Quantum Physics, The Spiritual, Consciousness, Higher Powers

[jgh7]

Quantum physics is filled with strange and spooky (as Einstein put it) observations and theories. Many new age interpretations have linked this as evidence of a higher power existing, as quantum particles themselves being conscious, as the universe itself being sentient, and other spiritual ideas.

The majority of the scientific community dismisses this as new age jibber jabber. But I'd like to open up the floor to both sides to give their arguments for whether or not quantum physics is linked in any way to the spiritual/religious/supernatural.

Let's not butt heads to the point of entanglement though.

[Kenisaw]

Quantum physics is filled with strange and spooky (as Einstein put it) observations and theories. Many new age interpretations have linked this as evidence of a higher power existing, as quantum particles themselves being conscious, as the universe itself being sentient, and other spiritual ideas.

The majority of the scientific community dismisses this as new age jibber jabber. But I'd like to open up the floor to both sides to give their arguments for whether or not quantum physics is linked in any way to the spiritual/religious/supernatural.

Let's not butt heads to the point of entanglement though.

The reason science doesn't take such claims as serious is because there is no, and I mean exactly zero, evidence for the universe being sentient, or quantum particles being conscious, or any other spiritual idea.

There's a lot we don't know about QM yet. These claims are basically a god of the gaps effort by people. We don't know this or that, therefore god. As our knowledge base expands and new questions emerge, god gets stuffed into the new gaps because the old ones are filled scientifically.

Let those that claim supernatural or spiritual reasons are responsible come forward and present their data. I'm quite confident we won't see any...

[Neatras]

All of what Kenisaw says is valid; the lack of evidence should be enough of a clue to decide that pseudo-scientists and new age mystics are talking out of their rear end.

But from a behavioral standpoint, the explanation that "quantum consciousness" is fabricated is much more tenable. We know snake oil salesmen try any number of schemes to put a product on the table. The instant that quantum mechanics were defined, and the layman could only interpret it as meaning "reality is weird," there were countless people jumping at the chance to shove their half-baked pseudo-intellectual narrative into the science before it was even well-known. If they had any validity, they wouldn't try perversing science for their own personal gain. They would actually learn what quantum mechanics entails outside of a layman understanding (fraught with misinformation); but instead, they rely on the mystery and mysticism of technical sounding words without actually demonstrating any skill or proficiency in understanding science. This is a practice older than dirt, and it will continue being exploited for millennia. As long as the general populace remains unsure of science, there are going to be "middlemen" who interfere and try to make their own financial gain.

[Divine Insight]

The reason science doesn't take such claims as serious is because there is no, and I mean exactly zero, evidence for the universe being sentient, or quantum particles being conscious, or any other spiritual idea.

I would argue that what you have just stated here is not true. There is not "exactly zero" evidence for these claims of "quantum particles being conscious".

Of course there are two caveats here. First off, the very idea that there exists "quantum particles" is a misnomer that is actually a hangover from classical physics where the universe was imagined to be a mechanical clockwork of billiard-ball type particles. Quantum mechanics actually no longer describes these things as "particles" even though the physics community itself continues to refer to them as "particles". But in truth, according to quantum mechanics, what we observe as "particles" are actually some type of standing wave patter of energy. To even claim that tiny "strings" exist is actually a classical physics ideology being brought forward into modern physics. There is no need for "strings". All that is requires is "standing waves of pure energy"

Of course physicists don't know what "energy" even is. But Einstein has shown (and experiments have revealed) that E=mc² which should really be thought of as M = E/c². In other words, given energy as all that exists, mass can be created from it as "standing wave patterns of energy", that then have the properties that we associate with "particles". (i.e. no "strings" even required).

Now you'll need to forgive me for having the need to say all of the above, but I felt that this is necessary simply because you had stated the following:

The reason science doesn't take such claims as serious is because there is no, and I mean exactly zero, evidence for the universe being sentient, or quantum particles being conscious, or any other spiritual idea.

There is no need to assign any sort of "individual consciousness" to quantum particles. In fact, that very notion is extremely misguided for the reason I've explained above. Quantum "particles" aren't unique or separate individual entities. What they are is standing ways of energy.

