A Look At Quantum Acausal Determinism - Its Roots, And Support

Quantum acausal determinism differs from quantum acausal indeterminism in respect that the former is based on Louis deBroglie's concept of a physically real "pilot" wave which is associated with the wave function. Thus, a physically real wave solution satisfies Schrodinger's equation:

H _op y  =  E_op  y

Where:  

p _op  =  -i h (¶/ ¶ x)  And

E_op  =  i h  (¶ /¶t)

So, the full wave equation in one dimension (x) becomes:

- h / 2m (¶ ²/ ¶ x²) y  +   V(x) y  =   i h  (¶ /¶t) y

 Meanwhile, in the Bohmian acausal deterministic setting[1]: "it is supposed that each experimental result is determined completely by a set of hidden variables, φ. Thus, the result A of measurement of spin in the direction â depends only on φ, while the result C, of measurement of spin in direction ĉ depends only on φ and ĉ"

This was a brilliant tour-de -force which can be summarized:

A = A (â, φ)

C = C(ĉ, φ)

where measuring entanglements such as: A = A(â, ĉ, φ) and C = C(â, ĉ, φ) are specifically excluded.

Thus, as the authors note[2]:

"In other words, while nothing is said about the general dynamical laws of the hidden variables, φ, which may be as nonlocally connected as we please, we are requiring that the response of each particular observing instrument to the set φ, depends only on it own state and not the state of any other piece of apparatus that is far away".

This is a critical distinction, because it eliminates the pure objection Einstein had to unlimited nonlocality. Thus, Bohmian quantum physics introduces a measure of locality by tying the action of hidden variables to the particular observing device.

To fix ideas and show differences, in the Aspect experiment four different analyzer orientation 'sets' were obtained. These might be denoted:

 (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV

Each result is expressed as a mathematical (statistical) quantity known as a 'correlation coefficient'. Aspect's final result (sum) yielded:

S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV = 2.70 ± 0.05

            What is the significance? In a landmark theoretical achievement in 1964, mathematician John S. Bell formulated a thought experiment based on a design similar to that shown. He made the basic assumption of locality (i.e. that no communication could occur between A1 and A2 at any rate faster than light speed). In what is now widely recognized as a seminal work of mathematical physics, he set out to show that a theory which upheld locality could reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. His result predicted that the above sum, S, had to be less than or equal to 2 (S less than or equal 2). This is known as the 'Bell Inequality'.

In the case of  David Bohm's hidden variables, and its deterministic model, the above sum came to less than 2.

The key insight for Bohm was in terms of the evolution (time change) of the probability density:

dP/dt + S_n  (Ñ _n)  (P Ñ_n S)/m = 0

From the preceding, and a modified Hamilton -Jacobi equation,  Bohm deduced that each particle would be acted upon not only by a classical potential but also an added quantum potential Q.

 I now examine this in the context of an experimental underpinning. Since Bohm's deterministic theory includes what he calls "hidden variables" - which effectively drive the determinism toward a relative locality- then these must be incorporated. The problem is to invoke an experimental basis which can allow the determinism to be checked.

            The original proposal[3] by Rietdjik and Selleri was to show that if a photon is successively transmitted by 2 polarizers (using appropriate settings or orientations) then the very first transmission must influence a hidden variable which co-determines the second one. "Malus law" was first formulated by Etienne Louis Malus in 1809 and asserts that the intensity of light transiting an analyzer and polarizer is proportional to cos²(q) where q is the angle through which the analyzer is rotated with respect to the polarizer.

One can proceed by first considering a set-up with 2 orthogonally polarized correlated photons (designated 'g 1' and 'g 2' in the diagram shown below) and these interact with three polarizers denoted A, B and C.

If 'E' is the causal event (e.g. photon departure from location), then by causal determinism one must find:

AE <  CE  <  BE

In other words, the interaction event denoted 'AE' (whereupon the designated photon for  g 1 interacts with polarizer A) occurs before CE and CE before BE.

By appropriate computations one is led to a theorem:

"A deterministic theory with hidden variable φ reproduces Malus' law for a photon (g2) transmitted by two polarizers C and B, with arbitrarily chosen settings of their axes, only if the hidden variable φ undergoes some change (a redistribution) when g 2 crosses the first polarizer.

To refine the experiment, one removes the polarizer C from the top panel set up shown  and defines p1,2(x - p /2, y) to be the probability that, in the new setup g 1 is transmitted by A, and g2 by B.

