Tag Archives: Sean Carroll

Emergent, not dead

Leave a reply

When physicists and philosophers talk about the universe, which they do a lot, they often talk about what is fundamental and what is not. What Is not fundamental is described as emergent, meaning that it emerges from what is fundamental. In the world of physics what is fundamental are the elementary particles and forces of which all other things are comprised. Everything else is emergent. That includes all combinations of fundamental things, starting with the atomic elements, the molecules, materials and substances, objects in space—planets, stars, and galaxies—and of course, all the organisms and entities that exist on objects in space, such as bacteria, plants, animals, and humans. All these things are described as systems created from components of fundamental particles and forces.

So far, so good.

The story gets more complicated when physicists and philosophers talk about causation and agency. There is a view among many that what is fundamental is more real than what is not. Emergent things are either not real or at least somewhat less real than what is fundamental. And even if admitted to be real, emergent things such as systems have less power—less causative power—than what is fundamental. Under this common view, all things and events in the universe result from the movements and interactions of fundamental particles and forces. The actions and interactions of emergent things and systems result from and are caused by fundamental particles and forces. Exclusively. Causation moves in only one direction, from what is fundamental to what is not. There is no reverse causation or feedback loop from emergent things to fundamental things.

Does downward causation break the laws of physics?

Downward causation refers to the power of things that are not fundamental, i.e., all emergent things and systems, to exercise causation or agency. Such top-down causation is often described as supernatural and a violation of physical laws. Physicist Sean Carroll talks about focusing on one atom in a finger of his hand and predicting its behavior based on “the laws of nature and some specification of the conditions in its surroundings—the other atoms, the electric and magnetic fields, the force due to gravity, and so on.” Such a prediction does not require “understanding something about the bigger person-system.”[1] It goes without saying that the action of moving his hand is not relevant to predicting the motion of the atom.

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder calls it a “common misunderstanding” that a computer algorithm written by a programmer controls electrons by switching transistors on and off or that a particle accelerator operated by a scientist causes the collision of two protons to produce a Higgs boson. In both cases it is the deeper fundamental physical composition, i.e., the neutrons, protons, and electrons, that explain the events; it is simply useful to describe the behaviors of the systems (the computer, the accelerator, the programmer, the scientist) in practical system-level terms.

[W]e find explanations for one level’s functions by going to a deeper level, not the other way around…. [A]ccording to the best current evidence, the world is reductionist: the behavior of large composite objects derives from the behavior of their constituents….[2]

The assumption of determinism

These assertions are not entirely uncontroversial. First, there is no universal agreement that the behavior of higher-level things can always be explained by looking at lower-level things and the behavior of constituents.[3] Systems admittedly are combinations of fundamental things, but those combinations result in properties and behaviors that don’t occur at lower levels. Many of the properties relevant to the behavior of emergent systems don’t even exist at the level of fundamental particles and forces. Trying to explain all emergent system behavior by describing the behavior of fundamental particles is somewhat like trying to explain a computer game by describing the opening and closing of logic gates on integrated circuits.[4] You might learn what’s occurring in the computer hardware, but you wouldn’t be able to play the game.

There also seems to be an assumption that “explained by” is equivalent to “caused by”. If you can describe the properties and behavior of a system in terms of particles and forces, then the behavior of the system is caused by those particles and forces. The ability to describe a system in terms of fundamental particles and forces seems relatively established, i.e., when an arm moves, that movement also constitutes the movement of many billions of tiny particles under the influence of fundamental forces. That much is uncontroversial. But whether those particles and forces also can decide to move the arm does not follow quite so logically or incontrovertibly.

That last step requires another key assumption—that the behavior of systems is completely determined by the behavior of fundamental particles and forces. It requires a conclusion that “using the laws of physics to move my arm” is equivalent to “having my arm moved by the laws of physics.” In other words, it assumes complete determinism, which means the behavior of the universe can be analogized to a long chain of dominoes stretching back to the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, all falling in a deterministic pattern. Your arm, my arm, and any decision to raise any arm are all dominoes in that chain.

The problem with dominoes

On the face of it, a long chain of dominoes seems a simplistic and brittle design architecture for 13.8 billion years of history. But putting aside the fragility of the design, there is a more fundamental problem with a picture of the universe based on a chain of dominoes—our deepest theory of physical reality says that what is fundamental is not wholly deterministic. Quantum evolution is not deterministic but probabilistic. It integrates uncertainty, probability and indeterminacy into what is fundamental. Determinism relies on an unbroken chain of events and causes. Quantum mechanics breaks the causative chain at a very deep level—the level of fundamental particles and forces.

