Tag Archives: state vector reduction

Electrons R Us

Leave a reply

“Einstein could not bring himself to believe that ‘God plays dice with the world,’ but perhaps we could reconcile him to the idea that ‘God lets the world run free’.” – John Conway & Simon Kochen, “The Free Will Theorem”[1]

Are fundamental particles the source of free will in the universe? More specifically, does the unpredictable quantum behavior of electrons and other micro particles enable macro-level free choice?

Philosophers have puzzled over questions like these since Democritus and Epicurus.[2] The free will theorem of mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen addresses the quantum version of the question, famously asserting that if humans have free will, then electrons also have free will.[3] The theorem proves mathematically that the universe cannot be deterministic because the quantum behavior of particles is not determined by the past history of the particles or the past history of the entire universe. Quantum behavior is non-deterministic, therefore “[n]ature itself is non-deterministic.”[4]

Why do particles behave in unexplained ways?

Physicists have long observed that particles behave in a curious and unpredictable way during quantum evolution. In the initial phase of evolution, particles and their wave functions evolve over time according to the Schrödinger equation, with predictions of particle behavior changing in an expected and deterministic way. In this phase the future direction and behavior of a particle and its wave function is determined by its prior direction and behavior. In a later phase of quantum evolution, however, when the predicted behavior of a particle is tested with a measurement, something different happens. Instead of behaving in a predicted and determined way, the wave function seems to collapse, and the particle jumps to a specific measured state which cannot be predicted with specificity.[5] Physicists cannot say why or how the specific result occurs in that instance. It is in the range of possible results predicted by the Schrödinger equation, but the mechanism by which the particular result is chosen remains unclear.

Theorists have attempted to explain this behavior by suggesting the existence of unknown or hidden factors which determine the result. The theories assume that the relevant variable simply has not been discovered yet, but its discovery will explain the particular path taken by the particle and its wave function to reach the particular result in each instance. These are called hidden-variable theories.

Electrons make “free” choices

Conway and Kochen analyzed mathematically whether it is possible for hidden variables to determine the outcome of quantum reduction. Relying on non-controversial facts of quantum mechanics, they showed that if an experimenter is free to choose the experiment conducted on a particle, then it can be proven mathematically that the particle is “free” to choose the particular measurement result.[6] In other words, if the experimenter’s choice of how to conduct the experiment is not predetermined by an unknown factor, then it is impossible for the particle’s choice to be predetermined by an unknown factor.[7] The particle is as “free” as the experimenter, and the measurement result chosen by the particle can never be predicted by any preexisting event, variable, or information in the prior history of the universe.

Does the unpredictability of fundamental particles help explain human free will?

The established view among many physicists and philosophers of science is “no”. Fundamental physics is said to offer only two choices—strict determinism or pure randomness—neither of which leaves any room for human judgment or free will.[8]

In contrast, Conway and Kochen argue that the choices made by electrons are not purely “random” or “stochastic” but are more accurately described as “free” or “semi-free”. They believe that a form of “free” choice built into the quantum foundation of the universe may offer a basis for human “free” choice and will.[9]

Free or random

Quantum reduction does have some features not fully consistent with pure randomness. The seemingly “random” results of measurement are not arbitrary but fall within the range of possible results predicted by the Schrödinger equation. Over repeated measurements, the results also average out and approximate the results predicted by both the Schrödinger equation and deterministic principles of classical physics. Perhaps most significantly, particles in a state of superposition produce correlated measurement results. When one entangled particle is measured, with an unpredictable result, a measurement performed on a second twinned particle, entangled with the first, is correlated to the result of the first measurement and therefore more predictable. The twinned, entangled particles do not behave in a completely random way.[10]

Some believe that the alternative to determinism is randomness, and go on to say that “allowing randomness into the world does not really help in understanding free will.” However, this objection does not apply to the free responses of the particles that we have described. It may well be true that classically stochastic processes such as tossing a (true) coin do not help in explaining free will, but … randomness also does not explain the quantum mechanical effects described in our theorem. It is precisely the ‘semi-free’ nature of twinned particles, and more generally of entanglement, that shows that something very different from classical stochasticism is at play here.[11]

Conway and Kochen wrote as mathematicians, not neuroscientists, so offered no empirical evidence or theories to explain how the quantum behavior of particles might influence macroscopic entities such as ourselves.[12] But they had a strong belief that it was possible.[13]

Can random occurrences in the microcosm enable non-random evolution in the macroscopic world?