So the question isn't "Are quantum particles conscious", but rather the question is, "Does energy itself have an innate ability to be aware of anything?"

So here is the problem we can pose:

Given everything we know about physics thus far can we explain how a human could evolve to become a biological computerized robot? The answer is YES we can!

We can explain this entirely using the known laws of physics and the properties of "particles" which are actually standing waves of energy.

This explains everything including the "computer" or brain. All that can be explained using known physics.

However now comes the SECOND QUESTION:

Can we explain how these biological computers can actually be aware of what they are doing?

And the answer is NO, we cannot.

All we have to work with is the following four forces:

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

We can even toss in some quantum mechanical principles such as:

1. The Pauli Exclusion Principle
2. The fact that Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time.

Etc.

But NONE of these fundamental principles of phsyics can explain why a biological computer should actually be able to be AWARE of what it's thinking about or doing.

Thinking along is not the same as being AWARE. Technically our computers can "think", but that doesn't automatically make then AWARE of what they are thinking about.

And therein lies the problem. Physics alone cannot explain why a physical computer (including a biological brain) should ever be able to be aware of anything. The forces, and properties of physical matter that I have listed above can't serve to explain how anything can actually be AWARE of anything.

There simply is no underlying physical property of "consciousness" or an ability to be "aware" of anything that we can point to.

Therefore, in order to explain "awareness" we almost NEED to assume that energy itself must have an innate ability to be aware. Otherwise how do we explain what it is that has become "aware" of anything?

The laws of physics simply don't provide an answer.

So because of this I wouldn't say that there is "zero evidence" that the universe might have an underlying fundamental property of "consciousness awareness". To the contrary, at this point in time we have no other explanation for it.

Explaining how a computer can evolving using known physical laws is easy. And this includes a biological computer or brain. But explaining how that brain could ever become "aware" that it is thinking cannot be explained within our current model of physic. We almost need to assign that ability to some fundamental constituent of the universe. And "Energy" (whatever that might even be) seems like the most likely candidate. If we allow that energy has an innate ability to be "aware" then we have an answer for what is ultimately aware of the biological computers that have evolved.

Of course this doesn't "prove" that energy must necessarily be the fundamental source of "awareness", but it provides one possible answer.

The idea that we can somehow explain how awareness can exist using our current model of physics alone may indeed be possible somehow. But it's most certainly not clear at this point how that can be made to work.

What is it that has become "aware"? Thus far there is nothing in physics that has that primal ability.

Did Gravity become aware?
Did Electromagnetism become aware?
Did the weak force become aware?
Did the strong force become aware?

Did the Pauli Exclusion principle become aware?
Did Bosons become aware?

What is it that became aware of anything?

Obviously the most likely candidate is "Electromagnetism".

If we have any chance at all of describing awareness it will need to be explain as some sort of electromagnetic behavior, possibly some sort of "logic feedback loop" in the biological brain. A complex computer algorithm that is somehow "thinking about thinking".

But it's still extremely unclear why a purely mechanical computer (albeit a biological one) should even become aware that it is thinking about thinking?

There is still the question, "Exactly what it is that has become aware"?

For me this is a profound question. There may be a purely mechanical answer that has to do with some sort of computer algorithm that is feeding back on itself. Still, it's unclear exactly how that would produce "awareness", or explain just what it is that has actually become "aware". The feedback loop itself would be the think that has "become aware".

It's just not clear at all how this would work as a clear explanation. If such an explanation could be given I would LOVE to understand it. That would really be cool.

In fact, if we had that explanation in our hands that would be the ANSWER we are looking for and it would end all mystical and spiritual speculations forever.

Science will have finally proven itself to be the TOP DOG in terms of explaining our reality right down to our very conscious experience of being aware that we exist.

That would be fine with me. But we're clearly not there yet.

Nor is there any current indication that this should be the answer.

The idea that the innate phenomenon of awareness belongs to the energy that ultimately becomes manifest as this physical world is still a very open and viable hypothesis.

And if that hypothesis it true, then mystical philosophies like Buddhism win the day and become the TOP DOG.

