Observation and Quantum Objectivity

In this popular science article we present a thought-experiment due to Wigner: The Wigner's friend experiment. Such experiment is similar in spirit to the more popular Schrödinger's cat; yet, it addresses in a explicit way the role of the human conscience during the measurement process. After presenting the thought-experiment, we discuss briefly the role of interpretations in Quantum Mechanics, specifically the Copenhague interpretation, and their role in "fixing" physical consequences that might not be coincident with the empiric experience. We conclude the article with open-ended questions about the frontier between Physics and Philosophy, and how this last can help Physics in providing explanations (about the measurement problem) still missing in Physics.

Most interpretations of quantum theory fail to provide a fundamental, complete, self-consistent account of nature describing physical reality itself, as opposed to merely yielding predictions about results of experiments and observations. A paradigm providing a self-consistent foundation for quantum theory and a description of the reality it refers to, generalized to a worldview, is a Quantum Paradigm, where 'paradigm' is defined as structure of experiential reality. We assert that the fundamental obstruction in the quest for a quantum paradigm is the assumption of objectivity. The subject-object distinction, drawn within experience, has within the natural sciences degenerated into a dichotomy—an absolute split into separate realms—with scientists adopting the classical paradigm where the object pole of experience ("objective reality") can be studied independently from the subject pole ("the experiencer"), with a presupposition that this procedure yields a fundamental description of nature. In fact, the subjective is often eliminated altogether as a fundamental category, and reduced to an epiphenomenon of objective processes. We claim this objectivity assumption precludes a full comprehension and a paradox-free formulation of quantum theory. By challenging this presupposition, i.e. leaving the question open, a coherent understanding of quantum nature falls naturally into place, providing appropriate foundation for quantum theory and an associated world-view. The resulting Quantum Paradigm is "realist" in the sense that it provides a description of what is actually happening: namely the arena of all happening is Mind or Consciousness—from which mind and matter, subject and object, individual and collective, and time and space co-dependently arise. The subject matter of quantum theory then becomes the fundamental mind-function of distinction ("measurement"), resulting in information and its statistical correlations. The message of quantum mechanics is surprising: the basic components of objects—the particles, electrons, quarks, etc.—cannot be thought of as 'self-existent'. The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is 'empirical reality', of experience. " The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. " —James Jeans Anomalous phenomena such as ESP and psychokinesis, collective consciousness, and synchronicity that are considered impossible in the context of the classical paradigm, fit naturally in, and can in turn provide evidence for the Quantum Paradigm. Spirituality and

arXiv (Cornell University), 2019

Recent experiments (gedanken or otherwise) and theorems in quantum mechanics (QM), such as new iterations on Wigner's friend and delayed choice, have led many people to claim that QM is not compatible with determinate and intersubjectively consistent experience (what some call absoluteness of observed events), such as experiences of experimental outcomes. In the case of delayed choice the tension is between our experience of free will and a possible "superdeterminism" at work in QM. At the very least, some have suggested that the only way to save absoluteness of observed events, is to give up one or more of the following assumptions: free will, locality, or the completeness of QM. Our goal in this paper is to provide a take on QM that explains why there is and must always be determinate and intersubjectively consistent experience about all experimental outcomes (absoluteness of observed events). Our take accepts the completeness of the theory and requires no invocation of relative states (e.g., outcomes being relative to branches, conscious observers, etc.). And finally, this take requires no allegedly hybrid models such as claims about "subjective collapse." We provide a take on QM that yields a single world wherein all the observers (conscious or otherwise) agree about determinate and definite outcomes, because those outcomes are in fact determinate and definite. We provide a realist psi-epistemic take on QM that saves the absoluteness of observed events and the completeness of QM, without giving up free will or locality. We also show how our realist psi-epistemic account eliminates the measurement problem and, coupled with our take on neutral monism, also eliminates the hard problem of consciousness. The key to all this is to let go of the following offending assumptions: 1) physicalism, 2) fundamentalism, and relatedly 3) dualism about conscious experience, 4) the notion that fundamental explanation is always constructive, causal or dynamical, and relatedly, 5) realism about the wavefunction. Together these assumptions force us into the hard problem, they force us into the measurement problem, and they force us to seek the solutions to these problems in fundamental physics, e.g., by trying to relate these problems to one another directly, with very little success. Sometimes, when a problem is deeply intractable the best move is to jettison the offending assumptions that led to the problem in the first place. This is precisely what we do herein.

Two questions are currently asked about the relations between consciousness and quantum physics : “how can consciousness interact with physical systems, thus imposing a reduction of their quantum state ?” ; or, conversely, “how can consciousness be produced by a process involving physical systems described by quantum theory ?”. In this paper, I argue that both questions are misplaced. They reveal an explicit or implicit dualist prejudice. The dualist prejudice is explicit in Wigner-like approaches. And it is implicit in monistic physicalist approaches that seek to reduce or eliminate consciousness. Indeed, even accepting that consciousness is something that does or does not exist, and/or that consciousness is produced as an emergent property of something, is tantamount to proceed in the shadow cast by former dualism. This is why I here start from a thoroughly non-dualist, phenomenological, premise. According to phenomenology, consciousness is no thing or property that may exist or not exist. “Consciousness” is the misleading name we give to the precondition for any ascription of existence or inexistence. I then review several interpretations of quantum mechanics according to such premise : from London & Bauer’s and Everett’s, to QBism (Quantum Bayesianism). QBism is found to be in exquisite agreement with a phenomenological stance.