The problem with indeterminacy

The story does not end there, however. Because quantum indeterminacy does not run rampant through the macroscopic world. Nor does it not cause quantum mechanics to produce nonsensical, random, or chaotic results. No, in fact, despite breaking the causative chain of determinism, quantum mechanics produces extremely accurate predictions and is one of the most successful tools ever created by physics; it is the foundation of much of our advanced technology. Microscopic quantum indeterminacy simply does not result in ubiquitous macroscopic indeterminacy.

The reason is that the seemingly random indeterminacy of quantum state reduction, i.e., what we might call quantum jumps, occurs within the probability distribution of the quantum wave function. As a result many, many microscopic quantum jumps average out to produce aggregate results predicted by the wave function. The laws of probability cause those many, many trillions of tiny quantum interactions to produce a macroscopic world that looks like the world predicted by the wave function and by classical physics. The macrocosm does not look like the quantum world; it looks like Newton’s classical world.

So have we come full circle? Does quantum indeterminacy break the causative chain of determinism and then fail to affect the macroscopic world at all? Does it average out so completely that it becomes irrelevant to emergent systems?

Probabilities are not dominoes

We don’t know the full answer—yet. But it seems vanishingly unlikely that something as fundamental as quantum indeterminacy plays no role in the macroscopic world.

It is true that portions of the macroscopic world seem to act in a largely understandable way consistent with a more determinist view of physical behavior. And yet we know that if we drill down deep enough into the behavior of macroscopic systems, we will find beneath the surface both practical and theoretical uncertainty limiting what we can measure and know about quantum behavior.

We also know that there is a difference between predicting the probability of something happening and predicting what actually happens. There is a tension between those things, a dynamic that makes a difference, even in the emergent world. Probabilities are predicted distributions over many occurrences. In any one occurrence, the particular result is not predictable. So even if the broad-scale average behavior of emergent systems were predictable, the behavior of each system in each event is not. Nature presents us with an average, not an absolute, picture of the macroscopic world; classical physics works as an approximation of quantum physics only because of averages and scale.

Unpredictable variation, in fact, is a requirement for application of the laws of probability. Probability results in a meaningful representation of behavior only if there exists a large number of different events whose outcomes average into a distribution. That requires the occurrence of events which are not individually predictable. In other words, for the aggregate behavior of systems to converge on a meaningful probability, individual systems must have the ability to do something improbable. That must be true for any system whose actions are not predictable with 100% probability. Anything short of 100% requires that the system must on occasion do something less than 100% probable—something improbable or unlikely or even random.

That, of course, is exactly what many emergent systems do. From tumbling bacteria[5] to complex weather patterns to human beings, complex emergent systems on any given day do not conform to the average. Instead, they engage in deeply unpredictable behavior which fits a model of the universe based on probabilistic evolution, at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels.

Emergent systems learn to do random things

Natural selection may teach biological systems to do exactly that. Neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell theorizes that complex biological systems take advantage of the chance introduced by quantum indeterminacy to exert causal influence.

[T]he really crucial point is that the introduction of chance undercuts necessity’s monopoly on causation. The low-level physical details and forces ae not causally comprehensive; they are not sufficient to determine how a system will evolve from state to state. This opens the door for higher-level features to have some causal influence in determining which way the physical system will evolve. This influence is exerted by establishing contextual constraints: in other words, the way the system is organized can also do some causal work. In the brain, that organization embodies knowledge, beliefs, goals, and motivations—our reasons for doing things. This means some things are driven neither by necessity nor by chance; instead, they are up to us.[6]

Emergent systems evolve a design architecture that leverages indeterminacy without breaking the laws of physics.

The universe is not deterministic, and as a consequence, the low-level laws of physics do not exhaustively encompass all types of causation. The laws themselves are not violated, of course—there’s nothing in the way living systems work that contravenes them nor any reason to think they need to be modified when atoms or molecules find themselves in a living organism. It’s just that they are not sufficient either to determine or explain the behavior of the system.[7]

In particular, he describes how organisms use indeterminacy, embodied in “an inherent unreliability and randomness in neural activity,”[8] to exercise causative power in an extraordinary way: “[O]rganisms can sometimes choose to do something random.”[9]

Self-governing systems constrained by probability

Is it possible that the universe can construct autonomous, self-governing, decision-making systems? Can fundamental particles and forces create causation engines that are constrained by the laws of physics and probability but not fully determined by the particles and forces that build them?