Even if quantum behavior were random, is there reason to believe that random action at the quantum level gives rise to non-random evolution, or something like choice, at the macroscopic level?

We know that random variation in nature can result in non-random evolution. An obvious example is quantum reduction itself, which is governed by the laws of probability. Those laws cause seemingly random results to average out and produce the appearance and reality of non-random macroscopic evolution. Natural selection is also an obvious example; it is based on the principle that random changes and genetic variations drive non-random evolution of species over time.

A less obvious example is the role that randomness and indeterminacy may play in the evolution of reason-based decision-making and free agency. In his book Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell challenges the position that “indeterminacy or randomness doesn’t get you free will.”[14] He argues instead for a direct connection between indeterminacy and the development through natural selection of reasoned judgment and meaning.

The idea is not that some events are predetermined and others are random, with neither providing agential control. It’s that a pervasive degree of indefiniteness loosens the bonds of fate and creates some room for agents to decide which way things go. The low-level details of physical systems plus the equations governing the evolution of quantum fields do not completely determine the evolution of the whole system. They are not causally comprehensive: other factors—such as constraints imposed by the higher-order organization of the system—can play a causal role in settling how things go.

In living organisms, the higher-order organization reflects the cumulative effects of natural selection, imparting true functionality relative to the purpose of persisting…. The essential purposiveness of living things leads to a situation where meaning drives the mechanisms. Acting for a reason is what living systems are physically set up to do.[15]

Uncertainty leads to interpretation, prediction, and the creation of meaning

Mitchell maintains that “indeterminacy at the lowest levels can indeed introduce indeterminacy at higher levels.”[16] If that is true, and indeterminacy is ubiquitous at both microscopic and macroscopic levels, the process of resolving that indeterminacy becomes a fundamental feature of physical existence.

For living systems, resolving indeterminacy means confronting uncertainty. Organisms, as a matter of biological necessity, must deal with a level of unreliability and randomness in the environment. It is built in. There is no escape from it.

With incomplete knowledge about expected occurrences in the environment, organisms learn to interpret events and predict what will happen in order to adapt behavior to threats or opportunities. Organisms that do this well tend to persist better than organisms that predict less well.

For organisms with neural systems such as ours, interpretation of events further leads to the imposition of meaning on the world in order to act and persist within it. The meaning given to events becomes important to survival, and acting in ways that are consistent with that meaning becomes crucial.[17] Creating meaning and acting for reasons helps us survive in an environment of uncertainty and indeterminacy. Natural selection therefore results in organic systems that specialize in interpretation and meaning and choice.

Indeterminacy means organisms can choose to behave randomly

Living systems also learn to use randomness to their benefit. Mitchell describes how the neural structures of our brains have evolved to reflect and take advantage of the uncertainty around us.

There is an inherent unreliability and randomness in neural activity that is a feature in the system, not a bug. The noisiness of neural components is a crucial factor in enabling an organism to flexibly adapt to its changing environment—both on the fly and over time.[18]

The system succeeds, not just despite uncertainty and randomness, but also because of it.

[O]rganisms have developed numerous mechanisms to directly harness the underlying randomness in neural activity. It can be drawn on to resolve an impasse in decision making, to increase exploratory behavior, or to allow novel ideas to be considered when planning the next action. These phenomena illustrate the reality of noisy processes in the nervous system and highlight a surprising but very important fact: organisms can sometimes choose to do something random.[19]

The ability to harness randomness enables the creativity that characterizes brains like ours and enhances our ability to survive and grow and persist. Mitchell cites the two-stage model of free will proposed by William James as a model for how organisms use randomness and indeterminacy to broaden the options available for decision-making.[20] Ideas spring to mind in a seemingly, or actually, random way, but then the organism applies judgment and decision-making to choose the option that suits the requirements of the system in that moment.

In humans, we recognize this capacity as creativity—in this case, creative problem solving. When we are frustrated in achieving our current goals or when none of the conceived options presents an adequate solution to the current problem, we can broaden our search beyond the obvious to consider new ideas. These do not spring from nowhere but often arise as cognitive permutations: by combining knowledge in new ways, by drawing abstract analogies with previously encountered problems in different domains, or by recognizing and questioning current assumptions that may be limiting the options that occur to us. In this way, humans become truly creative agents, using the freedom conferred by the underlying neural indeterminacy to generate genuinely original thoughts and ideas, which we then scrutinize to find the ones that actually solve the problem. Creative thoughts can thus be seen as acts of free will, facilitated by chance but filtered by choice.[21]

Similar to how new biological variations appear randomly in nature, but then are selected or eliminated through natural selection, humans rely on inherent randomness for creative inspiration, while implementing the constraints and systems of meaning that determine how we persist and why.