For the new (lower panel, Fig. B) setup, the predictions of quantum mechanics allow us to write:

P1,2 (x –p/2, y) = ½ sin²(x – p /2, y) = ½ cos²(x – y) = p2(x,y)


 So long as polarizers A and B of the original setup are orthogonal (e.g. perpendicular to one another) photon g 2 is transmitted by C if  g 1 is transmitted by A. Thus, in the case of A and C orthogonality, then for each micro-condition of the system (g1, g2) for which g1 is transmitted so also is g2. This must meant the relevant sets of hidden variables φ _i,j are identical, viz.:

φ _i (x – p /2) = φ _j(x)

and

φ*_i(x – p /2) = φ*_j(x)


  Therefore, one can deduce that if the hidden variable φ, (implicit in the lower arrangement) experiences no change from the previous interaction (of g1 and A, via transmission or absorption) then we have:

P1,2(x –p /2, y) = m (φ _i(x – p /2) Ç   φ _j(x))

Where /x\ denotes set intersection

        As Rietdjik and Selleri note[4] the preceding expressed “a mutual physical independence of the transmission events at A and B, respectively, in the sense  that one of the events does not change the hidden variable φ as it is relevant to the other.” This is precisely what confers a relative locality since the action of φ is constrained.

It is also what paves the way toward validating Bohm's acausal determinism.  How so?

Either one of two propositions must be valid, supporting or refuting a deterministic effect:

1) Transmission across C generates a change in φ and thereby allows transmission through B, or

2) No change transpires with the crossing at C, so none occurs at B (no influence, so null hypothesis)

Let’s look at each in terms of the hidden variable sets: φi(x), φj(y). Then in order for g2 to transit C we need: φ (- φ _i(x); and to transit B, we need φ (- φ_j(y). Then to transit both:
φ   (- φ_i(x) Ç   φ_j(y))

Using this one can estimate the probability condition by way of summing all orientations, as applicable to the null hypothesis:

p2(a,b) + p2(b,c) + p2(c,a) > ½

Which, of course, violates Malus’ law which predicts:

p2(x,y) = ½ cos²(x – y)

Using partial derivatives we can move further on this.

Let S = p2(a,b) + p2(b,c) + p2(c,a)

And apply the Malus’ law requirement, viz. based on the orientations for axes x, y:

S = ½ [cos²(a – b) + cos²(b – c) + cos²(c – a)]

Take the partial:

¶S/ ¶ a = - ½ [sin 2(a – b) – sin 2(c – a)]


  At this point, we briefly review the concepts of max-min theory to do with partial derivatives of functions of several independent variables (say a, b, c etc.)

Consider a function of x alone such that: F(x) = f(x, a, b, c…)

which has an extreme value (extremum) at x = a. Then if f has a partial derivative with respect to x at x = a, that partial derivative must be zero by virtue of the theory for max-min functions F(x) of a single independent variable., viz.

¶f/ ¶x = 0 at x = a

Similar reasoning allows us to arrive at the necessary conditions for minima say, when one has a function of several independent variables.

The number of simultaneous equations ¶f/ ¶x = 0 etc. thus obtained is equal to the number of independent variables. In the case of S, we have three independent variables a, b and c representing the different polarizer positions. For minimization we need:

¶S/ ¶a = 0, ¶S  /¶b = 0 and ¶S /¶c = 0

We see that since: ¶S/¶a = - ½ [sin 2(a – b) – sin2(c – a)]

¶S/ ¶a = 0 implies: (a – b) = (c – a)

E.g. let (a – b) = (c – a) =  p /2

Then: - ½ [sin2(p/2) – sin2(p/2)] = - ½ [sin(p) – sin(p)] = 0

Of course, since we’ve three polarizer orientations, a, b and c the minima must hold for all, then also we have:

¶S/¶b = 0 implies: (a – b) = (b – c)

And:

¶S/¶c = 0 implies: (b – c) = (c – a)

Further computations disclose that we need:

(a – b) = (b – c) = (c – a) = 120 deg

Then:

S_min = ½ [cos²(120) + cos²(120) + cos²(120)]

Since cos (120) = ½

S_min  = ½ [(½)² + (½)² + (½)²] = ¼


Or: S_min = ½ [(¼) + (¼) + (¼)] = ½ [(3/4)] = 3/8

Since 3/8 is less than ½ this violates the null hypothesis of no influence, and hence proves that a deterministic hidden variables effect is present. 

