented my view in detail here
and elsewhere.

Comments are solicited.

Consiousness is too unknown to be of any value in physics. While there are reasons to suspect that it is a consequence of material processes and therefore not fundamental, details of those processes are not known. If it is fundamental, it's exact properties and connections are unkonwn anyway and therefore not available to explain anything.

The topic of consciousness does not lend itself (at present) to
derivations of physical phenomena. The attempt to make it fit into
our present paradigm is IMO futile.

Tegmark says that were it so (my interpretation),
". . .then we could treat the soul as just
another physical entity. . ."

What if consciousness is NOT just another physical entity?
What if it is foundational?
If consciousness is a fundamental, then a new paradigm is needed.

Physics has already had to resort to greater contexts than the universe to explain fine tuning.
Multi-verse theories recognize that the known universe does not explain itself.
The same might apply when it comes to explaining consciousness.
We need a larger context.

The present materialist paradigm leads unavoidably to absurd conclusions.
For example, the denial that free will exists requires us to view ourselves as
passive witnesses to our own lives, not participants.
If this is true, then science itself is a farce, since as JBS Haldane pointed out,
our conclusions about reality, being forced upon us by reality,
may be "neurologically correct," but may have no actual accuracy.

A thought experiment concerns a computer program in which a simulated
scientist studies the computer program of which he is a part.
He can never discover anything about the program except that which he is
pre-programmed to discover, regardless whether is discoveries are accurate.

If we have no free will, then we have no control over our thoughts, words and deeds,
but are mere puppets on a cosmic string.

Science is a noble endeavor, but one which can operate only within limited confines.
We may be reaching its limits.

Can the eye see itself?
What is an observer? More to the point, how does the observer observe itself?
.

I think of elementary particles as being observers.
An interaction of two elementary particles changes the state of each particle. In my preon model, the particle coming out of an interaction is not identical to the one going in. An observer (elementary particle) by the act of observing (ie interacting) changes the observed entity and is itself changed.
The supposed weak interaction (not the weak force) supposes that the observed particle is not changed by the weak interaction, or if slightly changed can be nudged back to undo the change. However it is a complicated procedure using calculations as to whether the new particle is actually the same particle as before. Not too convincing. There is a recent nearby strand on this forum on thermodynamic heat, and I wonder if a weak interaction generates thermodynamic heat?
Virtual particles such as the internal loops in a Feynnman diagram are supposed to be virtual because they are not observed, but I suppose there is self-observation under my above definition. For example a field generates an electron positron pair which immediately annihilates. The electron and positron interact with one another and hence in my terms are both observers and observed. But nothing else in the universe observes them.
If a field interaction does not change the state of a particle, is it observing the particle? For example if a higgs field gives mass to an electron (I believe that the method is not fully known) without changing the electron's form, then it is not interacting with it in the sense of my definition above of an interaction/observation. In a particle interaction, the electron changes from LH spin form to RH form or vice versa. If the electron kept changing spin handedness form while acquiring mass from the higgs field that would rather ruin a Bell experiment as the handedness of the electron would be almost random at any instant? The higgs field has zero spin but it does have a handedness wrt weak isospin. The higgs field cannot effect a permanent change of weak isospin in the electron without changing the spin of the electron too. (As The LH electron has weak isospin -0.5 while the RH electron has weak isopin = zero.) But IMO the higgs field and the electron field interfere with one another temporarily, making the electron weak isospin distribution oscillate in value, without changing the quantised form of the electron. So does the higgs field observe the electron? Is there any thermodynamic heat given off in the field interaction?

Consider color.
Current physics can quantify color in terms of frequency, wavelength and amplitude.
Is THAT the color you perceive?
Of course not. Try to describe color to a person who has been blind from birth,
and you will find that nothing in physics can translate your experience
into any physical formula.

It is this INWARD experience of consciousness which indicates the existence of
something basic and fundamental.

The brain is a vehicle in which consciousness resides, but
the brain no more produces consciousness than does an automobile
produce a driver.

Tegmark's question remains profound.
What is an observer?
I will add two more.
What is observed?
What is both?
.

I agree with Ben,

Perception is observation combined with filtration of observations through prior information gathered from prior observations.
An atom can observe a photon, and the effect of that observation could be different based on its history of past observations. In a sense you could say it perceives. Does that mean an atom has consciousness? What about rocks? If you equate "observing" and "perceiving" to consciousness, then atoms and rocks are conscious too.

The blind person does not observe color because they are physically incapable of it, therefore they do not have any basis on which to perceive color and that is why you can't explain anything about color to them. Yet they are conscious. It is like explaining something in chinese to a person who has not learned the chinese language. No equation will help. But atoms and molecules learn too, even rocks! As you can find out by sitting on one after a hot day. So if you equate learning to "consciousness" then rocks are conscious too.

