MATERIAL FOR BOOK JACKET ETC:
Although the book is meant to be read in its entirety as various parts reflect upon each other, many parts can stand alone; those interested in particular topics can use the guide provided at the end of the introduction to choose the sections of particular interest to them.
Overview
The known laws of nature are insufficient(ly 'rich' or 'deep') to provide for the existence of true free will. However, a certain type of meta-causality that we term acausality could, if it underlies the physical nature of the interactions within a brain, enable true free-willed descisions to be taken. The existence of such a phenomenon has ramifications for physics, cosmology, mathematics and philosophy.
We will see that we must go beyond present science in our explorations of the mental realm of the human mind and of the concepts/phenomena which arise therein: especially free will, meaning and purpose. The reality we will find is however not contradictory to that revealed by the scientific endeavor. Rather, what we find is supplementary to known science, indicative of a deeper richness to the fabric of reality as indicated by the human mind than has as yet been discovered by science in its investigations of the inanimate universe.
We will explore the parallel between the nature, emergence, and significance of free-willed consciousness, and the nature, emergence, and significance of the universe and life. On the way we will relate the underlying themes of the creation and Eden accounts, and of free willed-consciousness, not only to fundamental moral and philosophical questions but also to the concept of human creativity in general, as well as to some of the central ideas of many disciplines: philosophy, quantum physics, metaphysics, cosmology, kabbalah, and mathematics.
Summary of Book: better for a book review etc than for the book itself.
One of the most mysterious elements of modern physics concerns the nature of reality at the microscopic level and of the universe as a whole, particularly the rather metaphysical 'measurement problem' of quantum physics. We will find that our investigations of the nature of morally-relevant free will, and specifically the postulation of an acausal type of basis for free willed consciousness allow us to make some possible contributions to this issue, and to relate the type of free will which is capable of being morally relevant to processes of quantum physics and through it to cosmology.
We will find other points where the nature of free will as we define it has relevance to questions of the nature of existence, to the possible relationship of kabbalistic and cosmological concepts, to the anthropic principle, to the relationship between entropy, human creativity, the prevention of the possible eventual 'heat death' of the universe, and to other matters of cosmological significance.
In exploring various paths in these fields, we will always find ourselves led back to the issue of free-willed moral consciousness, and to the creation and Eden accounts.
Our understanding of the nature of free will also helps shed light on one of the central issues in philosophy: the 'mind body' problem. We will find that the acausal nature of free will which grants it the possibility of being relevant to moral responsibility also endows it with the role of the 'ghost in the machine' of philosophy, sparking across the gap between the mental realm of thought and emotion, and the realm of the brain and the rest of the physical universe.
We shall find this issue to be of relevance in discussions of the nature of consciousness, the evolution of consciousness, the question of the mental or material nature of the universe, human transcendence, and even to the nature of mathematical truth.
Among the philosophical issues explored are the source of moral obligation, objective vs. subjective morality, and the problem of evil. Kabbalistic topics concepts such as tzimtzum, shvirat hakelim, and the connection between the spiritual and physical realms are related to concepts of physics - the ideas of symmetry, the unity of the laws of nature, and the nature of physical reality - and to those of cosmology: the design of the big bang, and the origin, age, and heat death of the universe. In mathematics, logic and artificial intelligence we dip briefly into Godel's incompleteness theorem, the concept of mathematical truth, randomness, and the nature of creativity; in metaphysics we consider the design of the universe, purpose and meaning, and the emergence of existence from non-existence.
In addition, we shall develop an understanding of the creation and Eden accounts focusing on their being centrally concerned with the themes of existence, free will and MRMP (moral responsibility, meaning and purpose). This, together with our understanding of the nature of free will in turn enable us to see the two accounts as closely connected thematically rather than as obscure and perplexingly contradictory cosmogonies.
We also explore other questions which are central to the creation and Eden accounts such as: why the emergence of humanity is the culmination of creation; why each act of creation is seen by God as "good" (and the creation as a whole is seen by God as "very good"); why Adam is said to have been created 'in the image of God'; why he ate of the tree; whether or not prior to eating he had free will to choose whether or not to eat of the tree; why he is called 'Adam'; why Eve was created separately and how her role fulfilled her design as a 'helpmeet' for Adam; why the Eden account is juxtaposed to the creation account; why the accounts have the literary form they do; and the relationship of the two accounts to the rest of the Bible.
Several issues which arise in connection with contemporary science and its implications for the creation and Eden accounts are also discussed, such as: the question of the existence of God; the big bang and evolution theories; the origin of the universe and its age; the origin of humanity and the amount of time humans have been in existence; all this with the common thread being that of free-willed consciousness and moral activity forming a tapestry of physics and metaphysics against the background of the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis.
In the final sections of the book we will find that after clarifying the acausal nature of free will we are also in a better position to confront some of the major issues of general and Jewish religious philosophy
........................
The Creation and Garden of Eden Accounts
Various of the ancient works which are part of our cultural heritage deal with descriptions of the origin and construction of the universe (cosmogonies) of one form or other.
We shall see that just as traditional sources like the Midrash and Zohar differ greatly in their explication of the Bible, but are explanations of the Torah rather than contradictions to it, so too
Sensations arrive in the brain in discrete units. Our consciousness takes the fragments of spatial information, of individual moments, fed into the brain by the senses, and combines them into a composite which gives a unified and coherent picture of reality in our minds. Consciousness is necessarily transcendent of space-time in this sense (see Sasoon, and recent research, science times Tuesday March 22? '95).
Why only "moral choice" should be considered "free"-willed
As we have said, free will is such a radical departure from the laws of physics that we wish to deny its existence wherever we can, without being inconsistent in our belief that we possess a free will. What then should our criteria be for deciding who/what possesses a free will?
There are three types of occurrences: deterministic, probabilistic-deterministic, and free-willed. There do not seem to be any true deterministic processes: at the fundamental level all processes are quantum ones.
In essence, the idea of free will may be contrary to the entire scientific enterprise since it involves the concept of an acausal non-random process. That is, for a will to be considered 'free', there must be some effective part of the activity which is determined solely by itself without regard to the past, so that no physical law effectively determines the choice of the will. The basic ideas of science however, generally assume that any present state must lead to a future state either deterministically or randomly, but not 'freely': future mind states are thus determined by present mind-states - even mind states which are highly improbable may occur, but only via random processes, not through actual deliberate choice. Of course the feeling of free will is known to exist but, according to this view, the feeling of being free willed is illusory.
In contrast, belief in free will implies the belief that free will is an acausal - or 'self-causing' - phenomenon. Free will seems to have no backing from physics - indeed it seems to be undefined from the viewpoint of physics. Nevertheless, few consider man as totally lacking a free will: in many opinions, dismissing the possibility of free will in man would be imply the absolution of all people from true moral responsibility for their actions; and to imagine their actions as not deriving from their will, would consign all human activity to the realm of puppet-motion, where the strings are pulled by the universe at large .
The alternative is to accept the reality of free will despite the evidence of physics. Indeed there are precedents for such a step: one accepts that one exists, that one is conscious, and that one feels emotions without looking to physics for confirmation. Nevertheless, there is an essential difference: free will is not only not supported by science, but it actually seems to be counter to all other processes known to physics.
As we can know of free will only via introspection, we find it more difficult to ascribe free will in surety to beings very unlike ourselves in mental ability - for example the animals. In any case, the animals certainly are not sufficiently intelligent to realize the ramifications of their actions, and to choose morally between the available alternatives.
We will therefore deal here with an approach which considers free will to be present in human mental activity only.
Thus, we can say that true free will exists only in the presence of a moral sense - that is, only a moral being can be free-willed.
…………….
DELETE
APPENDIX : Morality and Free Will
Assume there exists an absolute objective morality, but that no free will exists. If free will is an illusion, then all actions are automatic (probabilistically determined), and not 'chosen', and thus no one could be objectively considered 'evil' or 'good' based on their actions. This conclusion is unacceptable to the vast majority of people, who feel very strongly that there is a 'should' and a 'should not' and that people do have the capability of 'choosing' (to some extent).
We see thus that we deny that free will is merely illusion in order that morality (as an "absolute" 'should'/'should not' system) not be sacrificed. However, were we to be told that activity not involving moral choices is automatic, we might be able to accept it. That is, for example, if we pick up a pen, and give ourselves the option to drop it within one second, or to put it down, choosing which option to carry out does not involve any moral aspect and so it can be accepted to be purely determined by the ordinary laws of nature.
It is probably acceptable to most of us to allow such activity to be considered automatic. That is, were we to be shown that our choice depended totally on our previous mind state, or was partially a result of a random process, we would not be horrified. However, if the choice were between stabbing someone with the pen or putting it down, we would adamantly insist that we chose not to stab, not that we merely 'feel' the illusory feeling of choice.
Indeed, the idea that there exists a 'should' and 'should not' which is not merely a reflection of our own desires, but is an objectively valid prescription for action, is in itself quite problematical. Thus, the problematic reluctance to consign free will to illusion results from the problematic conception that some actions are good and some are evil.
