Last week I had a brief look at the various ways physicists disagree on how consciousness might or might not affect the universe around us. Now I want to take a look at a new theory of consciousness itself and then speculate on the implications of such theories for physics.
This not the first time someone has put forth a version of this theory of consciousness, but this new paper is pretty comprehensive. The basic concept is that we make all of our decisions unconsciously and then what appears to be our consciousness becomes aware of the decisions after the fact and “pretends” we made a conscious decision to do that thing. That is to say we are both integrating all the information about our environments and then acting on that information before we become aware of that information or our decision.
The paper makes a good case for this (as does a variety of other research over the last couple of decades), but if this is true it made me wonder: if reality only becomes concrete when we “consciously” observe it but, on the other hand, we have not only made the decision to observe it but actually observed it before we become conscious of either of those things, what are the implications for quantum uncertainty? Does this new interpretation of consciousness, if correct, have any impact on quantum observer theory?
The best way to think this through is probably using the most classical example of the observer impacting the observed: the double-slit experiment. There’s a great description of it here, but again, the simple version is that if you fire electrons at a wall with tiny slits, they make one pattern if you observe which slit each electron goes through and a different pattern if you don’t. The most amazing thing about this is that if you measure which slit they go through but then destroy the measurement before anyone looks at it, the electrons behave as if they had not been measured. (This is known as the quantum eraser experiment).
When we consider this result, I think, ironically, the answer is: this new(er) theory of consciousness both does and does not impact our thinking on quantum uncertainty.
When you consider any of the experimental evidence, it’s important to remember we are measuring in these cases, not consciously observing. We may “consciously observe” the results of the measurements, but the interaction in the moment of the experiment is between the particles and measuring device. We could set up these experiments to run and record their results and then look at the recorded results a decade later. The quantum eraser experiment suggests that if we did this, we would always expect the same results from the same experiments. So when it comes to the actual experimental evidence, we have to remember that there is no “conscious observer.” This, to a great extent, invalidates a great deal of the popular reporting on quantum uncertainty since it was discovered, but I think many (if not most) quantum physicists actually do draw this distinction.
I confess I don’t know enough about the actual statements of Niels Bohr to say for certain whether he ever really said he thought consciousness impacts reality. From what I do know, it seems like Einstein’s efforts to ridicule quantum theory (like asking if the moon exists if no one looks at it) may have introduced the idea that Bohr believed this. That is to say, I think Bohr also drew this distinction between observation as measurement and observation as consciousness and supported the former but not the latter. So the conclusion that this new theory of consciousness has little impact on classical interpretations of these experimental results should not come as a surprise.
On the other hand, when we consider the thought experiments of Schrödinger and Wigner, it becomes highly relevant. Schrödinger was a self-confessed mystic and did believe the concept that consciousness makes reality (and I think this is the derivation of most of the popular belief that this is what all quantum physicists believe). But what happens if there is no such thing as consciousness but rather only “retroactive explanation of experience” (as this new cognitive theory suggests)? This would mean we would have to rethink one of the most classic thought experiments of all time. Because we are no longer consciously deciding when to open the box, nor are we consciously observing the alive or dead cat. Instead, we are retroactively integrating both events into our experience of reality. This could be interpreted at least two ways. 1) It is our unconscious that makes reality. Or 2) reality exists external to consciousness and we then simply invent ways to explain it to ourselves. The first is not substantively different from Schrödinger’s and Wigner’s thinking, but the latter is obviously problematic for the idea that the human mind has some special relationship with reality and, in many ways, invalidates the popular conclusion that quantum physics shows that conscious thought makes reality.
But what about the moon? After all, this is what we really care about, isn’t it? I don’t mean the literal moon (although that too). I mean reality at our scale. At our scale, not the quantum scale, should this version of consciousness impact our thinking about the nature of reality in light of quantum theory?
I think it has to. If this theory of consciousness is correct, it means we are seeing the moon before we remember it being there. So there is no conscious observer to impact the result. I would like to think this means the moon must have an objective reality…
…on the other hand, our eyes are just measurement devices. Which brings us full circle to the fact that we can prove that the recording of measurements (but not the consciousness observation) of an event can change its outcome.
So by mashing-up the experimental evidence from quantum physics, Schrödinger’s Cat, Wigner’s Friend, and this new theory of consciousness, we have to consider the possibility that if no one’s ocular photoreceptors received the sun’s electromagnetic radiation reflected off the moon (and that radiation or any other radiation from the moon hit no other objects of any kind), the moon might, in fact, in that case, not exist after all.
It’s not as elegant as “our consciousness makes reality,” but it might be more truthful. And it raises another interesting question which might be the next essay:
Is there a distinction between an object being somehow objectively real and it being completely invisible to the rest of the universe?