The radical subjective and dualistic The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problemsoluton of the measurement problem

..

Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam

SAND, june 2 1012

Mind-Body ProblemMind-Body Problem Mostly by Philosophers (but also textbooks)Mostly by Philosophers (but also textbooks)

-> discussion of Free Will-> discussion of Free Will Current winner: ‘Materialistic Monism’Current winner: ‘Materialistic Monism’

Daniel Dennett Daniel Dennett • Consciousness explained (1991)Consciousness explained (1991)• Free Will is illusion; C is epiphenomenonFree Will is illusion; C is epiphenomenon

However: However: Psi data: Psi data:

• a) Mind over Matter (FoP review)a) Mind over Matter (FoP review)• b) Non causal events b) Non causal events

& Quantum Physics: measurement problem & Quantum Physics: measurement problem & Physical formalisms: time-symmetry & Physical formalisms: time-symmetry

Descartes

What is a measurement?What is a measurement?Consider the following situation

Classical MeasurementClassical Measurement

Classicial Physics

t

R

Measurement at t= 3

Newton

Yields a precise value of location R

Measurement problem?Measurement problem?

Classical Physics

t

Quantum Physics

R

t

R

Measurement at t= 3

r1

r2

Newton

Schrodinger

R described by Statevectorgiving the probabilities for r1 and r2

Energy is quantized -> jumps

Measurement problem! Measurement problem!

P(r1)

P(r2)1

1

T=1

Projection postulate

MeasurementT=3

System is described as vector in statespace

Postulate: This ‘collapse’ of the statevector happens at measurement.

Einstein interpreted this as follows: At the measurement the real situation that already existed locally is revealed.Measurement is just a gain in knowledge. QP is incomplete

0.8

0.2

Einstein was wrongEinstein was wrongBELL (1964) showed by an argument of only 2 pages that ALL local realistic theories

would give different results for certain specific experiments which were difficult to perform.

However Aspect et al (1981) eventually did the crucial experiment and …..

showed It is not the case that the particle had a specific position before measurement but it gets the position upon measurement.: God plays dice! QP is complete.

Bell

THE MEASUREMENT CHANGES THE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY

So what constitutes a So what constitutes a measurement is really measurement is really

importantimportant

Def1: A measurement is something what Def1: A measurement is something what you do with a measurement device….you do with a measurement device….

Usable in the daily practice of physics Usable in the daily practice of physics

But incorrect But incorrect (von Neumann)(von Neumann)

The Measurement ProblemThe Measurement Problem‘solutions’‘solutions’

Many World solution (Everett)Many World solution (Everett) Deterministic solution (Bohm)Deterministic solution (Bohm) Non linear Schrodinger equation (GRW)Non linear Schrodinger equation (GRW) Objective Reduction (Penrose)Objective Reduction (Penrose)

Radical subjective solution (Wigner, Stapp)Radical subjective solution (Wigner, Stapp)

Radical SolutionRadical Solution

…. The reduction of the state vector is a physical event which occurs only when there is an interaction between the physical measuring apparatus and the psyche of some observer…..

from Hall, J., Kim, C., McElroy, and Shimony, A. (1977). Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication. Foundations of Physics 7 (1977), 759-767.

Note that the radical solution is associated with Schrödinger’s Cat.

And is DUALISTIC

Hall et al experiment Hall et al experiment

AssumptionsAssumptions

1.Consciousness of first observer collapses the state before second observation.

2. Final Observer (brain) is sensitive for difference collapsed and non collapsed state

3. Final Observer can report this

Weaknesses in HallWeaknesses in Hall

Assumption 1 is violated: Delay between Assumption 1 is violated: Delay between first and second observation too shortfirst and second observation too short

Assumption 3 is inconsistent: The Assumption 3 is inconsistent: The dependent variable is a conscious verbal dependent variable is a conscious verbal report, too late!report, too late!

Improvements in replications Improvements in replications

HALL et al 1977HALL et al 1977

Obs1 -> Obs2 delay Obs1 -> Obs2 delay few microsecondsfew microseconds

Dependent variable: Dependent variable: conscious verbal conscious verbal reportreport

Amsterdam 2002-2007Amsterdam 2002-2007

Delay 1000 msecsDelay 1000 msecs

Dependent variable: brain Dependent variable: brain signals before final signals before final observer is conscious of observer is conscious of event.event.

