**Keynote Address by Henry P. Stapp**

**International Symposium on:**

**"Cultural Diversity and Transversal Values:**

**East-West Dialog on Spiritual-Secular Dynamics"**

**UNESCO Headquarters, Paris**

**November 7-9, 2005.**

**Session on:**

**"Toward a New Synthesis of Transversal Values"**

**Topic:**

**"The concept of the Human Being, East and West"**

**Title:**

**"Science's Conception of Human Beings as a Basis for Moral Theory."**

My talk has three related parts. The first is about

**Human Freedom**

"in the great drama of existence we ourselves are both *actors* and
spectators."

Niels Bohr proclaimed this several times, and it was re-iterated by
Werner Heisenberg.

This assertion might seem neither profound nor surprising. For even a
*mechanical robot* that both moves, and also senses light signals, *is
both actor and spectator.*

However, Bohr's meaning is both profound and surprising. It refers to
what is, from a philosophical standpoint, *the most radical innovation*
wrought by the replacement of classical mechanics by quantum mechanics.
It concerns an important *change in the role of the human being as
"actor"* that goes far beyond anything that classical mechanics can
allow.

The huge disparity between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is
connected to the fact that classical dynamics is specified by *one
single physical process,* whereas quantum dynamics involves *four
different processes*. These four processes impact in different ways upon
a human being. To understand the nature and role of human beings in a
world governed by quantum laws one must understand the nature of these
four processes.

John von Neumann, in his rigorous formulation of quantum mechanics, gave
the names "Process 1" and "Process 2" to two of these four processes.

*"Process 2"* is the analog in quantum mechanics of the
*[single]{.underline} dynamical process* of classical mechanics. Like
its classical counterpart, "Process 2" is *continuous,* and *strictly
deterministic*. However, "Process 2" incorporates the famous *Heisenberg
uncertainties*. Consequently, it generates, in the brain of each person,
a physical state that corresponds *[not]{.underline}* to
[one]{.underline} single stream of consciousness, but to a continuous
"smear" of [possible]{.underline} streams of consciousness.

The central problem in quantum theory is therefore this: How is this
*continuous smear of [possible]{.underline}* streams of consciousness
reduced to the one that a person actually experiences?

Orthodox quantum theory achieves this reduction by introducing *[three
other]{.underline}* *kinds of processes*.

The [first]{.underline} [other]{.underline} kind of process is called by
von Neumann a "Process 1" intervention. The Process 1 interventions are
*probing actions*, and they are described in purely physical terms.

However, [and this is the key point,]{.underline} orthodox quantum
theory gives *[neither a physical cause, nor a statistical
probability]{.underline},* for a Process 1 intervention to occur.

According to Bohr and Heisenberg, [and in actual scientific
practice]{.underline}, the choice of which probing action actually
occurs, and when it occurs, is specified by a "*free* choice on the part
of the [experimenter]{.underline}". I call this "*free choice on the
part of the experimenter"* by the name "Process 4".

Finally, there is the process that Dirac calls "a choice on the part of
*nature*". It is a selection of *some particular* *outcome* of the
freely chosen Process 1 probing action. This act of choosing is called
"Process 3"; and it is a *random* choice.

This brings us to the main point!

The two adjectives "random" and "free" are highly significant. A
*random* choice is a choice that is constrained by *statistical*
conditions. This entry of *randomness* into quantum mechanics has been
extensively discussed by physicists and philosophers.

But the word *free* signifies something altogether different. Within the
mathematical machinery of orthodox quantum theory the choice of which
Process 1 probing action will actually occur is constrained by *no
conditions whatever, statistical or otherwise.*

Moreover, this choice is treated *in actual scientific practice* as *a
conscious choice on the part of a human being*, the famous "*free*
choice on the part of the experimenter".

*Thus in orthodox theory these "Process 4" choices\-\--of which probing
action will actually occur\-\--are* [free]{.underline} *in the double
sense that they* are [not]{.underline} specified *by the physically
described aspects of the situation,* but [are]{.underline} specified*,
in actual scientific practice, by "a free choice on the part of the
experimenter."*

It is, of course, conceivable that these Process 4 choices will
eventually be explained in purely physical terms. However, any such
explanation must go substantially beyond the presently understood
deterministic physical Process 2.

On the other hand, there is no hint or suggestion, within orthodox
quantum mechanics that a purely physical explanation of Process 4 is
possible, and there is no rational reason why such a reversion to
nineteenth century concepts is demanded or warranted.

