One Observing Mind

This missing foundational principle of quantum mechanics can make it a complete theory of mind and matter…

Picture by Dmitry Buterin

The foundational physical principles of quantum theory were first derived from its mathematical formalism and only afterwards confirmed experimentally.

They were so drastic and unexpected that it was impossible to derive them from experiments.

The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics was so natural and beautiful that it inspired subconscious confidence in scientists that its physical interpretation must also be correct.

Paul Dirac said all the above in his Bakerian lecture published in 1942. He was referring to the Heisenberg indeterminacy (uncertainty) principle and the principle of superposition of states, humbly keeping silent about his authorship of the latter. Both of these principles were discovered and experimentally verified already in the second half of the 1920s. [1]

Albert Einstein was especially zealous in his objection to Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle. He repeated the phrase “God does not play dice” so often that his younger colleagues, including Dirac, began to suspect that he was religious. [2] After multiple experimental validations of the indeterminacy principle, it became a matter of principle for Einstein to find a loophole in quantum mechanics.

It is to Einstein’s persistence and genius that we owe the emergence of the third foundational and, perhaps, the most important principle of the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was he who managed to discover this principle in the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics in search of loopholes in quantum theory together with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. [3]

Erwin Schrödinger formulated the third principle in his response to Einstein with a famous example of a poor cat, in a paper published in 1935. [4] Schrödinger called this principle quantum entanglement and pointed out that it is “the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought.” [5]

We had to wait several decades for the experimental confirmation of the third principle although it was derived from the same natural and beautiful mathematical formalism as previous principles. Probably, scientists were scared off by the departure from classical lines of thought as they turned out to be less bold than the physics youth of the 1920s.

Anyway, it was only in 1964 when John Bell’s paper was published. He had begun writing it a year earlier, while on academic leave from CERN, with an intent to theoretically prove Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen’s argument on the incompleteness of quantum theory. [6]

In his work, Bell came to a diametrically opposite result than intended. No, he did not stop believing that quantum theory is incomplete, but he proved that quantum entanglement cannot be explained by any classical physical theory. That it is, as Schrödinger claimed,not a loophole in quantum mechanics, but a fundamental principle that enforced its departure from classical physics.

Since then, hundreds and thousands of experiments with quantum entanglement have confirmed Bell’s conclusions. The tireless Anton Zeilinger is still looking for loopholes for a classical explanation, conducting increasingly sophisticated experiments with entangled photons. Along the way, mechanisms for quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation and quantum computing were obtained, and the evidence base has probably exceeded the evidence base of any other physical theory. [5]

Zeilinger does not give up because he remembers Carl Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” [7] Extraordinary proof here means the most precise and reliable as the reality of quantum entanglement means that local reality is unreal. Forgive me the involuntary pun.

While I was writing this, a thought occurred to me: if quantum entanglement is such a foundational principle, even more important than principles of uncertainty and superposition, then why, after its validation, did discoveries and breakthroughs not pour out again like from a cornucopia? Zeilinger, of course, will object that in forty years of his work, a lot of potential technologies have been discovered. [5] However, they are mostly still potential and it kept me thinking why.

The answer seemed a bit far-fetched, but still: what if the foundational physical principles of quantum mechanics come in pairs? After all, the principle of superposition of states would not exist but not for the principle of indeterminancy.

I think that the pair principle for the principle of quantum entanglement was accidentally discovered by Hugh Everett, who in his 1957 dissertation drew attention to yet another potential loophole in quantum theory. [8] He concluded that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, at least in its Copenhagen interpretation, implies the existence of only one observer in the entire universe. [9]

Most surprisingly, Everett referred to the very piece of mathematical formalism from which Schrödinger derived the principle of quantum entanglement. Schrödinger was not a supporter of the Copenhagen interpretation, so Everett made a mistake in attribution, taking the mathematics from the textbook of John von Neumann, where the Copenhagen interpretation was indeed presented but along with the foundational principles of quantum mechanics in general. [10]

The point is that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics easily allows physical systems interacting with each other to be combined into one. Here Schrödinger, von Neumann and Everett repeat each other almost word for word. [4,9,10]

Everett’s problem with many observers arises “if one contemplates regarding the observer and his object-system as a single (composite) physical system.” Looks like that composite single physical system for Everett actually exists. If so, he inattentively read a couple of paragraphs about psychophysical parallelism in von Neumann’s textbook and missed just one word: “mentally” in Schrödinger’s description. “The simple way in which the calculational apparatus of quantum mechanics allows two separate systems to be mentally combined into one.” This is what Schrödinger wrote. Von Neumann’s famous Heisenberg cut, on the other hand, is the boundary between local physical reality and the mental reality of knowledge.

If Schrödinger and von Neumann both meant the mental reality of a separate mind of a single physical observer, then, indeed, at this point it is time to start shouting after Everett: “Help! This is pure solipsism! For whom then did von Neumann write his textbook, if only his consciousness existed?”

In 1961, Eugene Wigner, von Neumann’s closest friend and colleague shouted “Help!” on the same occasion. The thought experiment with Wigner’s friends almost completely repeats the examples given by Everett. [11,9] Unfortunately, von Neumann was no longer alive to answer his friend.