Amsterdam original set-upAmsterdam original set-up

Amsterdam original set-upAmsterdam original set-up

Pseudorandom switch between conditions Pre-observed - not pre-observed

Dependent variable: brainwaves of final

observer

Results pooled over conditionResults pooled over condition

5

0

-5

[µV]

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700[ms]

N20

P40

N100

P200

N300

P350

N400

allfc

5

0

-5

[µV]

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700[ms]

allp

P100

N160 N200

Results split for conditionResults split for condition(preobserved and not-preobserved)(preobserved and not-preobserved)

5

0

-5

[µV]

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700[ms]

allfcParentOther

5

0

-5

[µV]

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700[ms]

allpParentOther

Study 1-RESULTS peak analysisStudy 1-RESULTS peak analysisWhatWhat

PeakPeak

Preobs-Preobs-Obs(MuV)Obs(MuV)

T (df=29)T (df=29) Prob.Prob.

N100N100 0.3500.350 0.660.66 0.520.52

P200P200 -0.09-0.09 -0.18-0.18 0.860.86

N300N300 -0.04-0.04 -0.08-0.08 0.930.93

P350P350 -0.54-0.54 -1.17-1.17 0.250.25

N400N400 0.0980.098 0.250.25 0.800.80

P100P100 -0.16-0.16 -0.67-0.67 0.500.50

N160N160 -0.152-0.152 -0.84-0.84 0.410.41

N200N200 -0.956-0.956 -3.93-3.93 0.00050.0005

Conclusions study 1Conclusions study 1

Copenhagen interpretation supportedCopenhagen interpretation supported God plays diceGod plays dice

And …Consciousness stands outside of And …Consciousness stands outside of quantum physics (dualism) or must be quantum physics (dualism) or must be considered a ‘hidden variable’ with non local considered a ‘hidden variable’ with non local aspectsaspects

But wait a minute: Strong claims need strong But wait a minute: Strong claims need strong evidence….. So study 2!evidence….. So study 2!

Bohr

Replication set upReplication set up

GM detectorAlpha source

Pre Observer

Final Observer Computer

delay

EEG amplifiersTrigger-in

Audio-beep

Visual pre-observation for

~ 50% of the events

Count down clock

Results averaged over 4 conditions (classical-Results averaged over 4 conditions (classical-quantum, preobserved- not preobserved)quantum, preobserved- not preobserved)

4 clusters of electrodes

TABLE 3. Peak latencies (in milliseconds), amplitudes (in V) of all conditions per pooling. t- and (2 tailed) p-values of the difference between pre-observed and not pre-observed condition Classic C-Diff Quantum Q-Diff

Peaks Lat I II

t (df=49)

p III IV

t (df=49)

p

Na 23 -0.181 -0.169 -0.060 0.952 -0.175 -0.395 0.736 0.465 Pa 39 0.536 0.757 -0.892 0.377 0.426 0.545 -0.435 0.665 Nb 51 -0.502 -0.321 -0.674 0.503 -0.681 -0.44 -0.961 0.341 P100 94 4.901 5.281 -1.284 0.205 5.800 5.65 0.386 0.701 N200 184 -7.266 -7.335 0.145 0.885 -7.137 -6.748 -1.364 0.179

Frontal

P300 301 -1.131 -1.036 -0.255 0.800 -0.679 -0.933 0.778 0.440 Na 23 -0.134 -0.021 -0.816 0.418 -0.088 0.031 -0.589 0.559 Pa 35 0.522 0.402 -0.798 0.429 0.149 0.183 -0.218 0.828 Nb 47 -0.300 -0.198 -0.482 0.632 -0.450 -0.175 -1.264 0.212 P100 90 1.064 1.195 -0.531 0.598 1.565 1.445 0.417 0.678 N200 180 -3.819 -3.646 -0.742 0.462 -3.841 -3.542 -1.519 0.135

FrontoCentral

P300 332 0.000 -0.056 0.198 0.844 -0.294 -0.119 -0.799 0.428 Na 27 -0.396 -0.434 0.101 0.920 -0.475 -0.515 0.296 0.768 Pa 39 0.005 0.137 -0.485 0.630 -0.013 0.056 -0.178 0.859 Nb 55 -0.802 -0.601 -0.862 0.393 -0.747 -0.549 -0.636 0.528 P100 90 5.208 5.415 -0.886 0.380 5.584 5.632 -0.212 0.833 N200 184 -5.957 -6.019 0.246 0.807 -5.468 -5.528 -1.451 0.153

