1. Consciousness & Quantum Physics
SCHRODINGER BESCHRIJVEN
DICHTE DOOS
KWANTUM FYSISHE BESCHRIJVING
WAT HEET DAT TE MAKEN MET DE RELARIE TUSSEN C EN FYSICA>
ALS DIE DOOS OPEN GAAT DAN NEEM JE DOOD OF LEVEN WAAR
SOMMIGEN EBBEN DAARIN EEN FUNCTIONELE ROL VAN HET BEWUSTZIJN GEPONEERD
ALS JE EEM METING VERICHT ZOU ER WAT GEBEUREM
GELUKKIG GEDACHTEN EXPERIMENT METAFYSICA ZO U WILT
WAT WE OP DE UVA GEPROBEERD HEBBEN IS DIT EXPERIMENT UIT TE VOEREN
VAB META -> ECHTE FYSICA .
Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam
TU Delft, dec. 16, 2010

2. Overzicht Het meetprobleem: Wat is een meting?
Klassiek vs Quantum
Ineenstorten toestandsvector
Twee benaderingen Bewustzijn-QP
ORCH-OR
Schrodingers Kat?
De radicaal subjectieve benadering
Experiment van Hall (1977)
Experimenten UvA (2002-heden)

3. Consider the following classical situation
What is a measurement?
Consider the following classical situation
sattelite
So what is a measurement. This seems to be a trivial question and indeed in classical newtonian physics it is generally believed that this is an act which returns the value off the measured variable. For instance if we have two masses which attract eachother for instance if they have oppositie charge, then these masses will move according to equatios of movement. Here we see a simulat6ion of their behaviour.
Suppose the variable of interest is the distance between the masses. At any point in time we can ‘measure’ this variable. It has a precise value. However if we look at the corresponding quantum system then things become somewhat vague.
The energy is quantized and so the small particle can not continuously ‘fall’ towards the large mass.
Earth

4. Classical Measurement
Classical Physics
Measurement at t= 3 R
Yields a precise value of location R
time
Newton
So the classical measurment yieldes a precise value which is an objective reflection of the state just before the measurement.

5. Measurement problem? Classical Physics Measurement at t= 3
Yields a precise value of location R
time
Newton
Energy is quantized -> jumps R r1
Quantum Physics r2
R described by Statevector
giving the probabilities for r1 and r2
Schrodinger

6. Measurement problem! Bohr: Einstein interpreted this as follows:
System is described as vector in statespace
P(r1) 1
T=1
0.8
T=3
0.4
0.6
Collapse of state vector
0.2 1
P(r2)
Bohr:
This ‘collapse’ of the statevector happens at measurement.
Einstein interpreted this as follows:
At the measurement the real situation that already existed locally is revealed.
Measurement is just a gain in knowledge. QP is incomplete

7. THE MEASUREMENT CHANGES THE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY
Einstein was wrong
BELL (1964) showed by an argument of only 2 pages that ALL local realistic theories would give different results for certain specific experiments which were difficult to perform.
However Aspect et al (1981) eventually did the crucial experiment and …..
showed It is not the case that the particle had a specific position before measurement but it gets the position upon measurement: God plays dice! QP is complete.
Bell
THE MEASUREMENT CHANGES THE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY

8. So what constitutes a measurement is really important
Definition: A measurement is something what you do with a measurement device….
Usable in the daily practice of physics
But incorrect
(von Neumann)

9. The Measurement Problem ‘solutions’
Objective Reduction (Penrose)
Many World solution (Everett)
Deterministic solution (Bohm)
Non linear Schrodinger equation (GRW)
Radical subjective reduction (Wigner, Stapp)

10. Two serious approaches
Collapse causes Consciousness
Hameroff & Penrose: ORCH OR model
Objective Reduction
Consciousness causes Collapse
Wigner, von Neumann, Stapp
Subjective Reduction
Schrödinger: Cat Thought experiment
Hall, Shimony, Bierman: Real experiment

11. Radical Subjective Solution
…. The reduction of the state vector is a physical event which occurs only when there is an interaction between the physical measuring apparatus and the psyche of some observer…..
from Hall, J., Kim, C., McElroy, and Shimony, A. (1977). Wave-packet reduction as a medium of communication. Foundations of Physics 7 (1977),
Note that the radical solution is associated with Schrödinger’s Cat.

13. Hall et al experiment

14. Assumptions iIncorrectt
1. Consciousness of first observer collapses the state before second observation.
Maybe
2. Final Observer (brain) is sensitive for difference collapsed and non collapsed state
Inconsistentt
3. Final Observer can report this

15. Improvements in replications
HALL et al 1977
Obs1 -> Obs2 delay few microseconds
Dependent variable: conscious verbal report
Amsterdam
Delay 1000 msecs
Dependent variable: brain signals before final observer is conscious of event.

16. Amsterdam original set-up

17. Amsterdam original set-up
Dependent variable: brainwaves of final observer
Pseudorandom switch between conditions Pre-observed - not pre-observed

19. Results pooled over condition

20. Results split for condition (preobserved and not-preobserved)

21. Study 1-RESULTS peak analysis
What
Peak
Preobs-Obs(MuV)
T (df=29)
Prob.
N100
0.350
0.66
0.52
P200
-0.09
-0.18
0.86
N300
-0.04
-0.08
0.93
P350
-0.54
-1.17
0.25
N400
0.098
0.80
P100
-0.16
-0.67
0.50
N160
-0.152
-0.84
0.41
N200
-0.956
-3.93
0.0005

22. Conclusions study 1 Copenhagen interpretation supported
Bohr
Copenhagen interpretation supported
God plays dice
And …Consciousness stands outside of quantum physics (dualism) or must be considered a ‘hidden variable’ with non local aspects
But wait a minute: Strong claims need strong evidence….. So study 2!