If we were to accept that no absolute good or evil exists, then there would be no violent objection to considering a perfectly sane murderer for profit to be simply 'dangerous' and not 'evil'. We would put him in jail not because he (deserved it, because he) deliberately chose evil, but simply because he is dangerous. We would not say that he chose to murder, but instead that his genes and environment plus random processes caused the murder to occur, without any 'will' on his part being involved - i.e. that his will to kill was a psychological state caused exclusively by hereditary and environmental elements The majority of people who would consider him 'evil', do so only because they assume that all of us have a free will and can choose our actions, at least to a certain extent.
We can therefore limit the violence done to scientific principle by allowing free will to operate only where it must do so in order to be meaningful, and to conform to our deepest intuition. Specifically, we can assume that free will operates to discriminate between possibilities of moral choice, but not between morally neutral choices. These latter will be accepted to be purely determined by the ordinary laws of nature (q.m., etc.).
Indeed, the distinction is operationally justified by the difficulty in conceiving of a free choice which has no criterion for choosing. In the case of a moral choice, the desire to do good or to do evil provides the criterion, but in a morally neutral choice, if the choice is relevant then the optimal choice will always be taken (unless a quirk which arose deterministically from a previous mental state decides otherwise) and if it is irrelevant, such as in the case with the pen previously, either a random event will trigger the 'choice', or it will be a quirk, etc.
Contents of FILE "FREE WILL AND PURPOSE" which was erased
Purpose and Free Will
In a universe in which all events occur in a random/determined way from prior events, all that occurs would follow in a random/determined manner from the initial universe state. If the universe is a created universe, then its entire future - including all human activity and thought - follows as a probabilistically determined random result of its initial created state. Since this state is created as a result of God's will, every detail of its initial state is there because God willed that it be like that. Therefore, all that would ever occur - all human 'good' and 'evil' action - would be a result of God's choice of initial conditions, and of the Divinely designed and instituted laws of nature.
Such a universe could not have any meaning or purpose from the point of view of God. In this work however, we assume that the universe does possess meaning from the point of view of its creator. Therefore we assume that Man posseses a type of free will which does allow meaningful activity even from the point of God .
That is we assume that since God created the universe for a purpose, it must be true that a non-random, non-deterministic element has been injected into the universe. We postulated that a radical difference exists between the actions of man and that of the rest of the universe, and only free-willed decisions can provide an otherwise random/determined universe with meaning and purpose .
............................................
The quote “the rest are details” is from “Einstein : the Life and Times” by Ronald W. Clark, World Publishing Company 1971, p19. Clark quotes Esther Salaman and the bibliographic reference he provides is “A Talk With Einstein” in The Listener, Sept 8, 1955.
According to Misner, Thorne, Wheeler “Gravitation” the quote “what really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world” was said by Einstein to an assistant, and their bibliographic reference is to a book review by G. Holton of “Einstein : the Life and Times:” by Ronald W. Clark, NYT book Review (p20), Sept 5, 1971 p1-20 (Holton wrote a lot about Einstein and presumably inserted this quote into his book review.)
......................
Lewis Carrol: “On some days I managed to believe as many as 5 impossible things before breakfast”
..............
Part IV: The Cosmological Effect of Free Will
In the cosmological context free will has unique abilities and roles. We explore parallels between cosmology and the creation and Eden accounts& kaballah, via the link of free-willed consciousness.
Chapter 8: The Retroactive Universe: Quantum Reality and the Emergence of Consciousness A brief excursion into quantum metaphysics to see the role that it ascribes to consciousness in the establishment of physical reality. What we will find will help us to understand the creation and Eden accounts, as well as their relationship to each other. 15 pages
Chapter 9: Quantum Reality and the emergence of Free Will & Moral Beings: A further excursion into quantum metaphysics to see the role that it ascribes to free-will in the establishment of physical reality. An analysis in this light of the creation and Eden accounts and their interrelationship. 5 pages
Chapter 10: Existence, Free Will, and Self Causation: The fundamental similarity between the emergence into existence of the universe and the nature of free willed choice, so that the creation and Edens accounts are related as well: a deeper understanding of one helps provide a deeper understanding of the other. 2 pages
Chapter 11: Cosmology and Kabbalah:
Broken Symmetry and Shvirat Hakelim,
Tzimtzum and Free Will
the creation and Eden account and the connecting link of free-willed consciousness. 3.5 pages
Chapter 12: The Anthropic Principle: New approaches to the issue of whether or not the universe was designed. Free will and the creation and Eden accounts. 6 pages
Chapter 13: Complexity and Entropy: Human Creativity vs. The Heat Death of the Universe. The 'heat death' of the universe, or 'the big crunch':human creativity and free-will type processes may yet save the day; hints to this effect in Genesis. 4 pages
Chapter 14: Infinitude, Complexity, and Mind: Can free will exist in a finite universe? What does predictability mean in an infinite universe? God's Omniscience. 1.5 pages
Chapter 15: Computability and Free Will: What can and cannot be computed. The universe as a computer and the laws of nature as its software. What is quantitatively unpredictable, and when does a quantitative feature become qualitative. Free will, creation and Eden.
Chapter 8: The Retroactive Universe:
Quantum Reality and
the Emergence of Consciousness
Section I: Levels of Reality
Introduction
Most people have heard the question asked "if a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound?".
Conundrums of this type are profound. Or at least they seem to be. After analysis some reveal themselves to be merely about definitions, or even as being trite. But even these sometimes reveal an additional level of depth beneath, and the riddle above is a case in point.
The answer to the riddle depends partially on the distinction between the meaning of 'sound' and of 'sound waves'. "Sound" is a sensation of a consciousness; sound waves are physical vibrations of the molecules of air. When sound waves impinge on the ear, nerve signals are sent to the brain and somewhere in the brain these give rise to the sensation of 'sound'.
Few would claim that the physical effects of the tree's fall would be any different if there are or are not conscious beings present. Therefore, the vibration of the earth when the tree strikes it, and the resulting vibration of the air, the sound waves, would occur in the presence or absence of a being. If a huge tree falls in a forest, generating huge vibrations in the ground as it strikes, this causes large sound waves to be emitted, just that there would be no 'sound', no mental sensation, if there were no conscious being present.
At this level then the conundrum is trite, about definitions, however the deeper level is expressed by approaches in philosophy which consider even physical events as existing only inasmuch as they are recorded in a conscious mind.
Indeed, some eminent physicists in the early part of the twentieth century were led by their researches into physics and cosmology to a similar view.
In the words of Sir Arthur Eddington [b]: "The material universe itself is an interpretation of certain symbols presented to consciousness. When we speak of the existence of the material universe we are presupposing consciousness. It is meaningless to speak of the existence of anything except as forming part of the web of our consciousness".
As McCabe reports [j], when Eddington was pressed to say whether this meant that he rejected the common scientific teaching that a material universe really existed before life and mind appeared on this planet, Eddington said:
"I do not think we understand what we mean by existence."
According to this approach, the physical universe could be said to have begun its true existence only after the emergence within it of consciousness, which presents something of a causal paradox.
It is interesting that the study of fundamental interactions in the last seventy or so years has led to the development of basic theories of nature which have led some physicists today to a similar conclusion.
Quantum Physics and Reality: One of the most surprising conclusions of quantum physics is - and this will be explained later - that physical events exist only in a pseudo-real state until they are actually recorded. According to one interpretation of this fact, it is only the observation of events by a human consciousness which allows the event to emerge into reality. An extension of this idea has led to the astonishing conclusion that the entire universe - as a collection of physical events - can emerge into real existence only when it is observed by a consciousness. Indeed, since consciousness only arose billions of years after the big bang, some physicists have claimed that in a sense the emergence of consciousness brought the universe into existence retroactively.
If such is indeed the case, then the emergence of conscious beings is not only an event of cosmic importance, but also it is in a sense the beginning of universal history, and intimately tied into the emergence of the universe itself into existence.
The Garden of Eden story, which deals with the emergence of conscious free-willed beings, has therefore a significance beyond the obvious, a cosmological relevance, and thus it is appropriately juxtaposed to the creation account.
This connection between consciousness and existence will also manifest itself in other ways, and will be a recurrent theme in many of our discussions.
Section II:
(Dealing with quantum physics and the collapse of the wave function; the issue of randomness vs determinism is dealt with in Part I.)
Probabilistic Determinism, Reality, and Measurement
Many physicists prefer an operationalist-type view: i.e., physics does not provide us with a 'model' of subatomic physics. Physics can give equations which provide predictions of laboratory results etc, however physics cannot make statements about 'what is really occurring' - such statements would have no meaning. The processes 'occurring' at the subatomic level are simply not describable using terms familiar to macroscopic beings. Theories such as quantum physics provide insight into the limits of what we can know about the universe and processes within it, rather than providing us with a model of these processes, or of the supposed 'fundamental reality' of the universe.
............
The experiments of Alain Aspect et all and others afterwards have proven the implications of bell’s inequality: quantum physics shows us that we have to reject one of four seemingly true ideas: quantum physics denmands, and experiment backs it up, that these four cannot all be true: contrafactualness, definiteness, reality, locality [see Herbert for a nice and comprehensive discussion]. Most assumptions are that reality is the culprit (Bohr’s “Copenhagen” interpretation), and this and the following chapter follow this path. However, any other of the three can be fallible too (Everett = many worlds interpretation, sacrifices definiteness; see later discussion re contrasfactualness and free will; see Herbert for arguments favoring sacrificing locality and retaining reality); we will make remarks here and ther ein the footnotes regarding this issue.