This model thus powerfully breaks the bonds of determinism, incorporating true randomness into our cognitive processes while protecting the causal role of the agent itself in deciding what to do.[22]

Quantum evolution and natural selection have given us the ability to resolve the indeterminacy at the heart of the universe by confronting uncertainty and harnessing it to the service of creativity, decision-making, and meaning. That is our superpower.[23]

We choose like electrons

So if Mitchell is correct that quantum indeterminacy permeates the universe and enables the evolution of choice and free agency, are Conway and Kochen also correct? Are we like electrons in a truly fundamental way?

Electrons make something like free choices through the process of quantum reduction. In that process the universe around the electron undergoes a deep transformation. Before the process the electron exists in an unrecognizable quantum world of infinite superpositioned possibilities; after the process the electron becomes part of a recognizable reality of finite events and things. The process transforms possibilities into mathematical probabilities which resolve into one unique occurrence in spacetime. The electron therefore has a superpower, too—it can resolve probabilities into unique outcomes.

Our superpower is very much like that. We are made of fundamental particles like electrons and we are creatures like electrons. The universe we inhabit is constructed through the process of quantum reduction. Second by second, the quantum world of possibilities transforms itself into the concrete world of spacetime. Our world is fundamentally about uncertain possibilities and probabilities resolving into the certainty of actual events.

That ubiquitous uncertainty is reflected in the structure and operation of our brains. By making decisions amidst uncertainty, we participate in the universal process of transforming possibilities into unique, concrete events. Natural selection has taught us to use the randomness that is foundational to that process; we use it for creative inspiration and to generate options for decision-making. We sometimes make random choices—intentionally.

The ability to make random choices—just as an electron does—may be crucial to the ability to make non-random, reasoned choices. John Conway perhaps had this in mind when he said that the free will theorem also could be called the “free whim theorem”.[24] Without the freedom to make random choices, making reasoned choices through judgment and logic may amount to nothing but determinism. True free will necessitates freedom to choose, and the “free whim” of the electron may be exactly what gives us that freedom.

Electrons R us.

[1] Conway and Kochen (2006), p. 27.

[2] Democritus argued that all action in the universe is determined by the movements of atoms. Epicurus, one of his followers, theorized that atoms swerve periodically in a way that breaks the chain of deterministic causation and preserves a conceptual basis for human freedom of action.

[3] In a follow-up article Kochen broadened the proof to demonstrate that the free behavior of particles is not dependent on the free behavior of humans. Kochen (2022).

[4] Conway and Kochen (2009), p. 230.

[5] This unexplained behavior is called the “collapse of the wave function”, also quantum state vector reduction, quantum state reduction, or simply quantum reduction.

[6] “[O]ur assertion that ‘the particles make a free decision’ is merely a shorthand form of the more precise statement that ‘the Universe makes this free decision in the neighborhood of the particles’.” Conway and Kochen (2006), p. 15.

[7] Conway and Kochen did not give credence to the proposition that experimenters are not free to choose their own experiments. “It is hard to take science seriously in a universe that in fact controls all the choices experimenters think they make. Nature could be in an insidious conspiracy to ‘confirm’ laws by denying us the freedom to make the tests that would refute them. Physical induction, the primary tool of science, disappears if we are denied access to random samples. It is also hard to take seriously the arguments of those who according to their own beliefs are deterministic automata!” Conway and Kochen (2006), p. 24.

[8] See e.g., Hossenfelder (2022).

[9] “Indeed, it is natural to suppose that this latter freedom [of particles] is the ultimate explanation of our own.” Conway and Kochen (2009), p. 230.

[10] “Although we find ourselves unable to give an operational definition of either ‘free’ or ‘random,’ we have managed to distinguish between them in our context, because free behavior can be twinned, while random behavior cannot (a remark that might also interest some philosophers of free will).” Conway and Kochen (2006), p. 25.

[11] Conway and Kochen (2009), p. 230.

[12] “In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness.” Conway and Kochen (2009), p. 230.

[13] “The world [the free will theorem] presents us with is a fascinating one, in which fundamental particles are continually making their own decisions. No theory can predict exactly what these particles will do in the future for the very good reason that they may not yet have decided what this will be! Most of their decisions, of course, will not greatly affect things — we can describe them as mere ineffectual flutterings, which on a large scale almost cancel each other out, and so can be ignored. The authors strongly believe, however, that there is a way our brains prevent some of this cancellation, so allowing us to integrate what remains and producing our own free will.” Conway and Kochen (2006), pp. 26-27.

