OF INFORMATION THAT CHALLENGES A STRICT MATERIALISTIC, DETERMINISTIC WORLDVIEW

THE MYSTERY OF INFORMATION CHALLENGES A STRICT MATERIALISM

OF INFORMATION THAT CHALLENGES A STRICT MATERIALISTIC, DETERMINISTIC WORLDVIEW

Quantum physics is the most successful theory in the history of science.

I want to consider an area in which the concept of information points away from a strict materialistic reductionist worldview. This section on in-formation is not central to my argument for the existence of God, but I would like to look briefly at an interesting and quite mysterious aspect of information that challenges a worldview of strict materialism: the ex-tremely successful quantum revolution in physics. This revolution began with Max Planck’s paper presented in Berlin in 1900 in which he basically proposed that light was not a continuous stream, but small energy packets that he called “quanta.” Beginning with this paper, a new theory was de-veloped over the first quarter of the twentieth century by the brilliant work of many of history’s most famous scientists, including Louis de Broglie, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisen-berg, Wolfgang Pauli, Eugene Wigner, Paul Dirac, and John von Neumann.

Over succeeding years quantum physics became the most successful the-ory in the histthe-ory of science. It consistently is verified in experiment and has given us transistors, lasers, semiconductors, PET scans, and a host of useful products that, on balance, have made substantial contributions to contemporary society.

Quantum theory emphasizes a wave function that is purely a mathematical abstract statement of probabilities, a

statement of information.

Unlike Newtonian or classical physics that purports to give one certainty and a consequent philosophical concept of determinism, quantum physics presents probabilities. In classical physics an electron was a particle circling around an atom in a predictable orbit. Quantum theory overturned that concept and emphasized an electron “cloud” that gives us only a descrip-tion of statistical probabilities. This descripdescrip-tion, known as a wave funcdescrip-tion, is not something physical; it is purely a mathematical, statistical, abstract statement of probabilities. In other words, it is information. As a statement of information a wave function merely gives us probability statistics con-cerning the characteristics of the electron and its behavior. For example,

the wave function would give the probabilities of the electron being in cer-tain locations within the atom. It would not tell us precisely where the elec-tron is but only the probabilities of it being in a certain location.

Quantum mechanics is based on a probability statement of information and a measurement that yields a definite outcome.

Because the wave function is only abstract probability statistics, quantum theory is all about information. Subatomic particles have no precise loca-tion until an agent makes an act of measurement. They are not particles in a given position but a cloud of statistical probabilities that only yield a definite outcome when a measurement is made. Consequently, quantum mechanics is based on (1) a statistical probability description that sets forth the terms of hypothetical possibilities and (2) the measurement by an agent or observer whose act of measurement or observation of the probabilities system yields a definite outcome. As strange as it may seem, it is the act of measurement that is required to yield a definite outcome.

In the absence of a measurement, there is only an unrealized, abstract de-scription of possible outcomes. It is this weird aspect of quantum physics that caused Niels Bohr to say, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”

Physicist Stephen Barr has given us a useful analogy of how measurement of a probability description produces a

definite outcome.

Physicist Stephen Barr has given a very useful analogy to assist us in un-derstanding the workings of quantum mechanics and how measure-ment/observation relates to the probability description of the wave func-tion to produce a definite outcome. Basically, the analogy, with some modifications, may be described as follows: Suppose you are required to take a calculus exam to complete your college degree. You work hard dur-ing the semester, meet with your professor when a particular area is con-fusing, and study fairly diligently. Let us assume that a month prior to the giving of the exam, one could calculate the probability of your receiving an A on the exam to be 50-50. However, you intensify your studies during the next two weeks, and one might then calculate the probability of your receiving an A on the exam as 75 percent.

If a severe flu virus interrupts your studies during the first few days of the week immediately prior to the exam, one might calculate your proba-bility of receiving an A to have fallen to 65 percent. Fortunately, you bounce back in better health toward the end of the week and now your chance of receiving an A may be calculated to be 80 percent. You finally take the exam. One week after the date of the exam, your professor reads your answers and gives you an A grade. This is the moment when your previously fluctuating probabilities have a definite grade. This is the mo-ment of measuremo-ment that yields a definite outcome.

If your professor was called away to give a lecture in the Greek islands before she could grade your exam and her graduate assistant lost your exam paper, your exam would never have been graded. On that particular exam, there would be no definite outcome from the fluctuating probabil-ities of your receiving an A grade. You would not have an A grade on that exam, because the exam would never be graded and no measurement of your performance would be made. Consequently, a possible A grade would never have a definite outcome.

In quantum physics, the probability description of the wave function is said to “collapse” and yield a definite outcome only when a measurement produces a definite outcome. The one who makes the measurement is known as the observer. It is the observer’s measurement or observation that changes the abstract, nonphysical probability description into a definite outcome.

The observer is essential and must be outside the physical system described in the calculation of probabilities.