….
“Realism” (or ‘objectivity’): the doctrine that there is an external reality existing independent of human consciousness: it has properties which are independent of human observation.
Locality: no information or effect can involve ‘action-at-a-distance”.
Aspect/Bell showed that deterministic local hidden-variable theories are incompatible with experiment and with quantum physics.
Bohm formulated a nonlocal deterministic hidden-variable theory: it is controversial…(Phys Rev 1952]
……………………………………..
Furthermore, events develop in time in a way that is affected by all the possibilities - to correctly predict the outcome of an experiment on a quantum particle one must always perform a calculation which involves the implication that the particle is in a combination state composed of all possible states. The physical interpretation of this combination is that of a probability - it tells us what is the relative probability of each of the possible outcomes represented in the combination.
For example, when measured, an electron can have its spin either up or down. In contrast, when computing the result of an experiment, the correct result will be arrived at only via a calculation which attributes to the electron a combination of up and down at every instant . A computation which considers the electron as having been either up or down at any given time gives an incorrect answer. Only the combination equation is correct, but all it can provide us with is the relative likelihood of the electron being in its spin up state and its spin down state.
The mathematical equations describing quantum systems clearly lead to a superposition of many alternatives developing simultaneously and in concert - mathematically described as a 'wave packet'. On the other hand of course when we observe any physical system, it has a very specific and unique state. Mathematically, there is no reason that the superposition should collapse to a unique value, yet nevertheless the physical fact is that it does.
There is something of a paradox involved.
The Before and After
Prior to a measurement, any event can occur in a number of ways, and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say "it is in some particular state, which is however as yet unknown to us". It is not. It is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be! Indeed even after measurement is made and the particle is found to be in a specific well-defined state, it would not be correct to say that the particle was in that state all the time. Rather, it had no definite state until one measured it.
Our measurement does not 'reveal' what was there already; instead our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among the 'superposition' of possibility-states existent prior to the measurement. (The epistemic becomes the ontologic) This is called "the collapse of the wave packet" in the terminology of quantum physics.
..................
(inserted from my BH qp article)
REALITY AND MEASUREMENT
The mathematical description of a quantum system is that of a wave which corresponds to the system being in all possible states simultaneously—a “superposition of states.” (The physical interpretation of this wave is that of a probability distribution for the result of an individual event in an ensemble of cases or particles.) For example, in the case of the slit, each particle is represented by a wave function that corresponds to its going through both slits at all possible angles. Yet, when we look about us we always see unique states—for example, the unique impact point of the electron on the screen behind the slits.
Even the most subtle measurements on the particle while it is in flight, to determine its exact path have been shown experimentally and theoretically to so disturb the path that the pattern is lost. Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment has shown that one can even perform the measurements after passage through the slit, and retroactively affect the outcome. Therefore one cannot attribute a unique “physically real” path to the particle, even in theory—it is in a superposition state.
Thus there is a vast difference between the system prior to measurement—it is in a superposition of all possible states—and after measurement, when it is in a unique state. It can only be the act of measurement itself that causes this drastic change. It is counterintuitive because out observations of the universe about us are measurements, and we therefore always see only unique states, not superpositions.
Prior to its measurement, an event can occur in a number of ways and actually does so in some sense. Without measuring the state of a particle, we cannot say, “It is in some particular state, which is, however, as yet unknown to us.” It is not in some particular state. Instead, it is (in some sense) simultaneously in all the possible states in which it can be! Indeed, even after measurement is made, and the particle is found to be in a particular state, we cannot then say that the particle was in that state all the time—no! It had no definite state until one measured it. Our measurement forces the universe to assume one definite state from among all the possibility-states it is in prior to the measurement
This surprising, even bewildering, property can be interpreted as saying that the universe can emerge into reality only upon its measurement! In a way this is trite and in a way it’s radical. It is trite in the sense that for a at least two centuries philosophers such as Berkeley and the positivists have explored the idea that reality is only set by our consciousness of it, because we can perceive things through the senses. It is radical, though, in that this result has now been achieved by physics. Therefore, what is true in the realm of words and ideas has been shown by physics to be true of physical reality as well: the actual thing itself is not set until it is measured.
Summary
From the preceding discussion, we can make the following summary: All entities in the universe have a dual nature, one material and localized (particulate) and one nonmaterial and non-localized (wavelike). The universe, or any subsystem of it, is capable of being in two (or more) mutually contradictory states simultaneously. Saying that the universe is uniquely in one state is just as invalid as saying that it is in the other state. Until the measurement is made both views are only partially correct since the state is actually a combination. After the measurement only one becomes correct. However, this does not imply that it was always the correct one; there was no “correct” state until the measurement was made.
..................
Surprisingly, it was also found that [assuming locality] the "choice" of how a quantum event will occur is actually "decided" on only when the result of the choice is measured.
This surprising and bewildering property can be interpreted as implying that events in the physical universe can emerge into reality only as a result of their being measured.
The "Collapse of the Wave Function" for the Universe as a Whole
Indeed, the entire universe, as a system of many events, would be perhaps subject to this same property.
If no measurement is made, the universe cannot be considered to be in a specific unique state, since it can be in any number of different states (depending on which choices were taken for all the possible events which occurred since the previous measurement was made). Only after a measurement does the universe pick out 'retroactively' a series of choices, one for each event/decision-point and thus enter into an unambiguous physical state.
In summary then, we see that the universe or any subsystem of it can be in many mutually contradictory states simultaneously. It is not in any one unambiguous state until a measurement of the system is performed. Nevertheless, there was no 'correct' unique unambiguous physical state until the measurement was made.
The "Measurement Problem" for a Particle
When we measure an electron to see if its spin is in the 'up' or 'down' position, we find that it is either up or down, we certainly do not find experimentally that it is both. On the other hand, the theory requires that the calculation giving the prediction of the result necessarily be done with combinations, and furthermore the mathematical result is also always a combination. This is strange: the result we see in the lab is a specific one, and corresponds to a specific mathematical form rather than a combination yet the math predicts a combination.
Somehow, the mathematical description of what is happening should change from a combination to a specific result, yet quantum theory does not in itself imply that this should be the case. Quantum theory would be satisfied to state that events always are in a combination, but of course we know that events when we measure them - or observe them, which is a form of measurement - are in a unique state rather than in a combination state. Therefore there must be something which occurs between the time before the measurement and after the measurement, something which 'collapses' the combination-form into a unique-form, something which quantum physics does not take into account by itself.
Consciousness as the 'Active Ingredient' of a Measurement
Physical events occur in a ghost-world of conflicting probabilities, and can emerge into reality only via the act of measurement. It would almost seems that since measurement is merely the recording of the effect of an event, one can say that all events are always measured: since nothing in the universe can ever be totally isolated from all interaction, all events necessarily leave their mark on other events. Thus, one would imagine that emergence into reality could take place automatically - simultaneously with each event. Nevertheless, according to the mathematics it does not. Indeed it never does according to the math; the march of combined probabilities continues on and on, and in fact experiment proves this math correct. And yet, of course we see that only one of the probabilities out of the combination is eventually actualized - when we look at a real physical box it is either open or closed, it is not 50% likely to be open and 50% likely to be closed.
We can see that the discrepancy with the combination-form predicted by quantum physics arises only when we see an entity, when we observe that a particular result has been actualized.
How to Resolve the Discrepancy
It may be that since the processes 'occurring' at the subatomic level are simply not describable using terms familiar to macroscopic beings, once we begin to describe the results observable by us macroscopic beings, we must use the non-quantum equations. According to this conjecture macroscopic events do not 'interfere' with each other, and thus act as though they are in a unique state - one can then make the assumption that they indeed are in actuality in a unique state, even when not being measured. This explanation is unfortunately not convincing since there are macroscopic quantum states that have been observed (eg superconductivity etc), and so.
Others claim that while it is true that a measurement is needed to collapse the wave function, any macroscopic 'irreversible' measurement can do so. The difficulty with this interpretation is that no truly satisfactory account has been given as to why this should be so, nor as to how the reversible interactions of microscopic physics can give rise to an irreversibility which is qualitatively unique in its ability to collapse the wave packet. In particular, irresversibility is actually a matter of probability, time lapse and temporal direction, and these are properties not so much of the systems themselves as of the consciousness observing the system and ordering its perceptions and understanding of the system and its 'time development'. Thus, consciousness underlies the very definition of 'irreversibility' and attributing the collapse of the wave function to irreversable measurement is effectively to attribute it to a property of consciousness.
Another approach suggests that all the possible quantum paths are followed, with each path existing in a separate universe ['many universes' approach].
There is as yet no consensus on this issue.
In this book, we shall show how the consciousness option can be employed to shed light on the Biblical creation account, within the context of the instant universe theory.
Basically, it seems that the effectuation of a measurement whose result is recorded in a manner comprehensible by a conscious being somehow collapses the many possibilities into one actuality: only such a measurement can bring the combined-probability description of events into the reality we are familiar with.
This conclusion has led some leading physicists to conclude that the power to bring physical events into reality lies not in the measuring apparatus, but rather in the observation of the measurement results by a consciousness. We do not insist that this approach is the correct one, we merely wish to explore the ramifications of this approach.