Parietal

P300 289 0.309 0.189 0.385 0.702 0.596 0.737 -0.537 0.594 Na 31 -1.444 -1.534 0.261 0.795 -1.599 -1.384 -0.712 0.480 Pa 43 -0.829 -0.639 -0.616 0.541 -0.666 -0.467 -0.68 0.500 Nb 51 -1.146 -0.894 -0.890 0.378 -0.943 -0.795 -0.503 0.617 P100 90 7.543 7.990 -1.474 0.147 7.425 7.81 -1.021 0.312 N200 180 -5.707 -5.362 -1.052 0.298 -5.908 -5.373 -1.598 0.116

Occipital

P300 293 1.173 1.249 -0.417 0.678 1.322 1.833 -1.419 0.162

Only marginal pre-Only marginal pre-observation effectobservation effect

But…………But…………

TABLE 4. Differences of AEP peak amplitudes from the quantum and classic source.

Peaks Classic Quantum Classic –

Quantum t (df=49) p (2-tailed)

Na -0.287 -0.182 -0.105 -0.503 0.617 Pa 0.485 0.642 -0.157 -0.808 0.423 Nb -0.554 -0.416 -0.138 -0.683 0.498 P100 5.725 5.074 0.651 2.697 0.010 N200 -6.956 -7.279 0.323 1.200 0.236

Frontal

P300 -0.834 -1.090 0.256 1.096 0.278 Na -0.033 -0.066 0.033 0.230 0.819 Pa 0.165 0.322 -0.157 -1.052 0.298 Nb -0.307 -0.258 -0.049 -0.447 0.657 P100 1.503 1.126 0.377 2.457 0.018 N200 -3.700 -3.718 0.018 -0.068 0.946

FrontoCentral

P300 -0.237 -0.047 -0.190 -1.311 0.196 Na -0.508 -0.413 -0.095 -0.515 0.609 Pa 0.006 0.070 -0.064 -0.352 0.726 Nb -0.659 -0.695 0.036 0.178 0.859 P100 5.612 5.309 0.303 1.242 0.220 N200 -5.477 -5.979 0.502 2.301 0.026

Parietal

P300 0.633 0.238 0.395 1.984 0.053 Na -1.513 -1.488 -0.025 -0.143 0.887 Pa -0.587 -0.742 0.155 0.687 0.495 Nb -0.888 -1.028 0.140 0.640 0.525 P100 7.633 7.765 -0.132 -0.774 0.443 N200 -5.652 -5.538 -0.114 -0.454 0.652

Occipital

P300 1.536 1.204 0.332 1.508 0.138

An effect of source of events (Quantum vs Classic)

Conclusions study 2Conclusions study 2

Preobserver effect is marginal and the effectsize Preobserver effect is marginal and the effectsize is much smaller.is much smaller. Collapse incomplete? Possibly the observation does Collapse incomplete? Possibly the observation does

not convey enough information. not convey enough information.

There is a difference between quantum and There is a difference between quantum and classical triggered auditory evoked potentialsclassical triggered auditory evoked potentials Could that be because the ‘classical decay time Could that be because the ‘classical decay time

distribution’ differs slightly from the ‘quantum decay distribution’ differs slightly from the ‘quantum decay time distribution?time distribution?

Study 3Study 3

More information to pre-observerMore information to pre-observer

- I.e. was the source quantum or classic- I.e. was the source quantum or classic

Control of ‘decay-times’ distribution in all Control of ‘decay-times’ distribution in all conditions.conditions.

Preliminary Results Preliminary Results study 3study 3

Over-all no significant effects (but Over-all no significant effects (but we are awaiting source analysis of we are awaiting source analysis of

N200)N200)

Preliminary ConclusionPreliminary Conclusion

The support for the idea that ‘consciousness The support for the idea that ‘consciousness collapses the statevector’ has declined.collapses the statevector’ has declined.

Initial results due to differences in decay time Initial results due to differences in decay time distribution? Or do we have a psi-experimenter distribution? Or do we have a psi-experimenter effect?effect?

However, it could be that the assumptions However, it could be that the assumptions underlying this approach are invalid. underlying this approach are invalid.

The measurement problem is more alive than The measurement problem is more alive than ever.ever.

