1

TUCSON III 1998.

Quantum Theory, The Implicate Order andThe Mind/Matter Relationship.

by

B. J. Hiley.

Overhead Transparencies presented at Plenary 14

Space, Time and Consciousness.

Friday 1 May 1998

2

Quantum Theory, The Implicate Order andThe Mind/Matter Relationship.

Do quantum processes play an IMPORTANT role in themind/matter relationship?

AGAINST.

The Churchlands, Crick Dennett, Searl, etc.

"Given what is known, 'very remote' is the label typically stamped on thepossibility that quantum mechanical effects play any significant role inneuronal function. ....... Hoisting its status from 'campfire possibility' to'scientific possibility' is problematic, however, given that quantum leveleffects are generally agreed to be washed out at the neuronal level."

[Gush & P. Smith Churchland, J. Cons. Studies, 2, p. 10, 1995.]

CLASSICAL PHYSICALISM.

FOR.

Stapp, Penrose, Hameroff, Umezawa, Yasue,Pribram, Schempp, etc.

Classical mechanics strives to and successfully keeps the observer andhis mind out of physics, quantum mechanics tries, but fails to keep theobserver and his mind out of physics.

[Stapp, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, Springer, 1993]

3

In what way will quantum theory help?

(1) Mind/consciousness is needed to complete QM.

von Neumann, Wigner, Everett, Dyson, etc.

[Wigner, The Scientist Speculates, Ed., I.H. Good, p. 285, Putnam, NY, (1965)].

⇒ many mindsAlbert, Lockwood, Stapp, etc.

[Lockwood, Mind, Brain and the Quantum, Blackwell, 1989]

(2) Mind/consciousness can changePOTENTIALITIES for quantum events.

Molecular level.

Margenau, Eccles, Beck.

"Mind may be regarded as a NONMATERIAL field carrying little or noenergy that can change in some way the probability of synaptic vesicularemission."

[Eccles, Proc. Roy. Soc. B227, 411-28, 1986]

(3) Gravitational collapse to generate NON-ALGORITHMIC processes in the brain.

Neuron level.

Penrose, Hameroff.

[Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, Oxford 1994]

4

(4) COLLECTIVE modes in dendrite fields.

Corticons Umezawa.Dendritic fields Pribram, Jibu, Yasue,

Vitiello.[Analogy with phonons, magnons, spin waves, etc.]

Phase coherence in DENDRITIC fields.

Brain holodynamics. Schempp.

(5) Analogies between THOUGHT and quantumprocesses.

Bohr, Bohm, etc.

"And the remarkable point-by-point analogy between thought andquantum process would suggest that a hypothesis relating these two maywell turn out to be fruitful. If such a hypothesis could ever be verified, itwould explain in a natural way a great many features of our thinking."

[Bohm, Quantum Theory, p. 171, Prentice-Hall, 1951]

5

Analogies between THOUGHT and quantumprocesses.

Key features:-

MATTER

INDIVISIBILITY of quantum phenomena.

INSEPARABILITY of the observing apparatus from theobserved system.

NONLOCALITY ⇒ QUANTUM TELEPORTATION.QUANTUM COMPUTING.

QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY.

MIND

INSEPARABILITY of the thinker from the thought.

The ONENESS of CONSCIOUSNESS.

Seem rather general and somewhat vague, but lets try todevelop the ideas into something more precise.

6

WHY SO MANY INTERPRETATIONS?

For Example:-

Standard interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, Statisticalinterpretation, Many-worlds interpretation, Bohm-de Broglieinterpretation, Bohm Ontological interpretation, Consistent historiesinterpretation, Transactional interpretation, Many minds interpretation,Modular interpretation.......

There is a fundamental and deep problem.

Classical Physics uses

Locality, Continuity and Determinism.

Quantum Physics uses

Nonlocality, Jumps, and Indeterminism.

(at least at the 'particle' level)

At the 'wave' level it re-introduces

Locality, Continuity and Determinism.

We keep the CARTESIAN ORDER.