[THE ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS: What is the active factor in a measurement which causes this emergence into reality? According to some leading physicists, this factor is consciousness.]
John Von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, was the first to provide a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum theory; he showed that according to the mathematics there was no way to account for this 'collapse of the wave packet'; he concluded that it was the effect of a human consciousness observing the state of the system. /he believed that only a human consciousness can collapse the wave function.
When a human consciousness is not observing a system it indeed develops as a superposition of possibilities, but when an observation is made, it collapses to one unique value. In this way there is no contradiction between the fact that the system develops as a superposition, yet is in a definite state every time anyone observes it.
According to this view, the power to bring events into reality is attributed not to the purely mechanical effect of laboratory equipment, but rather to the more magical phenomenon we call consciousness. It is consciousness, a phenomenon totally unexplained as yet by any scientific theory, which alone has the power to transform the potentiality and pseudo-reality of probability into the actual existence of true physical reality.
This however implies that human consciousness has a real and significant effect on the physical universe, that a human consciousness observing the universe is not a passive observer but a critical element in the development of physical states in the universe. The effect that it has according to this approach is that of bringing physical systems from a state of 'superposition of probabilities', or a 'wave-packet' - a very counterintuitive unphysical state in which for example position and speed are undefined - to that of the usual physical state we are accustomed to, that we call physical reality.
Eugene Wigner [a], a leading theoretical physicist, came out clearly in support of the idea that consciousness is qualitatively other than non-conscious measuring devices:
" ........It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness ..........."
"..........it follows that the being with a consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device ..........." .
Section III: Why Consciousness is Effective in Collapsing the Wave Function: Speculations
Consciousness: The Unobserved Observer
It would seem reasonable to conclude that the collapse of the wave function is possible only where the observation is qualitatively different than the events or interactions it is observing. That is, the observation is not part of a chain of quantum events, existing as a superposition, but rather is a uniquely distinct phenomenon, deriving from outside the chain of cause-effect. If so, consciousness may be that which uniquely collapses the wave function since it is the medium whereby we perceive everything whether it is the outside universe, our own internal reality, or the consciousness of another: all is necessarily filtered through our own consciousness and it is the final arbiter of what is reality.
Being conscious we say that we 'exist', and being conscious of something else we say that it exists, and so it is perhaps not surprising that consciousness has the ability to collapse the wave function to bring entities from probability-existence to real physical existence. Or that without consciousness there is no meaning to 'existence' and therefore mathematics which does not take consciousness into account will be necessarily lacking that final step. If the equations are attempting to describe what is, they must necessarily describe what it is that we will be aware of as existing, and so they must insert consciousness into the equation, and the way of inserting it is to effectuate the collapse of the wave function.
When the consciousness of a mathematician or theoretical physicist contemplates the universe and creates equations in their consciousness which describe the universe as it is viewed by their consciousness, it is not a valid equation if it ignores consciousness.
Consciousness: The Unobserved Observer : The All-Seeing but Unseen
When consciousness wishes to observe itself, there is always some part of itself which it cannot observe - namely that part which is doing the observing. Hence, consciousness is both necessary and sufficient for observation (for example, observation of itself) and is also the only phenomenon in the universe not given to observation in totality (since consciousness can never totally observe itself).
Consciousness therefore occupies a very unique role in terms of observation of external and internal reality. Perhaps the fact that consciousness alone is what observes, yet it alone cannot itself be observed, is what provides it uniquely with the ability to bring the universe into physical reality via observation.
MESH: All that we perceive of the outside universe - and all internal reality as well - we perceive via our consciousness. Even were we to wish to examine the consciousness of another, we could do so only by using our own consciousness. Thus, everything that we observe - including consciousness itself - is necessarily filtered through our own consciousness. The two basic knowns are that we are conscious and that we exist - and all of existence is known to us only via our consciousness - consciousness and existence are interrelated.
Even when consciousness wishes to observe itself, there is always some part of itself which it cannot observe - namely that part which is doing the observing.
Consciousness, Time and Separateness
The very idea of a the state of a system being actually a superposition-wave developing in time and then collapsing to a definite value involves the concept of a flow of time, a concept not actually inherent in the system itself, nor in the mathematical description of the system. As such, the perception that there has been a change from the system as superposed wave function to specific value is directly a ramification of our status as conscious entities.
Similarly, the very idea that we exist separately from the system, that we are not the system, but rather are outside it and observing it, is also a direct ramification of our being conscious entities.
This separateness and sense of time flow are two fundamental aspects of consciousness, and as they underly the concept of a system developing as a wave function and then collapsing to a specific value, it is appropriate that it be the very act of consciousness observing the system which is the catalyst for the change of state of the wave function.
Why would consciousness appear in quantum physics rather than in classical physics? Certainly the fact that quantum physics speaks of many possibilities but we witness only one, there is need for a mechanism to collapse the many to the one, but why should it be consciousness?
Consciousness might be that which by definition is the unique identity, the 'other' opposed to everything else in the universe, the 'I', and therefore the existence of more than one possibility is antithetical to consciousness. Also, a consciousness aware of all possiblitities is stagnant, time-symmetric and invariant; only the individual possibility can have a unique identity. Therefore that which transforms the all-possibility into the one unique way is by definition consciousness - which selects out a unique identity from the multitude-all.
Even if one wished to argue that consciousness is not fundamental to 'nature' it is certainly fundamental to our theory of nature, since theory is a description by our minds of patterns of our sensory perceptions. And consequently, consciousness enters into physical theory at a fundamental level, albeit in a manner which is maximally unobtrusive - not actually affecting events, but rather selecting out a unique path of events.
If consciousness has no effect on the physical realm, then it would seem to follow that a universe without consciousness would be identical to that universe without its consciousness. Nevertheless, to make such a comparison requires a consciousness - there must be a consciousness which observes both universes and then can conclude that there is no difference. Therefore consciousness can play the minimalistic role of that which allows for the statement “there is no effect of consciousness on the universe”. In this role consciousness cannot change matters but can only giving meaning to statements. Generally, science would not take account of any alleged phenomenon which cannot interact and affect the universe, however consciousness could be the one element in a universe which may be indispensable even though it does not affect (and therefore fully interact with) the rest of the universe.
Section IV
Retroactive Causation
An even more radical extension of this idea - that the emergence of physical events into reality can be attributed to the act of observation performed by a consciousness - was made by John Wheeler, one of the leading theoretical physicists of this generation. Wheeler showed that if our conscious measurement/observation of an event cause the emergence of that physical event into reality, then an observation now can cause retroactively the emergence into reality of an event which occurred in the past.
This he demonstrated by the delayed choice experiment - a variation on the standard 'double-slit' experiment . In Wheeler's words [d] [italics in the original]:
"Let us wait until the quantum has already gone through the screen before we - at our free choice - decide whether it shall have gone "through both slits" or "through one." "
INSERT DIAGRAM
one photon lens plus venetian-blind two
per timed doubly-slit film photon
flash metal screen detectors
In referring to this drawing, Wheeler states the following:
....We, by a decision in the here and now, have an irretrievable influence on what we will want to say about the past - a strange inversion of the normal order of time....The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."
This idea of a retroactive determination of reality has been adapted by Wheeler to a very fundamental problem indeed, as we shall see below.
Section V
The "Strong Anthropic Principle"
Wheeler has tied the idea of the observer in quantum physics to the greatest mystery of science - the question of the origin of the universe. According to Wheeler, the universe arose "by itself", through a random fluctuation, but only because it was a universe which could give rise eventually to conscious beings. These conscious beings would observe the universe and thus bring it into reality!
This sounds impossible and absurd, but the physics of the big bang involves processes governed by quantum gravity, and Wheeler himself has shown how our usual intuitions about causality may be invalid where quantum gravity is concerned - where space-time itself undergoes random quantum fluctuations.
According to him, based on the delayed-choice experiment:
" 'observership' allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time",
and the universe arises as follows [g]:
" Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership. Acts of observer-participancy - via the mechanism of the delayed-choice experiment - in turn give tangible "reality" to the universe not only now but back to the beginning."
Wheeler has constructed a fascinating diagram to illustrate this concept (see Figure 7-1). Explaining the diagram, he writes: “Beginning with the big bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership. Acts of observer-participancy in turn give tangible reality to the universe not only now but back to the beginning.”
THIS SECTION CAN BE SKIPPED
INNSERT DIAGRAM
In referring to this diagram, Wheeler writes [h]:
"The universe viewed as a self-excited circuit. Starting small (thin U at upper right), it grows (loop of U) and in time gives rise (upper left ) to observer-participancy - which in turn imparts "tangible reality" (cf. the delayed-choice experiment) to even the earliest days of the universe."
"If an anthropic principle, why an anthropic principle? Envisage as Carter does 'an ensemble of universes' in only a very small fraction of which life and consciousness are possible?
Or ask as we do now if no universe at all could come into being unless it were guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little length of time in its history-to-be?"
"[Should we say that:]
'The universe, meaningless or not would still come into being and run its course even if the constants and initial conditions forever ruled out the development of life and consciousness. Life is accidental and incidental to the machinery of the universe'. Or, going beyond the anthropic principle, is the directly opposite view closer to the truth, that the universe, through some mysterious coupling of future with past, required the future observer to empower past genesis?
