Abstract This paper explores the philosophy of neutral monism within the framework of a generalized version of quantum theory where all references to the physical world have been relaxed. Psychic and somatic features of the individual are conceived of as co-emergent, complementary properties of an underlying, psychophysical level of reality. It is shown that their entanglement can be interpreted in terms of non-causal correlations and parameterized by time, which thus plays the role of psychophysical interface.
Abstract This paper explores the philosophy of neutral monism within the framework of a generalized version of quantum theory where all references to the physical world have been relaxed. Psychic and somatic features of the individual are conceived of as co-emergent, complementary properties of an underlying, psychophysical level of reality. It is shown that their entanglement can be interpreted in terms of non-causal correlations and parameterized by time, which thus plays the role of psychophysical interface.
Quantum mechanics in the Wigner-von Neumann interpretation is presented. This is characterized by 1) a quantum dualism between matter and consciousness unified within an informational neutral monism, 2) a quantum perspectivism which is extended to a complementarity between the Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds formalism, 3) a psychophysical causal closure akin to Leibniz parallelism and 4) a quantum solipsism, i.e. a reality in which classical states are only potentially-existing until a conscious observation is made.
This contribution explores Wolfgang Pauli's idea that mind and matter are complementary aspects of the same reality. We adopt the working hypothesis that there is an undivided timeless primordial reality (the primordial "one world''). Breaking its symmetry, we obtain a contextual description of the holistic reality in terms of two categorically different domains, one tensed and the other tenseless. The tensed domain includes, in addition to tensed time, nonmaterial processes and mental events. The tenseless domain refers to matter and physical energy. This concept implies that mind cannot be reduced to matter, and that matter cannot be reduced to mind. The non-Boolean logical framework of modern quantum theory is general enough to implement this idea. Time is not taken to be an a priori concept, but an archetypal acausal order is assumed which can be represented by a one-parameter group of automorphisms, generating a time operator which parametrizes all processes, whether material or nonmaterial. The time-reversal symmetry is broken in the nonmaterial domain, resulting in a universal direction of time for the material domain as well.
In the previous chapter, we referred to dual-aspect monism frames; we observe here that whether the psycho-physically neutral reality in such frames may refer to consciousness is an open question. By consciousness, however, we mean fundamental awareness, not functional consciousness, which is conventionally meant by materialistic or physicalist frames. We will turn to the issue of fundamental consciousness in the next two chapters. In this chapter, we explore possible links between consciousness (fundamental or not) and quantum mechanics (QM), and insights for quantum-like framework (QLF) or psycho-physical reality in general. Consciousness is, by far, the most enigmatic issue to conceptualise in modern science. The mainstream direction is materialism, where consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from matter, which has been given the name the hard problem. Emergence can be of different types, for example, weak and strong (goes by other names like epistemic and ontic or metaphysical, respectively). While in the case of weak emergence, in principle, higher-level descriptions of realities can be reduced to fundamental descriptions, in the strong emergence view, higher-level descriptions of realities have their own effective dynamical laws which are irreducible.
Herein we are not interested in merely using dynamical systems theory, graph theory, information theory, etc., to model the relationship between brain dynamics and networks, and various states and degrees of conscious processes. We are interested in the question of how phenomenal conscious experience and fundamental physics are most deeply related. Any attempt to mathematically and formally model conscious experience and its relationship to physics must begin with some metaphysical assumption in mind about the nature of conscious experience, the nature of matter and the nature of the relationship between them. These days the most prominent metaphysical fixed points are strong emergence or some variant of panpsychism. In this paper we will detail another distinct metaphysical starting point known as neutral monism. In particular, we will focus on a variant of the neutral monism of William James and Bertrand Russell. Rather than starting with physics as fundamental, as both strong emergence and panpsychism do in their own way, our goal is to suggest how one might derive fundamental physics from neutral monism. Thus, starting with two axioms grounded in our characterization of neutral monism, we will sketch out a derivation of and explanation for some key features of relativity and quantum mechanics that suggest a unity between those two theories that is generally unappreciated. Our mode of explanation throughout will be of the principle as opposed to constructive variety in something like Einstein's sense of those terms. We will argue throughout that a bias towards property dualism and a bias toward reductive dynamical and constructive explanation lead to the hard problem and the explanatory gap in consciousness studies, and lead to serious unresolved problems in fundamental physics, such as the measurement problem and the mystery of entanglement in quantum mechanics and lack of progress in producing an empirically well-grounded theory of quantum gravity. We hope to show that given our take on neutral monism and all that follows from it, the aforementioned problems can be satisfactorily resolved leaving us with a far more intuitive and commonsense model of the relationship between conscious experience and physics.
Abstract A key ingredient of the metaphysical doctrine of dual-aspect monism is a psychophysically neutral domain, of which mental and physical aspects arise as epistemic descendants that manifest themselves by decomposition. This primer first introduces some elementary notions to define the basic concepts needed to understand the approach, such as those of states, state spaces, observables, partitions and correlations. Using these notions, the concepts of decomposition and manifestation are explained, and a differentiated view of the mereological distinction of wholes and parts is outlined. Next, a number of historical and contemporary accounts of psychophysical neutrality with philosophical (Plato, Spinoza, Schelling, Kant), scientific (Bohm, Pauli, Jung, Connes, Gibson), and artistic (sculpture, music) flavor are given as illustrative examples. Finally, correlations between the psychophysically neutral, the mental, and the physical domain of reality are discussed, in which these correlations are substantiated by meaning.
Psychophysical supervenience requires that the mental properties of a system cannot change without the change of its physical properties. In this paper, I argue that the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics or Everett's theory seems to violate the principle of psychophysical supervenience. In order to be consistent with our experience, the theory assumes psychophysical supervenience in each world, including our world. However, this permits the possibility that under certain unitary time evolution which does not lead to world branching, the wave function of each world changes and correspondingly the mental states of the observers in the world also change, while the wave function of the total worlds does not change, which violates the principle of psychophysical supervenience for all worlds. It seems that one must go beyond Everett's theory such as denying multiplicity in order to avoid the failure of psychophysical supervenience.