Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics Today

Pseudoscience versus science

Larry Dossey

Published Nov 1, 2016• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Sadri Hassani, in his Commentary, laments the fact that many of America’s top-tier medical schools “house centers of integrative health.” He singles out Explore, a peer-reviewed journal I serve as executive editor, for special criticism because we published “Manifesto for a post-materialist science,” which, he says, “elevates parapsychology and near-death experience to the rank of quantum theory.”That article had nothing to do with equating those areas to the scientific status of quantum theory. However, Hassani appears unfamiliar with developments in which quantum physical concepts such as nonlocality and entanglement have been shown to occur in biological systems. That, we believe, indicates some as-yet-undefined degree of overlap between biomedical science and quantum physics. As physicist Vlatko Vedral states in his 2011 article “Living in a quantum world”:Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles. It applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people….… Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do.11. V. Vedral, Sci. Am., June 2011, p. 38, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-in-a-quantum-world/.Until the origin, manifestations, and nature of consciousness—science’s greatest mystery—are resolved, we shall continue to examine those topics at Explore with the same openness advocated by some of the greatest patriarchs of modern physics, including Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics, who said,I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.22. J. W. N. Sullivan, Observer, 25 January 1931, p. 17.And Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger said,Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.33. W. Moore, A Life of Erwin Schrödinger, Canto edition, Cambridge U. Press (1994), p. 181.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. V. Vedral, Sci. Am., June 2011, p. 38, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-in-a-quantum-world/. Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. J. W. N. Sullivan, Observer, 25 January 1931, p. 17. Google Scholar3. W. Moore, A Life of Erwin Schrödinger, Canto edition, Cambridge U. Press (1994), p. 181. Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.

DOI
10.1063/pt.3.3343

Related papers

Pseudoscience versus science

Mario Beauregard, Natalie L. Trent, GARY E.R. SCHWARTZ

In his Commentary on the dangers of pseudoscience (Physics Today, May 2016, page 10), Sadri Hassani sweeps under the rug the fact that the mind was explicitly introduced into the basic conceptual structure of quantum physics because a link was found between particles being observed and the observer. Several towering figures of quantum physics—for example, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, John von Neumann, and Eugene Wigner—claimed that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed and that mental events can affect the physical world. Wigner, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963, wrote, “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11. E. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner, Indiana U. Press (1967), p. 169.Hassani cites “Manifesto for a post-materialist science”22. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008 as an example of the growth of pseudoscience, but contrary to what he pretends, that editorial does not seek at all to equate research on psi phenomena and near-death experiences with quantum physics. De facto, the main objective of the manifesto is to present, in a concise and succinct manner, various lines of empirical evidence that strongly suggests that mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world.Mind is fundamental in the universe; that is, it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic. Mind and the physical world are deeply interconnected, and mind—that is, will or intention—can influence the state of the physical world and operate in a nonlocal or extended fashion. That is, it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Furthermore, what we are proposing in the manifesto is that, to the great displeasure of Hassani and other pseudoskeptics like him, the consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem is consistent with those conclusions and with the emerging post-materialist paradigm. It is not pseudoscience; it is evidence-based responsible science respected by open-minded theorists and experimentalists alike.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. E. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner, Indiana U. Press (1967), p. 169. Google Scholar2. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008, Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Oct 31, 2016•0 citations