Thanks for your attentionThanks for your attention

CIRTS:CIRTS:Physics can Physics can

accommodate psiaccommodate psi

CIRTS:CIRTS:Physics can Physics can

accommodate psiaccommodate psi Most physical formalisms are time-Most physical formalisms are time-

symmetric (Newtonian, EM)symmetric (Newtonian, EM) The solution S=f(-t) is never The solution S=f(-t) is never

observedobserved Wheeler Feynman (1945) wondered Wheeler Feynman (1945) wondered

why we only see S=f(t).why we only see S=f(t). Price (1996) reinterpreted Wheeler & Price (1996) reinterpreted Wheeler &

FeynmanFeynman

Huw Price’s re-Huw Price’s re-interpretationinterpretation

Time’s Arrow (1996, Oxford Press,p. Time’s Arrow (1996, Oxford Press,p. 71)71)

Why time-assymmetry:Why time-assymmetry: …….. … involves an imbalance between .. … involves an imbalance between

transmitters and receivers: large-scale transmitters and receivers: large-scale sources of coherent radiation are sources of coherent radiation are common, but large receivers, or sinks, of common, but large receivers, or sinks, of coherent radiation are unknown……coherent radiation are unknown……

Basic Assumption in Basic Assumption in CIRTSCIRTS

Basic Assumption in Basic Assumption in CIRTSCIRTS

Assumption that Assumption that ‘brain-producing-‘brain-producing-consciousness’consciousness’ is a large-scale is a large-scale coherent receiver thus according to coherent receiver thus according to Price: Price:

Restores Time-symmetryRestores Time-symmetry Weighted by a coherence measure Weighted by a coherence measure

Physical formalisms

S1 = f(t)S2 = f(-t)

S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2

Predictions of the theoryPredictions of the theory

1. What happens after, happens 1. What happens after, happens beforebefore

Signal = f(t) + ‘Coherence’ * f(-t)

• 2. Larger effect with more coherent brains

Testing the predictions Testing the predictions (1)(1)

What happens after, happens What happens after, happens beforebefore Double stimulus presentimentDouble stimulus presentiment

Testing the predictions Testing the predictions (2)(2)

Does a coherent brain show more Does a coherent brain show more psi?psi? Bial grant 34-03Bial grant 34-03

• Effect of Meditation on presentiment (fmri Effect of Meditation on presentiment (fmri study)study)

DesignDesign

8 Experienced meditators8 Experienced meditators 2 sessions: Med and NonMed2 sessions: Med and NonMed

8 Matched controls 8 Matched controls 1 session: C1 session: C

64 64 randomrandom pictures (neutral, erotic, violent) pictures (neutral, erotic, violent) 16 seconds interval, 2 seconds exposure16 seconds interval, 2 seconds exposure All meditators trainedAll meditators trained Replication of fmri study Bierman & Scholte Replication of fmri study Bierman & Scholte

(2002)(2002)

Analysis procedureAnalysis procedure

Find interesting regions by comparing bold Find interesting regions by comparing bold RESPONSES between RESPONSES between Med <->NonMed (direct effect of meditation)Med <->NonMed (direct effect of meditation) NonMed<-> C (long term effects of meditation)NonMed<-> C (long term effects of meditation)

Compare for those regions the signals BEFORE Compare for those regions the signals BEFORE the emotional with the signals BEFORE the the emotional with the signals BEFORE the neutralneutral

Results SpatialResults SpatialResults SpatialResults Spatial

36 regions show significant different 36 regions show significant different responses (picture shows contrast for responses (picture shows contrast for meditators while meditating vs non-meditators while meditating vs non-meditating)meditating)

Most regions are associated with attentional proceses

Results temporal (all Results temporal (all regions)regions)

Number of anticipatory Number of anticipatory peakspeaks

Number of anticipatory Number of anticipatory peakspeaks

02468

101214161820

Controls Med NonMed

NeutralEroticViolent

02468

101214161820

Controls Med NonMed

NeutralEroticViolent

Elusiveness ‘explained’Elusiveness ‘explained’Elusiveness ‘explained’Elusiveness ‘explained’

Grandfather paradox is formally identical to precognition-action paradox

Elusiveness ‘explained’Elusiveness ‘explained’Elusiveness ‘explained’Elusiveness ‘explained’

Nature doesn’t allow paradoxesNature doesn’t allow paradoxes See also: Hawking’s See also: Hawking’s chronology protectionchronology protection

Psi information should never become so strong Psi information should never become so strong that it can be used to change the source of it. that it can be used to change the source of it. (Just like the time traveler should not act in such (Just like the time traveler should not act in such a way as to change his/her own source)a way as to change his/her own source)

ConclusionConclusion

Radical subjective solution of the MP:Radical subjective solution of the MP:

Consciousness is a-physical (dualism)Consciousness is a-physical (dualism)

CIRTS (Conciousness induced restoration of CIRTS (Conciousness induced restoration of time-symmetry) :time-symmetry) :

Consciousness is a special physical Consciousness is a special physical system (monism)system (monism)