Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:49:57 -0800 Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness From: Brian Flanagan Subject: q-mind forum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In this issue we have a handful of fine contributions to offer, including a few new voices, a call for papers on the esoteric arts, and several outstanding links. So, thanks to all our contributors! First up we have a highly acute essay from Gao Shan, who has clearly given the q-mind business a good deal of careful consideration, and whose insights go directly to the heart of the q-mind thesis. Further, Shan's work suggests a natural affinity with that of Henry Stapp, Eugene Wigner, and JS Bell. -Brian Flanagan ===== Can consciousness conquer quantum randomness? Gao Shan E-mail: gaoshan.iqm@263.net [Abstract] We show that, although the usual physical object can't change the quantum randomness, the conscious being can conquer it. [Introduction] According to quantum theory, the collapse result of wave function is essentially random, and this kind of quantum randomness can't be changed. In this paper, we will demonstrate that the conscious being can in principle defy the quantum randomness, and change the collapse result distribution by his freewill. [The collapse process is dynamical] As to the evolution of wave function during quantum measurement, present quantum theory provides by no means a complete description. The (instantaneous) projection postulate is just a makeshift, and finding the description of the dynamical collapse process is undoubtedly a great challenge. The so-called revised quantum dynamics, in which the dynamical collapse process is strictly described£Ĵare deeply studied recently[1][3-11]. Presently, even if the complete quantum theory has not been found, one thing is certain, namely the collapse process is one kind of dynamical process, it will take a finite time interval to finish. Our demonstration in this paper only relies on the dynamical character of the collapse process. [Consciousness can defy the quantum randomness] Now we will demonstrate how the conscious being can defy the quantum randomness, and change the collapse result distribution by his freewill. As we know, the collapse result of wave function in the usual measurement using physical measuring device is essentially random, and the result distribution is determined by the measured wave function. We assume the measured state is \psi_{0}+\psi_{1}, the initial state of the physical measuring device is \phi. After interaction the corresponding entangled state of the whole system is \psi_{0}\phi_{0}+\psi_{1}\phi_{1}, and the result state of the physical device after collapse will assume \phi_{0} or \phi_{1} with the same probability in a completely stochastic way. Here we define the rules, namely let the output of the device be numbers 0 and 1 for the input states \psi_{0} and \psi_{1}. Then the output of the device will be a random series of 0 and 1 with the same distribution probability 1/2 after measuring a large number of input states \psi_{0}+\psi_{1}. Now we assume the state \psi_{0}+\psi_{1} is input to a conscious being, for example, the input state \psi_{0}+\psi_{1} is a superposition state of one photon or several photons, it enters the eyes of the conscious being. Let the initial perception state of the conscious being be \chi, then after interaction the corresponding entangled state of the whole system is \psi_{0}\chi_{0}+\psi_{1}\chi_{1}, where \chi_{0} and \chi_{1} is respectively the perception states of the conscious being for the states \psi_{0} and \psi_{1}. Besides, We also assume that the perception time of the conscious being for the definite state \psi_{0}\chi_{0} and \psi_{1}\chi_{1}, which is denoted by t_p, is shorter than the dynamical collapse time for the superposition state \psi_{0}\chi_{0}+\psi_{1}\chi_{1}, which is denoted by t_c, and the time difference \Delta t=t_c-t_p is long enough for the conscious being to identify. We call this condition QSC condition, since it will permit the existence of QS! C (Quantum Superluminal Communication) as demonstrated in my article[12]. Then the conscious being can perceive the input state \psi_{0} or his own state \chi_{0} after time interval t_p, while for the input superposition state \psi_{0}+\psi_{1}, only after the time interval t_c can the conscious being perceive the collapse state \psi_{0} or \psi_{1}, or his own corresponding state \chi_{0} or \chi_{1}. Since the conscious being can also be conscious of the time difference between t_p and t_c, he can distinguish the input states \psi_{0} or \psi_{1} and \psi_{0}+\psi_{1}. Now when the input state is a superposition state \psi_{0}+\psi_{1}, the conscious being is able to know that the input state is not the state \psi_{0} or \psi_{1}, for which the rules restrict the output as number 0 or 1, the output can be determined by the freewill of the conscious being. Thus we have demonstrated that the conscious being can defy the quantum randomness when the following QSC condition is satisfied, namely his perception time for the definite state is shorter than the dynamical collapse time, or his perception time for the superposition state, and the time difference is long enough for him to identify. The above demonstration can be clearly depicted in the following black box system. |-----------| IN ---->| Black Box | ----> OUT |___________| Rules: |-----------| \psi_{0}---->| Black Box | ----> 0 |___________| |-----------| \psi_{1}---->| Black Box | ----> 1 |___________| The prediction of quantum theory: 0 P(0)=1/2 |-----------| / \psi_{0}+\psi_{1} ---->| Machine | ----> |___________| \ 1 P(1)=1/2 The new prediction concerning consciousness: (1). When the QSC condition is not satisfied 0 P(0)=1/2 |-----------| / \psi_{0}+\psi_{1} ---->| Man | ----> |___________| \ 1 P(1)=1/2 (2). When the QSC condition is satisfied |-----------| output is \psi_{0}+\psi_{1} ---->| Man | ----> determined |___________| by the freewill [Conclusions] We conclude that the conscious being can in principle defy the quantum randomness, and change the collapse result distribution by his freewill. This may explain some evidence of psi[13]. [References] [1] L.Diosi. (1989). Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A, 40,1165-1174. [2] Gao Shan. (1999). How to realize quantum superluminal communication? e-print quant-ph/9906116. Further discussed by Fred H.Thaheld in Phys. Lett. A. 273 (2000) 232-234. [3] Gao shan. (1999). The collapse problem can be tackled in terms of new motion of particle. e-print physics/9907002. [4] Gao Shan, Quantum-Mind Digest, #1999-121, (1999) [5] Gao Shan, physics/0001012, (2000) [6] G.C.Ghiradi, A.Rimini and T.Weber. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev. D, 34, 470-491. [7] G.C.Ghiradi, A.Rimini and T.Weber. (1990). A. Continuous-spontaneous-reduction model involving gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 42, 1057-1064. [8] P.Pearle. (1986). Models of reduction. Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, eds. R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Clarendon Press), 84-108. [9] P.Pearle. (1989). Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization. Phys. Rev. A 39, 2277- 2289. [10] R.Penrose (1986). Gravity and state vector reduction. Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, eds. R. Penrose and C. J. Isham (Clarendon Press), 129-146. [11] R.Penrose. (1996). On gravity's role in quantum state reduction.Gen. Rel. and Grav., 28, 581-600. [12] Gao Shan, Quantum-Mind Digest, #2000-10, (2000) [13] D.I.Radin and R.D.Nelson (1989) Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19,12,1499-1514. Note: Please visit my personal website http://www.100megspopup.com/ecuq/index.htm or http://ecuq.excelland.com, where my new book Quantum Motion and Superluminal Communication can be downloaded. Comments are welcome.