Pseudoscience versus science

Sadri Hassani

► Hassani replies: Mario Beauregard, Gary Schwartz, and Natalie Trent associate several notable physicists with the integration of consciousness in quantum theory. History is filled with great scientists who held unscientific, even antiscientific beliefs. Lord Rayleigh believed in ghosts; J. J. Thomson believed in dowsing and psychics; William Shockley and James Watson sponsor racialism and eugenics. But these ideological mistakes, sometimes referred to as Nobel disease (see Physics Today, September 1998, page 29), are not made right because of the science of their makers, and the science is not made wrong because of the ideological mistakes of its discoverers. It is the message that counts, not the messenger.One person who can authoritatively judge the role of mind in quantum theory is John Bell, who proved its nonlocality—a concept that pseudoscientists have deformed into their own commodity. Bell stated,I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics…. The only “observer” which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus … once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference … whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such “observing” to computers.11. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Experiments that demonstrate our mental ability to influence physical objects would be as revolutionary as experiments that demonstrated the existence of the electron, the atomic nucleus, and gravitational waves. Why don’t the authors submit their results to mainstream journals so that the larger community of experimenters could verify them? Yes, mainstream journals—that is where all the aforementioned experiments were published and where all science revolutionaries disseminate their ideas.There are essentially three categories of scientists: mainstreamers; those mainstreamers who bend the mainstream; and those who leave the mainstream and become pseudoscientists.All true scientists are in the first category. If they are exceptionally creative, they may end up in the second category. Pseudoscientists, being rejected by the mainstreamers, misinform the public with assertions that “science revolutionaries have also been rejected by mainstreamers, as we have.” Nothing is further from the truth. Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, and other great scientists were mainstreamers who made it to the second category.22. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015).Larry Dossey calls consciousness “science’s greatest mystery.” For centuries, biology was “science’s greatest mystery” because of the manifestation of life in living organisms. Many biologists believed in vitalism, the idea that a “vital force” regulated the activity of animate objects but could not “be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic,” as the “Manifesto for a post-materialist science” states about mind.33. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008 However, with the discovery of DNA, “vital force” is no longer needed to explain the electrochemical reactions taking place at the subcellular level. Since the source of consciousness is the brain, the scientific answer to its nature will come only from the molecular investigation of neurons, not from near-death “experiments.”Mysteries always exist in science, and there are two ways to deal with them. One is to wait and give science a chance to resolve them. The other, the age-old strategy of pseudoscience, is to exploit the limitation of science and inject speculative and unproven conjectures as answers. While biologists have abandoned vitalism, the idea has not died out. It has been disguised and taken up by modern pseudoscientists: Consciousness is the new face of vitalism!Tim LaFave raises a good point regarding debates between science and pseudoscience. Unfortunately, the outcome of such debates would be enormously in favor of pseudoscience, as the Nye–Ham debate demonstrated. When the listeners are scientifically illiterate, the snake oil vendor wins. That’s why, in my Commentary, I proposed that pseudoscience be challenged in the classroom, where science is not drowned in the rhetorical charm of pseudoscience.Philosophy, despite “its utter charm,” as Hans Christian von Baeyer suggests, has been at odds with science ever since their separation. Democritus, the ancient scientist, said about philosophy: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.” Modern physicist Richard Feynman was more blunt:Here’s this great Dutch philosopher [Spinoza], and we’re [Feynman and his son] laughing at him…. You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can’t tell which is right. Sure, people were awed because he had the courage to take on these great questions, but it doesn’t do any good to have the courage if you can’t get anywhere with the question…. [Philosophers] seize on the possibility that there may not be any ultimate fundamental particle, and say that you should stop work … [because] “You haven’t thought deeply enough, first let me define the world for you.” Well, I’m going to investigate without defining it!44. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Google Scholar2. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015). Google Scholar3. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008, Google Scholar4. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195. Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations

Quantum Theory Comes in Waves and Particles

Walter A. Harrison

Certainly there is no unique answer to Frank Wilczek’s question, “What Is Quantum Theory?” (Physics Today, June 2000, page 11). I was not certain that a pragmatic answer, which I proposed for a course in applied quantum mechanics, 1 1. W. A. Harrison, Applied Quantum Mechanics, World Scientific, River Edge, N.J. (2000). would be sustainable for the entire course, but it seems that it was. That answer was the assertion that everything is both a particle and a wave, and that everything else would follow from that one assertion. Planck’s constant arose when the velocity of a wave (the derivative of the frequency with respect to wavenumber) was equated to the velocity of a particle (the derivative of the energy with respect to momentum), so that energy is proportional to frequency and momentum to wavenumber, with the same proportionality constant ħ. When Hamiltonian mechanics was introduced, “everything” became anything that can be described by such mechanics, or anything that satisfies a wave equation. Quantum theory does not say what nature gives, only how to predict the behavior of what is given. If nature serves up particles with half-integral angular momentum, the wavefunction that describes them must go into its negative when they are interchanged, and they therefore obey the Pauli principle.Such principles, which historically arose as independent conjectures, now follow from the one assertion. It is a matter of seeing how this peculiar assertion can turn out to be absolutely true.The relation between quantum theory and the physical world was seen as follows: Quantum theory tells what future scenarios are consistent with some initial information, and what the relative probability of each scenario is. Quantum theory cannot tell more than that, but neither can any other theory.My pragmatic approach may not satisfy everyone’s philosophical needs. But the aim of an applied quantum course is to see how to use the theory and to introduce the many approximations that have made the theory accessible to physicists and engineers. If some basic consequences are difficult to accept, the problem must lie with the initial assertion from which the consequences follow.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. W. A. Harrison, Applied Quantum Mechanics, World Scientific, River Edge, N.J. (2000). Google ScholarCrossref© 2001 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Jun 1, 2001•0 citations

ЧИ ІСНУЮТЬ ЛЮДИ ТА ЇХ МІСТА? (ЯК КВАНТОВА ЗАПЛУТАНІСТЬ І ІНШІ ТЕОРІЇ СТАВЛЯТЬ ВСЕ НА СВОЇ МІСЦЯ)

В.В. Воробйов, О.С. Шило

Statement of the problem. CONSCIOUSNESS IS PRIMARY, MATTER IS SECONDARY. MATERIALISM HAS BEEN OVERTHROWED. It is time for the “architects” to look at everything with different eyes. MAN DOES NOT GENERATE THOUGHTS. They are not his. His brain only accepts them, not knowing who is their source. This has now been proven by scientists working in the field of quantum physics, in the field of neurobiology and in a number of other scientific fields. Consciousness is not in the human brain. It is outside of what we mistakenly took for the material world, which turned out to be an illusion. The material world does not exist. And man in it. What we feel as “our” life is a great self-deception. People are only an idea in the GREAT EMPTINESS = POTENTIAL OF EVERYTHING, which is CONSCIOUSNESS, HAVING NO BORDERS, HAVING NO BEGINNING OR END, NEVER BORN AND NEVER DIES. THERE IS NO TIME. There is only PURE PRESENCE HERE AND NOW. The so-called “CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONS” DO NOT EXIST IN CONSCIOUSNESS. THERE WAS NO EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD AND MAN. THE WHOLE WORLD ARISES AND REASSEMBLES EVERY MOMENT HERE AND NOW. AND EVERY PERSON, EVERY CITY too. Moreover, not everything is preserved during reassembly. Some things change. And are added. But the “person” knows nothing about this and does not remember. Because memory exists in linearity, and here it does not exist. Everything appears instantly from emptiness. No one has ever seen the real self and the world. Many other unexpected conclusions of researchers are already known to the scientific community. Thomas Young, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Wernner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Born, Tom Campbell, Frederico Pagio, and other great scientists, most of whom are Nobel Prize winners for their discoveries in quantum physics, have proven this. Quantum theory states: all religions, as well as all spiritual practices, psychological methods and other techniques were created in order to preserve, hold and control a NON-EXISTENT “HUMAN” in the illusion of a cause-and-effect (distant) world. That is, to close access to the TRUTH. The list of great scientists of the new paradigm of knowledge can be continued for a long time: Richard Feynman, Antonio Damasci, Donald Hoffman, Boris Podolsky, Nathan Rosan, John Bell, Robert Lansen, Bernardo Kastrup, Neville Goddard, Amisha Jha, Joe Spenza and many others. But quantum theory also promises fabulous possibilities for the world of illusions, including in technology. For example, quantum computers. The purpose of this article is to provide architects-practitioners, architect-theorists, architects-officials of architectural services and departments of regional administrations, as well as architect-teachers with the first step towards a fundamentally different understanding of the human world, the world of architecture and urban planning, based on modern achievements in the field of quantum physics, quantum neuroscience and other sciences. It is so different that the entire theory of architecture and urban planning must be revised.