Philosopher of physics Jennan Ismael argues that determinism does not rule out the existence of autonomous systems “with robust capabilities for self-governance.”[10] Self-governing systems can have the “felt ability to act spontaneously in the world, to do what [they] choose in the here and now, by whim or fancy, free of any felt constraints.”[11] These emergent systems cannot violate the laws of physics, but they can use them to their own advantage. They can choose without any other local force or subsystem compelling them to do so; they even can engage in capricious or random behavior in defiance of any attempt to predict their actions.

The catch is that this relatively unconstrained freedom exists only for subsystems of the universe where local laws and states are subject to exogenous interventions and no other subsystem can exercise complete control. The big picture is still governed by the global laws of the universe, where there can be no exogenous interventions (because the universe includes everything). Determinism still rules, operating with global laws at the global level. But at the local level, there is freedom for self-governing systems to influence each other and exercise autonomy.

Ismael rejects the notion that quantum indeterminacy changes this picture. And yet her compatibilist description of reality, and her distinction between local freedom and global determinism, looks and feels almost like the universe described by Mitchell—a universe in which the door is open for systems to evolve causative power. Ismael describes the development of the self with autonomous and self-governing capabilities in a way that is very like how Mitchell describes the evolution of free agency through natural selection.[12] In the universe described by both Ismael and Mitchell, fundamental particles and forces enable the existence of emergent systems that exercise agency even to the point of choosing random behavior.

What if the picture Ismael offers is almost entirely correct, except that quantum indeterminacy and probability govern at the global level? Such a world would look and feel like the world she describes, but it would not assume a global principle of absolute determinism. It would be governed by probability at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels. Instead of circumscribed local freedom, self-governing systems would have the relative free agency described by Mitchell, allowing and encouraging them to exercise causative power to do things for reasons and even to do unexpected things.         

What if that is who we are?

It is a truism that ideas can be powerful. Yet it is difficult to describe an idea in the language of fundamental particles and forces. The Pythagorean Theorem has influenced the history of mathematics, but what would the theorem look like represented only by fundamental particles and forces? Perhaps the brain of Pythagoras could be represented as a system constructed from fundamental things, but how exactly would particles and forces represent the mathematical concepts employed by Pythagoras—concepts which undoubtedly have exercised causal influence on other mathematicians, engineers, and scientists? The same question can be asked about the concepts of quantum mechanics. Fermions and bosons may behave quantum mechanically, but could they conceptualize quantum mechanics?

Unless we conclude that concepts have no causative influence—even the concepts of quantum mechanics—emergent systems must be able to exercise some causal power, including through the creation of ideas and concepts.

The inference seems inescapable that the universe and the fundamental particles and forces that comprise it can construct emergent systems with causal power—systems that can’t move the atoms of a finger by breaking the laws of physics, but can choose to move a hand.

Emergent, not dead.

[1] Carroll (2016), p. 109.

[2] Hossenfelder (2022), pp. 88-89. She does acknowledge that there are unanswered questions about the connections between the layers. “Why is it that the details from short distances do not matter over long distances? Why doesn’t the behavior of protons and neutrons inside atoms matter for the orbits of planets? How come what quarks and gluons do inside protons doesn’t affect the efficiency of drugs? Physicists have a name for this disconnect—the decoupling of scales—but no explanation. Maybe there isn’t one. The world has to be some way and not another, and so we will always be left with unanswered why questions. Or maybe this particular why question tells us we’re missing an overarching principle that connects the different layers.” Ibid., p. 89 (emphasis in original).

[3] See e.g., Anderson (1972), Ellis (2020).

[4] Analogy suggested by a passage in Ismael (2016), p. 217.

[5] Biologist Martin Heisenberg describes the ability of certain bacteria to initiate random tumbles in a search for food and a favorable environment. Heisenberg (2009).

[6] Mitchell (2023), pp. 163-164 (emphasis in original).

[7] Mitchell (2023), pp. 168-169.

[8] Mitchell (2023), p. 175 (emphasis in original).

