Introduction: Why Quantum Mechanics (QM) is Related to Consciousness Conceptual Problems in QM Everett's ( Many-WorldsA) Interpretation of QM Extended Everett's Concept: Consciousness from QM Miracle of Life from QM Second Quantum Revolution: Theory of Both Inanimate Matter and Life.
Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the specific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, including the observer’s consciousness into the quantum theory of measurements. Most naturally, this is achieved in the framework of Everett’s “many-world interpretation” of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Concept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This explains the classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifestations of consciousness arising “at the edge of consciousness” (i.e., in sleep or trance) when its access to “other alternative classical realities” (other Everett’s worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world are equivalent, while the impression of flow of time appears only in consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence the probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely many Everett’s worlds), EEC explains free will, “probabilistic miracles” (observing low-probability events), and decreasing entropy in the sphere of life.
Conceptual problems of the quantum theory of measurement are considered, which are embodied in well-known paradoxes and in Bell's inequalities. Arguments are advanced in favor of the viewpoint that these problems may hardly be solved without direct inclusion of the observer's consciousness in the theoretical description of a quantum measurement. Discussed in this connection is the so-called many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Everett, as is the extension of Everett's concept, which consists in the assumption that separating the quantum state components corresponding to alternative measurements is not only associated with the observer's consciousness but is completely identified with it. This approach is shown to open up qualitatively new avenues for the unification of physics and psychology and, more broadly, of the sciences and the humanities. This may lead to an extension of the theory of consciousness and shed light on significant and previously misunderstood phenomena in the sphere of consciousness.
Mystical powers of consciousness, including the direct vision of truth and management a reality, are believed to exist. Various directions of spiritual knowledge, including world religions, deal with these phenomena. Many people are persuaded that mystical events cannot be explained by scientific methods, that they contradict to science. Suggested by the present author Quantum Concept of Consciousness, or Extended Everett Concept, proves that mystical powers have their origin from what is known in quantum mechanics as quantum reality, and therefore are inherent part of science. Therefore, the “mystical” aspect in the sphere of consciousness is a common part of science and spiritual knowledge.
The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.
Introduction We saw in Part I that in addition to explaining consciousness there is another hard problem for the modern scientific worldview – understanding what quantum physics is telling us about reality. And if anything this one is harder. In philosophy of mind there is at least consensus enough for an orthodox position to exist (materialism), and a widespread expectation that it will be vindicated by future neuroscience. By contrast, in philosophy of physics all sides understand that quantum theory is compatible with a variety of metaphysical interpretations, and have little hope that new empirical discoveries will settle the matter. But both problems are “hard” in the sense that, despite tremendous intellectual effort over many decades, no clear progress has been made toward solving them. The basic idea of quantum consciousness theory is that bringing the two problems into contact may be the key to solving both (though I will be addressing only the mind–body problem in what follows). That this could be a novel idea attests to the fact that their philosophical discussions have evolved quite separately. While philosophers of physics have long been interested in the role of consciousness in the measurement process, they have engaged little with the mind–body problem per se; and philosophers of mind have been almost unanimous in dismissing the suggestion that consciousness has anything interesting to do with quantum physics. Social scientists might echo such skepticism, wondering how adding the problem of interpreting quantum theory to the problem of consciousness will help them . Besides piling up jargon and arcane debates, in moving to the sub-atomic level we are now even farther removed from the human world, and seemingly poised to engage in the most vulgar reductionism. Yet, naïvely one might expect the two problems to be related, for two reasons. The first is the intriguing analogies mentioned in Chapter 1 between the mental and quantum domains.
Subjective aspects of quantum mechanics (QM) are most radically expressed in the (EI) of QM which suggests coexisting macroscopically distinct configurations of the world in the form of a superposition of the (quasi-)classical state vectors. The components of such a superposition are often verbally denoted as Everett's worlds, hence the name Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) for EI. Explicit accounting the correlation of each classical configuration of the world with the corresponding state of an observer's mind yields the so-called Many-Minds interpretation (MMI). This is maximum that may be done in the context of EI if the restriction by pure physics is implied. In the author's Extended Everett Concept (EEC) the observer's consciousness is defined in the spirit of psycho-physical parallelism, i.e. as going beyond pure physics. As a consequence, according to EEC, an observer, if he/she weakens or turns off his/her consciousness (perception), obtains the ability of super-intuition (obtaining seemingly unavailable information) and even of controlling the subjective reality (a picture of classical reality as it will be subjectively perceived). This may be interpreted as a realization of the Jung's collective unconscious as well as an explanation of the mystical elements in Oriental philosophies, world religions and deep psychological practices.
NeuroQuantology | March 2013 | Vol 11 | Issue 1 | Suppl 1 | Page 85-96