The Scientific Issues of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University Series pedagogy•May 30, 2026•0 citations

Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition)

G. Mahler

Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and General•Jun 17, 2004•4 citations

Mermin habitually answers opinions, real and abstract

Philip Pearle

David Mermin cautions against taking our “most successful abstractions to be real properties of our world.” I think he has set up a straw man. To me, the tenable realist position is not that our concepts are real but rather that they have a correspondence to reality: There can be many such correspondences, each with its utility, none capturing reality—whatever that is.I am not surprised he uses that argument to bolster the position “that quantum states are calculational devices.” In the vein of the disagreement about reality he cites, between Bishop Berkeley and Samuel Johnson, I recall a similar disagreement, between Mermin and John Bell, concerning the foundations of quantum theory. It took place at a meeting in Erice, Italy, in August 1989. Bell had finished his now famous talk “Against ‘Measurement,’ “ in which he argued that there is something wrong with quantum theory, that its rules of application are ill-defined. 1 1. J. Bell, Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, A. Miller, ed., Plenum, New York (1990), p. 17, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8771-8_3 reproduced in Phys. World 3, 33 (August 1990). He introduced the acronym FAPP, meaning that quantum theory is good “for all practical purposes” but insufficient for a truly fundamental theory. In the question-and-answer session, Mermin gave an argument not unlike the one in his Reference Frame. When he was done, Bell replied, “FAPPtrap,” and that was that.Mermin says that if one takes his view, it “can diminish the motivation for theoretical or experimental searches for a ‘mechanism’ underlying … the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’—searches that make life harder than it needs to be.” But why would one want to diminish such motivation? Might not the deficiencies of quantum theory elucidated by Bell be a clue to some deeper theory? And is that not good for physics? Certainly, in this generation, in which we did not predict the acceleration of the universe nor know the nature of dark energy or dark matter, we should have the humility to think that perhaps we do not yet have the “final” quantum theory. For example, in standard quantum theory, how or why an event occurs is a complete mystery. Nature determines an outcome, but we are told it is impossible for us to understand that in terms of anything deeper. Things happen for no reason at all. Why should we follow Mermin’s advice and not try to do better?In my own work and that of Gian-Carlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber, we have developed what is called a dynamical theory of wave-function collapse (continuous spontaneous localization, or CSL). 2 2. Two reviews are P. Pearle in Open Systems and Measurement in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, H. P. Breuer, F. Petruccionne, eds., Springer, Berlin (1999), p. 195 and A. Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi, Phys. Rep. 379, 257 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00103-0 To Schrödinger’s equation, a term is added that describes the interaction of matter with a randomly fluctuating field, so that a state vector in a superposition of macroscopically different states rapidly evolves to one of them. The final state describes the world as we see it. Therefore, the state vector can be said to correspond to reality and not be merely a computational device. Bell regarded CSL as an example of a well-defined theory, which overcomes his objections to standard quantum theory. Moreover, it provides a mechanism, a description, for the occurrence of events. And it makes some predictions that differ from those of standard quantum theory, so it is experimentally testable. Experiments so far have shown that the coupling of random field to matter must be mass proportional, but otherwise they have neither confirmed CSL nor denied it. This is a good thing, and that such attempts should not be discouraged, as Mermin’s article does, was underlined by Richard Feynman, who said in 1964,We have to find a new view of the world that has to agree with everything that is known, but disagree in its predictions somewhere, otherwise it is not interesting. And in that disagreement it must agree with nature. If you can find any other view of the world which agrees over the entire range where things have already been observed, but disagrees somewhere else, you have made a great discovery. It is very nearly impossible, but not quite, to find any theory which agrees with experiments over the entire range in which all theories have been checked, and yet gives different consequences in some other range, even a theory whose different consequences do not turn out to agree with nature. 3 3. R. Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1970), p. 171. REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. Bell, Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, A. Miller, ed., Plenum, New York (1990), p. 17, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8771-8_3 , Google ScholarCrossrefreproduced in Phys. World 3, 33 (August 1990). , Google Scholar2. Two reviews are P. Pearle in Open Systems and Measurement in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, H. P. Breuer, F. Petruccionne, eds., Springer, Berlin (1999), p. 195 and , Google ScholarCrossref A. Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi, Phys. Rep. 379, 257 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00103-0 , , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. R. Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1970), p. 171. Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Sep 1, 2009•0 citations