"Nothing is more astonishing about quantum mechanics than its allowing one to consider seriously......the... view that the universe would be nothing without observership as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity.
"Is observership the 'electricity' that powers genesis?"
and [i]:
"Quantum mechanics has led us to take seriously and explore the .....view that the observer is as essential to the creation of the universe as the universe is to the creation of the observer."
...................
the entire universe can emerge into true physical existence only via the observation of a consciousness!
[T]he universe would be nothing without observership, as surely as a motor would be dead without electricity….
“[O]bservership” allows and enforces a transcendence of the usual order in time….
Thus, according to “quantum metaphysics,” a consciousness is indispensable to the universe if it is to emerge into reality. Physical reality can be said to exist only due to our presence within it or, more precisely, as a result of our perception of it.
Section VI Consciousness, Eden, and Creation
The above quantum metaphysical picture of our universe grants cosmic importance to the emergence of conscious beings and therefore illuminates the broader cosmological significance of the theme of the Garden of Eden account.
The Eden account is often interpreted as a mythological-type story inserted for theological reasons, but otherwise unconnected to the creation account in Genesis. And, the fact of the protagonist being the Adam of the creation account is considered to be similarly motivated. In distinction to this, the quantum metaphysical connection between the emergence of consciousness and the emergence into physical existence of the universe as a whole shed light not only on the Eden account itself but also on its juxtaposition to the creation account; it is in fact crucial that these accounts be interrelated and that the Adam of the creation account be the protagonist of the Eden account.
Science, metaphysics, and philosophy contribute to the overall picture, to which the creation and Eden are also relevant. The scientific origin theory provides an explanation of the creation mechanism - a universe develops from a singularity and big bang, and evolves until the emergence of consciousness. Quantum metaphysics proposes further that the universe does not emerge into physical reality until the first conscious being emerges, so that the universe is retroactively-existent. The connection made by philosophy between the emergence of consciousness and the onset of meaningful activity adds a dimension to the story, and in the Biblical context of a purposefully created universe, it is clear why the onset of meaning should be made to coincide with the actual creation.
In the context of a created retroactive universe, to paraphrase Genesis:
"And Gd said:
'Let there have been a big bang'.
And it was so."
………………
MESH the below text into the above material as necessary/appropriate
......... Quantum Physics and Free Will..........
'True Free Will' is Unique, and Controversial: In order that a true free will exist, these two conditions must be satisfied:
1) more than one option exists at a decision point, as in quantum physics as opposed to determinism;
2) an option can be selected "freely", ie
a) not randomly, as in quantum physics;
b) not deterministically as implied by the rationality of a truly free choice.
The conundrum from the point of view of physics is: On the one hand, requirement #1 has been shown possible by quantum physics, while on the other hand #2 is contradicted by quantum physics which states that options are ‘selected’ at random. Furthermore, choice must be rational to be free, and rational implies deterministic (The idea of a truly free non-random choice implies a choice made after careful deliberation rather than by caprice. To be rational, a choice must be based on reasoning, which is a chain of logic, or at least a determi nistic chain of thought. This deterministic chain leads eventually to one's genetic complement and environment and so forth.) Therefore free choice is self-contradictory.
Physics, Free Will and Intuition: True free will is necessarily built upon an interaction "transcending" both the determinism of classical physics and the probabilistically-determined randomness (PDR) of quantum physics. Unless there would be some experimental proof that true free will exists, physics would rightly exclude it[5][5]. Our deepest intuitions however point to its existence. And of course most religious beliefs assume it does exist, and base the concept of moral responsibility on the assumption that our free will is real. Nevertheless our intuitions about what is logical make true free will counterintuitive. Thus our intuition is in favor of the idea of true free will, but our conception of logic makes the same true free will counterintuitive.
The Acausality of Free Will: a Rationale and Ramifications: Beyond our intuition there are other justifications for assuming the possibility of non-causal, or 'acausal' pro cesses, and these perhaps point the way to the physical origin of the type of radically-acausal phenomenon such as free will.
a) The greatest mystery of all is the origin of the universe. A universe which exists is in itself an indication of acausality for it exists without real cause: cause implies temporal order, yet time originated with the uni verse and thus no cause could "precede" the existence of the universe. Thus in some sense, at its most fundamental level, even the scientific conception of existence implies acausality.
It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe whose very existence implies acausal ity to exhibit free will-type acausality. [We will elsewhere argue that if such processes exist, a likely place for them to manifest is where consciousness is involved.]
b) Another question arises as to the origin of consciousness: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that consciousness evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon, matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (PDR), give rise via a physical mechanism such as evolution to a qualitatively different pheno menon[6][6]? One answer would be that consciousness was inherent in the universe at its origin and this enabled the human brain to attain consciousness at some point in its evolution (for example, perhaps when the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the consciousness inherent in the universe). Another answer would suppose that consciouness was not present always, but rather it somehow 'emerged', somehow arose without precedent, basically in a non-causal manner, just as the universe itself exists acausally. It is perhaps not so out-of-character for a universe in which consciousness is present from the beginning to exhibit mind-like properties such as free will, and even more-so for a universe in which consciousness 'emerges' acausally.
The Relationship of Free Will and Consciousness: Free will is possible only as a property of a consciousness - an "I" that wills. (This can be seen upon some reflection.) On the other hand, consciousness is possible without an accompanying free will. However, consciousness alone would be powerless to affect events in the absence of free will – it would be a prisoner of its ‘host body’- and everything occurs as it would without the existence of consciousness.
Thus if by human consciousness we mean a phenomenon which can interact with the universe and affect it, then we must consider consciousness to be free-willed, and so we can for this purpose consider free will and human consciousness as inseparable.
A question arises as to the origin of free-will[ed consciousness]: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that free-will evolved. However, how could one type of phenomenon, matter ruled by probabilistic determined randomness (PDR), give rise via evolution to a qualitatively different pheno menon, free will processes?
One answer would be that free will was inherent in the universe and at a certain point in the evolution of the human brain, free will existed where it had "previously" not existed. When the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the free will inherent in the universe. Or, as an acausal phenomenon, free will needed no direct preceding "cause" and could thus arise even as the product of PDR processes.
Free will is the only phenomenon which involves processes not bound to the probabilistic constraints of quantum physics. Free will can even be considered as the gen eral phenomenon, and quantumprobabilism merely a special limited case of it – ie the case where many options exist for how an event will occur but it occurs in a probabilistic way rather than freely.
Thus it can almost be expected that free will "transcend" quantum processes in some way. Since consciousness is our only means of knowing of all physical events - they exist (to us) only inasmuch as they are reported by our consciousness - it can almost be expected that consciousness might play an important physical role in the actualization of events.
The Measurement Problem of Quantum Physics (the Collapse of the Wave Function)
Every event is "recorded" automatically as it occurs by virtue of its effect on the universe-however, this type of recording is not sufficient to "collapse the wave function". All measuring devices including the human brain are natural products of the nat ural universe. If their actions result from random/determined processes, then these actions are likewise random/deter mined, and thus their actions are natural events qualitatively no different than any other natural event in the physical uni verse. How then can it be that mea surement can “collapse the wave function”? One could postulate that it is only human measurement which can cause this 'collapse', however why would human measurement be qualitatively different from the automatic recording of an event by machine or by other events?
Free Will and QuantumPhysics: The difference has be attributed by some to human consciousness, however from the perspective developed here this is useless because if con sciousness is governed at its most funda mental level by quantum processes then the argument is circular. Instead we propose that the operative element is free will, and as a result we can understand why the measurement of a free-willed consciousness is qualitatively different. And different in precisely the required way. Free will can cause events which would not have occurred in a purely determined or quantum universe. It transcends quantum physics. It is in its essence a choice -making phenomenon, choosing which reality it wishes to create. Thus a free -willed consciousness is a unique pheno menon and perhaps is uniquely qualified to "collapse the quantum wave function".
In addition, based on the idea postulated by Wheeler, perhaps only a free-willed consciousness can bring reality-retroactively-to the universe, (See Wheeler.) [7][7]
Quantum Physics, Free Will, Moral Responsibility and the Origin of the Universe
The belief that humans are purely physical beings and that consciousness is as physical a phenomenon as any other is incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs about moral responsibility. Indeed, if one had to choose between deterministic/materialistic science and moral responsibility, most thinking people would, as a result of intuition and feeling (rather than logic) choose the latter. This belief in human moral responsibility implies not rejection of quantum physics but of its universality (it rejects the assumption that mental activity in the human mind are restricted to PDR processes), and assumes that mental events can over-ride the seemingly logical demands of causality. However, here is no scientific evidence that true free will exists.
The mechanistic assumption that humans are purely physical is not only unproven but is also logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of. These assumptions are not science but rather are part of a philosophy, and the Biblical creation and Eden accounts present a diametrically opposite view: a created universe in which humans possess a true free will, so free that they can be held responsible for their actions even by the creator of the laws of nature, the Designer of the universe; so free that they give meaning to the universe even from the creator's perspective. Neither perspective can be 'scientifically proven': on the one hand the mechanistic perspective does not assume the existence of processes beyond what science can prove, on the other hand it is counter to some of our deepest intuitions; the religious perspective on free will assumes the existence of processes for which there is no physical experimental evidence, and is counter to logic, but is in tune with some of our deepest intuitions.