7

Consequence of retaining Cartesianorder.

Res extensa Res cogitans

Cartesian cut

Locality, Continuity & Determinism

in space-time Not in space-time

Nonlocality, Jumps & Indeterministic!!

We can display the whole of nature in one view.

CANNOT do this in Quantum Mechanics.

WHY?

8

The Algebra of Quantum Mechanics

Replace position by colour momentum by shape.

colour Red & Blue

shape Sphere & Cube

Assume colour and shape are complementary, then

[S, C] ≠ 0or

2 ΨR = φS + φC 2 ΨB = φS - φC

Measure colour and collect together all Reds

ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨR

Measure shapes of these Reds and find

φS φS φC φS φC φC φC φS φS φC

Re measure colour to check. We find

ΨR ΨB ΨB ΨR ΨR ΨR ΨB ΨR ΨB ΨB

Every property cannot be displayed in ONE 'picture'.

The displayed order is the EXPLICATE ORDER.

9

BOHM'S ILLUSTRATION

Glycerine

After n-turnsclockwise

After n-turns anti-clockwise

Spot reappears

Approximates the Bohm trajectories.

CONTINUITY OF FORM NOT SUBSTANCE.

10

EVOLUTION OF PROCESS USING IMPLICATEORDER.

Continuity of form:-

e e''M1M2

= M e''e M1 2

e'' = M e M12

- 1

Evolution is an algebraic automorphism.

Assume:-

M1 = M2 = M M = exp[iHτ]

τ is the UNFOLDING PARAMETER.

For small τ:− e'' = (1 - iHτ) e (1 + iHτ)

i(e'' - e)

τ = He - eH

idedτ = [H, e]

HEISENBERG EQUATION OF MOTION.

Schrödinger Equation:-

e = ψ φ idψdτ φ + iψ

dφdτ = (Hψ)φ - ψ(φH)

idψdτ = Hψ and -i

dφdτ = φH

11

Is SPACE-TIME an APPEARANCE?

Non-relativistic quantum mechanics uses

either SPACE-TIME or MOMENTUM-ENERGY,

SPACE-TIME NOT PRIMARY?

Quantum Electrodynamics usesPRIMARY SPACE-TIME.

DEEP PROBLEMS with quantizing GRAVITY.

SPACE-TIME MUST FLUCTUATE.

SPACE-TIME NOT PRIMARY?

12

Space-time Basic? Quotations.

Einstein [Physics and Reality, J. Franklin Institute 221, 378., 1936]

....perhaps the success of the Heisenberg method points to a purelyalgebraic method of the description of nature, that is, to the elimination ofcontinuous functions from physics. Then, however, we must give up, inprinciple, the space-time continuum....

Eddington [The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, 225, 1937]

It is a fallacy to think that the conception of location in space-timebased on observations of large scale phenomena can be appliedunmodified to happenings which involve a small number of quanta. Thephenomena are excluded from the outset by the adoption of a co-ordinateframe of reference.

Schwinger [Selected Papers on Quantum Electrodynamics p. xvi, Dover1958]

A convergent theory cannot be formulated consistently within aframework of the present space-time concepts.

Penrose [in Magic without Magic, ed. Klauder, 1972]

I wish merely to point out the lack of firm foundation forassigning any physical reality to the CONVENTIONAL continuumconcept.

....space-time theory would be expected to arise out of some moreprimitive combinatorial theory.

Taylor, G. J. [Phys. Rev. 19D, 2336, 1979]

If gµν is quantized then a priori, there is no Riemannian structurefor space-time.

Wheeler [Quantum Theory and Gravitation, 1980]

NOT Day 1 Geometry,Day 2 Quantum Physics.

BUT Day 1 The Quantum Principle,Day 2 Geometry.

13

How do we go beyond spacetime?

Spin networks Penrose, Smolin.

→ Rotation symmetries.

ANOTHER WAY.

PROCESS ≡ ELEMENTS OF AN ALGEBRA.

Law of SUCCESSION ⇒ MULTIPLICATION.Law of COEXISTENCE⇒ ADDITION.

