7/28/2015 Cosmology About Contents Abstracting Processing Editorial Manuscript Submit Your Book/Journal the All & Indexing Charges Guidelines & Preparation Manuscript Sales Contact Journal Volumes Review Order from Amazon Order from Amazon Order from Amazon Order from Amazon Order from Amazon Cosmology, 2014, Vol. 18. 231-245 Cosmology.com, 2014 Perceived Reality, Quantum Mechanics, and Consciousness Subhash Kak1, Deepak Chopra2, and Menas Kafatos3 1Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 2Chopra Foundation, 2013 Costa Del Mar Road, Carlsbad, CA 92009 3Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866 Abstract: Our sense of reality is different from its mathematical basis as given by physical theories. Although nature at its deepest level is quantum mechanical and nonlocal, it appears to our minds in everyday experience as local and classical. Since the same laws should govern all phenomena, we propose this difference in the nature of perceived reality is due to the principle of veiled nonlocality that is associated with consciousness. Veiled nonlocality allows consciousness to operate and present what we experience as objective reality. In other words, this principle allows us to consider consciousness indirectly, in terms of how consciousness operates. We consider different theoretical models commonly used in physics and neuroscience to describe veiled nonlocality. Furthermore, if consciousness as an entity leaves a physical trace, then laboratory searches for such a trace should be sought for in nonlocality, where probabilities do not conform to local expectations. Keywords: quantum physics, neuroscience, nonlocality, mental time travel, time Introduction Our perceived reality is classical, that is it consists of material objects and their fields. On the other hand, reality at the quantum level is different in as much as it is nonlocal, which implies that objects are superpositions of other entities and, therefore, their underlying structure is wave-like, that is it is smeared out. This discrepancy shows up in the framework of quantum theory itself because the wavefunction unfolds in a deterministic way excepting when it is observed which act causes it to become localized. The fact that the wavefunction of the system collapses upon observation suggests that we should ask whether it fundamentally represents interaction of consciousness with matter. In reality this question is meaningful only if we are able to define consciousness objectively. Since consciousness is not a thing or an external object, its postulated interaction with matter becomes paradoxical. If we rephrased our question we could ask where our personal self is located and if it is just some neural structure that exists in the classical world, why is it that its activity (observation) collapses the wavefunction? The human observer interacts with the quantum system through apparatus devised by him and, therefore, the actual interaction is between physical systems. If the human were directly observing the system, then also the interaction is within the human brain that consists of various neural structures. The observation is associated with a time element since the apparatus must first be prepared and then examined after the interaction with the quantum system has occurred. The http://cosmology.com/ConsciousTime107.html 1/10 7/28/2015 Cosmology observer’s self-consciousness is also the product of life experience, and therefore the variable of time plays a central role in it. Neuroscience, which considers brain states in terms of electrical and chemical activity in the interconnection of the neurons, that somehow gives rise to awareness, cannot explain where the aware self is located. Since each neuron can only carry a small amount of information, no specific neuron can be the location of the self. On the other hand, if the self is distributed over a large area of the brain, what is it that binds this area together? Furthermore, since we have different inner senses of self in different states of mind, are these based on recruitment of different set of neurons, and why is it that behind each such sense of selfhood, ostensibly associated with different parts of the brain, is the certitude that it corresponds to the same individual? What integrates all these different senses into one coherent and persisting sense of self? Behind these questions lie a whole set of complementarities. Thus in some contexts it is appropriate to view the self as located at some point in the brain, whereas in other contexts it is distributed all over the body. The question whether mental states are governed by quantum laws is answered in the affirmative by those who accept a quantum basis of mind (von Neumann, 1932/1955; Wigner, 1983; Penrose, 1994; Nadeau and Kafatos, 1999; Roy and Kafatos, 2004; Hameroff and Penrose, 2003; Stapp, 2003; Freeman and Vitiello, 2006). Recent findings in support of quantum models for biology (e.g., Lambert et al., 2013) lend additional support to this position. We add a point of caution here: mind as a random quantum machine as suggested by some theories may be an advance but not the complete picture since it will not be