Quantum Physics, Free Will, Moral Responsibility and the Origin of the Universe
The belief that humans are purely physical beings and that consciousness is as physical a phenmenon as any other is incompatible with our most deeply held beliefs about moral responsibility. Indeed, if one had to choose between deterministic/materialistic science and moral responsibility, most thinking people would, as a result of intuition and feeling (rather than logic) choose the latter. This belief in human moral responsibility implies not rejection of quantum physics but of its universality (it rejects the assumption that mental activity in the human mind are restricted to PDR processes), and assumes that mental events can over-ride the seemingly logical demands of causality. However, here is no scientific evidence that true free will exists.
The mechanistic assumption that humans are purely physical is not only unproven but is also logically incompatible with those beliefs we are most sure of. These assumptions are not science but rather are part of a philosophy, and the Biblical creation and Eden accounts present a diametrically opposite view: a created universe in which humans possess a true free will, so free that they can be held responsible for their actions even by the creator of the laws of nature, the Designer of the universe; so free that they give meaning to the universe even from the creator's perspective. Neither perspective can be 'scientifically proven': on the one hand the mechanistic perspective does not assume the existence of processes beyond what science can prove, on the other hand it is counter to some of our deepest intuitions; the religious perspective on free will assumes the existence of processes for which there is no physical experimental evidence, and is counter to logic, but is in tune with some of our deepest intuitions.
The philosophy and metaphysics of quantum physics: According to the philosophy of quantum physics, actual physical reality can exist (in the scientific meaning of the term existence) only as a result of measurement. When not being measured, the universe is in a quasi-real state amenable to description only in terms of probabilities and not facts.
What is the active factor in a measurement which causes this emergence into reality? According to some leading physicists, this factor is consciousness
Since this is only one interpretation among many, we will refer to it as 'quantum metaphysics'. The great mathematician John Von Neumann, who provided a rigorous mathematical foundation for quantum mechanics, believed that only a human consciousness can collapse the wave function [DUP: According to this view, it is only measurement performed by a conscious being which can bring the universe into full reality.].
The eminent Nobel prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner writes: It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness…. It follows that the being with a consciousness must have a different role in quantum mechanics than the inanimate measuring device.
This view is far from the dominant one among physicists, but it is accepted as a possibility. We can consider this thesis either an aspect of quantum philosophy or of quantum metaphysics.
The "Retroactive Universe": The famous physicist John Wheeler has taken this several steps further. According to him the entire universe can emerge into true physical existence only via the observation of a consciousness! [DUP: a consciousness is indispensable to the universe if it is to emerge into reality. Physical reality can be said to exist only as a result of our presence within it or, more precisely, as a result of our perception of it. ]
And then he goes the next step: if the universe emerges into reality only when it is humanly-observed, "[Perhaps] no universe at all could come into being unless it were guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little length of time in its history-to-be?…
Thus, according to Wheeler's “quantum metaphysics,” in some sense the univere emerges 'retroactively'. Wheeler has constructed a fascinating diagram to illustrate this concept. Explaining the diagram, he writes: “Beginning with the Big Bang, the universe expands and cools. After eons of dynamic development it gives rise to observership. Acts of observer-participancy in turn give tangible reality to the universe not only now but back to the beginning.”
FREE WILL, QUANTUM PHYSICS, AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION
A free-willed decision, in order to be truly free, has to be unconstrained by the laws of nature and not determined by any physical phenomena. Hence free will must be neither the result of deterministic processes, nor the result of random processes occurring in accordance with the natural order of phenomena. Hence if the universe contains a free will, this free will must operate via interactions which transcend both the determinism of classical physics and the randomness of quantum physics. Free will is then unique in this respect. If some entity exists which can collapse the quantum wave function, then it is reasonable to postulate that this entity has to be a free will, since, as we just discussed, only free will transcends quantum randomness, as it transcends nature in general. Since a consciousness can affect the universe only if it has a free will, and a free will is by definition unthinkable without a consciousness, we will assume in the course of further discussion that free will subsumes within itself the concept of consciousness.
EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE ROLE OF FREE-WILLED CONSCIOUS BEINGS: We will now try to apply the conclusions we reached above to the question of the existence of the universe. As we saw, according to quantum metaphysics, the universe can emerge into reality only when it is observed by a consciousness. This consciousness possibly must function in a nonquantum fashion in order to “collapse the wave function.” The only such nonquantum factor in the universe is free will. Thus, we postulate that it is the presence of a free-willed, conscious being which enables the universe to emerge into reality.
........................
Thus, since the true reality of the universe is the spiritually meaningful aspect, it should not be surprising that the emergence of the universe into reality is so intimately bound up with the emergence of those beings who endow physicality of meaning. Furthermore, once this connection is understood, it is most appropriate that the very characteristics of man which both according to quantum metaphysics and according to religious teachings allow the emergence of the universe into reality (i.e., his free-willed consciousness) are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning. We can thus see the fundamental interrelationship between meaning, purpose, free will, consciousness, and the very nature of reality (and how this is reflected in Creation).
Summary We have seen that according to quantum (meta)physics, reality is established via the observation of a (free-willed) consciousness. In addition, according to Jewish thought free-willed choice gives the universe meaning and is thus the “motivation” for the very existence of the universe.
Just as according to quantum physics (or metaphysics) nature has delegated to humans the ability to determine the nature of physical reality within the limitations of natural law, similarly God, the Creator of nature, delegated to man alone the ability to determine the nature of spiritual reality, which then influences the physical. Of the two levels, the physical is merely the means to the spiritual end. Thus the determination by man of spiritual reality is even more fundamental than is his determination of physical reality. So, too, it is man’s spiritual qualities (free-willed consciousness) which are more fundamental than these physical qualities. It is up to man to use his own limited sense of right and wrong, guided by moral and religious criteria, to determine reality. This is the way to achieve one’s purpose - and it is this purpose which also gives meaning to the universe. Since it is man’s consciousness and free will which invest his choices with the possibility of meaning, it is therefore only free-willed consciousness which has the possibility of conducting reality-determining observation and measurement. Nature by itself is powerless to achieve self-realization; man is required to bring both himself and the universe into reality. Thus nature cannot determine reality, God does not decide reality; it is man’s prerogative and sole responsibility. Man, alive and physical and yet spiritual as well, albeit limited and fallible - or perhaps because he is limited and fallible - is uniquely qualified, by virtue of his possessing a free-willed consciousness, to determine the nature of physical and spiritual reality.
Emergence of Humans: As we have seen, quantum physics connects ontology (being) with epistemology (knowing), and quantum metaphysics postulates that the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when there are (free-willed) conscious beings in it. According to this scenario, man is not a random product of the universe but is rather a necessary condition for the very existence of the universe. In addition, since the universe can emerge into true physical existence only when free-willed conscious man is present within it, there is no true physical reality to any time prior to the emergence of the first free-willed conscious human. In Genesis this was called 'Adam'.
Chapter 9: Quantum Reality and (the emergence of) Free Will& Moral Beings
Introduction
Why should the presence of a conscious observer be required to bring physical events into reality. Why does it have this power to influence the reality-status of events - what might be the particular aspect of consciousness which would grants it this ability .
Consciousness is in essence self-reflexivity; by definition, a conscious being is one which can be aware of existence (of itself and of something else), as opposed to simply reacting to existence. It is also aware that it is conscious, and aware that it is aware that is conscious..... and so on. Thus, it is certainly reasonable that events can have reality to us only if we observe them. Nevertheless, it is not clear why this should affect reality in general, rather than just our own reality.
Furthermore, it would seem that in this interpretation, consciousness has a physical ontological effect rather than simply an epistemological effect - that is, consciousness affects events themselves, not only our knowledge of events. If so, then consciousness must possess a radically different physical nature than the rest of the physical universe, with this unique otherness giving it the unique power to bring physical events into reality.
Of particular interest to us here is the possibility that it is the free-willed aspect of consciousness which is its crucial and active factor.
We will find that the resulting connection betweeen free-willed consciousness and existence serves to highlight various interesting points in our later discussions.
Consciousness and Free Will
Free will and consciousness are of course not synonymous.
Clearly, a "free" decision can be taken only by conscious decision, so that a free will without consciousness is not possible. Thus, when we refer to free will, it is understood that it is in the context of a consciousness. However, in theory, we can conceive of consciousness as existing without a free will.
A molecule of air, a leaf, a boulder rolling down a mountainside, all have motion, all interact with the universe, but are assumed to be conscious neither of themselves nor of anything else. Nevertheless, it is impossible to prove that they are not conscious, and it would be difficult even to prove that they have no free will. Our assumption however is that they are neither free willed nor conscious. Indeed as far as we can determine, all that occurs to them is the result of external and internal forces - the internal forces being natural ones rather than the product of a will.
Of course it is entirely possible that these entities are conscious and believe that they do possess a free will, and like humans, believe that it is they and not natural law which determines their activity.
However, since we see that their actions are exactly in accordance with what natural law predicts, we are convinced that these actions are the result of the action of physical law, and not of any "free will".
