The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

the radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem

play fullscreen
1 / 47
The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem
101 Views
Download Presentation
xanti
Download Presentation

The radical subjective and dualistic soluton of the measurement problem

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

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

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

  3. What is a measurement? Consider the following situation

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

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

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

  7. 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 Def1: 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’ • Many World solution (Everett) • Deterministic solution (Bohm) • Non linear Schrodinger equation (GRW) • Objective Reduction (Penrose) • Radical subjective solution (Wigner, Stapp)

  10. NO !!!!

  11. 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 Physics7 (1977), 759-767. Note that the radical solution is associated with Schrödinger’s Cat. And is DUALISTIC

  12. Hall et al experiment

  13. Assumptions 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

  14. 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!

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

  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

  18. Results pooled over condition N200 N160 P100

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

  20. Study 1-RESULTS peak analysis

  21. Conclusions study 1 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!

  22. 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

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

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

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

  26. 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?

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

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

  29. 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.

  30. Thanks for your attention

  31. 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

  32. 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……

  33. S1 = f(t) S2 = f(-t) S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2 Physical formalisms 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

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

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

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

  37. 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)

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. Results temporal (all regions)

  41. Number of anticipatory peaks

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

  43. 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)

  44. 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)