---

[1] Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J.: 1981, Foundations of Physics, No. 11,  No. 7/8, p. 529.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Rietjik, C.W. and Selleri, F.,   Foundations of Physics, 3/85, p. 303.

[4] Rietjik, C.W. and Selleri, F.,  Ibid.

The EPR Paradox and Quantum Nonlocality (Part 1)

In 1935, Einstein along with two colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, devised a thought experiment.[1]  This has since been called the EPR experiment based on the first initials of their names.  Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (E-P-R) imagined a quantum system (atom) which could be ruptured such that two electrons were dispatched to two differing measurement devices. Each electron would carry a property called 'spin'. Since the atom had zero spin, this meant one would have spin (+ 1/2), the other (-1/2). The diagram below illustrates this, the atom being disrupted inside the box, with its opposing spin electrons sent to the left and right.
 
A1 (+ ½ ) <----------->(- ½ )A2


Orthodox quantum mechanics forbade the simultaneous measurement of a property (say different spin states) for the same system. If you got one, you could not obtain the other. This was a direct outcome of the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle which stated that simultaneous quantum measurements could not be made to the same precision.

 E-P-R argued that this showed the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. It was not the 'paragon' of physical theories its apologists claimed, if such indeterminacy was fundamentally embedded within it. At the same time they conceived an 'experiment' in which both spins could be identified - with the sole assumption that both were in definite states from the instant of their parent atom's disruption.

 Then, we need only know one spin to obtain the other. Say we know or can measure one spin to be (+1/2).[2] Since the total atomic spin is zero, the other electron must have spin (-1/2) since:   (-1/2) + (+1/2) = 0

 Thus, we manage to skirt the Indeterminacy Principle, and obtain both spins simultaneously without one measurement disturbing the other. We gain completeness, but at a staggering cost. Because this simultaneous knowledge of the spins implied  that information would have had to propagate from one spin measuring device (on the left side) to the other (on the right side) instantaneously! This was interpreted to mean faster-than-light communication, which violates special relativity. In effect, a 'paradox' ensues: quantum theory attains completeness only at the expense of another fundamental physical theory - relativity.

 By this point, Einstein believed he finally had Bohr by the throat. Figuring Bohr might come up with some trick or sly explanation, Einstein went one better at the 6th Solvay Conference held in 1930, actually designing a device (see image on next page) that he was convinced would have Bohr in tears trying to find a solution. (According to reports, it very nearly did, and a number of participants insisted Neils was in a state of "shock" believing there was no real solution.)

Using his hypothetical (purely on paper) thought device, Einstein wanted to put to rest once and for all the notion that quantum mechanics was complete, or was in any way a proper science. The mechanical device contrived by Einstein was designed as a counter-example to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle for energy and time which states:

ΔE Δ t ³  h/2π

Fig. 1: Einstein’s Thought Experiment Device

In the device, a weight scale is located and one can see it when a door (front of box) opens, with the door controlled by a clock timer. Whenever the door flaps open, even for a split second, one photon escapes and the weight difference (between original box and after) can be computed using Einstein's mass-energy equation, e.g.: m = E/ c². Thus, the difference is taken as follows:

Weight(before door opens) - weight (after - with 1 photon of mass m = E/ c²   gone)

     Thus, since the time for brief opening is known (Δ t) and the photon's mass can be deduced from the above weight difference, Einstein argued that one can in principle  find both the photon's energy and time of passage to any level of accuracy without any need for the energy-time uncertainty principle.

     In other words, the result could be found on a totally deterministic basis!

     Bohr nearly went crazy when he studied the device, and for hours worried there was no solution and maybe the wily determinist was correct after all. When Bohr did finally come upon the solution, he realized he'd hoisted the master on his own petard.

     The thing Einstein overlooked was that his very act of weighing the box translated to observing its displacement (say, dr = r2 - r1) within the Earth's gravitational field. But in Einstein's general theory of relativity, he'd found that clocks actually do run slower in gravitational fields (a phenomenon called 'gravitational time dilation') In this case, for the Earth, one would have the fractional difference in proper time, as a fraction of time passage t:

dt/ t » GM(1/r1 - 1/r2) » g(dr)/ c²

where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, M is the Earth's mass, and g is the acceleration of gravity (g = 980 cm/ sec² in cgs) and c = 3 x 10¹⁰ cm/sec.