If you define consciousness as residing only in the brain, then to discuss the physics of that, you need to provide a good justification for giving "brian" special status. What about bacteria which do not have brains, are they conscious, where do you draw the line or place the "consciousness" cut when you go up the tree of complexity of life? And on what basis?

So let me answer your question:

What is an observer?: An observer is anything(anyone) that changes based on external influences.
What is observed?: The external influence
What is both?: Nothing -- since nothing is external to itself, by definition of "self" and "external".

One more:

What is perceived? The posibilities are endless.

IMO colour and consciouness are important effects of complexity but are independent of the issue of observer effects on interactions.

It is sometimes said in the popular science press that a wavefunction collapse requires a conscious observer but I do not see why that is necessary. As I wrote in my previous post, an elementary particle (= the observer) can collapse the wavefunction of another particle (= the observed) at an interaction. Nothing spooky about that and no requirement of consciousness. Also, the observing particle undergoes a wavefunction collapse at the interaction. There is no real difference between an observer and the observed as both undergo wavefunction collapse, and hence field collapse, and a change of chiral spin handedness. If an elementary particle can carry out wavefunction or field collapse there is no need to be concerned with the role of consciousness in this matter.

Colour is somehow in the observing brain, not in the observed particle. This is most clearly seen IMO in the change in observed colours of an object in dayight (eg yellow object) and at dusk (what was yellow now appears green). Also the shift in a red object's apparent colour to brown if one looks too long at the red object. This goes back to Chevreul's investigation carried out on behalf of a drapery business in the 1830s (http://www.colour.org.uk/Chevreuls%20La ... 20good.pdf). There is no arguing about colour being a wonderful effect. Of the brain, of consciousness or of whatever. I love colour and if you don't object to seeing some colourful nude life paintings that I have made you can see them here: https://ben6993slifedrawings.wordpress.com/ .

Ben6993 wrote:It is sometimes said in the popular science press that a wavefunction collapse requires a conscious observer but I do not see why that is necessary.

I think they are right to a certain degree, "wavefunction collapse" is a mathematical, non-physical thing which requires a brain to happen. There is no such thing as "wavefunction collapse" happening to particles or anything physical. The collapse happens in equations in our brain.

minkwe wrote:

Ben6993 wrote:It is sometimes said in the popular science press that a wavefunction collapse requires a conscious observer but I do not see why that is necessary.

I think they are right to a certain degree, "wavefunction collapse" is a mathematical, non-physical thing which requires a brain to happen. There is no such thing as "wavefunction collapse" happening to particles or anything physical. The collapse happens in equations in our brain.

Ben and Michel, you two are talking about two different things. Neither of you are wrong, but when people say "wavefunction collapse requires a conscious observer", what they have in mind is Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics. The so-called Heisenberg's cut does not specify where exactly the "collapse" happens (if it indeed happens -- and I don't believe for a second that it happens -- hell, I don't even believe in wavefunction). Since no location of the "cut" has ever been found anywhere from micro to macro domains in actual experiments, Wigner argued that may be the "cut" needs to be pushed up all the way to "consciousness."

This is quite a different thing to say form saying that wavefunction is simply a product of our brain, in the sense that our knowledge of the observed system changes when the "collapse" happens, not the system itself changes, as the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics maintains.

There is one big problem with this last position, however. It is quite mysterious why our subjective knowledge (i.e, the wavefunction) evolves following a precise dynamical equation -- namely, the Schrödinger equation.

The only way out of this dilemma is to have a fully local-realistic reinterpretation of quantum mechanics along the line envisaged by Einstein, ditching wavefunction.

Joy Christian wrote:This is quite a different thing to say form saying that wavefunction is simply a product of our brain, in the sense that our knowledge of the observed system changes when the "collapse" happens, not the system itself changes, as the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics maintains.

There is one big problem with this last position, however. It is quite mysterious why our subjective knowledge (i.e, the wavefunction) evolves following a precise dynamical equation -- namely, the Schrödinger equation.

It is not a problem at all if you interpret quantum mechanics as a kind of probability theory, with the dynamical equations simply providing a consistent framework for calculating experimental expectations. In that sense, it is not that our "subjective" knowledge evolves according to the dynamical equation, rather it is that we can use the dynamical equations to calculate the correct expectations which we should rationally believe would obtain upon measurement. Just like Probability Theory which does not tell us how our "subjective" knowledge changes, but rather provides a framework of precise equations we can used to reason rationally from incomplete information.