[9] Mitchell (2023), p. 175.

[10] Ismael (2016), p. xi.

[11] Ismael (2016), p. 228.

[12] And also similar to the picture developed by Daniel Dennett. Mitchell (2023), p. 151. Dennett (2017).

There is a record kept

Leave a reply

Physicists talk about conservation of information. It is a fundamental law of classical physics—information cannot be lost or destroyed. Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind calls it the zero-minus law because it comes before all other laws—before the first laws and even before the zeroth laws.[1]

It means that each moment in time includes information about the state of the universe in that moment and every moment leading up to that moment. The location and momentum of every microscopic particle in a system, together with the forces and fields interacting with those particles, comprise the complete specification of the system in that moment. From that complete information, it is possible to determine exactly the state of the system in the immediately prior moment. And with that information comes the information about the state of the system prior to that. The entire prior history of a system, including the universe, is time reversible from the information contained in any one moment.

The result is that information about every prior moment is never lost. It cannot be lost. It exists in the full specification of every subsequent moment and the operation of the laws of physics on the particles, forces, and fields interacting in the system.

Not just the “important” information, but all information

The information in that moment includes everything about the system that could possibly be known. It is not limited to information that we have the practical means of discovering or knowing, but includes all the information, whether we know it or not. Theoretically, the complete specification of the system includes information about every element of physical existence in the universe at that moment.[2] That means the state of every planet, star, and galaxy, every molecule, atom and subatomic particle, and every entity of any kind. That includes information about all of biological existence, every cell and neuron in the brain of every entity. Even our thoughts and desires, which at some level arise from our physical existence, are included in the record of that moment.[3]

Are the past and the future as real as the present?

Einstein believed in what is called a “block universe”. He believed that conservation of information and the principle of relativity demonstrate that the flow of time is an illusion created by our perceptions. In the reality beneath our perceptions, time is not absolute, and the past and the future are as real as the present. If that view is correct, then the record kept by the universe may reflect more than a trail of time-reversible moments; it may reveal a universe in which every moment lives forever, in which moments actually do not die. We may exist even after we seem to die, as do those who came before us, and those that come after. We all exist because all moments exist at once in the block universe.

Is the record kept forever?

Physicists debate what forever really means. Black holes exist throughout the universe, and nothing, not even light, escapes a black hole. Stephen Hawking posited the possibility of radiation escaping from the event horizon of black holes as they dissipate over time. But we do not know if the physical information in so-called “Hawking radiation” is time-reversible in any meaningful way. If not, then the information about any particle that falls into a black hole is not conserved, but lost forever.

There is also the possibility that the universe will end its existence in a state of maximum entropy or “heat death”, with all information seeped away in a great expanse of dissipated nothingness. If that is the future universe, then all memory of our existence may be lost in that final state of maximum entropy, without any possibility of time-reversible recreation of the moments leading up to that state. But physicists have also theorized that our universe is one in a cycle of universes, that our universe will not die in a state of information-free nothingness, but rather will evolve to an end-state which could serve as the foundation of a new universe. Information about our universe could influence the wave function of the next universe, which then could influence another, on and on.[4]

Is conservation of information only a hopeful dream?

It is a comforting thought to imagine that we and all our loved ones exist forever in a physically possible block universe. But is it wishful thinking? Do physicists theorize about information recovery simply as a form of consolation?[5] Do we imagine that the universe will remember us to feel better about the inevitable loss of all that we and other humans are? Will Shakespeare and all his creations—and everything ever thought or created by any human—cease to exist without any record whatsoever? We want to believe that the universe keeps a record of our existence that cannot be erased, that exists for all time.

But time may not be what Einstein believed it to be. Time may pass. And not come back.

The block universe requires one arrow in and one arrow out

Conservation of information is based on the premise that both the past and the future can be calculated from the present. There must be one arrow in from the past and one arrow out to the future.[6] But quantum mechanics tells us that the arrow in may not tell the full story of the past and the arrow out may be only one of many possible futures. Conservation of information may not be absolute.

