QUANTUM THEORY, CONSCIOUSNESS AND BUDDHISM
In this post I am not exploring how the mind works; rather the focus is on what happens when it does work.
The concept of the quantum enigma, the mystery of physics’ encounter with consciousness, arises from demonstrated physical facts, and not from quantum theory itself. There are numerous ways to interpret Quantum Theory, and according to Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, coauthors of Quantum Enigma, “there is no way to interpret quantum theory without encountering consciousness” (158). They define consciousness as “similar to ‘awareness’…this use of ‘consciousness’ includes the experience of free will.” Some interpretations offer a rationale for avoiding a relationship (between consciousness and quantum theory), “…starting with the presumption that the physical world should be dealt with independently of the human observer” (Ibid.). The role of consciousness in quantum theory is often defined out of physics, yet with numerous caveats, one being that consciousness may or may not play a role in quantum theory interpretation, but it (consciousness) is not treatable with well-defined testable models and is therefore not in the milieu of physics, Yet, according to Rosenblum and Kuttner, no matter how hard they try, physicists cannot come up with a quantum theory interpretation that does not somehow display at least an encounter with consciousness. “Quantum mechanics reveals a mysterious encounter of ‘free choice,’ conscious free choice, with the physical world” (quantumenigma.com).
Interpretations of quantum theory explore phenomena on microscopic levels of reality. Experiments such as the double slit and the box-pair (an experiment explained in plain language in Quantum Enigma) essentially show us that the observation (of a photon, say) creates an objective situation that is the same for everyone. “Somehow observing an atom being at a particular place created its being there” (Ibid., 77).
One such interpretation (of many explored in Quantum Enigma) to consider is the orthodox and widely accepted Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory; the interpretation includes ‘three pillars’ that Rosenblum and Kuttner discuss in their book.
I. Wavefunction: “In some real sense, the wavefunction of an object is the object” (ibid 72). Louis de Broglie speculated that material objects display a wave nature. From a mathematical standpoint, the same wave equation for light and sound waves doesn’t work for matter waves. Erwin Schrodinger, though, in 1926, laid down the foundation for modern quantum mechanics by describing waves of matter with a mathematical equation, at least one that is a nonrelativistic approximation (it holds when speeds do not approach that of light). We (observers) collapse the wave function, causing decoherence when we observe matter, at least on a microscopic level. There is a “connectedness” between conscious observation and matter. “Quantum theory claims no properties exist before the are observed” (Ibid., 133). In the words of Pascual Jordan, “observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it” (Ibid., 103).
II. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, derived from the Schrodinger equation and dealing specifically with measurement, provides evidence that one cannot refute observer-created reality.
III. Complementarity is the name for the two aspects of a microscopic object: particle and wave. Both are required for a complete description of these contradictory aspects, but we can consider (observe) only one aspect at a time.
Observation of matter, then produces decoherence: “the process which ‘untangles’ the quantum states and produces a single version of reality at the macroscopic level” (John Gribbin, Q is for Quantum 103), “If observation creates everything, including ourselves, we are dealing with a concept that is logically self-referential” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 207).
Within the Mahayana School of Buddhism, the Madhyamaka Tradition developed, wherein adherents believe that “…dharmas, atoms, or the Self cannot have inherent existence since they are causally dependent, they are part of a causal and conceptual flow” (Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism 61). Therein lies the concept of dependent origination: phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect sometimes identified metaphorically as Indra’s Net. In quantum theory, Bell’s theorem answered a philosophical question about universal connectedness. “Any objects that have ever interacted continue to instantaneously influence each other” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 139). Without separability “what happens at one place can instantaneously affect what happens far away without any physical force connecting the two events…quantum theory, of course, has this connectedness extending over the entire universe” (Ibid., 151). Williams writes that “origination does not occur from the entities themselves,” (61) and “all the phenomenal world depends in some sense on consciousness.” (90)
This exegesis in no way posits the opinion that consciousness is emergent from quantum mechanics. Rather, I find it interesting that an ancient tradition of Buddhism so strongly related the concept that consciousness creates ‘reality,’ starting at the atomic level.