Let us say the box deflection (r2 - r1)was 0.001 mm = 0.0001cm, then:

dt/t ~ (980 cm/s²)(10^-4 cm)/ (3 x 10¹⁰ cm/sec )²

dt/t »  10^-22

and for an interval say t = 0.01 sec,  and:

 

dt =   (10^-22 )(0.01 sec) = 10^-24 sec

In other words, the observation would actually generate a time uncertainty of 10^-24  sec- and hence an uncertainty dE in the energy of the photon. In other words, after the displacement (r2 - r1) arising from the measurement, the clock is in a gravitational field different from the original one. (The Energy uncertainty can meanwhile be computed from the Heisenberg energy -time relation to be dE  » 10^-10 J)

Quantum theory prevails again!

 Einstein's challenges to Bohr in the aftermath were all kind of half-hearted and had nowhere near the intensity of his clock-door device work of art. Rather than join happily with other QM theorists at the last Solvay Conference in 1933 Einstein - the perpetual determinist- remained on the sidelines "feeling the same uneasiness as he had before".

He went to work separately, on a "unified field theory" while the quantum theory edifice was formulated to its present maturity without him.

 Aside:   Most people outside physics are unaware there were seven Solvay Conferences in all, in the course of which the essential underpinnings and core interpretation of quantum mechanics was thrashed out – leading to the Copenhagen Interpretation.

 In the orthodox Copenhagen (and most conservative) interpretation of quantum theory, there can be no separation of observed (e.g. spin) state until an observation or measurement is made. Until that instant (of detection) the states are in a superposition, as described above.   More importantly, the fact of superposition imposes on all quantum phenomena an inescapable ‘black box’. In other words, no information other than statistical can be extracted before observation.

2. Bell's Theorem and the Aspect Experiment

 Years later, mathematician John S. Bell asked the question: 'What if the E-P-R experiment could actually be carried out? What sort of mathematical results would be achieved?' In a work referred to as "the most profound discovery in the history of science", Bell then proceeded to place the E-P-R experiment in a rigorous and quantifiable context, which could be checked by actual measurements.

 In a landmark theoretical achievement in 1964, Bell formulated a thought experiment based on a design similar to that shown at the opening of the chapter. He made the basic assumption of locality (i.e. that no communication could occur between A1 and A2 at any rate faster than light speed). In what is now widely recognized as a seminal work of mathematical physics, he set out to show that a theory which upheld locality could reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. His result predicted that the above sum, S, had to be less than or equal to 2 (S £ 2). This is known as the Bell Inequality.

 To test quantum conformity to Bell's Theorem, Alain Aspect and his colleagues at the University of Paris, set up an arrangement as sketched below.[3]  In these experiments, the detection of the polarizations[4] of photons was the key. These were observed with the photons emanating from a Krypton-Dye laser and arriving at two different analyzers, e.g.

 

(P1) A1 ¯| <------------> |­ A2 (P2)

                                              

Here, the laser device is D, and the analyzers (polarization detectors) are A1 and A2 along with two representative polarizations given at each, for two photons P1 and P2. The results of these remarkable experiments disclosed apparent and instantaneous connections between the photons at A1 and A2. In the case shown, a photon (P1) in the minimum (0) intensity polarization mode, is anti-correlated with one in the maximum intensity (1) mode.

 Say, twenty successive detections are made and we obtain, at the respective analyzers (where a ‘1’ denotes spin  +1/2 detection and ‘0’ spin  (-1/ 2):

A1:   1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

A2:   0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

 

On inspection, there is a 100% anti-correlation (i.e. 100% negative correlation) between the two and an apparent nonlocal connection. In practice, the experiment was set out so that four (not two - as shown) different orientation 'sets' were obtained for the analyzers. These might be denoted: (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV.

 Each result is expressed as a mathematical (statistical) quantity known as a 'correlation coefficient'.[5] The results from each orientation were then added to yield a sum S:

S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV

 In his (1982) experiments, Aspect determined the sum with its attendant indeterminacy to be:[6]   S = 2.70 ±  0.05 and in so doing experimentally validated Bell’s Inequality.

 The crucial significance of the Aspect experiment (1982) and earlier the Clauser experiment in 1969, had not been lost on physicist David Bohm.  Both experiments reinforced for him that a novel concept had to be introduced to account for these nonlocal results. The old answer of the Copenhagen theorists: 'Leave it alone!', wouldn't do any more. In essence, Bohm had become convinced that the entrenched vagueness and philosophical abdication of the standard Copenhagen Interpretation could no longer be supported.