Nevertheless there is of course no way to refute that they do have consciousness, are aware of themselves and the rest of the universe. Since free will is the 'active ingredient' of consciousness, carring out the wishes of consciousness, wishes originating in conscious thought rather than in the workings of physical law, a conscious being without a free will is a prisoner in a body over which it has no control. A conscious rock, unless it is deluded (as some claim humans are) into believing it has a free will, is a prisoner.
Generally this ‘prisoner’ scenario is distasteful, and where the distasteful can be ignored, we do so - where we do not see evidence of the action of a will, independent of natural forces, we tend not to consider the possibility of consciousness. We will assume here for our purposes that 'consciousness' is synonymous with 'free-willed consciousness'.
One can say that since the presence of free will implies the existence of consciousness, and since the active ingredient of consciousness is free will, essentially the concept of consciousness is subsumed in the concept of free will and we can consider the concept of free will as including all that the concept "consciousness" does, and more besides.
Consciousness, Free Will, and Morality
A free willed being need not necessarily possesses a moral sense. However, although it is possible that free will can exist without a moral sense, it is not entirely clear what can be the alternatives which present themselves to a free will other than moral alternatives.
There is a difficulty in conceiving of a free choice which has no criterion at all available to present its options for choice. In the case of a moral choice, the desire to do good or to do evil provides the criterion. In contrast, in a morally neutral choice, such as choosing a number from one to ten, we choose randomly; in choosing the gift in box one or box two the choice is either random, or according to the size of the box etc; if the choice is relevant then the optimal choice will always be taken.
We therefore assume that free will operates to allow a consciousness to discriminate between possibilities of moral choice, but not between morally neutral choices .
Even if a being has consciousness, and perhaps some level of free will, if it lacks a moral sense the free will is virtually irrelevant.
Certainly no-one would hold any animal - even a chimpanzee or dolphin which some allege to be conscious to some degree - morally responsible for its actions since we do not believe that it understands moral distinctions of good and evil. Although some might wish to posit that it may be conscious or even have a free will, it is not generally assumed that they have a moral sense, and therefore their possession of free will is irrelevant and their actions are not considered to be within the realm of moral activity.
For our purposes, we will attribute free-willed consciousness only to moral beings, and therefore will often use the terms free-willed conscious being and moral being interchangeably.
The Causality Transcendence of Free Will, and
the "Collapse of the Wave packet"
There are two fundamental features of our understanding of physical reality which were revised by quantum physics. One is that events at their most basic level are random, and the other that physical reality itself may be connected inherently to the existence within it of consciousness, and this in an acausal manner.
The two are related in that they have bearing on the causal structure of reality, and it may then be only expected that free will, which has the most radical causal nature of all phenomena, may have some relevance to quantum phhenomena.
According to quantum physics the ordinary causal structure of the universe is not deterministic, but is rather probabilistic, and the nature of physical reality is such that events occur in a pseudo-real universe of combinations of the various possible outcomes. One can say that it is the causal-transcendence of quantum physics which causes physical events to occur not in the solid reality provided by classical deterministic causality, but rather to occur in a limbo of pseudo reality. Then, it becomes almost expected that only a further transcendence of the causal structure - a transcendence this time of probabilistic causality - can lift the physical events out of this limbo of the pseudo-real, and allow them to emerge into the actual universe of ordinary reality.
Since all phenomena in the universe except for free will are subservient to quantum probabilistic causality, it is quite natural to postulate that it is free will which is the quantum-probabilistic-causality-transcending phenomenon which serves as the medium for the emergence into reality of physical events .
Free-Willed Observation Vs. Measurement-Measured Interaction
Every event is automatically "recorded" in the sense that the universe is different due to the very occurrence of the event. However, we have seen that this 'recording' is not enough to cause the emergence into reality of an event: it must instead be measured, which we have accepted as meaning observed by a consciousness. What is it about conscious measurement that makes it so different from non-conscious measurement? Using our idea that free will is the basic property of consciousness, we can understand the distinction between a conscious measurement and a non-conscious one in this way:
In order to perform a measurement, one must detach oneself from the system being measured, so as not to influence it in any way. However any act of measuring is inevitably an interaction between the measured and the measurer, and the measuring apparatus is actually a part of the system being measured. [The entire universe is actually one system, all events in it are interrelated via cause and effect]
[DELETE:Nevertheless, since it cannot measure itself, the measurements it records can never be truly reflective of reality and so measurement of an event cannot cause that event to emerge into true physical reality.]
Measurement by free-willed consciousness is however quite different. Consciousness obtains its information input via the brain and via the sense organs, and so is acted on by them, but it does not necessarily act in return on the event or even on the sensory apparatus, and so there is no full interaction. The event interacts with the sensory organs and brain but not with free-willed consciousness. Free will activates the conscious measurement ina unilateral manner non-determined by the physical processes in the external universe.
As free will is independent of the causal structure of the universe, an act of observation by free-willed consciousness does not necessarily imply an interaction with the system of event plus sensory organs plus brain being observed and so free-willed consciousness, by observing a system, can perceive its true reality; only free-willed conscious observation can catalyze the emergence into physical reality.
Free Will, Consciousness, and "The Collapse of the Wave Packet"
The human free-willed consciousness is a phenomenon which by its very nature is of a "higher order" than the non-conscious realm - animate or inanimate. It is of a nature inherently "other" than that of any other known entity in the universe.; in addition, the "outsideness" of consciousness [previously discussed] may even have some vital ramifications for the rest of the universe (see below).
Furthermore, in any measurement proceeding not through the agency of free will, then the decision to observe any interaction or event follows from previous events, and is in itself not a unique physical occurrence - the decision is one of a superposition of mental states. How can such a superposition state itself collapse the superposition state of other event chains?
Since only free will is not subservient to quantum causality it brings physical events into reality. This is an additional uniqueness of free-willed consciousness; in observing a system, it is "outside" this system in a way that no other existent or phenomenon can be. There is a sense in which this observation could have been not carried out; the free willed being making the observation could have chosen not to do so. Thus, the choice of whether or not to observe was not dictated by the state of the universe.
As such, its measurement - the observation it makes of the state of the system - is "outside" the universe's chain of cause-effect, and uncorrelated to any other event in the universe. Such an observation can then perhaps reveal the true reality of the entity being measured - and perhaps it is this property which endows consciousness with the power to "collapse the wave packet" from "combination of individual facets of reality" to one actual true reality.
Why should it be specifically free will which has the property that it can collapse the wave function?
Without there being unequivocal ramifications to one's actions, there can be no real moral responsibility for the results of these actions. Therefore the combined existence of all possibilities destroys free willed moral responsibility, and accordingly it may be that it is precisely free will which is the quality which collapses the many possibilities into the unique path.
The EPR Paradox and Bell's Inequality
Einstein was very involved in the debate as to whether or not events had a real existence when not being measured. He and two colleagues - Podolsky and Rosen - proposed the following experiment:
An electron can have either "spin up" or "spin down". Prepare a state with two electrons having opposite values of spin, and have them fly apart from each other. According to general rules of physics, the two electrons must be in opposite spin states even after they fly apart. Thus, if we later measure one and find it has "spin up" then we automatically know that the other electron has "spin down" even without measuring it.
Einstein was convinced that one could thus deduce that a particle is totally existent in full physical reality even when it is not measured. However, a remarkable equation [the "Bell inequality"] developed by John Bell indicates that it is possible to experimentally determine whether or not this is so.
Experiments carried out by Alain Aspect and others then showed that in fact Einstein was wrong - particles have real properties only when they are measured!
Bell's Inequality and Contrafactual Definiteness
Bell's inequality is valid only if one allows that there is meaning to the satatement that the experimenter 'could have' performed the measurement other than in they way he did. Since events occur as they do and in no other way, it is impossible to prove that they could have been different than they were, as Bridgman pointed out, and so there might be no meaning to the statement that the experimenter could have chosen differently, and therefore some have claimed that Bell's inequality might be invalid.
This issue is closely related to that of free will, since as Bridgman pointed out, essentially no indisputable proof of free will could ever be offered since one could never prove that one could have acted differently than one did.
Bell's Inequality and Free Will
If all events in the universe at any one time are the probabilistically-determined random result of the events in the universe at some prior time, then all events which occur today are causally connected to the events of the big bang - they are actually all effects of the same cause. In this sense, all events in the universe are in some measure "correlated".
An implication of this is that two events which seem totally independent of each other may actually both be distant results of the same cause. For example, the state of a system being measured and the very decision to measure can both be products of the same cause.
Similarly, one particular event one hour could be the joint cause an hour later of two seemingly independent states - the state of mind corresponding to the experimenter's decision to measure, and the state of the phenomenon being measured. Consequently, such measurement reveals only one individual facet of reality - the result preordained by that particular correlation of decision-to-measure with the measured event, and thus the event remains in the limbo of the totality of all such individual facets [b].
In contrast, a measurement performed by a free-willed consciousness has the potential of being totally uncorrelated with the state of the system since the decision to measure is not a product of the big bang, or any other universe-state.
According to John Bell, discoverer of the "Bell inequality" there is an alternate way to understand the result he derived, for it is only valid if there is free will [c]:
"..one of the ways of understanding this business is to say that the world is super-deterministic. That not only is inanimate nature deterministic, but we, the experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment rather than another, are also determined. If so, the difficulty which this experimental result creates disappears."