The future is probabilistic, but random

Evolution of particles and waves in the subatomic quantum world is governed by the quantum wave function described in the Schrödinger equation. Continuous evolution under the Schrodinger equation is time symmetric, even time-reversible, meaning the equations can be solved backward or forward, predicting the future or describing the past. The wave function produces weighted amplitudes that predict with great accuracy the evolving probabilities of a range of outcomes in the future. But the Schrödinger equation predicts only probabilities; it cannot predict the specific outcome of any one event. Specific outcomes are governed by a second phase of the quantum wave function, called quantum state reduction, in which the continuous evolution of the wave function devolves or reduces into discontinuous evolution and the probabilities resolve themselves into specific unique occurrences in the macroscopic world. Effectively, the dice are thrown, and the range of probabilities described by the equation is replaced by a single outcome—a unique event in time. There is no way to know in advance what that unique event will be. The equations predict the likelihoods of different events, but the actual unique outcome in each instance is a random result that occurs somewhere within the range of probabilities.

That means there is more than one possible arrow out to the future. The block universe may be less settled (or blockish) than we once thought.

The unrealized possibilities of the past are not recoverable

Perhaps even more significantly, the arrow in from the past cannot be reconstructed in its complete form based on information about the present. After the second phase of the wave function results in a specific random outcome, it is not possible to determine the shape of the wave function that preceded it. The weighted amplitudes of the Schrödinger equation, as well as the probabilities predicted by those amplitudes, cannot be recalculated from the outcome of the quantum reduction process. We can observe the result of the process, but we can no longer calculate the range of probabilities that produced that result. One possibility occurs, and all others are forgotten.

An imperfect record

We are left with a situation in which the future is probabilistic in general, but unpredictable in a specific instance; the future always has an element of randomness. The past also cannot be recreated fully from the present. We can find the specific event that preceded the present moment and track the string of present moments that resulted from the evolution of the wave function, but we cannot recreate the range of possibilities and probabilities that generated that string of moments. The logical conclusion is that the future is never completely known, and the possibilities of the past are lost forever.

So yes, there is a record kept. But the record is incomplete and likely impermanent. Moments are created in time, and time may not be eternal. Even if it were, time records only moments that actually occur in the macrocosmic world. Time is not a record of the manifold possibilities inherent in the microcosmic quantum world. In that world, there may be no record at all. Moments as we know them may not exist in that world. Moments come into being when the dice are thrown, when a unique outcome results from the second phase in the evolution of the wave function. It is that moment that is recorded in the temporal history of the universe. All other possible moments are lost to the macrocosmic world. They continue to exist, if at all, only in the great lake of quantum interaction from which all possibilities spring.

[1] “We could call it the first law, but unfortunately there are already two first laws—Newton’s and the first law of thermodynamics. There is even a zeroth law of thermodynamics. So we have to go back to a minus first law to gain priority for what is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all physical laws—the conservation of information.” Susskind (2013), p. 9 (emphasis in original).

[2] “[C]onservation of information implies that each moment contains precisely the right amount of information to determine every other moment.” Carroll (2016), p. 34. Information is here defined as “the ‘microscopic’ information: the complete specification of the state of the system, everything you could possibly know about it. When speaking of information being conserved, we mean literally all of it.” P. 34.

[3] “[T]he universe keeps a faithful record of the information about all you have ever said, thought, and done.” Hossenfelder (2022), p.14.

[4] Penrose (2010).

[5] Horgan (2020).

[6] “The conservation of information is simply the rule that every state has one arrow in and one arrow out.” Susskind (2013), pp. 9-10.

The universe is us

Leave a reply

The universe surrounds us. It is something we observe, analyze, and explore. It is out there. Always. So much so that we may forget a key empirical fact—we are part of the universe, not detached from it.

That is why the universe is us. As much as black holes and galaxies and spacetime, we are part of the physical reality of the universe. It is us, and we are it.

I do not mean that the universe is like us or that humans are the purpose of the universe. I do not mean to imply species pride or anything else anthropocentric or anthropomorphic. I mean something more prosaic—that we are not separate from the universe, but included in it. We are participants, not external observers.

The universe is not only us, but it is us

The universe is bigger than us, of course, but it encompasses us. Whatever we have, the universe has. That includes the physical structures that comprise the subatomic and cellular components of our tangible matter, but it also includes the qualitative and intangible properties associated with conscious matter, such as knowledge, ideas and desires, creative impulses and output. The universe has all these things—because it has conscious entities within it.

Our theories of reality must comprehend all that is part of the universe, both tangible and intangible. So when we explore the microcosmic world or the vast reaches of space, looking to answer questions about the universe, we should remember that to know the universe, we must search ourselves, too.