---

    [1] Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.: Physical  Review, 777.

[2] More technically, this is what is referred to as ‘the z-component of electron spin’, since the electron is visualized as a spinning top, with z-axis (i.e. component) in the axial or z-direction.

    [3] Aspect, Grangier, and Roger: Physical Review Letters, 91.

    [4] Polarization is the orientation in space of the electric field E, associated with light. This can be altered, subject  to the imposition of different filters and devices.

    [5] For example, if a set of data: 1, 1, 1, 1 is correlated with another set: 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, the correlation coefficient is 1.0. The range is between 0 (no correlation) and 1.0 (perfect correlation).

    [6] Aspect, A. et al, op. cit.

Michio Kaku's "Model of Mind" is Too Simplistic, Reductionist

I suppose it was too much to expect that the author of Quantum Field Theory (Oxford Univ. Press, 1993) would be able in any way to discern that 'mind' can't simply be reduced to deterministic parameters, but there it is. In Michio Kaku's new book, The Future of Mind, he makes the same mistake I did with my first book, 'The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism'.  by predicating distinct levels of self-awareness (consciousness) on the numerical number of discrete 'feedback loops'.   The ideal sort of component, to add to those for the basic Turing machine, would be something including internal and external feedback. That is, combine sensory (external) information, with various data and internal information and then process it to provide appropriate responses.

From my own book, I show one such possible component to achieve this capacity- known as an ‘XOR’ or exclusive –OR gate. And, we’d need a lot of these in tandem, just as we would numerous switching components.  The key point is that each combined output, be it X1Y1 or X2Y2 is fed back as a novel input. (Note that Y2 is designated as the complementary value of whatever Y1 is). We assume here that one output, say X1, arises from internal data already stored while X2 arises from some mix of outside data and other internal data kept in hidden registers somewhere. (Which could be likened to a human’s ‘subconscious’). In each case, outputs are produced that are fed back into the system providing it with the capability of self-recursiveness and a degree of self-regulation.

With enough of these operating in concert with appropriate switches etc. one might obtain the most basic human consciousness or 'Zimbo.'  While not at the fully conscious human level, there’s an amazing amount the ‘zimbo’ would be capable of, so it shouldn’t be dismissed too hastily. For example, a complex zimbo features a number of programs or sub-modules running concurrently. Consider a chess-playing module [C]. We identify the following essential sub-modules as integral it: foresight F(C) or the ability to see ahead some number of moves, M(C) mathematical-spatial recognition. Thus, for chess-playing: [C] = F(C) + M(C) at minimum. By extension if [H] is the total ‘program’ for a human zimbo, a number of sub-modules: P1, P2, P3 etc. can be assigned such that:

[H] = P1 + P2 + P3 + P4 +.......

and which exhaust all possible forms of human behavior and cognitive manifestation. Thus, as a conglomerate of virtual programs the aggregate human is itself a ‘virtual machine’! By definition it is governed by one or more parallel processes (e.g. P1, P2) such that:

P1-> [1, 0, 0, 1.............N]
P2-> [0, 1, 1, 1.............M]

such that EFFECT [E] <=> P1(N), P2(M)

Here the processes P1 and P2 are hidden from scrutiny and represent transfers of data bits in the parallel architecture (between its ‘accumulators’ and ‘registers’, and manipulated by switching elements such as already described). These go up to some number of (N,M) parallel steps where N = M generally. The effect is recursive (feedback loop programmed in) so that the program has the capability to adjust to input parameters and alter the effect (output) accordingly.

Now, Kaku's basic claim is one can approach a practical model of 'mind' (taken as the software processing aspect of the "wetware" or brain) by simply adding more and more of these feedback loop components. At no stage does he remotely think this will only leave you with more sophisticate Zimbos, as opposed to actual self-aware humans.  No surprise this is the very sort of model a reductionist physicist would invoke and, incredibly, he finds it not at all ironic to posit a thermostat at one end of the 'scale of awareness' and humans at the highest. But, sadly - like me - he seized on a metaphor and took it for a model or mechanism of operation.

So where Kaku runs off the rails, as I did,   is in using this ridiculously simple reductionist metaphor to suggest human self-consciousness can result from an indefinitely large macro-assembly of logic elements.  But again, this is what a reductionist would do since he's trapped in a box of his own making, where his very dependence on component reality means he's unable to conceive of emergence.  It is actually emergence - contingent on the brain as a quantum mechanical entity - that leads to a full model of human consciousness.