At this point in time I'd say the jury is still out to lunch.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Yes I was using standard lingo, but since you brought it up, I would not agree that there is no particle component at the quantum level. That is why we have wave-particle duality. While it's true that in things like quantum field theory they treat particles as a state of an energized field quanta, that doesn't mean they aren't particles in part. Particles act like waves, but are still consider particles. It's worth noting that Einstein felt wave-particle duality was only a "temporary" answer to what is really going on. Anyway, moving on...

Your post is interesting, but I must ask for a clarification. I take "aware" and "conscious" to be two different things. A ball of mass is certainly aware of another ball of mass nearby because of the gravitational attraction between the two, but by aware I mean that it is affected by it. The ball of mass does not know the attraction is there at a conscious level, but it must react to it all the same. So when you say for example: "And therein lies the problem. Physics alone cannot explain why a physical computer (including a biological brain) should ever be able to be aware of anything. The forces, and properties of physical matter that I have listed above can't serve to explain how anything can actually be AWARE of anything", what are you meaning by aware?

I know you usually chose your wording carefully but I want to be sure I am reading your comments correctly. I'll dive in more once I'm sure I've grasped your meanings.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Kenisaw]

I'll be the first to grant that these are extremely complex topics to discuss. And we have unfortunately addressed two different concepts simultaneously which doesn't help matters.

On the topic of Particles versus Standing Wave Patterns

I confess that I'm not a professional particle physicist. But it's my understanding that when a particle and anti-particle meet they totally "annihilate" each other. Say an electron and anti-electron meeting. Or a proton and anti-proton.

Of course they "annihilate" each other by becoming a "burst of pure energy", they don't simply disappear entirely. This means that something must be left over (i.e. photons which are bosons).

But still this would require that leptons and/or quarks have ultimately become "bosons" in the process. So this still implies that all of these so-called "particles" are really nothing more than different standing wave patterns. So there still remains the question of precisely what constitutes "physical existence".

And all I'm attempting to point out here is that a philosophical worldview of pure "materialism" is basically standing on quicksand. Even the existence of lepton and quarks as any sort of fundamental "particles" of reality come into question. If anything it appears that all of reality could at least be reduced to "bosons", which often end up having very little physical properties.

And in the end, the question remains, "Could the whole of physics end up being described by nothing more than a single primal field of energy that can simply take on these physical properties via nothing other than the way it vibrates?"

In fact, this appears to be what "String Theorists" are actually aiming for as a Grand Unified Field Theory or GUT. My only question there (which is relatively unimportant) is whether any actual "strings" are ever truly required or whether the whole thing can stand as nothing more than a "Standing Wave Theory".

Anyway, that's on the topic of "particles".

Moving on to the second concept:

On the topic of Consciousness and/or Awareness

I will be the first to agree that before we could have a meaningful discussion on this topic we would need to sit down and have a quite lengthy discussion and find some sort of consensus on the semantics of the terms we would be using.

It would be my hope that if we did this we would do it in the spirit of being able to clearly communicate with each other and not have it become an absurd battle over semantics. Understanding what we each mean when we use terms is far more important than agreeing on what each term should mean.

You have stated:

Your post is interesting, but I must ask for a clarification. I take "aware" and "conscious" to be two different things. A ball of mass is certainly aware of another ball of mass nearby because of the gravitational attraction between the two, but by aware I mean that it is affected by it. The ball of mass does not know the attraction is there at a conscious level, but it must react to it all the same. So when you say for example: "And therein lies the problem. Physics alone cannot explain why a physical computer (including a biological brain) should ever be able to be aware of anything. The forces, and properties of physical matter that I have listed above can't serve to explain how anything can actually be AWARE of anything", what are you meaning by aware?

I understand what you mean when you say a particle is "aware" of the forces acting on it. But I wouldn't use the term "aware" to describe that situation. I would simply say that a particle is being influenced by forces. To say that it is "aware" of those forces indicates to me that the particles actually "knows" in some sense that it is being acted on by the force.

What I mean by being "aware" is to actually "experience" that something is happening to you. And I agree that this is an extremely difficult concept to define precisely. I don't deny that at all.

But here's a problem. What do we even mean by the term "consciousness"?