Nothing human is alien to the cosmos

It is an empirical reality that the universe contains all that we have, a fact that suggests answers to some recurring human questions.

Is the universe alive? Yes, the universe is alive because it generates life within it. Viewed as a complete system, it is a system that produces life, so it is a living system.

Does the universe learn? Yes, for the same reason. We are part of the system that is the universe, so everything we learn the universe also learns. The same is true for every other organism or entity in the universe with the capacity to learn. The universe is a knowledge ecosystem.[1]

Can the universe imagine? Whatever we imagine, the universe imagines. We imagine for the universe, because we are part of it. Therefore imagination is a property of the universe.

Does the universe have meaning? The universe has a search for meaning, because we search for meaning. Whether we or any part of the universe finds meaning is a different question. But if conscious entities search for meaning, and even create meaning, then the universe has whatever meaning we give it. It has the meaning that any part of the universe finds or creates.

Am I imputing human experience to an otherwise unaware and mechanistic universe? Perhaps, but even the question assumes an external reference point—that it is possible to observe the universe from the outside and impute qualities to it that it does not possess. It assumes that a mechanistic universe does not possess the qualities of the mechanisms within it. How can either of these things be true? It is indisputable that we are inside the universe, not outside of it, i.e., that we are organic mechanisms created within and as part of a mechanistic universe. So how is it possible to impute to the universe qualities that it does not have, when it has all that we have and more?

Does the universe care about what we contribute?

We know that part of the universe cares—our part. But what does that mean? What does it mean that the universe as a system produces us and therefore produces and cares about intangible things such as life, consciousness, love, art, concepts? Does it mean that the universe as a whole cares about these things and is structured in some way to produce them?

Alternatively, have we come to exist randomly and accidentally, unique as the only part of the universe that cares about random intangibles? Perhaps everything the universe knows of life and consciousness results solely from a one-off coincidence on one planet in one solar system among billions of galaxies.

If so, perhaps we truly are uniquely enshrined as spectators of the universe, removed from meaningful participation, self-appointed observers at the center of a new pre-Copernican universe revolving around our observations, our senses, our awareness of the universe as the only entities even conscious of its existence. Such a conception is almost solipsistically anthropocentric, based on an assumption that the cosmos can have no meaning and no knowledge of itself except by virtue of our observation.

Is the universe as neutral and unaware as we think it is?

Whether the mechanistic universe “cares” or not, if the earth and everything human were to disappear tomorrow, we would exist in the experience of the universe. It would continue to contain the specific information necessary to determine our existence. The universe could create life again. Life is something the universe can do. Is it something that the universe does?

Perhaps the universe is not so unaware and passive as we imagine. Some part of it may always care about us, if only the part that is us. The same may be true for every other living or conscious entity. Perhaps our existence, our thoughts, our desires, our wish to live—all belong in the universe. Perhaps we are integral components in ways that we do not comprehend.

Does the cosmos have some engineering and biological selection process that tends to produce life and consciousness? Are evolution and natural selection inherent in its physical structure, whether organic or inorganic? Are there other places where the cosmos nurtures subsystems like ours, experiencing itself through these many worlds according to some deep evolutionary structure inherent in the physics of the universe?

Is that what it means that the universe is a system that produces life and consciousness? Does the universe—as a system generating conscious entities as appendages of itself—have some built-in preference for existence over non-existence?

[1] This is true, perhaps more so, if we think of “information” in the technical sense that physicists often describe it. See Rovelli (2020), pp. 100-102; Carroll (2016), p. 34, “…each moment contains precisely the right amount of information to determine every other moment.”

Process is all!

Leave a reply

“Men must endure their going hence, even as their coming hither: Ripeness is all.” William Shakespeare, King Lear (Act 5, Scene 2)

“Life is not a substance, like water or rock; it’s a process, like fire or a wave crashing on the shore. It’s a process that begins, lasts for a while, and ultimately ends.” Carroll (2016), p. 2.

Existence is process

A foundational premise of this blog is that we humans have learned an important thing or two about our universe. One of those important things is that the universe is about process, not substance.

We often think of physical reality as founded on fundamental particles and laws that govern the motion of those particles. Process, on the other hand, is something intangible that occurs in time. It begins and then ends, which is different from concrete stuff like water or rock. But we have learned that beneath the surface of that supposed tangible reality of substance, is a deeper reality in which all existence is intangible, consisting of process, not substance.

