1. The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem. Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam SAND, june 2 1012

3. Mind-Body Problem  Mostly by Philosophers (but also textbooks) -> discussion of Free Will -> discussion of Free Will  Current winner: ‘Materialistic Monism’ Daniel Dennett Daniel Dennett Consciousness explained (1991)Consciousness explained (1991) Free Will is illusion; C is epiphenomenonFree Will is illusion; C is epiphenomenon  However: Psi data: Psi data: a) Mind over Matter (FoP review)a) Mind over Matter (FoP review) b) Non causal eventsb) Non causal events & Quantum Physics: measurement problem & Quantum Physics: measurement problem & Physical formalisms: time-symmetry & Physical formalisms: time-symmetry Descartes

4. What is a measurement? Consider the following situation

5. Classical Measurement Classicial Physics t R Measurement at t= 3 Newton Yields a precise value of location R

6. Measurement problem? Classical Physics t Quantum Physics R t R Measurement at t= 3 r1 r2 Newton Schrodinger R described by Statevector giving the probabilities for r1 and r2 Energy is quantized -> jumps

7. Measurement problem! P(r1) P(r2) 1 1 T=1 Projection postulate Measurement T=3 System is described as vector in statespace Postulate: 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 0.8 0.2

8. 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

9. So what constitutes a measurement is really important Def1: A measurement is something what you do with a measurement device…. Usable in the daily practice of physics But incorrect (von Neumann)

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

12. Radical 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), 759-767. Note that the radical solution is associated with Schrödinger’s Cat. And is DUALISTIC

13. Hall et al experiment

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

15. Weaknesses in Hall  Assumption 1 is violated: Delay between first and second observation too short  Assumption 3 is inconsistent: The dependent variable is a conscious verbal report, too late!

16. Improvements in replications  HALL et al 1977 Obs1 -> Obs2 delay few microseconds Obs1 -> Obs2 delay few microseconds Dependent variable: conscious verbal report Dependent variable: conscious verbal report  Amsterdam 2002-2007 Delay 1000 msecs Dependent variable: brain signals before final observer is conscious of event.

17. Amsterdam original set-up

18. Pseudorandom switch between conditions Pre-observed - not pre-observed Dependent variable: brainwaves of final observer

19. Analysis procedure  Predetermined: we only analyze peak amplitudes.  We also apply non-parametric statistics (because of non normality of the distribution of data)

20. Results pooled over condition P100 N160 N200

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

22. Study 1-RESULTS peak analysis WhatPeak Preobs- Obs(MuV) T (df=29) Prob. N1000.3500.660.52 P200-0.09-0.180.86 N300-0.04-0.080.93 P350-0.54-1.170.25 N4000.0980.250.80 P100-0.16-0.670.50 N160-0.152-0.840.41 N200-0.956-3.930.0005

23. Control analysis  Split data randomly rather than according to Exp. Condition and repeat analysis. Effectsizes are on the average an order of magnitude smaller and statistically non significant Effectsizes are on the average an order of magnitude smaller and statistically non significant

24. Conclusions study 1  Copenhagen interpretation supported God plays dice 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! Bohr

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

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

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

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

30. Conclusions study 2  Preobserver effect is marginal and the effectsize is much smaller. Collapse incomplete? Possibly the observation does not convey enough information. 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? Could that be because the ‘classical decay time distribution’ differs slightly from the ‘quantum decay time distribution?

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

32. Preliminary Results study 3 Over-all no significant effects (but we are awaiting source analysis of N200)

33. Review

34. Amsterdam 1

35. Amsterdam 2

36. Amsterdam 3

37. Preliminary Conclusion  The support for the idea that ‘consciousness collapses the statevector’ has declined.  Initial results due to differences in decay time distribution? Or do we have a psi-experimenter effect?  However, it could be that the assumptions underlying this approach are invalid.  The measurement problem is more alive than ever.

38. Thanks for your attention

40. 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

41. 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…… ….. … 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……

42. 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 Weighted by a coherence measure Physical formalisms S1 = f(t) S2 = f(-t) S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2

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

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

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

46. Design  8 Experienced meditators 2 sessions: Med and NonMed 2 sessions: Med and NonMed  8 Matched controls 1 session: C 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)

47. Analysis procedure  Find interesting regions by comparing bold RESPONSES between Med NonMed (direct effect of meditation) Med NonMed (direct effect of meditation) NonMed C (long term effects of meditation) NonMed C (long term effects of meditation)  Compare for those regions the signals BEFORE the emotional with the signals BEFORE the neutral

48. Results Spatial  36 regions show significant different responses (picture shows contrast for meditators while meditating vs non- meditating) Most regions are associated with attentional proceses

49. Results temporal (all regions)

50. Number of anticipatory peaks

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

52. Elusiveness ‘explained’  Nature doesn’t allow paradoxes See also: Hawking’s chronology protection 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)

53. 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)