[14] Mitchell (2023), p. 280.

[15] Mitchell (2023), pp. 280-281.

[16] Mitchell (2023), p. 159.

[17] “[T]he higher-order features that guide behavior revolve around purpose, function, and meaning. The patterns of neural activity in the brain have meaning that derives from past experience, is grounded by the interactions of the organism with its environment, and reflects the past causal influences of learning and natural selection. The physical structure of the nervous system captures those causal influences and embodies them as criteria to inform future action. What emerges is a structure that actively filters and selects patterns of neural activity based on higher-order functionalities and constraints. The conclusion—the correct way to think of the brain (or, perhaps better, the whole organism) is as a cognitive system, with an architecture that functionally operates on representations of things like beliefs, desires, goals, and intentions.” Mitchell (2023), pp. 194-195.

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

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

[20] Mitchell (2023), pp. 187-192, citing Doyle (2010).

[21] Mitchell (2023), p. 191 (emphasis in original).

[22] Mitchell (2023), p. 188.

[23] “This capacity to generate and then select among truly novel actions is clearly highly adaptive in a world that refuses to remain 100 percent predictable.” Mitchell (2023), p. 191.

[24] As reported by Jasvir Nagra in notes on a talk given by Conway in 2004. “He said he did not really care what people chose to call it. Some people choose to call it ‘free will’ only when there is some judgment involved. He said he felt that ‘free will’ was freer if it was unhampered by judgment—that it was almost a whim. ‘If you don’t like the term Free Will, call it Free Whim—this is the Free Whim Theorem.’” Nagra (2020).

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.

A different kind of panpsychism

Leave a reply

“Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world.”[1]

The panpsychism of physical entities

Panpsychism asserts that mind, i.e., mentality and consciousness, is a fundamental property of all physical existence. It holds that all physical entities, even rocks and atoms, have some level of micro-mentality. It does not hold that all physical entities have human-like consciousness, but it “entails that at least some kinds of micro-level entities have mentality, and that instances of those kinds are found in all things throughout the material universe.”[2]

Panpsychism does not explain how physical entities acquire consciousness, but rather posits that mentality is an inherent quality of matter itself. At its essence, panpsychism overcomes the problem of mind-body dualism by unifying mind and body in one physical substance and asserting that some level of mentality is a fundamental property of physical existence. Consequently, rather than a rare occurrence among advanced species, consciousness is ubiquitous and exists everywhere in the universe where matter exists.

The panpsychism of quantum state reduction

We have hypothesized that consciousness is associated with quantum state reduction rather than with matter itself. If that is so, then consciousness is associated with a physical process, not directly with physical entities themselves. It is not an inherent quality of all matter, but instead arises when matter undergoes a specific physical process. That physical process is the common constituent element and foundation of consciousness.

Quantum state reduction (aka wave function collapse or state vector reduction) is the process of transforming the complex-number-weighted amplitudes of quantum wave functions at the micro level into real-number probabilities and unique outcomes in the macro level classical world. The process occurs in response to interaction between the macrocosmic classical world and the microcosmic quantum world, resulting in the multiple superposed possibilities of the quantum state resolving into one outcome from a range of alternatives with different probabilities.

Quantum reduction occurs constantly—in every nanosecond of existence—everywhere in the material universe. As a process for resolving probabilities into unique outcomes in the macrocosmic world, it is fundamental and ubiquitous and has been going on since at least the Big Bang. Without quantum reduction, there is no macrocosm; there is only the microcosm of quantum superposition where all possibilities remain open and where there are no unique outcomes, no unique moments in history, and therefore no time as we experience it.

We have hypothesized that the quantum process of resolving probabilities into outcomes is the physical origin of consciousness in the universe. That suggests a form of panpsychism in which consciousness and mentality remain fundamental and ubiquitous, but not in the sense of being an attribute of all matter. Instead, consciousness arises from a process that is fundamental and ubiquitous, a process underlying all macrocosmic reality.

Implications of panpsychism based on quantum reduction

First, this variation on panpsychism explains “how” consciousness is associated with micro-level events and entities. As usually presented, panpsychism asserts that mentality is associated with all matter, but does not assert a mechanism for explaining the association. By contrast, quantum state reduction explains how consciousness arises in macrocosmic entities based on fundamental quantum dynamics. In other words, it provides not only a theory of consciousness as an intrinsic quality of matter, but also a specific mechanism for how matter acquires consciousness.