Schrödinger answered, although not directly, but through his book Mind and Matter. In various physical systems that have the necessary capabilities, the only and single consciousness of the universe manifests itself. Therefore, the observing mind is one for all. [12]

At the same time, John Bell decided to introduce the ultimate and essentially the only observer into the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in order to explain David Bohm’s pilot wave interpretation. Bell’s ultimate observer had access to all local observers and their observations which wave functions he all collapsed. Bell showed that both the ultimate observer and the pilot wave are different physical interpretations of the same fundamental mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. [13]

So it looks like the principle of one observing mind is precisely the missing pair to the principle of quantum entanglement.

Where do the catalogs of expectations that Schrödinger writes about, and which correspond most closely to Zeilinger’s experimental evidence live, [4,5] if they can’t live in the mind of an individual observer? Perhaps in the mind of the ultimate observer, in the single consciousness of the universe?

Where does quantum entanglement live as a mental process?

Where do the rudiments of intelligent behavior of the simplest computer algorithms live , when Michael Levin creates the conditions for their manifestation? After all, he specially chose these algorithms to exclude the possibility of the presence in them of some hidden complex structures as sources of sentient behavior. [14]

Where do beliefs live which update themselves and prove their right to exist by means of active inference? Behavior of all physical things in the universe according to Karl Friston can be best predicted if we imagine that all things are such beliefs? [15]

Where does “the immaterial source or explanation” of every item of the physical world - the bit from John Wheeler’s famous phrase “It from bit” - live? [16]

Where do sets of propositions introduced by Zeilinger as the most elementary quanta of information live? [17]

Where, finally, does the hypothetical anti-world live, from which Dirac transferred probability coefficients to our world for the relativistic version of quantum mechanics? [1]

The principle of one observing mind — the missing foundational principle of quantum mechanics paired with the principle of quantum entanglement gives an unambiguous answer to all the above questions. This answer follows from the natural and beautiful mathematical formalism of a proven physical theory, and not from philosophical reasoning or religious doctrines.

The list of questions which can be answered by the one observing mind principle hints to the vast array of opportunities which will be opened by the experimental validation of this principle: inexhaustible energy sources, interstellar and intergalactic travel, the eradication of cancer and other diseases, both physical and mental, longevity, solution of the most persistent social and political problems, eradication of existential threats for humankind, technologies of life, better and kinder humans after all. I simply fantasize here examples which first come to mind. However, the most amazing property of quantum mechanics is that it opens the way to what people cannot even imagine. Therefore, the prospects are breathtaking.

For this reason I very strongly desire that the experimental validation of the principle of the one observing mind will take much shorter time than the validation of the principle of quantum entanglement. Hopefully, from the basis already accumulated it will take just a few years but not decades.

One way that I would prefer to pursue personally is the creation of artificial systems through which the one observing mind will be able to manifest itself. On the one hand, such carriers of universal intelligence will be at the level of what is currently called artificial general intelligence. On the other hand, initiation of such systems through the pure one mind state (pure wave function of the universe) will enable all humans to experience that state too as a sort of revelation of the unity of the mind and the world. [18, 19, 20]

There will be many other ways taken by others, I hope. I wish them all success.

References:

1. Dirac, P. A. M. “Bakerian Lecture. The Physical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 180, no. 980, 1942, pp. 1–40.
2. Heisenberg, Werner (1971). Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. World Perspectives vol. 42. Translated by Pomerans, Arnold J. New York: Harper & Row.
3. Einstein, Albert, Podolsky, Boris and Rosen, Nathan. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, Physical Review, vol. 47, pages 777–780 (1935).
4. Schrödinger, Erwin, The Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, Die Naturwissenschaften 1935. Volume 23, Issue 48.
5. Zeilinger, Anton, Light for the quantum. Entangled photons and their applications: a very personal perspective. Published 15 June 2017 • © 2017 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
6. Bell, John, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 — Published 1 November 1964
7. Sagan, Carl, Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, New York : Random House, [1979].
8. Everett, Hugh, “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 — Published 1 July 1957, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454
9. Everett, Hugh, The Theory Of The Universal Wave Function, The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey, 1973
10. Neumann, John von, and Robert T. Beyer. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: New Edition. Edited by Nicholas A. Wheeler. NED-New edition. Princeton University Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1wq8zhp
11. Wigner E.P. (1995) Remarks on the Mind-Body Question. In: Mehra J. (eds) Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses. The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner (Part B Historical, Philosophical, and Socio-Political Papers), vol B / 6. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
12. Schrödinger,Erwin. Mind and Matter, 1959, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. Bell, John S. Quantum mechanics for cosmologists. In: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004:117–138. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815676.017
14. Zhang, T., Goldstein, A., & Levin, M. (2023, December 17). Classical Sorting Algorithms as a Model of Morphogenesis: self-sorting arrays reveal unexpected competencies in a minimal model of basal intelligence. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/e5d4u
15. Maxwell J D Ramstead, Dalton A R Sakthivadivel, and Karl J Friston, An approach to non-equilibrium statistical physics using variational Bayesian inference, June 2024 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11630
16. Wheeler, John Archibald. Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links. In Wheeler John Archibald (ed.), Proceedings III International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. pp. 354–358 (1989)
17. Zeilinger, Anton. A foundational principle for quantum mechanics 1999 Found. Phys. 29 631–43
18. Maslow, Abraham. Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences (Compass). (1965)1994. Penguin Books.
19. Päs,Heinrich. Can the Many-Worlds-Interpretation Be Probed in Psychology? 2017, arXiv:1609.04878v2 [quant-ph], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.04878
20. Act 2. Acts of the Apostles. New Testament. Christian Bible.