Same symmetries as spin networks.

⇒ CLIFFORD ALGEBRA.

Generalise to SYMPLECTIC CLIFFORD ALGEBRA.

Create points from elements of the algebra.

x x x x x1 2 3 n-1 n

SPACE

p p p p p1 2 3 n-1 n

Or in the SAME STRUCTURE create a NEW SET of POINTS

MOMENTUM

14

Non-Locality.

Entangled wave functions.

2 Ψ(1, 2) = ΨR (1)ΨB(2) + ΨB(1)ΨR (2).

or2 Ψ(1, 2) = φS(1)φC(2) + φC(1)φS(2).

Measure colour and find either ΨR (1)ΨB(2)

or ΨB(1)ΨR (2).

Or measure shape and find either φS(1)φC(2)

or φC(1)φS(2).

2 ΨR = φS + φC 2 ΨB = φS - φC

The result at 2 depends not only on the result youget at 1, but on what you decide to measure at 1.

15

NON-SEPARABILITY AND NON-LOCALITY

If space-time is PRIMARY then LOCALITY isABSOLUTE.

If space-time is an APPEARANCE then LOCALITY isa RELATIONSHIP.

How can locality be a relationship?

Coherent light

Object

LOCAL region here

NON LOCAL region herePhotograph plate

Half-silvered mirror

SPACE-TIME is but ONE EXPLICATE ORDER.

We are BEYOND SPACE-TIME ⇒ PRE-SPACE.

Quantum non-locality is an aspect of the IMPLICATEORDER.

16

GRASSMANN'S CONTRIBUTION

[Ges. Math. und Pyk. Werke Leipzig (1894); A. C. Lewis Ann. of Sci. 34, 104, 1977]

Mathematics is about THOUGHT not MATERIAL REALITY.

Its about RELATIONSHIPS of FORM, not relationships of CONTENT.

Mathematics is to do with ORDERING FORMS created in THOUGHT.

Thoughts are NOT LOCATED in SPACE-TIME.

Thought is about BECOMING not BEING.

BEING is a relative invariant in the overall process of BECOMING.

General Principle:

In ALL physical processes

BEING is the OUTWARD MANIFESTATION ofBECOMING.

PROCESS OUTLOOK

Whitehead, Peirce, Grassmann, Clifford, Chew, Finkelstein, etc.

17

PARTICLE IMAGE.

Particle

Non manifest or IMPLICATE

Manifest or

EXPLICATE

NOT EVERYTHING can be made MANIFESTTOGETHER.

Wheeler's PARTICIPATIONTo make something manifest is an ACTIVE PROCESS.

NOT simply revealing but RELEVATING FORMS.

The deeper order that lies beyond what can be madeMANIFEST is the IMPLICATE ORDER.

Those features that can be made MANIFESTTOGETHER is an EXPLICATE ORDER.

Each outward manifestation is but an abstraction whichhas implications that go beyond

IMMEDIATE OUTWARD APPEARANCES.

18

IMPLICATE ORDER.Provides a general order in which to understand various

interpretations.

(1) BOHR'S COMPLEMENTARITY.

EITHER have SPACE-TIME description OR have aMOMENTUM-ENERGY description.

(2) CONSISTENT HISTORIES.

Each history is an explicate order. Different historiesdifferent explicate orders.

(3) BOHM'S CAUSAL INTERPRETATION.

Choose ONE explicate space-time order.

(4) PENROSE GRAVITY INDUCED COLLAPSE.

Chooses between ONE of a NUMBER of space-timeorders.

General theme:- PARTICIPATION.

Explicate Order becomes explicit in a given CONTEXT.

Context defined by ACTIVE INFORMATION.

Classical level (MANIFEST LEVEL) provides thecontext for the Quantum level(SUBTLE LEVEL).

19

IMPLICATIONS FOR MIND.

NO CARTESIAN CUT.

NO SEPARATION between Material process andThought.

MATERIAL PROCESS has to sides:-

the MANIFEST (Classical) and the SUBTLE (quantum).