My view is that the so-called "collapse" happens entirely within the framework, not in the real world we are trying to use the framework to understand or reason about. The wavefunction is simply a tool within the framework.

minkwe wrote:Probability Theory

Is this the same theory that predicts that a random subsample of a larger set will have the same expected mean as the larger set?

Heinera wrote:

minkwe wrote:Probability Theory

Is this the same theory that predicts that a random subsample of a larger set will have the same expected mean as the larger set?

Yes, there is just one probability theory. What you've written above is what those who learn the very basics learn. However, if and when you study Probability Theory more deeply, you will begin to understand that the same probability theory tells us that
- The above is only true if every member of the population has the same probability of being chosen by the random process used to sample it, but that is not always the case
- The above is only true if the population mean is a fixed well defined number, but it is not for many processes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_process)
- Two random samples can give very different means based on what method was used to randomly sample the population (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_ ... robability), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borel%E2% ... ov_paradox)
- If the property whose mean is being calculated must be independent of the sampling process, ie it must be pre-existing in the population and not partially or fully generated by the sampling process, which is very often the case even when "random sampling" is used.

Serious people make an effort to understand all the intricacies of the given situation rather than resorting to mysticism as a way to fill their ignorance. Now can we get back on topic, please!?

minkwe wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:This is quite a different thing to say form saying that wavefunction is simply a product of our brain, in the sense that our knowledge of the observed system changes when the "collapse" happens, not the system itself changes, as the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics maintains.

There is one big problem with this last position, however. It is quite mysterious why our subjective knowledge (i.e, the wavefunction) evolves following a precise dynamical equation -- namely, the Schrödinger equation.

It is not a problem at all if you interpret quantum mechanics as a kind of probability theory, with the dynamical equations simply providing a consistent framework for calculating experimental expectations. In that sense, it is not that our "subjective" knowledge evolves according to the dynamical equation, rather it is that we can use the dynamical equations to calculate the correct expectations which we should rationally believe would obtain upon measurement. Just like Probability Theory which does not tell us how our "subjective" knowledge changes, but rather provides a framework of precise equations we can used to reason rationally from incomplete information.

This sounds like a Bayesian interpretation of probability.

It is still puzzling to me why a physical system left alone by all observers for unspecified amount of time would evolve precisely according to Schrödinger equation.

I can imagine a system left alone on Mars for millions of years by one set of observers until rediscovered by an entirely different set of observers and they find that during all that time the system has evolved according to Schrödinger equation. With the above Bayesian nterpretation of wavefunction that would suggest that time too is somehow a byproduct of our degree of belief. This opens up an entirely different can of worms about time in which time too would loose its objective status.

Joy Christian wrote:It is still puzzling to me why a physical system left alone by all observers for unspecified amount of time would evolve precisely according to Schrödinger equation.

I don't believe any physical system evolves precisely according to the Schrödinger equation. I think the Schrödinger equation allows us to estimate what state the system is in right now given what state it was in the past. The Schrödinger equation is not the "mechanics" of what is actually happening to the system, but rather the mechanics of one way we can use to infer what state the system is in given what it was in the past.

I can imagine a system left alone on Mars for millions of years by one set of observers until rediscovered by an entirely different set of observers and they find that during all that time the system has evolved according to Schrödinger equation.

I disagree. I would say, any observer, new or old can use the same tools of QM such as the Schrödinger equation, at any point in time to infer what the state of the system is in, given it's state as a past point in time. That does not not mean the system itself is evolving according to the equation.

With the above Bayesian interpretation of wavefunction that would suggest that time too is somehow a byproduct of our degree of belief.

I don't think that is a fair characterization of the Bayesian view at all. In the bayesian view, our degree of belief does not produce anything, let alone time. The degree of belief is a number we put in our calculations in order to infer other numbers by using the framework of probability theory or QM. It does not create or take anything away from objective reality. In fact, the inferences we make are about the entities which exist objectively independently of our efforts, or the frameworks we have invented to study them, such as Schrödinger equation.

I do not disagree with minkwe on anything here. In particular, I long ago looked up Bertrand's paradox following one of his links and the paradox is very illuminating (quite startling really!) wrt choices of the form: "random-on-a-sphere/line/chord/diameter/etc". Long ago another paradox, Simpson's Paradox, affected my job. Imagine you have two populations and you draw two samples. You have a joint population target and two separate population targets. So you try to match the separate sample qualities to the separate population qualities. Fine. Then you combine results to obtain a match for the combined sample to the combined population. Not good. So you 'up' sample 1 a bit and 'down' sample 2 a bit and ... whoa what is happening here to the combined sample... not straightforward at all. Then I have to explain why there is a problem to the non-technical committee. I did get a laugh from them though. I said "It is a paradox. Surely you don't want me to explain a paradox? If I could explain it, it wouldn't be a paradox." Of course, the explanation is readily available on wiki.