As another reviewer of Kaku's book has pointed out: "Simulations are not a self, and information is not experience." (Sunday New York Times Book Review, 'Dreaming in Code')  . How is the breakthrough made, conceptually, to emergence? Physicist Henry Stapp has pointedly noted that uncertainty principle limitations applied to calcium ion capture near synapses shows they (calcium ions) must be represented by a probability function. (Stapp, Henry, P.: 1993, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, p. 42.)

More specifically, the dimension of the associated calcium ion wavepacket scales many times larger than the calcium ion itself. This nullifies the use of classical trajectories or classical mechanics to trace the path of the ions.  It thereby opens the door to quantum mechanics.

My insight, elaborated fully in my new book, (Beyond Atheism, Beyond God)  is that if one replaces the mechanical logic gates  (for the simple feedback loop inputs-outputs)  with QM  "gates", i.e. based on Pauli spin operators, then the entry of novelty and emergence is enabled. For example, the NOT gate can be represented by what is called a unitary matrix, or Pauli spin matrix-operator σ_x = (0,1¦1,0) where the left pair is a matrix 'top' and each right pair a matrix 'bottom' - since they are usually written in a rectangular array form.

Similarly, the other Pauli gates would be defined by: σ_y = (0,-i¦i, 0)and  σ_z = (1, 0¦0, -1), where i denotes the square root of (-1).  Incorporation of such Pauli (quantum) gates meets a primary application requirement for feed forward networks, in describing synapse function. (See e.g. Yaneer Bar-Yam, 'Dynamics of Complex Systems', Addison-Wesley, pp. 298-99.)

What is the advantage of doing this? Well, as I pointed out in my recent book, consciousness is elevated out of the strict machine-like model of an ordinary computer to one that can explain more features of the human experience, including the so-called "'qualia problem".  The qualia problem is often also called the Mary problem since it presents a hypothetical character (“Mary”) who inhabits a black and white world, but knows everything about colors in physics terms, i.e. 'yellow' corresponds to a wavelength of 5500 Angstroms, and 'red' to 7500 Angstroms etc.. Still, though she knows what color signifies, i.e. a particular wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum – she has never experienced it.  The qualia problem helps to distinguish between what many call monistic physicalism and what I refer to as quantum physicalism. Monistic physicalism in its most rudimentary form can be summarized by Victor Stenger’s comment (cf. God and the Folly of Faith, 155) :

It does not matter whether you are trying to measure a particle property or a wave property. You always measure particles. Here is the point that most people fail to understand: Quantum mechanics is just a statistical theory like statistical mechanics, fundamentally reducible to particle behavior

 

And the biggest contradiction to Stenger’s interpretation is (cf.  J.S Bell,: Foundations of Physics, (12,) .989 )

Although Y is a real field it does not show up immediately in the results of a ‘single measurement’, but only in the statistics of many such results. It is the de Broglie –Bohm variable X that shows up immediately each time.

From this one can deduce that Kaku - from his model of mind - is a monistic Materialist like Stenger. In this way he can blithely dismiss telepathy (Ch. 3 p. 63),  telekinesis Ch. 4 (p.80) and of course, quantum consciousness (p. 329) . One wonders, therefore, if he's read the work of Dr. Robert G. Jahn who showed how student participants in his lab at Princeton Univ. could (telekinetically) disturb random number generators on computers, as published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration. (Vol. 1, No. 1).

 As NY Times' reviewer Adam Frank points out (ibid.): "he assumes that scientific accounts of consciousness must reduce to discussions of circuitry and programming alone. But there are other options. For those pursuing ideas of emergence, descriptions of lower level structures like neurons don't exhaust nature's creative potential."

But by applying QM the path to that creative potential is enabled and opened not foreclosed. (And bear in mind, Kaku's model devoid of QM is no more beyond the realm of conjecture than mine, or Henry Stapp's or David Bohm's!)  Thus as disclosed in the diagram (Fig. 2) one can illustrate the two types of concept to be interwoven: biological networks (left side) and an associated quantum vector superposition in terms of wavefunctions (right).

A neuron in sub-complex 'A' either fires or not. The 'firing' and 'not firing' can be designated as two different quantum states identified by the numbers 1 and 2. When we combine them together in a vector sum diagram, we obtain the superposition.