THOUGHT has two sides:-

MATERIAL SIDE:- ELECTROCHEMICAL ⇒ MANIFEST.

MENTAL SIDE:- VIRTUAL ACTIVITIES ⇒ SUBTLE.

ACTIVE INFORMATION is the LINK between thetwo sides.

20

NO REAL DIVISION between MIND and MATTER.and between PSYCHE and SOMA.

MATTERAbout ORGANISATION of FORM and STRUCTURE;

NOT SUBSTANCE.

THOUGHTAbout ORGANISATION of FORM and STRUCTURE;

NOT SUBSTANCE.

We have a thorough going WHOLENESS in which theMENTAL and PHYSICAL SIDES PARTICIPATE.

21

CONSCIOUSNESS CAN BE COMPREHENDED INTHE IMPLICATE ORDER.

[Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, p. 196-202]

Continual ENFOLDMENT of INFORMATION.

⇓EXPLICATE ORDER.

Active PARTICIPATION gives the APPREHENSIONof the UNDIVIDED STATE of FLOWING

MOVEMENT.

Quantum processes provide a clue.BUT we must go beyond.

Explanation

NOT CLASSICAL PHYSICALISM,

BUT QUANTUM PHYSICALISM.

[see also D. Hutto, J. Con. Stud., 5, no 3, 1998]

22

REFERENCES.

D. Bohm.Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, London, (1980).

A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter, Phil. Psych. 3 , 271-286, (1990).

With D. Peat, Science, Order and Creativity, Routledge, London,

(1989).

With B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: an Ontological

Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Routledge, London, (1993).

B. J. Hiley.

Vacuum or Holomovement, in The Philosophy of Vacuum, ed. S.Saunders and H. Brown, p.217249, Clarrendon Press, Oxford, (1991).

With N. Monk, Quantum Phase Space and the Discrete WeylAlgebra, Mod. Phys. Lett., 8, 3625-3633, (1993).

The Conceptual Structure of the Bohm Interpretation of QuantumMechanics, 70 Years of Matter Waves, ed., K.V. Laurikainen, C.Montonen and K. Sunnarborg, pp 99-118, Editions Frontiers, Gif-sur-Yvette (1995).

Nonlocality in Microsystems, in Scales of Conscious Experience:Is the Brain too Important to be Left to Specialists to Study, ed. J. Kingand K. H. Pribram, pp. 315-336 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NewJersey, (1995).

Quantum Mechanics, The Implicate Order and The Relationshipbetween Mind and Matter in New Directions in Cognitive Science Ed., P.Pylkkanen and P. Pylkko. pp. 44-55, Hakapaino, Helsinki, (1995).

The Algebra of Process, in Consciousness at the Crossroads ofPhilosophy and Cognative Science: ed., B. Borstner and J. Shawe-Taylor,pp. 52-67, Inptint Academic, Thorverton, (1995).

23

Mind and Matter: Aspects of the Implicate Order Describedthrough Algebra, in Learning as Self-Organisation, ed., K. H. Pribramamd J. King, pp. 569-86, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey,(1996).

24

With P. Pylkkänen, Repsesentation and Interpretation in QuantumPhysics, in Forms of Representation: an intedisciplinary theme forCognitive Science, ed., D. Peterson, pp. 180-97 (Intellect Books, Exeter)(1996).

With M. Fernandes, Process and Time, in Time, Temporality andNow, Eds., H. Atmanspacher and E. Ruhnau, 365-383, Springer-Verlag,(1997).

Quantum Mechanics and the Relationship Between Mind andMatter, in Brain, Mind and Physics, ed. P.Pylkkänen, P. Pylkkö, and A.Hautamäki, 37-53, IOS Press, Amsterdam, (1997).

With P. Pylkkänen, Active Information and Cognitive Science-AReply to Kieseppä, in Brain, Mind and Physics, ed. P. Pylkkänen, P.Pylkkö, and A. Hautamäki, 64-85, IOS Press, Amsterdam, (1997).