Sadri Hassani, in his Commentary, laments the fact that many of America’s top-tier medical schools “house centers of integrative health.” He singles out Explore, a peer-reviewed journal I serve as executive editor, for special criticism because we published “Manifesto for a post-materialist science,” which, he says, “elevates parapsychology and near-death experience to the rank of quantum theory.”That article had nothing to do with equating those areas to the scientific status of quantum theory. However, Hassani appears unfamiliar with developments in which quantum physical concepts such as nonlocality and entanglement have been shown to occur in biological systems. That, we believe, indicates some as-yet-undefined degree of overlap between biomedical science and quantum physics. As physicist Vlatko Vedral states in his 2011 article “Living in a quantum world”:Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles. It applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people….… Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do.11. V. Vedral, Sci. Am., June 2011, p. 38, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-in-a-quantum-world/.Until the origin, manifestations, and nature of consciousness—science’s greatest mystery—are resolved, we shall continue to examine those topics at Explore with the same openness advocated by some of the greatest patriarchs of modern physics, including Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics, who said,I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.22. J. W. N. Sullivan, Observer, 25 January 1931, p. 17.And Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger said,Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.33. W. Moore, A Life of Erwin Schrödinger, Canto edition, Cambridge U. Press (1994), p. 181.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. V. Vedral, Sci. Am., June 2011, p. 38, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/living-in-a-quantum-world/. Google ScholarCrossref, ISI2. J. W. N. Sullivan, Observer, 25 January 1931, p. 17. Google Scholar3. W. Moore, A Life of Erwin Schrödinger, Canto edition, Cambridge U. Press (1994), p. 181. Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.
In his Commentary on the dangers of pseudoscience (Physics Today, May 2016, page 10), Sadri Hassani sweeps under the rug the fact that the mind was explicitly introduced into the basic conceptual structure of quantum physics because a link was found between particles being observed and the observer. Several towering figures of quantum physics—for example, Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, John von Neumann, and Eugene Wigner—claimed that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed and that mental events can affect the physical world. Wigner, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963, wrote, “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11. E. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner, Indiana U. Press (1967), p. 169.Hassani cites “Manifesto for a post-materialist science”22. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008 as an example of the growth of pseudoscience, but contrary to what he pretends, that editorial does not seek at all to equate research on psi phenomena and near-death experiences with quantum physics. De facto, the main objective of the manifesto is to present, in a concise and succinct manner, various lines of empirical evidence that strongly suggests that mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world.Mind is fundamental in the universe; that is, it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic. Mind and the physical world are deeply interconnected, and mind—that is, will or intention—can influence the state of the physical world and operate in a nonlocal or extended fashion. That is, it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Furthermore, what we are proposing in the manifesto is that, to the great displeasure of Hassani and other pseudoskeptics like him, the consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem is consistent with those conclusions and with the emerging post-materialist paradigm. It is not pseudoscience; it is evidence-based responsible science respected by open-minded theorists and experimentalists alike.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. E. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner, Indiana U. Press (1967), p. 169. Google Scholar2. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008, Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.
