While there is general agreement that quantum theory poses a fundamental challenge to the classical worldview, there is none on what worldview should replace it. This lack of clear positive implications is the heart of the interpretation problem in quantum theory, or understanding what the world must be like assuming the theory is true. The difficulty is twofold. First, if the theory is correct and complete then there seems to be no way to adjudicate empirically among its interpretations, forcing us to rely on metaphysics instead. Second, the classical metaphysics upon which human beings have relied in the past to interpret new theories is now itself problematic, leaving us without an interpretive backstop to anchor our thinking. Bell is surely right in expecting whatever picture of reality eventually emerges from quantum theory to “astonish us,” but by the same token it is very hard to see what that picture should be. In this chapter I address the debate about the positive worldview implications of quantum theory. Of all the chapters in this book it is the farthest removed from the concerns of social scientists. However, it plays an important dialectical function in my argument, which is to introduce and help justify the panpsychist interpretation of quantum theory that I will embrace and discuss at more length in Chapter 6. By ‘justify’ I do not mean that I will defend this interpretation as superior to others. My purpose is more modest, which is simply to show why, despite what might seem to be its bizarre and counter-intuitive nature, panpsychism is taken quite seriously by philosophers of physics as a way to interpret quantum theory. That's because (a) there are strong analogies between quantum systems and the human mind, and (b) the alternatives are equally bizarre and counter-intuitive. If readers are prepared to accept that panpsychism is a valid approach to the mind–body problem, then this chapter may be skipped – which I have made less costly by deferring until Chapter 6 a discussion of time-symmetric approaches like the Transactional Interpretation, which will play an important role later in the book.
While there is general agreement that quantum theory poses a fundamental challenge to the classical worldview, there is none on what worldview should replace it. This lack of clear positive implications is the heart of the interpretation problem in quantum theory, or understanding what the world must be like assuming the theory is true. The difficulty is twofold. First, if the theory is correct and complete then there seems to be no way to adjudicate empirically among its interpretations, forcing us to rely on metaphysics instead. Second, the classical metaphysics upon which human beings have relied in the past to interpret new theories is now itself problematic, leaving us without an interpretive backstop to anchor our thinking. Bell is surely right in expecting whatever picture of reality eventually emerges from quantum theory to “astonish us,” but by the same token it is very hard to see what that picture should be. In this chapter I address the debate about the positive worldview implications of quantum theory. Of all the chapters in this book it is the farthest removed from the concerns of social scientists. However, it plays an important dialectical function in my argument, which is to introduce and help justify the panpsychist interpretation of quantum theory that I will embrace and discuss at more length in Chapter 6. By ‘justify’ I do not mean that I will defend this interpretation as superior to others. My purpose is more modest, which is simply to show why, despite what might seem to be its bizarre and counter-intuitive nature, panpsychism is taken quite seriously by philosophers of physics as a way to interpret quantum theory. That's because (a) there are strong analogies between quantum systems and the human mind, and (b) the alternatives are equally bizarre and counter-intuitive. If readers are prepared to accept that panpsychism is a valid approach to the mind–body problem, then this chapter may be skipped – which I have made less costly by deferring until Chapter 6 a discussion of time-symmetric approaches like the Transactional Interpretation, which will play an important role later in the book.
Although this book is about the implications for social science of a quantum approach to the mind, much of that potential stems from its ability to integrate consciousness – a particular aspect of the mind – into a naturalistic worldview. And when it comes to the hard problem, quantum brain theory is only a necessary condition for such integration, not sufficient. Necessary, because it would enable the body to exploit for macro-level purposes a physical but non- material space for consciousness at the quantum level – collapse of the wave function – that does not exist in classical physics. Insufficient, however, because quantum brain theory embodies an objective, third-person standpoint and as such can tell us no more than classical brain theory can about why brains have a subjective, first-person point of view in the first place. The explanatory gap is still there, in other words, only now pushed down into quantum theory. To cross this gap, therefore, in addition to a new physics of the brain we will need a new meta -physics as well. As I argue in this chapter, it is this metaphysics that does the real work in solving the mind–body problem. Most social scientists have an instinctive aversion to ‘metaphysics,’ which in our world connotes wooly-headed and speculative thinking that has no place in science. Yet in moving onto this terrain the situation is both worse and better than that. It is worse because we have no choice. The Neuron Doctrine itself is based on a metaphysic, materialism, which looks increasingly unlikely to ever explain consciousness; and in thinking about the meaning of quantum theory metaphysical debate can hardly be avoided, precisely because physics provides little guidance for choosing among its interpretations. So the only question is whether to change our metaphysics of the brain from classical to quantum.