I have a laptop computer sitting right here in front of me. I also have programming platforms so I can write my own software for it. In fact, I also have Arduino boards, and some Raspberry Pi's too. If you know what they are. I was actually toying with the idea of building some robots last year.

The point is that we would not consider any of these devices to be "Conscious". And certainly not "aware" of what's going on. Yet, I can easily program any of these devices to be connected to sensors so that they can detect various physical stimuli.

In fact, it's really fun building robots because they do sometime see quite "alive".

I can connect up sensors to my computer so that when you move in the room the computer can say, "Hey I saw you move!". Or if you touch the computer I can program it to day, "Hey you touched me!" I can even program the computer to hear your voice, type what you say, and give you a reply!

It's amazing what you can do with computers.

But even thought the computer was able to sense that I am moving, or touching it, or even talking to it, would we say that the computer is actually aware that any of this is actually happening?

I think not. In fact, being the programmer I see nothing in the algorithms that are doing anything other than giving an output based upon an input. There is nothing in the software that suggests that the CPU, or memory has been aware of anything. Of course the program itself could be said to have been "aware" that something happened because I can even have the software keep a log of what has happened. So it can even say to me, "You touched me yesterday at 5 pm."

But still, is there any reason to believe that these computer were actually "aware" of every being touched?

Are they "conscious" and what would that even mean?

At what point can I finally say, "Ah the computer is now clearly every bit as aware of what's going on as I am?"

And how could I ever be certain that the computer is EVER actually aware of anything in the same way that I am?

As far as I can see all it would be doing is running algorithms to mimic what I do. Why should I ever believe that it has ever actually had an actual "experience" in the same way that I experience and am aware of things?

And if it ever did get to that point, what is it that has become aware? The hardware (i.e. the computer and sensors themselves) or just the algorithm?

If it's just the algorithm itself, then that brings up the question of whether any physical sensors were ever truly required in the first place. Because after all, I can also program my computers to SIMULATE all these things without ever actually wiring up any actual sensors.

I'll grant you that these are interesting questions. But I don't see where we are in any position to be suggesting that any particular answers are more likely to be the correct than any others.

Or to put this another way, I don't see where the premise that the fundamental constituent of reality has no innate ability to be aware of anything than a premise to the contrary.

Even if I succeeded in building a fully sentient android that suddenly jumped and and said! "Eureka! I'm as alive and sentient as you are almighty programmer!"

Would even that event suggest that conscious awareness is in the program, or in the fundamental "dust" from which I built the android.

So even if I successfully built a fully sentient android I STILL wouldn't have an answer to this question.

UNLESS, of course, I understood the algorithm so well, that I actually understood precisely how I created sentience via some type of algorithm feedback loop. In that case I would become GOD.

And this is true even if there was no God before me.

Actually I do have some ideas of how sentience could be created using an analog neural network computer (which is precisely what our brains are).

But these ideas are very crude and not anywhere near sophisticated enough to be compelling. For if they were I would be busy writing them up in a paper to be published!

Anyway, I find the whole question to be intriguing. I just don't see where the answer is anywhere near within our grasp yet.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Therefore, in order to explain "awareness" we almost NEED to assume that energy itself must have an innate ability to be aware. Otherwise how do we explain what it is that has become "aware" of anything?

I would disagree that we need to assume energy has an innate ability to be aware, if you do that you are drawing conclusions before doing the investigation. Not knowing how to explain something should not lead us to make assumptions with very little basis. Perhaps rethinking the idea of what it is to be aware or consciousness is in order before we start making broad assumptions like this.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Therefore, in order to explain "awareness" we almost NEED to assume that energy itself must have an innate ability to be aware. Otherwise how do we explain what it is that has become "aware" of anything?

I would disagree that we need to assume energy has an innate ability to be aware, if you do that you are drawing conclusions before doing the investigation. Not knowing how to explain something should not lead us to make assumptions with very little basis. Perhaps rethinking the idea of what it is to be aware or consciousness is in order before we start making broad assumptions like this.