 Y  (n ( A] =  Y  (n1 ( A1] +  Y (n1 ( A2)]

where the wave function (left side) applies to the collective of neurons in 'A', and takes into account all the calcium wavepackets that factored into the process. What if one has 1,000 neurons, each to be described by the states 1 and 2? In principle, one can obtain the vector sum as shown in the above equation for all of the neuronal sub-complex A, and combine it with all the other vector sums for the sub-complexes B, C, D and E in an optimized path. The resulting aggregate vector sum represents the superposition of all subsidiary wave states and possibilities in a single probability density function. Configure the action of Pauli spin gates as well, and radical emergence is allowed, of the type that could even account for the effects reported by Robert Jahn (from his students) on computer random number generators.

In the end, what is on offer from Kaku - like Stenger- is another form of Scientism.  Another physicist ahead of his time, Bernard d'Espagnat advises caution for all those who'd willy -nilly hitch their wheels of reality to it: (In Search of Reality, p. 56):

If scientism were correct, or more precisely, if the view of the world it proposes so forcefully, that of a world ultimately consisting of myriads of small localized objects merely endowed with quasi-local properties were correct, then such an evolution of our mentality would admittedly be excellent. It is always good for man to know the truth! But on the other hand, if the ultimate vision of the world which scientism proposes is false, if its conceptual bases are mistaken, then this development is – on the contrary –quite unfortunate.

He continues, matter of factly, noting that the presumptions of “common scientism” are false in his estimation, and he bases this not on subjective opinion but on specific scientific facts, e.g. the nonlocality disclosed in the (1983) Aspect experiment, and the existence of de Broglie waves as revealed by the Davisson -Germer experiment.. This is a conclusion with which I must concur. It is also a world view that offers a picture of humans beyond being "computers encased in meat".

To quote Adam Frank again:

"If we treat minds like meat computers, we may end up in a world where that's the only aspect of our nature we perceive or value"

Something to consider!

My Book Signing Experience at Barnes & Noble: Terrific - If You Don't Count Sales!

At Barnes & Noble for my book signing event.

One of the venerable traditions of authorship and book publishing is the event known as the "book signing". This usually takes place at a book store, with the author (or often several authors) seated at table(s) with books on display - and then customers enter, maybe chat a bit about the book content, and hopefully buy one - which is then inscribed on the title page with the message of their choice.

At least one author website has defined a book signing success as "showing up, and selling at least one book".  While this may sound preposterous, it really isn't when you think about it in an age where Nooks, Kindles and e-books dominate. Thus, what is the point of a real, 3D book -signing, when the author writes some message on a the real page of a hard copy book, when e-books dominate in the marketplace? People prefer the lower cost and also the convenience of the e-book (which btw, are regularly made available at the same time as hard copies by publishers.)

So again, in this milieu and context, selling one book - say for $26.95 (when the e-book is only $3.50) is a big deal and could be counted as "success". At least for the ordinary mid-list (or low-list) author, who isn't J.K. Rowling or Stephen King.

In my case, at my book signing at the local Barnes and Noble yesterday, Janice and I had a great time. It was in fact more a social occasion than a selling occasion (I did make the 1 book threshold!) as 9 customers arrived at my table and wanted to discuss the basis for the book (' Beyond Atheism, Beyond God') at length. This happily consumed nearly 50 minutes of the 2 hrs. there, but was well worthwhile - since any other customers entering the store (the table was near the entrance) beheld an author in active, engaged mode - as opposed to sitting alone (ok, wifey was at my side- other than when she left to get us coffee).

Oh, that's another warning brought up in a number of websites detailing 'how to' points of book signing: NEVER do a lone signing! (Unless you are  Stephen King, John Grisham or J.K. Rowling!) Well, easier said than done - especially if the B&N (one of the few left) only has room for 1 author signing and time slots are limited.

Anyway, the discussions were where it was at, especially with one Catholic seminarian who took one copy off to skim through (probably avoiding the sections on quantum mechanics, and the Aspect experiment, Bell Inequality) and returned 25 minutes later to ask lots of questions and discuss the answers in depth.