I view elementary particles as rather like an arrangement of lego bricks (or preons in my model). If an electron has an interaction it must swap some of its bricks, and change its spin content, and I would need to sit down and rearrange a load of lego bricks on the table. That would involve me doing a lot of work as there are 96 times n bricks in an electron. For the real electron something somewhere must be expending energy to make these rearrangements which is why there is thermodynamic heat given off at an interaction (see Type 1 or intrinsic causes at Thermodynamical cost of some interpretations of quantum theory http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.03641v1.pdf , discussed on a nearby thread).

My electron knows its own chiral spin value as it is embedded in its structure. It is possible that I did not finish rearranging the bricks at the interaction and two unfinished particles fly out of the interaction with their spin bricks not yet allocated. This is not unlike my visualisation of a virtual particle with an off-shell mass. However, I doubt that this is possible in my model as the spin bricks are an integral part of the whole electron. My model electron is a little like a Hopf fibration and has its bricks moving at speed c in a triple helix of intertwining colour branes. Although colour neutral overall, it has a symmetric mix of all three colour bricks. It is possible not to completely form the electron, I suppose, but the entity would lose all properties of being an electron, particularlity its evolution over time and probably lose its 4π periodicity. Its intertwining structure at speed c is what maintains it as a quantised entity.

My model of a properly-formed electron would evolve over time as its bricks (preons) are held together in a continually rotating complex structure. It does not need a mathematical model to tell it how to rotate and evolve and I am expecting a Type 1 intrinsic case to be true. I do realise of course that I may be completely wrong and my model is purely inside my own brain which immediately changes this case from a type I to a Type II scenario of the thermodynamics paper! Ditto for anyone else's model which makes me wonder if the Type I category really exists.

In my model, the bricks are entities with dimensions, and the dimensions of the universe (inter)depend upon the dimensions of the lego bricks. The properties of the bricks are all chiral twists and one twist with handedness can relate to three space dimensions and one time dimension. So, in my model, time has an objective direction. There are no absolute x y and z axes. And a time metric can have virement with a space metric so long as the objective direction of time is not reversed in that virement. I have recently read Symmetry and the Monster by Mark Ronan which maintains that there are only 24 independent units of symmetry, which also relates to the postulated 26 dimensions of string theory. I also noted that there could be up to 24 dimensions in my preon model though some of them cannot be independent of one another. So in my model, at a singularity the bricks continue to exist within bosonic particles in a BEC but the bricks keep their dimensional properties which are there to re-form a space and time metric. My model is depressingly deterministic with no apparent scope for free will at the microscopic level. But free will and consciousness depend on compexity of organisation.

Any time we discuss something that is not clearly defined, we run into problems for which we have no solution.
Moreover, the very question itself becomes tangled up.
We cannot answer a question when we do not fully understand the implications of the question.

Here is what I see as the implications.

In my view, the basic characteristic of consciousness is not what other people see in us,
nor what we detect in them,
but rather, what we see in ourselves.

The conscious observer can observe himself.
He can experience the experience of experiencing.
He can experience things that cannot be quantified.

The example of color was given to demonstrate that
an experience can be formulated in numbers that anyone can understand (to a degree),
but that formulation is NOT what we experience.

It is this INWARD experience that defies material explanation.
Medical science has categorized various states of consciousness,
but these are all OUTWARD signs of consciousness, not the INWARD reality.

That is perhaps a very subtle point that is easy to miss in the overall discussion of physics.
To those whose only tool is a hammer (materialist science), perhaps every problem is a nail (physics).

There is something utterly unique and indescribable in the experience of being not only
conscious, but being conscious of being conscious.

It is that unique and indescribable reality which IMO requires a paradigm shift in science,
and this is even before we begin to address sovereign volition (free will), without which IMO,
all of science becomes a farce (remember the virtual scientist thought experiment mentioned earlier).

I am happy to see any level of investigation into consciousness, but I hope that the central
question does not become lost.
.

Your definition of consciousness, precludes scientific study. If consciousness is inward and cannot be observed, then why are we discussing it in a scientific forum. You will never be able to know whether a rock is conscious or not, by observing the rock.

Your definition of consciousness, precludes scientific study. If consciousness is inward and cannot be observed, then why are we discussing it in a scientific forum. You will never be able to know whether a rock is conscious or not, by observing the rock.

But you are able to observe your OWN consciousness.
Again, that may be a subtle point to some,
but to me it is the 800-pound gorilla in the parlor.
.