Conclusion: *A major advance in physics* *has presented us with a
science-based conception of nature in which our physical actions are
influenced by our thoughts, feelings, and reasons, in ways*
[not]{.underline} *ultimately controlled by mindless mechanical
processes. This shattering of the shackles of nineteenth century physics
opens the way to the construction of science-based ethical theories of a
kind* incompatible *with the mechanistic conception of nature that
dominated science from the time of Isaac Newton until the dawn of the
twentieth century.*

I turn next to Part 2, which is about

**Quantum Wholeness and Spiritual-Secular Dynamics**

In 1935 Albert Einstein, together with two young colleagues, Boris
Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, published a paper that focused attention on a
paradoxical feature of quantum theory. The theory appears to require
this: *What is experienced by one person must depend, in certain
situations, upon what a faraway and seemingly disconnected person freely
decides to do*. An intense scrutiny of this puzzling situation by
physicists has made clear the fact that the structure of quantum
mechanics is profoundly compatible with the idea that the Process 4
choices can be consistently regarded as *free* choices. But this element
of freedom entails a deep level of interconnectedness of the conscious
experiences of persons situated in far-apart regions.

This non-local connectedness has been endlessly discussed by physicists
and philosophers of science and is known to be strictly incompatible
with any ordinary \-\--that is, classical-type\-\--idea of how the world
operates.

The subtle connectivity\-\--revealed by these purely secular scientific
studies\-\--between the experiences associated with physically separated
persons seems to demand the existence of a reality that can provide the
needed connections. But these connections go far beyond anything that
classical materialism can accommodate. What seems to be called for is a
pervading immaterial global reality that is informed by our thoughts,
and that can subtly act back upon far-away other persons.

This general idea of a global immaterial\-\--say spiritual\-\--presence
is probably the core intuitive idea of all religions, both east and
west. *But then purely secular studies of certain paradoxical features
of empirical phenomena have led to conclusions about the nature of
reality that, on the one hand, seem incompatible with the materialist
conception of nature, and, on the other hand, are suggestive of the
existence of a pervading "spiritual" presence of the kind that lies at
the heart of all religions.*

I can now turn to Part 3, which rests on the conclusions from Parts 1
and 2:

**Rational Science-Based Moral Theory**

Deterministic materialism is inhospitable to rational moral theory.

In the first place, a materialist striving to maintain high moral
standards is placed in the irrational position of acting as if his
conscious choices can make a difference in the course of physical
events, while believing that they cannot possibly do so, because he
believes that the entire course of physical events is mechanically fixed
at the birth of the universe.

In the second place, any belief in one's own intrinsic deep
connectedness to the community of human beings, and to nature
herself\-\--which might provide a basis for values extending beyond
one's own bodily and psychological self\-\--must be dismissed as a
delusion by the rational classical materialist.

But rationality and respect for science does not entail accepting local
deterministic materialism, or even materialism with only random
interventions. For orthodox contemporary physics includes not only
*deterministic* features, and *random* features, but also causally
efficacious human *free* choices. Moreover, it yields a conception
nature that must accommodate certain subtle *immaterial connections*
between various physically disconnected parts.

This conception of nature, and of our place within it, arises from the
*orthodox* interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are other
interpretations, but the orthodox interpretation is the one that is
directly supported by empirical evidence, and the one that all others
must in the end sustain, insofar as its predictions continue to be
validated in the ever-more-refined conditions under which they are being
tested.

This orthodox-science-based conception of human beings as *actors* that
are *free* to act efficaciously upon the physical world, and that are
linked together by an immaterial presence, is in line with the inner
core of all religions, and it buttresses, from a secular perspective,
the communal values that religions spawn. But the valued community
includes all human beings, not merely co-religionists.

Acceptance of this science-based conception of nature, and of ourselves,
allows the construction of a moral theory that captures the positive
aspects of religious ethical teaching while evading both the
negativities directed at non-co-religionists, and the destitution of
mechanistic materialism. The sense of *separateness*, *isolation, and
powerlessness* that issues from the nineteenth century image of man as
automaton is replaced by a conception of physically efficacious creative
human selves imbedded in an encompassing community endeavor and
adventure. This conception of nature, and of ourselves, provides a
rational foundation for exercising our mind-based freedom of action in
accord with values that give weight to the good of the whole.