A wave function gives a probability description of a physical system. The observer is the one whose measurements transform the hypothetical pos-sibility to a definite outcome. For purposes of this discussion, it is impor-tant to understand that the observer must always be outside of the physi-cal system. The observer cannot make the measurement or observation and also be part of the probability description of a physical system. The observer must always be someone outside of the probability description of the wave function.²

Barr’s example makes it clear that in quantum physics the definite out-come cannot proceed merely from the calculation of probabilities. The ob-server is essential to produce a real outcome. It is when the obob-server makes a measurement and knows that one hypothetical possibility is an actual fact and that the other possibilities are not actual facts that the possible is

turned into an outcome. This process of knowing is an act of the intellect;

it is an act of the mind. As Barr has written, “. . . quantum theory is based on the existence of ‘knowers.’”³He maintains that the observer cannot be something physical and follows von Neumann and Wigner’s reasoning to demonstrate the logical problem with an observer being comprised of only matter.

To understand why the observer who makes the measurement that col-lapses the wave function and produces a definite outcome cannot be re-garded as something purely physical, I will describe an illustration used by Barr in his description of quantum theory and the mind. Assume that the physical system with which we are concerned is an electron. One could set up a camera to photograph the position of the electron on film. But the camera and the film are made up of atoms. Consequently, one could use the equations of quantum mechanics to describe the possible behavior of the camera and the film. In other words, one could create a more complex abstract statistical wave function that gives a probability description for the film, camera, and electron.

When the camera takes a photograph of the electron, the electron’s be-havior and the bebe-havior of the camera and film are correlated. But the camera cannot be the observer that produces the definite outcome be-cause the wave function that describes the “metasystem” of the film, cam-era, and the electron is only made up of probabilities. The camera and film are brought into the probability amplitudes of the wave function descrip-tion of the whole metasystem. There is no observer outside this larger wave function to collapse it. The collapse of the wave function can only oc-cur outside of the wave function’s statistical probabilities. The camera and film cannot become part of the wave function (which remember is simply an abstract informational description of probabilities) and also remain outside of the wave function and perform the role of the observer who makes the measurement and collapses the wave function. As Barr con-cludes: “The mathematical descriptions of the physical world given to us by quantum theory presuppose the existence of observers who lie outside those mathematical descriptions.”⁴ (Barr is not arguing that observation creates reality. He describes a wave function as an observer’s state of knowledge.

He does not argue that the observer creates reality: “the probabilities cal-culated in quantum mechanics refer to the knowledge of observers, not simply to ‘what is going on.’” Reality is not constituted by the measure-ment, but the collapse of the wave function implies a change in the ob-server’s state of knowledge, not a sudden change in reality.)

Barr’s illustration confirms the belief of many physicists that the mind of the knower/observer must to some extent be outside the wave function.

Barr goes on to point out that human observers have hands, eyes, optic nerves, brains, and other relevant matter that are comprised of atoms and subatomic particles. Consequently, nothing prevents the eyes, the optic nerve, and the brain from being drawn mathematically into the larger metawave function description. This presents a problem: The human ob-server cannot be completely part of the description of the wave function, be-cause then the behavior of the observer would be also bound up in the mere ab-stract hypothetical statistical probabilities of the wave function. Who would remain to “collapse” the wave function and produce a definite outcome?

If the observer is completely brought over into a wave function that in-cludes his or her behavior, then the observer could no longer be the one who makes the measurement. Barr, von Neumann, Henry Stapp and many other physicists conclude that it is mind that must remain on the ob-server’s side of the boundary line between the system and the observer.

The reason for their conclusion is that it is the mind that knows the out-come of the measurement. Only when the outout-come is known to have hap-pened are the myriad of probabilities reduced by measurement to an out-come of 100 percent probability.⁵

This means that the mind of the observer cannot be reduced to a strict materialistic explanation. The mind and the brain are closely related. We see the results of drugs, surgery, and accidents affecting the mind. However, the mental cannot be reduced completely and only to the material.

I will discuss the concept of an underlying unity that allows for the re-lationship between the mental and the material. This concept considers them as distinct but corresponding aspects of the same essence. However, my point for the moment is that a mathematician’s mind is not reducible to mere equations of matter. The mind may produce the equations but cannot be completely described by them. An algorithm or physical law (equation) cannot describe the mind. It is impossible to bring the com-plete act of knowing into the mathematics of the wave function. The ob-server who “knows” by an act of his or her intellect must stay outside of the system to observe the system and make the measurement necessary to produce an outcome.

This concept of the role of the mind in quantum mechanics is quite con-troversial. As mentioned above, it is not a central part of my rationale for

the existence of God, but I want to explore it a bit more, because it cautions against a strict reductionist materialistic view of reality.

Mental processes appear to transcend the purely physical.