The underlying truth is that we live in a universe of events and interactions, more than a universe of irreducible things and particles.[1] Water and rock, not to mention mountains and planets, are more accurately described as slow processes rather than permanent substances. All substances and particles exist in a state of constant change. They represent knots of energy in fields of process and interaction. Everything we know is process. It is what the universe is.

So yes, life is not a substance. Nor is anything else in the universe. Process, not substance, is the constituent element of the universe. It is the core of reality.

The most fundamental “thing” in the universe is process

Beneath all the processes familiar to us is one process that is the foundation of all others—the quantum wave function. To the best of our knowledge, the quantum wave function is the most fundamental “thing” in the universe. And that fundamental thing is a process, not a thing at all.[2]  

It is the process that defines the quantum universe, a world of infinite possibilities existing simultaneously across the plane of quantum reality, a world where all things are possible because all outcomes and experiences exist in superposition with each other.

That one process also creates the great illusion in which we live. The wave function both generates a world of all possibilities and provides a mechanism for transforming those possibilities into the unique events that we experience in the macrocosmic world.

Process drives the engine of time

Quantum state reduction—the process of reducing all those possibilities into actual results—produces the stream of outcomes that we know as history. Somehow the wave function transforms a set of complex-number-weighted alternatives into real-number probabilities, enabling those probabilities to play out in the macrocosm and resolve into a stream of unique outcomes. It makes each successive moment uniquely different from the last. It is how the universe rolls the dice, creating time and history as each roll brings one unique moment after another.

Process may be the origin of consciousness

This process of resolving probabilities into outcomes underlies the entire macrocosmic universe. It is also the most fundamental characteristic of consciousness. Whether we call it “free will” or simply engineered decision-making, humans and other conscious entities have the apparent ability to make choices among a range of possibilities. The choices are not unconstrained; they are limited by the physical probabilities attached to each possible outcome, the decision-making capabilities of each entity, and the laws of physics. The probabilities are defined by the wave function for the moment and context in which the choice is made. Each choice then helps define the probabilities inherent in the wave function of the next moment, which results in another choice. The process of consciousness is a living dramatization of quantum state reduction.

We don’t know yet how the physics of quantum state reduction enables consciousness. There may be quantum interaction in the brains or nervous systems of conscious entities.[3] Biological processes may be constrained by deterministic necessity to advance the universe from one nanosecond to the next with quantum state reduction. The whole macrocosm, including consciousness, may be the result of a constant process of subatomic state reduction that materializes the stage on which history plays out.

Quantum state reduction and its connection to consciousness are not fully explained by today’s physics. When the physics is known, however, it may be that the process of quantum state reduction is the origin of the process of consciousness in the universe.

All conscious entities are connected to that fundamental process

Human consciousness, like human life, is not permanent in the form in which we experience it. Our individual consciousness is time-based and time-limited; as far as we know, we experience unique consciousness only while the components of consciousness that comprise our existence are part of a living person. We are process, not substance.

As process, however, we are intimately connected to the process at the core of history and time, the process that creates the macrocosmic illusion in which we live. We are participants in that process. We help define the universe through the process of resolving probabilities into unique outcomes. It is what we do and what we are.

Is that one process also the root of connected consciousness?

If conscious entities inherit consciousness from the primary process of quantum state reduction, does that physical process also connect forms of consciousness? Is the physical foundation for connected consciousness located in quantum interaction that both germinates the process of consciousness and connects all conscious entities across the universe? Is quantum state reduction the raw material of connected consciousness?

[1] See e.g., Rovelli (2017), pp. 97-99, “The world is not a collection of things, it is a collection of events.”

[2] See Professor Carroll again. “Not only does the deepest layer of reality not consist of things like ‘oceans’ and ‘mountains’; it doesn’t even consist of things like ‘electrons’ and ‘photons’. It’s just the quantum wave function. Everything else is a convenient way of talking.” Carroll (2016), p. 171

[3] Roger Penrose argues that human understanding includes a fundamental non-computable component. In his view, the source of that non-computability is likely to be found in quantum state reduction, which he believes must occur in the subatomic workings of the human brain. Penrose (1994), pp. 348-388. For a full review of the fascinating Orch OR theory of quantum consciousness developed by Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, see Hameroff and Penrose (2014).