Despite scholarly consensus on the empirical facts, ever since its inception in the 1920s there has been deep disagreement about how to interpret quantum theory. “To interpret a physical theory is to say what the world would be like, if the theory were true.” All scientific theories require interpretation, since strictly speaking what they describe are our experiences of the world rather than the world itself. Thus, whether we are trying to explain or merely describe the world, we are always engaged in inference. To make inferences we need a context for interpretation. For any given claim this context is provided locally by related theories, more broadly by disciplinary paradigms, and ultimately by worldview claims about the nature of reality. The challenge in interpreting scientific theories is to integrate them into this hierarchy of knowledge. Usually this is not too difficult. New theories often require adjustments to nearby theories, but in doing so we can rely on paradigms to make them cohere. More rarely paradigmatic assumptions are themselves challenged, but in that case scientists can fall back on their worldview to make sense of the needed changes. By implication, the most difficult interpretive problems arise when our worldview is called into question, which leaves us without any frame of reference on which to fall back. Quantum theory poses a worldview problem. Prior to the quantum revolution the classical worldview could not be tested scientifically and so it was essentially metaphysical. Even though it corresponded to our experience of material objects, we lacked proof that it adequately represented the deep structure of reality. By giving us access to that deep structure for the first time, quantum mechanics made it possible to do such a test, or “experimental metaphysics.” Unfortunately, the results seemed to contradict classical assumptions, at least on the sub-atomic level.
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
Abstract Metaphysicians should pay attention to quantum mechanics, but not because it provides definitive answers to many metaphysical questions. The theory itself is remarkably silent on the nature of the physical world, and the various interpretations of the theory on offer present conflicting ontological pictures. Rather, quantum mechanics is essential to the metaphysician because it reshapes standard metaphysical debates and opens up unforeseen new metaphysical possibilities. Even if quantum mechanics provides few clear answers, there are good reasons to think that any adequate understanding of the quantum world will result in a radical reshaping of our classical worldview in some way or other. Whatever the world is like at the atomic scale, it is almost certainly not the swarm of particles pushed around by forces that is often presupposed. This book guides readers through the theory of quantum mechanics and its implications for metaphysics in a clear and accessible way. The theory and its various interpretations are presented with a minimum of technicality. The consequences of these interpretations for metaphysical debates concerning realism, indeterminacy, causation, determinism, holism, and individuality (among other topics) are explored in detail, stressing the novel form that the debates take given the empirical facts in the quantum domain. While quantum mechanics may not deliver unconditional pronouncements on these issues, the range of possibilities consistent with our knowledge of the empirical world is relatively small—and each possibility is metaphysically revisionary in some way.
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.
INTRODUCTION In 1965 Hilary Putnam published the standard work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a piece that all philosophers of quantum mechanics of the time had to come to terms with. He laid out one-by-one in a clear non-technical way each of the available approaches to the problem and explained, again non-technically but very exactly, what is wrong with them. In his own final words Putnam took ‘the modest but essential step of becoming clear on the nature and magnitude of the difficulties’ (1965, 158). In the almost forty years since there have been a variety of advances, technical developments and new points of view. But none of these is uncontroversial. In fact each suffers from some one or another of the very difficulties that Putnam summarised. Many of the newer approaches explain why the problem is not a problem after all; a few bury the problems in technical detail; and some make heroic assumptions, often metaphysical, that cause the problems to disappear. My conclusion surveying the contemporary literature is the same as Putnam's in 1965: ‘no satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics exists today’ (1965, 157). The time scale is amazing. Putnam's important piece was written forty years after the first formulations and successes of quantum mechanics. I am writing forty years later, and about a theory that has transformed our technology and our way of thinking about the world. Why does this theory still have ‘no satisfactory interpretation’?