23. Visual pre-observation for
Replication set up
Alpha source
GM detector
Count down clock
EEG amplifiers
Trigger-in
delay
Audio-beep
Final Observer
Visual pre-observation for
~ 50% of the events
Computer
Pre Observer

24. 4 clusters of electrodes
Results averaged over 4 conditions (classical-quantum, preobserved- not preobserved)
4 clusters of electrodes

26. Only marginal pre-observation effect
But…………

27. An effect of source of events (Quantum vs Classic)

28. Conclusions study 2
Preobserver effect is marginal and the effectsize is much smaller.
Collapse incomplete? Possibly the observation does not convey enough information.
There is a difference between quantum and classical triggered auditory evoked potentials
Could that be because the ‘classical decay time distribution’ differs slightly from the ‘quantum decay time distribution?

29. Study 3 More information to pre-observer
- I.e. was the source quantum or classic
Control of ‘decay-times’ distribution in all conditions.

30. Amsterdam 3

31. Preliminary Results study 3
Quantum vs Classical ‘explained’
Only marginal pre-observation effect
refined S/N weighted analysis required

32. Preliminary Conclusion
The support for the idea that ‘consciousness collapses the statevector’ is weak and needs further experimental support.
However, it could be that the assumptions underlying this approach are invalid.
Meta-fysica -> Zinnige onderzoeksvragen

33. Website: www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierman/
Thanks to: Stephen Whitmarsh Roger Penrose Dennis Dieks and the audience
Am I
In or Out
Website:

35. CIRTS: Physics can accommodate psi
Most physical formalisms are time-symmetric (Newtonian, EM)
The solution S=f(-t) is never observed
Wheeler Feynman (1945) wondered why we only see S=f(t).
Price (1996) reinterpreted Wheeler & Feynman

36. Huw Price’s re-interpretation
Time’s Arrow (1996, Oxford Press,p. 71)
Why time-assymmetry:
….. … involves an imbalance between transmitters and receivers: large-scale sources of coherent radiation are common, but large receivers, or sinks, of coherent radiation are unknown……

37. Basic Assumption in CIRTS
Assumption that ‘brain-producing-consciousness’ is a large-scale coherent receiver thus according to Price:
Restores Time-symmetry
Weighted by a coherence measure
As I argues before
Physical
formalisms
S1 = f(t)
S2 = f(-t)
S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2

38. Predictions of the theory
1. What happens after, happens before
• 2. Larger effect with more coherent brains

39. Testing the predictions (1)
What happens after, happens before
Double stimulus presentiment

40. Testing the predictions (2)
Does a coherent brain show more psi?
Bial grant 34-03
Effect of Meditation on presentiment (fmri study)

41. Design 8 Experienced meditators 2 sessions: Med and NonMed
8 Matched controls
1 session: C
64 random pictures (neutral, erotic, violent)
16 seconds interval, 2 seconds exposure
All meditators trained
Replication of fmri study Bierman & Scholte (2002)
The design was the same as in most presentiment studies. We used 8 meditats with more than 5 years of experience mostly form the mindfulness tradition.
They did two sessions, one while meditating, one while not meditating in the scanner. There were 8 controls matched in age and gender.
Th controls did only one session. During these sessions the subjects were exposed to 64 randomly selected pitures of emotional or neutral nature. Each 16 seconds a picture was presented for two seconds, All meditators were trained to meditatie in the hostile environment of the scanner while lying down with open eyes.

42. Analysis procedure
Find interesting regions by comparing bold RESPONSES between
Med <->NonMed (direct effect of meditation)
NonMed<-> C (long term effects of meditation)
Compare for those regions the signals BEFORE the emotional with the signals BEFORE the neutral
The analysis consists of two parts. A spatial analysis and a temporal analysis.
To find regions in the brain where something might be hapenning we looked at the contrast between the responses of meditiators and controls irrespecitve of the type of stimulus. Once we had found these regions we compared the bold signal BEFORE the emtional and before the neutral stimulus.

43. Results Spatial
36 regions show significant different responses (picture shows contrast for meditators while meditating vs non-meditating)
Here wre 36 regions that we found were showing significant differences in BOLD response.
We will report on these in a separate paper.
For each of these 36 regions we analyzed the timecourse preceding the three type of stimulus for the different groups of subjects. This gives the following table.
Most regions are associated with attentional proceses

44. Results temporal (all regions)

45. Number of anticipatory peaks
We determined the largest anticipatory peak comparing the three types of stimuli in the 8 seconds preceding the stimulus. If everything is noise one would expect that for each of the three stimuli type there is an equal probability that the largest peak is before that stimulus. However theas can be seen from the row all conditions there were significantly lower number of largest peaks before the neutral stmuli. So we confirmed a presetment effect.
The predicition that meditators showed more of this also was cofirmed as can be seen by comparing the ratio between emotion and netral largest peaks for meditators and controls.
However something extremely interesting came also out of this graph

46. Elusiveness ‘explained’
Grandfather paradox is formally identical to precognition-action paradox

47. Elusiveness ‘explained’
Nature doesn’t allow paradoxes
See also: Hawking’s chronology protection
Psi information should never become so strong that it can be used to change the source of it. (Just like the time traveler should not act in such a way as to change his/her own source)

48. Conclusion Radical subjective solution of the MP:
Consciousness is a-physical (dualism)
CIRTS (Conciousness induced restoration of time-symmetry) :
Consciousness is a special physical system (monism)