The concept of the quantum enigma, the mystery of physics’ encounter with consciousness, arises from demonstrated physical facts, and not from quantum theory itself. There are numerous ways to interpret Quantum Theory, and according to Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, coauthors of Quantum Enigma, “there is no way to interpret quantum theory without encountering consciousness” (158). They define consciousness as “similar to ‘awareness’…this use of ‘consciousness’ includes the experience of free will.” Some interpretations offer a rationale for avoiding a relationship (between consciousness and quantum theory), “…starting with the presumption that the physical world should be dealt with independently of the human observer” (Ibid.). The role of consciousness in quantum theory is often defined out of physics, yet with numerous caveats, one being that consciousness may or may not play a role in quantum theory interpretation, but it (consciousness) is not treatable with well-defined testable models and is therefore not in the milieu of physics, Yet, according to Rosenblum and Kuttner, no matter how hard they try, physicists cannot come up with a quantum theory interpretation that does not somehow display at least an encounter with consciousness. “Quantum mechanics reveals a mysterious encounter of ‘free choice,’ conscious free choice, with the physical world” (quantumenigma.com).
Interpretations of quantum theory explore phenomena on microscopic levels of reality. Experiments such as the double slit and the box-pair (an experiment explained in plain language in Quantum Enigma) essentially show us that the observation (of a photon, say) creates an objective situation that is the same for everyone. “Somehow observing an atom being at a particular place created its being there” (Ibid., 77).
One such interpretation (of many explored in Quantum Enigma) to consider is the orthodox and widely accepted Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory; the interpretation includes ‘three pillars’ that Rosenblum and Kuttner discuss in their book.
I. Wavefunction: “In some real sense, the wavefunction of an object is the object” (ibid 72). Louis de Broglie speculated that material objects display a wave nature. From a mathematical standpoint, the same wave equation for light and sound waves doesn’t work for matter waves. Erwin Schrodinger, though, in 1926, laid down the foundation for modern quantum mechanics by describing waves of matter with a mathematical equation, at least one that is a nonrelativistic approximation (it holds when speeds do not approach that of light). We (observers) collapse the wave function, causing decoherence when we observe matter, at least on a microscopic level. There is a “connectedness” between conscious observation and matter. “Quantum theory claims no properties exist before the are observed” (Ibid., 133). In the words of Pascual Jordan, “observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it” (Ibid., 103).
II. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, derived from the Schrodinger equation and dealing specifically with measurement, provides evidence that one cannot refute observer-created reality.
III. Complementarity is the name for the two aspects of a microscopic object: particle and wave. Both are required for a complete description of these contradictory aspects, but we can consider (observe) only one aspect at a time.
Observation of matter, then produces decoherence: “the process which ‘untangles’ the quantum states and produces a single version of reality at the macroscopic level” (John Gribbin, Q is for Quantum 103), “If observation creates everything, including ourselves, we are dealing with a concept that is logically self-referential” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 207).
Within the Mahayana School of Buddhism, the Madhyamaka Tradition developed, wherein adherents believe that “…dharmas, atoms, or the Self cannot have inherent existence since they are causally dependent, they are part of a causal and conceptual flow” (Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism 61). Therein lies the concept of dependent origination: phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect sometimes identified metaphorically as Indra’s Net. In quantum theory, Bell’s theorem answered a philosophical question about universal connectedness. “Any objects that have ever interacted continue to instantaneously influence each other” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 139). Without separability “what happens at one place can instantaneously affect what happens far away without any physical force connecting the two events…quantum theory, of course, has this connectedness extending over the entire universe” (Ibid., 151). Williams writes that “origination does not occur from the entities themselves,” (61) and “all the phenomenal world depends in some sense on consciousness.” (90)
This exegesis in no way posits the opinion that consciousness is emergent from quantum mechanics. Rather, I find it interesting that an ancient tradition of Buddhism so strongly related the concept that consciousness creates ‘reality,’ starting at the atomic level.