Second, quantum state reduction gives panpsychism a physical foundation with profound philosophical meaning. At a purely physical level quantum reduction is the process of resolving quantum probabilities into unique outcomes. It is a physical mechanism enabling a single choice among a range of quantum alternatives. It transforms reality from an abstract calculation of all possibilities into a tangible world in which only one possibility occurs. The resulting string of selected alternatives becomes time and reality as we know it. It is difficult to imagine a physically richer soil for cultivation of philosophies of time, free will, and consciousness.

Third, the theory matches our intuitive understanding of consciousness as an abstraction, not a thing. Life is temporary, a phenomenon which we experience for a while before we die. Consciousness is how we experience it. We do not think of consciousness as a material thing. Even when we believe that consciousness is eternal, as in spirit or soul, we conceive of that eternal “thing” as separate from our physical existence, something spiritual or intangible. Thinking of consciousness as founded on a process is closer to that intuitive conception. Even if we recognize that all substance is built on process and interaction, consciousness still seems more process than substance, not permanent even in the way that matter is seemingly permanent.

Finally, panpsychism based on quantum reduction aligns with current theories on quantum consciousness and the search for quantum interaction in the brain. There is a developing body of research around the possibility of quantum interactions in biological structures such as neurons and brain cells. The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory of Penrose and Hameroff suggests that the process of quantum state reduction results in events of proto-consciousness that are the rudimentary components of more advanced forms of consciousness ultimately orchestrated through the evolution of complex brain function.[3] These events of proto-consciousness are both fundamental and ubiquitous in the macrocosmic world. The theory is consistent with a form of panpsychism based on quantum state reduction. It is also consistent with the view that we should not expect to find consciousness based on quantum interaction only in neurons or brain cells. Consciousness is more basic than that. In at least a rudimentary form, it is fundamental to the core process of quantum state reduction that occurs constantly in the macrocosmic universe; it is everything everywhere all at once.[4] It may be true that complex neural interactions occur as a result of additional quantum interactions in the brain, which may explain the level of orchestrated complexity found in human consciousness. But quantum interactions in brain cells are not a requirement for the existence of raw consciousness in the universe.

The one and the many

Since at least the Greeks and likely long before, humans have sought to reconcile the extreme diversity of existence with the concept of unity in the universe. We look for the one reality that underlies the divergent world. We search for the single theory, the single entity, the universal consciousness. Is it possible that this search finds its roots in the reality of quantum existence?

We and all other physical things exist in a reality founded on a quantum world of superpositioned possibilities, a world that somehow transforms into a macrocosm of unique moments in time. It is a macrocosm of one outcome founded on a microcosm of many, one possibility arising from all possibilities in superposition. Beneath the surface of the world of one lies the world of the many, where all possibilities still exist.

Or is reality just the opposite? Is the entangled world of superpositioned possibilities the true world of universal unity, the single world without distinction and differentiation? Is our world of infinite unique outcomes the world of diversity, where the many overwhelms and obscures the one, the divided world from which we search for the ultimate unity, the ultimate theory, the ultimate single universal consciousness?

[1] Goff, Seager, and Allen-Hermanson (2022), Introduction.

[2] Goff, Seager, and Allen-Hermanson (2022), Section 2.1.

[3] See Hameroff and Penrose (2014).

[4] With apologies and attribution to the 2023 winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture.

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).

Consciousness and the quantum wave function

Leave a reply

There is a longstanding interpretation of quantum physics in which a measurement conducted by an observer has the mysterious ability to “collapse” a probability wave function into a single measurement result. Whether this is a correct interpretation of quantum physics or whether the consciousness of the observer plays a role here is not a matter of agreement among physicists and philosophers. However, what does seem clear is that some form of interaction between the subatomic quantum world and the macroscopic classical world results in the probability distribution of a quantum wave function resolving into one unique, observable result. What is also clear is that a conscious observer, e.g., a scientist running an experiment in a lab, has the ability to produce an interaction that will resolve a quantum wave function into a unique measurement outcome.

Can a conscious observer collapse the wave function? Yes.

The result has been observed empirically, and it can be reproduced in a lab. Wave function collapse (also called state-vector reduction or quantum state reduction) is an established behavior of the quantum wave function when interacting with the macroscopic world through a conscious observer.

Is human consciousness required to collapse the wave function? Probably not.

