In [arXiv:0706.4180], a certain natural phenomenon of self-observing consciousness was shown to be incompatible with the standard axioms of quantum theory. In order to consider a possibility of removing this inconsistency, which arises due to the separation between an observing party and a state vector being observed stated in the quantum theory axioms, we provide a conjecture where ‘being ’ is identified with the conscious experience of observing the state vector. That is, the observer is not observing the state vector in terms of the relative difference between reference frames, instead, the conscious experience of observing the state vector should define the observer, or being. It is shown that the Heisenberg picture provides a natural description of this conjecture. 1
In [arXiv:0706.4180], a certain natural phenomenon of self-observing consciousness was shown to be incompatible with the standard axioms of quantum theory. In order to consider a possibility of removing this inconsistency, which arises due to the separation between an observing party and a state vector being observed stated in the quantum theory axioms, we provide a conjecture where ‘being ’ is identified with the conscious experience of observing the state vector. That is, the observer is not observing the state vector in terms of the relative difference between reference frames, instead, the conscious experience of observing the state vector should define the observer, or being. It is shown that the Heisenberg picture provides a natural description of this conjecture. 1
In [NeuroQuantology 6, 46 (2008): arXiv:0706.4180], a certain natural phenomenon of self-observing consciousness was shown to be incompatible with the standard axioms of quantum theory. In order to consider a possibility of removing this inconsistency, which arises due to the separation between an observing party and a state vector being observed stated in the quantum theory axioms, we provide a conjecture where ‘being’, or existence, is identified with the experience of observing the state vector. That is, the observer is not observing the state vector in terms of the relative difference between reference frames, instead, the experience of observing the state vector should define the observer, or being. It is shown that the Heisenberg picture provides a natural description of this conjecture. 1
Based on the standard axioms of quantum theory, we provide a counter-example which invalidates the full compatibility between consciousness and quantum theory. In particular, we present an example of a natural phenomenon in which an observer's the mental state can be fully described in mathematical terms analogous to the state vector that is being observed. This mathematical description of the observer's mental state enables us to examine consciousness within the standard axioms of quantum theory. The separation between the observing party and the physical system being observed, imposed by the axiom of quantum theory, poses a problem when the observer is observing his own mental state, i.e., self-observing consciousness.
Based on the standard axioms of quantum theory, we provide a counter-example which invalidates the full compatibility between consciousness and quantum theory. In particular, we present an example of a natural phenomenon in which an observer's the mental state can be fully described in mathematical terms analogous to the state vector that is being observed. This mathematical description of the observer's mental state enables us to examine consciousness within the standard axioms of quantum theory. The separation between the observing party and the physical system being observed, imposed by the axiom of quantum theory, poses a problem when the observer is observing his own mental state, i.e., self-observing consciousness.
1 In (Georgiev, 2008), Georgiev claims to have spotted a critical mathematical error in the paper (Song, 2008) showing the incompatibility between quantum theory and consciousness. This note's goal is to show that Georgiev's claim comes from a simple misunderstanding of the paper. The whole point of (Song, 2008) was to show that quantum theory's existing standard axioms cannot consistently describe the phenomenon presented as (N2), which describes a case where an observer in the mental reference frame e is observing his own reference frame's unitary evolution. This phenomenon can be pictured as follows: consider a closed system with an observer and a qubit. The observer can choose or change the measurement basis for the given qubit. Moreover, the observer can still have or change this basis choice e even when the closed system contains no qubit. Philosophy literature widely discusses self-observation, i.e., the observer observing his own mental state, which is also known as reflexive selfconsciousness or simply reflexive consciousness (for example, see (Halliday, 1989; Velmans, 2008)). (N2) considers a case when subject and the object being observed are identical, i.e., both correspond to a single vector, e , rather than two vectors pointing in the same direction. Let us now discuss the fallacy in Georgiev's argument (Georgiev, 2008).
A description of consciousness leads to a contradiction with the postulation from special relativity that there can be no connections between simultaneous event. This contradiction points to consciousness involving quantum level mechanisms. The Quantum level description of the universe is re- evaluated in the light of what is observed in consciousness namely 4 Dimensional objects. A new improved interpretation of Quantum level observations is introduced. From this vantage point the following axioms of consciousness is presented. Consciousness consists of two distinct components, the observed U and the observer I. The observed U consist of all the events I is aware of. A vast majority of these occur simultaneously. Now if I were to be an entity within the space-time continuum, all of these events of U together with I would have to occur at one point in space-time. However, U is distributed over a definite region of space-time (region in brain). Thus, I is aware of a multitude of space-like separated events. It is seen that this awareness necessitates I to be an entity outside the space-time continuum. With I taken as such, a new concept called concept A is introduced. With the help of concept A a very important axiom of consciousness, namely Free Will is explained. Libet s Experiment which was originally seen to contradict Free will, in the light of Concept A is shown to support it. A variation to Libet s Experiment is suggested that will give conclusive proof for Concept A and Free Will.
The reduction of the state vector is rightly held as one of the most puzzling aspects of quantum theory. Before adding a few more pages to the inflatory literature on the subject, I wish to voice a somewhat sobering remark. Namely, there is a striking contrast between the amount of theoretical discussions about the nature and significance of this notion, and its practical import. Indeed, the so-called “axiom” of reduction of the state vector has a rather limited use in the effective working of quantum theory. There are very few situations where we really need to assert that, after a measurement, the state vector has been reduced to the eigenvector of the physical property corresponding to the eigenvalue resulting from the measurement (“observed”). Most of the time, in effect, the system under investigation is forgotten or discarded after the measurement - or even destroyed by it (photons). We rarely make successive observations of the same system, so that we do not usually need to know what the state of a system is after a measurement. One might argue that the reduction of the state vector is operationally used mainly to describe the preparation of a system before acting upon it, that is, to ensure that we are indeed dealing with spin up electrons or velocity selected protons such as we wish to experiment about. Anyway, the statement of reduction is to be considered more as a kind of consistency condition to be required at the beginning or end of a theoretical analysis than as an effective tool of this analysis - such as, for instance, the statement of unitary evolution, which leads to the concrete construction of the evolution operator, hence the S-matrix, cross-sections, etc. In other words, the practical status of the state vector reduction, even if it is considered as an axiom of quantum theory, is different enough from that of the constructive axioms of the theory.