► Hassani replies: Mario Beauregard, Gary Schwartz, and Natalie Trent associate several notable physicists with the integration of consciousness in quantum theory. History is filled with great scientists who held unscientific, even antiscientific beliefs. Lord Rayleigh believed in ghosts; J. J. Thomson believed in dowsing and psychics; William Shockley and James Watson sponsor racialism and eugenics. But these ideological mistakes, sometimes referred to as Nobel disease (see Physics Today, September 1998, page 29), are not made right because of the science of their makers, and the science is not made wrong because of the ideological mistakes of its discoverers. It is the message that counts, not the messenger.One person who can authoritatively judge the role of mind in quantum theory is John Bell, who proved its nonlocality—a concept that pseudoscientists have deformed into their own commodity. Bell stated,I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics…. The only “observer” which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus … once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference … whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such “observing” to computers.11. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Experiments that demonstrate our mental ability to influence physical objects would be as revolutionary as experiments that demonstrated the existence of the electron, the atomic nucleus, and gravitational waves. Why don’t the authors submit their results to mainstream journals so that the larger community of experimenters could verify them? Yes, mainstream journals—that is where all the aforementioned experiments were published and where all science revolutionaries disseminate their ideas.There are essentially three categories of scientists: mainstreamers; those mainstreamers who bend the mainstream; and those who leave the mainstream and become pseudoscientists.All true scientists are in the first category. If they are exceptionally creative, they may end up in the second category. Pseudoscientists, being rejected by the mainstreamers, misinform the public with assertions that “science revolutionaries have also been rejected by mainstreamers, as we have.” Nothing is further from the truth. Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, and other great scientists were mainstreamers who made it to the second category.22. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015).Larry Dossey calls consciousness “science’s greatest mystery.” For centuries, biology was “science’s greatest mystery” because of the manifestation of life in living organisms. Many biologists believed in vitalism, the idea that a “vital force” regulated the activity of animate objects but could not “be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic,” as the “Manifesto for a post-materialist science” states about mind.33. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008 However, with the discovery of DNA, “vital force” is no longer needed to explain the electrochemical reactions taking place at the subcellular level. Since the source of consciousness is the brain, the scientific answer to its nature will come only from the molecular investigation of neurons, not from near-death “experiments.”Mysteries always exist in science, and there are two ways to deal with them. One is to wait and give science a chance to resolve them. The other, the age-old strategy of pseudoscience, is to exploit the limitation of science and inject speculative and unproven conjectures as answers. While biologists have abandoned vitalism, the idea has not died out. It has been disguised and taken up by modern pseudoscientists: Consciousness is the new face of vitalism!Tim LaFave raises a good point regarding debates between science and pseudoscience. Unfortunately, the outcome of such debates would be enormously in favor of pseudoscience, as the Nye–Ham debate demonstrated. When the listeners are scientifically illiterate, the snake oil vendor wins. That’s why, in my Commentary, I proposed that pseudoscience be challenged in the classroom, where science is not drowned in the rhetorical charm of pseudoscience.Philosophy, despite “its utter charm,” as Hans Christian von Baeyer suggests, has been at odds with science ever since their separation. Democritus, the ancient scientist, said about philosophy: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.” Modern physicist Richard Feynman was more blunt:Here’s this great Dutch philosopher [Spinoza], and we’re [Feynman and his son] laughing at him…. You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can’t tell which is right. Sure, people were awed because he had the courage to take on these great questions, but it doesn’t do any good to have the courage if you can’t get anywhere with the question…. [Philosophers] seize on the possibility that there may not be any ultimate fundamental particle, and say that you should stop work … [because] “You haven’t thought deeply enough, first let me define the world for you.” Well, I’m going to investigate without defining it!44. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Google Scholar2. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015). Google Scholar3. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008, Google Scholar4. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195. Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.