I agree. But at the same time we need to recognize all that we have available within our current model to explain it are the following:

Standard Physics

1. Gravity
2. Electromagnetism
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

We can even toss in some quantum mechanical principles such as:

1. The Pauli Exclusion Principle
2. The fact that Bosons can occupy the same space at the same time.

~~~~~

I'm open to anything more you would like to add to this list. I'm not suggesting that this list is complete. It's just all I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure we could probably add a few more things from QM, but I'm not sure if any of those would be useful either.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 7 by DanieltheDragon]

Daniel, before you think that I'm being too simplistic in my "physical approach" to the question of what is having an experience, allow me to share some other avenues I have considered.

Marvin Minsky

Marvin Minkski was one of the world's foremost cognitive scientists who was not only concerned with how the human brain works, but also in how we might build an artificial intelligence that is truly just as sentient as we are.

He wrote a fantastic book, you can download a PDF of it here free if you are interested:

Society of Mind by Marvin Minsky

This book is very accessible (at least I think so) and it is also very helpful if you ever decide to work on trying to create AI yourself.

I found the book very well-thought-out and quite straight-forward. He does indeed offer a very good model for how we might program a computing system (especially of the analogy neural network variety) that could indeed mimic or simulate a human brain quite well. I think it would be easy to imagine that if someone were to actually build a system like Minsky describes they would indeed end up with an "android" that would be very much indistinguishable from a human in terms of how it would think and behave.

However, the questions then become:

"Would this android just be a very sophisticated simulation of a human?"

"Or would it actually be a living sentient being just like a human and not just a simulation?"

The problem is that Minsky never truly addresses this question at all. At best he only gives the algorithm for how the program itself would explain "who it is". But he never gives any indication of what it is that is having this experience of being this program.

He ultimately never explain, or even touches on what it is that is "having the experience" of being this program.

Of course he doesn't claim to be answering this question. To the contrary, he's talking about "artificial intelligence". He's not claiming that this thing would actually be fully sentient or aware of it's existence. At least not beyond these algorithms that play out all the individual rolls.

I actually started in on designing my own AI robot using Minsky's book as an outline for construction. I had to give up simply because the project is just beyond the capabilities of a single person (especially on my budget)

I would need to have hundreds of technicians and engineers working under me to complete the project. But I have some really unique ideas of how to physically and electronically implement Minsky's model. It a shame I don't have the resources to take on the project it would be quite interesting.

However, in the end, there's a major problem. Even if we were able to build Minsky's models we couldn't tell whether or not it is truly sentient in the same way a human is sentient. Even if the android appeared to be totally sentient just like a human, that would be no guarantee that it is.

We could never know, because Minsky didn't know. There is nothing in his model we can point to and say, "This is where true sentience begins". In fact, we can't even say that the finished product would even truly be "sentient". It might claim to be sentient since that's what we basically built it to do, but that doesn't mean that it truly experiencing anything. It could just be a bunch of algorithms "mindlessly" doing their thing giving the impression of sentience because that's what we organized them to simulate.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Even our most sophisticated models of sentience don't truly explain sentience all. And they certainly don't explain it in terms of Physics.

And in Minsky's case, he doesn't even explain it in terms of algorithms. All he's basically doing is saying, "Here if you build a robot like this it will APPEAR to be just like a human in its behavior".

But that's all that can be said about it. We can't say that it's actually truly sentient. Even if it claims to be. In fact, it WILL claim to be sentient because that's precisely what it will have been designed to do!

Buy will it truly be sentient? Or will it just be a very sophisticated "zombie simulation" of a human?

We would have no way of knowing.

Just like we can't disprove solipsism either. We can only say that it doesn't intuitively seem reasonable. But in the case of Minsky's Android we can't even say that it's reasonable to say that there is anyone at "home" inside that android simulation. All we can say is that it sure APPEARS to be a really convincing simulation.

But that's it. Even Marvin Minsky doesn't answer the question of what exactly is having the experience of being human. All he has offered is a way to create something that will appear to simulate a human brain.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

That is probably all you need it may just be a matter of figuring out how these interactions work in relation to awareness. Quantum physics still has a lot of work to be done as well.

On the flip side we do not assume carbon is inherently alive to explain life in carbon based life forms we just need to understand how carbon functions in carbon based life forms.

Likewise we do not need to assume energy is aware in order to explain awareness in organisms or things derived from energy that show themselves to be aware. We just need to better understand how energy relates to said awareness.