One of his worries concerned the holistic concept of the book, and that any serious readers who used its prescriptions or intellectual formulations might actually believe they had become 'creators' in the cosmos as opposed to remaining 'creatures'.  But as I pointed out, noting the sections he likely skipped, the quantum mechanics of nonlocality disclosed in the book - on the basis of that Aspect experiment at the University of Paris-  certainly allowed the emergence of co-creators or (as physicist Henry Stapp put it in his book, 'The Mindful Universe') , "participating observers")

It helped that I had the foresight to have brought an 8 1/2 x 11' notepad with me to be able to more completely provide a response via sketches. In this case, showing the relation of explicated individual forms to the universal aggregate  (called the Dirac Ether or Holomovement) - which might be depicted:

INDIVIDUAL FORMS (EXPLICATE ORDER)

___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___

DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER)

 The relation is holographic in the sense that each of the individual forms contains the information of the whole holographic field. The Dirac Ether is equivalent to Bohm's Implicate Order, or what he calls the holomovement, and is a pure frequency domain. If one imparts to it a universal consciousness (as Bohm does) it would also be the "Universal Mind" (another term for God, albeit, impersonal - not personal- and embracing the whole).  The ripples on this sea are the distinct material forms perceived as separate entities in the universe because we are generally unaware of the implicate order.  But - to the extent we become aware, whether by learning the applicable quantum mechanics, or using meditation - yes, we emerge as conscious forms manifesting the Whole (Universal Mind) and hence, "co-creators" of reality, not merely passive creatures.

As I also pointed out, the concept of being passive creatures is an offshoot of the ancient thinking that we are all separate from each other. This is a direct result of extreme reductionist thinking - accepting the human as a kind of automaton that simply reacts as opposed to having the potential to surmount that condition.

I think the point that probably struck the seminarian most, was invoking the analogy of the ocean - or oceanic reality. I asked him if one could simply remove a wave from the ocean, place it separately on the beach and say 'Look, there's a wave!'. He shook his head, "Of course not!" And this offered the perfect opening to reply:

"That's my point! The point of the book! In the same way one can't take any individualized form and remove it as separate, the perception of separability is purely an illusion. In the same way, it makes no sense to extract "God" from the oceanic and say, "Here is 'God'!" - because in the end, reality is all ONE thing - not multiple things. Multiple things, the explicate order, is purely an illusion driven by our biological evolution and the limits of our sensory organs, apparatus.

This nearly blew his mind, and he could only answer: "Wow! I get it!"

We then also agreed that if "God" can't be extracted as a separate entity from the oceanic reality, it makes no sense to call the word out or use it. You can't separate it out any more than a wave from the ocean. By extension, it makes zero sense for atheists to joust at it, because they are inveighing against a redundancy. They effectively become like Don Quixote tilting at windmills of their mind.  Once all and sundry agree the word "God" is only a regulative ideal of the mind, a verbal symbol to represent a concept that can't be really processed or extracted (differentiated) as a separate reality, then we move away from false onto-theology and useless polarizations - say between "believers" and "unbelievers". What one then has and can debate, perhaps, is the (subjective, and relative)  "God-concept" while admitting the actual, real REAL entity is beyond description via a language whose function is to fragment reality..

The seminarian then expressed some concern about a human "co-creator" (say who reads my book to the fullest and applies it)  trying to gain power over other humans who may not share his esoteric insights. He asked me whether I had any worries of people misusing my book like that, and I replied "Absolutely not".

I explained that any person who achieved the level of insight needed to become a co-creator would not seek to exert power over others, because this implied  not being free of the illusion of separation. Only one steeped in separation would aspire to power over others, precisely because "the other" is seen as apart and inferior or worthy of only being exploited to one's own ends. Hence, this is the modus operandi of a "separatist".  By contrast, the Holist sees all people as part of the same unitary whole - and even if (at the explicate level of individuality) he often inveighs against them (say me vs. Neoliberals and militarists, "repukes") he doesn't seek to subjugate them to his will. He merely seeks to induce them to cooperate in the master plan of a better life for all humans, as opposed to undermining it - say by military waste, or spreading inequality.

At this point, the seminarian was so astonished as to be left nearly speechless, whereupon Janice interjected that yes, I had spent three years at Loyola University taking assorted Theology, Ethics and other related fare. He blinked several times and asked if I was still an atheist, to which I replied, "Yes, but an implicit atheist - I withhold belief from the claim made by the theist to have absolute knowledge of a God. I don't "deny" his or her claim, or attack it."

Impressed, he nodded his head, thanked me for the exchange and left.....but didn't purchase a copy of the book.

Janice surmised he probably extracted all he needed or wanted to in his 25 minute skimming, and besides, the Priests running the seminary might regard it as "heretical" material.

Was the book signing a success? Yes, I believe it was. The social occasion of the event allowed the frank and open intellectual exchange of views with strangers who otherwise might never have considered the elements discussed. Sales? Maybe they will come later!