The macroscopic universe and quantum state reduction have been around for 13.8 billion years; our earliest human ancestors arrived a mere 7 million years ago. Given these timeframes, it is unlikely that a human observer is required to collapse the wave function.

Quantum state reduction resolves quantum probabilities into unique outcomes. It transforms an array of co-existing possibilities with different probability amplitudes into a unique outcome, a distinct moment in time. The universe has managed this process without us for billions of years.

The macroscopic universe is manifestly not a place of co-existing possibilities in superposition. It is a place of actualities and events comprising macrocosmic history—the universe exploded; galaxies were born; stars and star systems evolved; we and perhaps others like us came into existence. All of these events occurred in a particular way because of a constant process of wave function collapse and transformation.

What does that tell us? It tells us that, in addition to physicists in a lab, there are other things or processes in the universe with the capacity to perform the magic.

The wave function has been performing the magic for billions of years

It is an empirical reality that some form of interaction between the macroscopic classical world and the microscopic quantum world results in quantum state reduction. This process has been going on since at least the Big Bang, and we have hypothesized that it serves as the underlying engine of time. Somehow the transformation from microcosmic quantum superposition into macrocosmic unique reality takes place.

We don’t have a full understanding of how this process happens. We don’t know if macroscopic interaction truly “collapses” the wave function or if what we describe as “collapse” is the result of some other process in the universe, such as the splitting of reality into “many worlds” in which all possibilities play out. We know only that there exists a process in the universe whereby interaction between the macrocosmic and quantum worlds causes probabilities to become outcomes, producing a stream of moments that we know as time and history. This process is at the core of macrocosmic existence. It is what the universe does.

The ability of the universe to perform this process without the interference of humans is not a matter of reasonable scientific doubt. The open question is not whether human consciousness is required for quantum state reduction. Clearly it is not. The real question is whether this universal process is required for consciousness.

Is quantum state reduction required for consciousness?

In the broad sense, the answer to this question must be yes. The macrocosmic universe as we know it would not exist without quantum state reduction, so we humans and human consciousness also would not exist.

However, does consciousness require quantum state reduction in a more functional sense as well? Does the process of consciousness require quantum interaction either at the neuron or subatomic level inside our brains? Could there be a continuing process of quantum state reduction occurring in the brain that enables the distinctive, noncomputable qualities of consciousness?[1]

Is the wave function the origin of consciousness?

The jury is still out on whether quantum interaction plays a role in the physical functioning of the human brain. But perhaps the answer is simpler than that. Could there be a more ontological connection between the universal process of quantum state reduction and the process of consciousness? Does the ability of a conscious observer to perform quantum state reduction in a lab suggest a taxonomical connection?

The process of resolving probabilities into outcomes is perhaps the most fundamental process in the universe. Is it also the most essential attribute of consciousness? At a physical level, is human consciousness a species or instantiation of the universal process of resolving probabilities into outcomes?[2]

Is process consciousness?

Quantum state reduction occurs every nanosecond in the macrocosmic universe. We exist because of it. We are also part of it. Our human consciousness is one of many processes in the universe that resolve probabilities into outcomes. We are built as decision-making entities to survive through the choices we make and the actions we take. Does the process of making choices perform the equivalent of quantum state reduction? Do our choices resolve probabilities into outcomes that then shape more probabilities and more outcomes? Is the process of consciousness part of a more universal process of becoming that has its roots in the microscopic quantum world?

If that is so, can consciousness be generalized to comprise any process that constitutes a resolution of the wave function into an outcome? Is that the abstract, most generalized definition of consciousness?

Is the process of quantum state reduction itself the functional and ontological equivalent of consciousness?

[1] Physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose and neuroscientist Stuart Hameroff have developed an ingenious theory called Orchestrated Objective Reduction (or Orch OR), which builds on Penrose’s theories around the objective nature of quantum state reduction to construct a model of brain behavior and the development of consciousness based on quantum interactions. For a review of the current status of the theory and related empirical research, see Hameroff and Penrose (2014). For a detailed discussion of possible quantum interaction in the brain and non-algorithmic, noncomputable ingredients in thought and consciousness, see Penrose (1989), pp. 516-581, and Penrose (1994).

[2] Penrose and Hameroff argue that the objective process of quantum state reduction (Objective Reduction or OR) results in moments of proto-consciousness in the universe. These events are hypothesized to have “rudimentary subjective experience, which is undifferentiated and lacking in cognition”, but which serve as raw materials that can be orchestrated through evolution of more complex brain interactions to create full-blown consciousness. Hameroff and Penrose (2014), p. 72.