Foundations of Physics

Three recent arguments seek to show that the universal applicability of unitary quantum theory is inconsistent with the assumption that a wellconducted measurement always has a definite physical outcome. In this paper I restate and analyze these arguments. The import of the first two is diminished by their dependence on assumptions about the outcomes of counterfactual measurements. But the third argument establishes its intended conclusion. Even if every well-conducted quantum measurement we ever make will have a definite physical outcome, this argument should make us reconsider the objectivity of that outcome.

2021

Relational Quantum Mechanics is an interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Carlo Rovelli. Rovelli argues that, in the same spirit as Einstein's theory of relativity, physical quantities can only have definite values relative to an observer. Relational Quantum Mechanics is hereby able to offer a principled explanation of the problem of nested measurement, also known as Wigner's friend. Since quantum states are taken to be relative states that depend on both the system and the observer, there is no inconsistency in the descriptions of the observers. Federico Laudisa has recently argued, however, that Rovelli's description of Wigner's friend is ambiguous, because it does not take into account the correlation between the observer and the quantum system. He argues that if this correlation is taken into account, the problem with Wigner's friend disappears and, therefore, a relativization of quantum states is not necessary. I will show that Laudisa's criticism is not justified. To the extent that the correlation can be accurately reflected, the problem of Wigner's friend remains. An interpretation of quantum mechanics that provides a solution to it, like Relational Quantum Mechanics, is therefore a welcome one.

Healey recently argued that a version of the extended Wigner's friend Gedankenexperiment due to Masanes establishes a contradiction between the universal applicability of unitary quantum theory and the assumption of definite outcomes. In this paper, I argue that Healey's analysis is flawed and his conclusion is debatable.

ArXiv Pre-print

In 1929 Szilard pointed out that the physics of the observer may play a role in the analysis of experiments. The same year, Bohr pointed out that complementarity appears to arise naturally in psychology where both the objects of perception and the perceiving subject belong to 'our mental content'. Here we argue that the formalism of quantum theory can be derived from two related intuitive principles: (i) inference is a physical process performed by physical systems, observers, which are part of the experimental setup---this implies non-commutativity and imaginary-time quantum mechanics; (ii) experiments must be described from a first-person perspective---this leads to self-reference, complementarity, and real-time quantum dynamics. This approach sheds new light on the foundations of quantum theory and suggests fundamental equations in physics are typically of second order due to the physical nature of the observer. It also suggests some experimental conjectures: (i) the quantum of action could be understood as the result of the additional energy required to transition from unconscious to conscious perception; (ii) humans can observe a single photon of visible light; (iii) self-aware systems and the neural correlates of the self should be composed of two complementary sub-systems, much like the DNA molecule is composed of two strands---this may help explain the double-hemisphere architecture of the brain. Moreover, this approach may help bridge the gap between science and human experience. We discuss the potential implications of these ideas for the modern research programs on consciousness and contemplative science. As side results: (i) we show that message-passing algorithms and stochastic processes can be written in a quantum-like manner; (ii) we provide evidence that non-stoquasticity, a quantum computational resource, may be related to non-equilibrium phenomena.

Integral Review Journal, 2018

A new interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) shows that all of the baffling behavior of fundamental particles that make QM so hard to comprehend are consistent with the behavior of biological lifeforms involved in receptive-responsive relationships with one another and their environment. This raises a radical possibility that fundamental particles possess a form of sentience and this sentience enables them to form relationships that create all of the tangible matter and energy and the spatiotemporal dimensions of our universe. This paper proposes a set of underlying principles to explain how this works at the quantum level. These principles are shown to be consistent with quantum formalism. Further, this paper shows that these principles offer an intuitive explanation for why the formalism of QM takes the form that it does. Quantum formalism tells us that quantum states cannot be measured directly in their natural "coherent" form, and that quantum states must evolve gradually and linearly until a measurement occurs. Why? And why is all matter and energy quantized into packets that behave like particles when they are measured, but act more like waves when they are not being measured? And why do entangled particles act as if they "know" and "respond" to each other's state no matter how far apart they are? This paper proposes that if sentience is the cause of this strange behavior, then the irrational nature of human relationships that we experience every day can offer insights that directly relate to the strange behavior of quanta. This opens the door to an intuitive understanding of QM. This paper shows that there are three fundamental lenses of perception (sentient ways of sensing and responding) that appear to guide the behavior of all quanta and living organisms: first-person, second-person, and third-person perception. Quanta and life forms use these three lenses to form different types of relationships, and these relationships are what create the natural universe. These principles reveal an intangible aspect to sentient relationships, represented by quantum states that shape everything happening in the tangible, measurable world. However, the main value of an interpretation of QM is its ability to offer potential solutions to existing problems in science. Two speculative proposals will be reviewed briefly. The first offers new insights into how the field of space may emerge at the quantum level. This has the potential to resolve the problems with developing a 1 Doug Marman has been lecturing, writing, and leading classes on the exploration of consciousness for more than forty years. His recent book,

Foundations of Physics

The aim of this paper is to invalidate the hypothesis that consciousness is necessary in the quantum measurement process. In order to achieve this target, I propose a considerable modification of the Schrödinger's cat and the Dead-Alive Physicist thought experiments, called "PIAR", short for "Physicist Inside the Ambiguous Room". A specific strategy has enabled me to plan the experiment in such a way as to logically justify the inconsistency of the above hypothesis and to oblige its supporters to rely on an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics in which a real world of phenomena exists independently of our conscious mind and where observers play no special role. Moreover, the description of the measurement apparatus will be complete, in the sense that the experiment, given that it includes also the experimenter, will begin and end exclusively within a sealed room. Hence, my analysis will provide a logical explanation of the relationship between the observer and the objects of her/his experimental observation; this and a few other implications will be discussed in the fifth section and in the conclusions.