"....In the analysis it is assumed that free will is genuine, and as a result of that one finds that the intervention of the experimenter at one point has to have consequences at a remote point, in a way that influences restricted by the finite velocity of light would not permit. If the experimenter is not free to make this intervention, if that is also determined in advance, the difficulty disappears."
There is a sense in which this observation could have been not carried out. The free willed being making the observation could have chosen not to do so - the choice of whether or not to observe was not dictated by the state of the universe. [A free-willed consciousness, in observing a system, is "outside" this system in a way that no other phenomenon can be.]
Free-willed consciousness, moral beings, and the Creation of the Universe
According to Wheeler the universe can emerge into reality only via the emergence of consciousness: we claim further that consciousness is in essence subsumed in free will, and that the quantum probabilistic transcendence manifested in the power of consciousness to create reality can be attributed to the quantum probabilistic transcendence (causality-transcendence) of free will.
So far we have discussed the role of consciousness in collapsing the wave function for individual events. However the universe as a whole - which is a collective of individual interactinf particles etc - also exists in a superposition state unless measured via a free will-ed consciousness. Therefore, we can restate Wheeler's idea thus: the universe can achieve reality only via the emergence within it of free will. In addition, we have seen that free will can be assumed to operate only in moral beings, so that we can now make a final restatement of Wheeler's thesis: "The universe can emerge into reality only via the emergence within it of a moral being".
The Garden of Eden recounts the emergence of morality, of free-willed moral choice, and therefore the concomitant emergence of the physical reality described in the creation. Our understanding of the role of moral choice in the creation of physical reality therefore provides the insight into the strong thematic link between the creation and Eden accounts.
The creation and Eden accounts complement the picture of creation as provided by science : our quantum metaphysics provides us with the insight as to the role of free-willed consciousness, and the creation and Eden accounts stress the role of moral free-willed consciousness in the emergence of the universe into physical reality.
The combination of scientific origin theory and our interpretation of quantum metaphysics provide an explanation of the creation mechanism: a universe develops - from a singularity and big bang - and evolves in a pseudo-real state until its emergence into physical reality at the first exercise of free-willed choice.
In philosophical and metaphysical terms therefore, the beginning of the universe is at the moral stage, and the universe is retroactively-existent from the big bang. From the perspective of a created universe, the reason is clear for the thematic connection between the onset of physical reality, the timing of creation, and the onset of moral beinghood and of meaning. Of course the creation and Eden account deal with precisely these themes, with a divine act of quintessential free willed choice to create a moral stage-teleoderived big bang designed to produce a free willed being - in the image of the creator - and in this context one can perhaps paraphrase Genesis as:
"And Gd Willed:
'Let there have been a moral-being-inherent big bang'.
And it was so."
Chapter 10: Existence, Free Will, and
Self-Causation
Existence and Self-Causation
Perhaps the greatest mystery that we encounter in contemplating the universe is that of its origin: how - and perhaps why - the universe came to exist.
It seems to many people that there is no compelling necessity for the universe to exist, that is to say, that it is logically possible that the universe could have not existed. If so, the fact that the universe does exist seems to require an explanation.
If the universe is not eternal, then it did not always exist, and its existence would therfore seem to have been the result of something which changed the status quo. That is, the universe would seem to have been caused to exist by some agency.
This agency can be non-physical, but this involves the mind-body problem of the interaction of the physical and the non-physical. In addition, by appealing to a non-physical entity as the originator of the universe, one is led to the question of where that entity originated. The answer that a non-physical entity (for example God) need not be originated is a possible answer, but as soon as one admits that something can exist without it being originated, one can apply this to the universe itself, and claim that although events within the universe are 'physical' and always are originated and follow along a chain of cause and effect, the universe as a whole has a 'non-physical' nature in that it need not have been originated.
On the other if we limit ourselves only to the physical, and define "the universe" so as to include "all that is", all of space-time-matter-energy, 'laws of nature', and anything else which may physically exists, then there is nothing physically existent other than "the universe" which could have caused the universe to exist - so that if the universe was caused by something, it could only have been caused by itself. That is, the universe is either uncaused, or paradoxically, "self-causative".
We will see that the causal paradox of the origin of the universe is very similar to the paradox involved in free will.
Self-Causation, Free Will, and the Emergence into Existence of the Universe
As we saw, free-willed choice must be acausal or self-causative. The paradoxical phenomenon of self-causation in free will is paralled by that of the self-causation of the emergence into existence of the universe itself. In this fundamental sense, the mystery of existence is tied into the mystery of free will.
The two paradoxes are related not only in their form, but they may also actually point to a fundamental relationship between the underlying processes of free will and emergence into existence.
For example, perhaps a self-causative mechanism similar to that behind free will could account for the origin of the universe. Alternatively, perhaps the fact that the universe originated in a meta-causal or self-causing manner could explain how it could possibly contain a meta-causal self-causative phenomenon such as free will.
It may also be possible that the existence of the universe and that of free will are intimately related, and perhaps even cause each other. The existence of one perhaps resolves the paradox of the existence of the other - that is, as explained by quantum metaphysics, the existence of the universe owes its origin to an act of will, while will can arise only within the framework of the existence of a universe. And, as it is the free-willed consciousness which evolves from the big bang which then provides retroactive existence to that very big bang, this interaction of free-willed consciousness and emergence into existence takes place in a paradoxical self-causative manner, and in this it is similar to the self-causation involved in free will and emergence into existence themselves.
With hinsoght it almost seems that one could even perhaps 'predict' the existence of a phenomenon such as free will, given the results of quantum metaphysics. If the universe is self-caused, via a causality-transcending self-referential act of consciousness, one can perhaps expect that consciousness will itself exhibit self-causing, causality-transcending, self-referential characteristics - for example what we call free will.
Quantum Metaphysics, Self-Causation, Creation and Eden
This connection of free will and the very existence of the universe provides a link between the creation account, which tells of the emergence into existence of the universe, and the Eden account, which recounts the emergence of free will in the universe.
From the Biblical perspective we have expounded here, the purpose of creation is related to the existence of moral choice, and only moral activity is truly meaningful. Therefore since moral choice can exist only if there exists free will, it is free willed-consciousness which allows the existence of meaning and purpose.
It is most appropriate that the very characteristics of man which allow the emergence of the universe into reality - free-willed consciousness - are the very same characteristics which endow it with meaning, so that there is a fundamental inter-relationship between meaning, purpose, existence, free-will, consciousness and the very nature of reality.
This connection is then reflected in Genesis via the juxtaposition of the creation and Garden of Eden accounts, the juxtaposition of the universe emerging into existence via purposive creation, and the emergence in this universe of free-willed conscious moral humanity.
The Tree of Knowledge, Ex-Nihilo Creation, and Self-Causation
The basic paradox of self-causation not only ties the creation and Eden accounts together, but it is also present at the most fundamental level of the creation and Eden accounts themselves.
Self-Causation and the Eden Account: It is one of the fundamental premises of the Eden account that the eating from the Tree was that which granted the ability to distinguish between good and evil. Yet if man could not distinguish between good and evil, then he clearly cannot be held responsible for his choice to eat from the Tree.
Therefore the basic premise of the Eden account, that man is held responsible for having violated a command in Eden, involves a paradox - seemingly man already must have possesed an understanding of good and evil prior to eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
It is as though the knowledge of good and evil was both a preliminary to the eating, and its result, so that in a way free-willed moral choice brought about its own origin.
Free-will is therefore not only self-causative, but in the Eden account its emergence into existence in the universe was seemingly via a self-causative mechanism.
Self-Causation and the Creation Account: The very idea of creation ex-nihilo is in itself paradoxical, since it involves the creation of space-time, giving a 'beginning' to time - something which is quite impossible. Furthermore the idea of space-time coming into existence is paradoxical - it implies that space 'began existing where there was no space before', where the words 'began' 'where' 'before' are undefined.
Similarly, the creation account itself contains an underlying thread of paradox and acausality.
Furthermore, according to tradition the final day - sabbath - was itself a creation, and it was for the sabbath that all was created. Yet, the sabbath is of course also the commemoration of the (cessation of) creation. Thus, the universe was created for the sake of commmemoration of its creation.
In addition, according to Rambam the words "and God saw everything that he made and it was very good" means that the universe was created in order that God be able to grant to all existing beings the inherent good of existence itself. That is, existence exists in order that existence exist.
Eden, Creation, Free Will and Self Causation: The creation account deals with the paradox of the self-causation of the universe by attributing its existence to the free-willed action of a causality-transcendent creator. The creator is also 'self-caused', so that the first three words of Genesis 'beginning' 'God' 'created' all refer to entities and concepts involving self-causation, linking them with each other.
The paradox of free will is dealt with by attributing the capability for the possession of free will by man to the infusion into him of the divine spirit of the causality-transcendant creator, making him into the image of the transcendent creator by connecting him to the transcendent realm which is beyond causality, beyond the limitations of determinism/randomness, granting the universe existence for its own sake, yet also for the sake of the meaning and purpose made possible by the existence in this universe of free willed moral choice.
Quantum metaphysics then links the emergence into existence of the universe to the emergence within the universe of a moral being, so that the universe achieves existence when it becomes capable of supporting meaningful activity, and fulfilling a transcendental purpose.