able to account for the individual’s freedom and agency; and it cannot imply an objective reality independent of observation. The question related to the limitations on what can be known by the mind has a logical component related to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and logical paradoxes (Davis, 1965), which can also apply to limits of knowing in physics and biology (Herrnstein, 1985; Grandpierre and Kafatos, 2012; Kak, 2012; Buser et al., 2013). In this article, we focus on the relationship between reality and our conceptions of it as mediated by consciousness. This mediation may be seen through the lenses of neuroscience and physics. We first show how the mind constructs reality; later we discuss how the nonlocality inherent in quantum theory and, therefore, in physical process, is veiled by consciousness so that it appears to be local (Kak, 2014; Kafatos and Kak, 2014). This veiling is a characteristic of consciousness as process and it mirrors the way quantum theory conceals all the details of the state of a single particle by means of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Finally, we consider how indirect evidence in terms of anomalous probabilities in certain events can be adduced as evidence in support of reality being quantum-like at a fundamental level. Interpretations of Quantum Theory The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics separates the physical universe in two parts, the first part is the system being observed, and the second part is the human agent, together with his instruments. The extended agent is described in mental terms and it includes not only his apparatus but also instructions to his colleagues on how to set up the instruments and report on their observations. The Heisenberg cut (also called the von Neumann cut) is the hypothetical interface between quantum events and an observer's information, knowledge, or conscious awareness. Below the cut everything is governed by the wave function; above the cut a classical description applies. In the materialist conception, which leaves out quantum processes since they were until recently thought not to play a role in brain processes, consciousness is an epiphenomenon with biology as ground. But, although this is the prevalent neuroscience paradigm, there is no way we can justify the view that material particles somehow acquire consciousness on account of complexity of interconnections between neurons. There is also the panpsychist position that consciousness is a characteristic of all things, but in its usual formulation as in the MWI position that will be discussed later it is merely a restatement of the materialist position so as to account for consciousness (Strawson, 2006). On the other hand is the position that consciousness is a transcendent phenomenon – since it cannot be a thing – which interpenetrates the material universe. The human brain, informed by the phenomenon of consciousness, has self-awareness to contemplate its own origins. We do know that mental states are correlated with activity in different parts of the brain. With regard to mental states several questions may be asked: 1. Do mental states interact with the quantum wavefunction? 2. Are mental states governed by quantum laws? 3. Are there limitations to what the mind can know about reality? There is considerable literature on research done on each of these questions. The question of interaction between mental states and the wavefunction was addressed by the pioneers of quantum theory and answered in the affirmative in the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) (von Neumann, 1932/1955). In CI, the wavefunction is properly understood epistemologically, that is, it represents the experimenter’s knowledge of the system. Upon observation there is a change in this knowledge. It postulates the observer without explaining how the capacity of observation arises (Schwartz et al., 2005; Stapp, 2003). Operationally, it is a dualist position, where there is a fundamental split between observers and objects. There is the added variance or interpretation of CI followed by von Neumann in his discussion of the quantum cut which implies that although the separation between observers and objects has to be brought into actual experimental setups, that it is not fundamental. In the realistic view of the wavefunction as in the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), there is no collapse of the wavefunction. Rather, the interaction is seen through the lens of decoherence, which occurs when states interact with the environment producing entanglement (Zurek, 2003). By the process of decoherence the system makes transition from a pure state to a mixture of states that observers end up measuring. In the MWI interpretation, which may be called the ontic interpretation, the wavefunction has objective reality. The problem of collapse of the wavefunction is sidestepped by speaking of interaction between different subsystems. But since http://cosmology.com/ConsciousTime107.html 2/10 7/28/2015 Cosmology the entire universe is also a quantum system, the question of how this whole system splits into independent subsystems arises.