Certainly there is no unique answer to Frank Wilczek’s question, “What Is Quantum Theory?” (Physics Today, June 2000, page 11). I was not certain that a pragmatic answer, which I proposed for a course in applied quantum mechanics, 1 1. W. A. Harrison, Applied Quantum Mechanics, World Scientific, River Edge, N.J. (2000). would be sustainable for the entire course, but it seems that it was. That answer was the assertion that everything is both a particle and a wave, and that everything else would follow from that one assertion. Planck’s constant arose when the velocity of a wave (the derivative of the frequency with respect to wavenumber) was equated to the velocity of a particle (the derivative of the energy with respect to momentum), so that energy is proportional to frequency and momentum to wavenumber, with the same proportionality constant ħ. When Hamiltonian mechanics was introduced, “everything” became anything that can be described by such mechanics, or anything that satisfies a wave equation. Quantum theory does not say what nature gives, only how to predict the behavior of what is given. If nature serves up particles with half-integral angular momentum, the wavefunction that describes them must go into its negative when they are interchanged, and they therefore obey the Pauli principle.Such principles, which historically arose as independent conjectures, now follow from the one assertion. It is a matter of seeing how this peculiar assertion can turn out to be absolutely true.The relation between quantum theory and the physical world was seen as follows: Quantum theory tells what future scenarios are consistent with some initial information, and what the relative probability of each scenario is. Quantum theory cannot tell more than that, but neither can any other theory.My pragmatic approach may not satisfy everyone’s philosophical needs. But the aim of an applied quantum course is to see how to use the theory and to introduce the many approximations that have made the theory accessible to physicists and engineers. If some basic consequences are difficult to accept, the problem must lie with the initial assertion from which the consequences follow.REFERENCESection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCE <<1. W. A. Harrison, Applied Quantum Mechanics, World Scientific, River Edge, N.J. (2000). Google ScholarCrossref© 2001 American Institute of Physics.
Statement of the problem. CONSCIOUSNESS IS PRIMARY, MATTER IS SECONDARY. MATERIALISM HAS BEEN OVERTHROWED. It is time for the “architects” to look at everything with different eyes. MAN DOES NOT GENERATE THOUGHTS. They are not his. His brain only accepts them, not knowing who is their source. This has now been proven by scientists working in the field of quantum physics, in the field of neurobiology and in a number of other scientific fields. Consciousness is not in the human brain. It is outside of what we mistakenly took for the material world, which turned out to be an illusion. The material world does not exist. And man in it. What we feel as “our” life is a great self-deception. People are only an idea in the GREAT EMPTINESS = POTENTIAL OF EVERYTHING, which is CONSCIOUSNESS, HAVING NO BORDERS, HAVING NO BEGINNING OR END, NEVER BORN AND NEVER DIES. THERE IS NO TIME. There is only PURE PRESENCE HERE AND NOW. The so-called “CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONS” DO NOT EXIST IN CONSCIOUSNESS. THERE WAS NO EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD AND MAN. THE WHOLE WORLD ARISES AND REASSEMBLES EVERY MOMENT HERE AND NOW. AND EVERY PERSON, EVERY CITY too. Moreover, not everything is preserved during reassembly. Some things change. And are added. But the “person” knows nothing about this and does not remember. Because memory exists in linearity, and here it does not exist. Everything appears instantly from emptiness. No one has ever seen the real self and the world. Many other unexpected conclusions of researchers are already known to the scientific community. Thomas Young, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Wernner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Born, Tom Campbell, Frederico Pagio, and other great scientists, most of whom are Nobel Prize winners for their discoveries in quantum physics, have proven this. Quantum theory states: all religions, as well as all spiritual practices, psychological methods and other techniques were created in order to preserve, hold and control a NON-EXISTENT “HUMAN” in the illusion of a cause-and-effect (distant) world. That is, to close access to the TRUTH. The list of great scientists of the new paradigm of knowledge can be continued for a long time: Richard Feynman, Antonio Damasci, Donald Hoffman, Boris Podolsky, Nathan Rosan, John Bell, Robert Lansen, Bernardo Kastrup, Neville Goddard, Amisha Jha, Joe Spenza and many others. But quantum theory also promises fabulous possibilities for the world of illusions, including in technology. For example, quantum computers. The purpose of this article is to provide architects-practitioners, architect-theorists, architects-officials of architectural services and departments of regional administrations, as well as architect-teachers with the first step towards a fundamentally different understanding of the human world, the world of architecture and urban planning, based on modern achievements in the field of quantum physics, quantum neuroscience and other sciences. It is so different that the entire theory of architecture and urban planning must be revised.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