Our bodies are intertwined with our mental processes in an essential man-ner. This is obvious when one considers the result produced when some-one receives a blow to the head or when some-one considers the effect of certain drugs or surgery on one’s thoughts. I sometimes use the expression “that’s the real me” when I strike a particularly effective golf shot (a rare occur-rence). But what is actually the real me? What is the true identity of a per-son? I don’t think that Shakespeare was only a conglomeration of chemical substances, nor do I think that one could reduce Albert Einstein or Niels Bohr to a cluster of chemicals that discover relativity and quantum physics.

The ability of mental processes to identify abstract mathematical concepts that match the physical world in a counterintuitive way appears to tran-scend the purely physical.

Physicist John Polkinghorne believes that the material and mental may be complementary poles of the same substance.

Polkinghorne believes that the material and mental may be complemen-tary poles made of the same substance. But this does not subordinate the mental to the material. The mental is not merely a phenomenon of the physical. Polkinghorne rejects a strict reductionism and sees the mental and material as complementary poles of reality in a manner analogous to the way in which quantum physics demonstrates that light expresses a po-lar duality in its ability to act as a particle and a wave.⁶

This is consistent with the thought of David Hodgson, a justice on the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who used quantum theory to make a powerful case for the efficacy of the mind in his highly regarded book, The Mind Matters. Hodgson credits Leibniz with the insight that the mind and brain are two manifestations or perspectives of a single underlying real-ity.⁷ Many quantum theorists cite with approval Hodgson’s outline of a theory of mind based on quantum mechanics. Polkinghorne agrees with him, but he is hesitant to conclude that quantum effects present the whole solution. He also appeals to chaos theory for insights to emphasize the role of local energy exchanges and “active information” to accommodate a dis-tinction between mind and matter.⁸

In addressing the mind-brain dilemma, Polkinghorne explains the con-cept of his dual aspect monism: “The world is made of one sort of ‘stuff,’

but of a subtlety that it reduces neither to mere matter nor to pure mind.

Our encounter with the material and the mental are to be given equal force in assessing the adequacy of our metaphysical conjectures.” He re-jects the perspective that the mental is a “mere epiphenomenal froth on the surface of the material.”⁹

Polkinghorne carries this concept over into his discussion of the soul.

He points out the difficulty of conceiving of a person as only the matter that comprises his or her body, because this matter is constantly changing.

There are very few atoms in your body that were part of your physical makeup five years ago. So what is the real you or the real me? Polking-horne makes a plausible argument that the real person is the information-bearing pattern that provides the continuity in the changing matter of every individual. He considers this consistent with Aristotle’s view of the soul as the “form” of the body and quite distinct from Plato’s concept of the soul as a separate entity imprisoned in the body. Barr notes that ani-mals and computer programs have information bearing patterns and, along with Aquinas, considers an “active intellect” to be a necessary aspect to a discussion of the soul. I will discuss this concept in a related writing, but for now I want to consider the interesting work of Berkeley’s quantum physicist Henry Stapp, who also argues against Kant’s overly restrictive epistemology.

Physicist Henry Stapp criticizes Kant’s theory of knowledge and views reality as information based.

Henry Stapp is a renowned scientist who worked with Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and John Wheeler. He is keenly devoted to clarifying the important role of consciousness in quantum physics and the relationship between consciousness and moral philosophy.

Stapp criticizes the outdated concept of science underlying Kant’s the-ory of knowledge and followed by so many philosophers and scientists from the Enlightenment forward. He argues that moral philosophy has to be-come more aware of the significant changes made by quantum theory’s un-derstanding of the nature of reality and its effect on our unun-derstanding of the nature of human beings. In his view, contemporary quantum theory can best be understood as describing reality in terms of information. Stapp emphasizes the relationship between how a person views consciousness

and central moral issues: “What a person values depends, basically, on what he believes himself to be. If he believes that he is an isolated hunk of pro-toplasm, struggling to survive in a hostile world, or a physical organism constructed by genes to promote their own survival, then his values will tend to be very different from those of a person who regards himself as a being with a mind-like aspect that makes conscious choices that control in part his own future, and are also integral parts of the global process that generates the unfolding of the universe.”¹⁰

Consciousness, free will, and the ability of nonmaterial information-based mental processes to change the physical structure of one’s brain have practical effects in the world.

Stapp emphasizes that his point is not a mere philosophical abstract concept but one that has practical effects in the world. He illustrates this by referring to a legal case in which the man who killed San Francisco mayor George Moscone and the city’s supervisor Harvey Milk was sen-tenced to only five years in prison. The reason for the light sentence was that the defendant’s consumption of junk food caused his mental de-rangement. The idea that he was not responsible for his actions became known as the “Twinkie defense.” This follows from the view of such philosophers as Daniel Dennett, who claim that consciousness does not ac-tually exist, that the brain’s action is chemically determined, and no one makes any decisions by his or her volition. A human being’s actions then are merely a mechanical extension of the circumstances preceding those actions. Under this perspective, humans have no control over their thoughts or behavior, and any legal system that is based on the premise

In document A Case for the Existence of God (Page 108-122)