David Mermin cautions against taking our “most successful abstractions to be real properties of our world.” I think he has set up a straw man. To me, the tenable realist position is not that our concepts are real but rather that they have a correspondence to reality: There can be many such correspondences, each with its utility, none capturing reality—whatever that is.I am not surprised he uses that argument to bolster the position “that quantum states are calculational devices.” In the vein of the disagreement about reality he cites, between Bishop Berkeley and Samuel Johnson, I recall a similar disagreement, between Mermin and John Bell, concerning the foundations of quantum theory. It took place at a meeting in Erice, Italy, in August 1989. Bell had finished his now famous talk “Against ‘Measurement,’ “ in which he argued that there is something wrong with quantum theory, that its rules of application are ill-defined. 1 1. J. Bell, Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, A. Miller, ed., Plenum, New York (1990), p. 17, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8771-8_3 reproduced in Phys. World 3, 33 (August 1990). He introduced the acronym FAPP, meaning that quantum theory is good “for all practical purposes” but insufficient for a truly fundamental theory. In the question-and-answer session, Mermin gave an argument not unlike the one in his Reference Frame. When he was done, Bell replied, “FAPPtrap,” and that was that.Mermin says that if one takes his view, it “can diminish the motivation for theoretical or experimental searches for a ‘mechanism’ underlying … the ‘collapse of the wavefunction’—searches that make life harder than it needs to be.” But why would one want to diminish such motivation? Might not the deficiencies of quantum theory elucidated by Bell be a clue to some deeper theory? And is that not good for physics? Certainly, in this generation, in which we did not predict the acceleration of the universe nor know the nature of dark energy or dark matter, we should have the humility to think that perhaps we do not yet have the “final” quantum theory. For example, in standard quantum theory, how or why an event occurs is a complete mystery. Nature determines an outcome, but we are told it is impossible for us to understand that in terms of anything deeper. Things happen for no reason at all. Why should we follow Mermin’s advice and not try to do better?In my own work and that of Gian-Carlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber, we have developed what is called a dynamical theory of wave-function collapse (continuous spontaneous localization, or CSL). 2 2. Two reviews are P. Pearle in Open Systems and Measurement in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, H. P. Breuer, F. Petruccionne, eds., Springer, Berlin (1999), p. 195 and A. Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi, Phys. Rep. 379, 257 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00103-0 To Schrödinger’s equation, a term is added that describes the interaction of matter with a randomly fluctuating field, so that a state vector in a superposition of macroscopically different states rapidly evolves to one of them. The final state describes the world as we see it. Therefore, the state vector can be said to correspond to reality and not be merely a computational device. Bell regarded CSL as an example of a well-defined theory, which overcomes his objections to standard quantum theory. Moreover, it provides a mechanism, a description, for the occurrence of events. And it makes some predictions that differ from those of standard quantum theory, so it is experimentally testable. Experiments so far have shown that the coupling of random field to matter must be mass proportional, but otherwise they have neither confirmed CSL nor denied it. This is a good thing, and that such attempts should not be discouraged, as Mermin’s article does, was underlined by Richard Feynman, who said in 1964,We have to find a new view of the world that has to agree with everything that is known, but disagree in its predictions somewhere, otherwise it is not interesting. And in that disagreement it must agree with nature. If you can find any other view of the world which agrees over the entire range where things have already been observed, but disagrees somewhere else, you have made a great discovery. It is very nearly impossible, but not quite, to find any theory which agrees with experiments over the entire range in which all theories have been checked, and yet gives different consequences in some other range, even a theory whose different consequences do not turn out to agree with nature. 3 3. R. Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1970), p. 171. REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. Bell, Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty, A. Miller, ed., Plenum, New York (1990), p. 17, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8771-8_3 , Google ScholarCrossrefreproduced in Phys. World 3, 33 (August 1990). , Google Scholar2. Two reviews are P. Pearle in Open Systems and Measurement in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, H. P. Breuer, F. Petruccionne, eds., Springer, Berlin (1999), p. 195 and , Google ScholarCrossref A. Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi, Phys. Rep. 379, 257 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00103-0 , , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI3. R. Feynman, in The Character of Physical Law, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1970), p. 171. Google Scholar© 2009 American Institute of Physics.