From stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov Tue Oct 13 14:04:05 1998
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry Stapp <stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov>
To: quantum-mind <quantum-mind@listserv.arizona.edu>
Subject: Reply to Wolf and Sarfatti---Henry Stapp (fwd)


I sent this in  back on Oct 8 in connection with "World as Knowings",
which was posted. But this part was never posted. I now resubmit it, with
a few small improvements.  Henry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 15:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry Stapp <stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov>
To: quantum-mind <quantum-mind@listserv.arizona.edu>
Subject: Reply to Wolf and Sarfatti---Henry Stapp


From: Fred Alan Wolf

Subject: Libet data and causation.
.....

[Stapp]
By orthodox quantum theory I mean what Wigner meant: essentially what I
have been calling the pragmatic vN/W interpretation. [The entire
universe is represented by a quantum state S(t) that evolves in
accordance with the Schroedinger equation between jumps . . .

[Wolf]
Although this is in my opinion a correct view, it is arguably one that
is outside of standard quantum theory in that it essentially deals with
noncontinuous time evolution (P_e S P_e) of wave functions.  Standard
quantum theory predicts through continuous time evolution (Stapp's S).
Quantum theory does not deal with these events (P_e S P_e) other than
say that they exist. 

[Stapp]
Orthodox quantun theory was formulated directly in terms of experiential 
increments of knowledge e and the representations (P_e S P_e)
of these increments within the mathematical formalism.
(See "The World as Knowings")

[Wolf]
 It cannot predict them.  It can provide statistics
for them.  But I hardly see that as explaining anything about
consciousness.

[Stapp]
In the vN/W formulation the mapping e-->(P_e S P_e) is a mapping
from an experience e to a reduction of the state of the associated
brain to that component of this brain state that is compatible with 
that experience e. This connection between experience and the
corresponding brain state is exactly what experimenters who are trying to
map out the neural correlates of consciousness are trying to determine:
this connection, which is the core of vN/W pragmatic QT lies
right at the heart of the scientific study of consciousness.


        [Stapp-prev]
Each jump is associated with an experiential increment in knowledge,
and with an associated "physical" event (P_e S P_e), where P_e acts on
the degrees of freedom associated with some brain.

[Wolf]
Again, although I can agree with this, I point out that "experiential
increment in knowledge" is not a  concept defined within standard
quantum theory and I don't see it in any text on quantum mechanics.  If
Stapp means a single bit, 0 or 1, "popping" into existence in the
physical world such as is elicited in a spin-1/2 measurement on a
particle I can agree.  But if this means a change in the observer's
subjective awareness, I raise a flag of doubt.  Where is that subjective
awareness occurring?  Is that location of the subjective awareness
mappable in the brain?   This may be Stapp's theory, but it lies outside
standard quantum theory, Wigner's or anyone elses, as far as I know.
Again I reemphasize there is an added assumption when you attempt to put
objectively viewable events into the same hat as subjectively
experienced events.  The founders did not attempt to do this as far as I
know.  They may have talked about this, but no one formed a theory.

[Stapp]     
The founder's of quantum theory based QT directly upon this
connection between our increments in knowledge and corrsponding
reductions in a Hilbert space: vN/W made it about the mind-brain
interface.

     [Stapp-prev]
Eventually, some generalization must be made, as explained previously,
but at present this pragmatic approach will do. It is an 
unavoidable consequence of intrinsic features of the Hilbert-space
structure that the transformation S-->(P_e S P_e), acting on the entangled
state S of the universe will automatically  bring the state of the
entire universe into accord with the increment of knowledge `e' 
associated preferentially with the one brain on whose degrees of freedom
P_e acts.

[Wolf]
This quote, "bring it into accord with the increment of knowledge `e'
that was associated preferentially with just one brain"  is pure Stapp
and lies outside of standard quantum theory.


[Stapp]
I have posted above (The World as Knowings) some small part of the 
voluminous literature that documents the fact that the incorporation
of our experiential increments of knowledge was the ESSENCE of the
Copenhagen interpretation, as it emerged at its birth at Solvay 1927.

Let me quote also from von Neumann's book (Mathematical Foundations of
Quantum  Mechanics, Princeton U.P.) 

"Let us now compare those circumstances to those which actually exist in 
nature or in its observation. First, it is inherently entirely correct that the
measurement or the related process of subjective perception is a new 
entity relative to the physical environment and is not reducible to the
latter.  Indeed, subjective perception leads us into the intellectual
inner life of the individual. "p.418

Speaking of the boundary between the part of the physical world 
represented in terms of the quantum formalism and the part represented 
by the subjective perceptions, and pushing it finally to the limit he says:

"And were our physiological knowledge more precise than it is today, 
we could go still further, tracing the chemical reactions which
produce the impression of this image on the retina, in the optic nerve tract
and in his brain, and then in the end say: these chemical changes of his 
brain cells are perceved by the observer." p.419

Later on, referring to this final placement, he says that in this case the
observing system is "his abstract `ego' ." p.421

This is the placement that Wigner refers to when he claims that there should 
be not only an action of matter upon mind, as in classical mechanics, but a back
reaction of mind upon matter.  This position, which I call the 
vonNeumann/Wigner pragmatic quantum theory, is thus directly based,
first of all,  on the essential core pragmatic (ala Wm James) idea of the 
Copenhagen interpretaion, as it was born at the 1927 Solvay conference, 
namely that the theory be construed as a theory of connections between 
experiential increments of knowledge, but now pushed in the direction of a
complete ontology by adopting the nonNeumann/Wigner position that puts the
entire brain  into the "physical" universe, and thus avoids the whole
discussion about where to place the otherwise mysterious division of the
universe into two parts,  one described quantum mechanically, the other 
classically. 

        [Stapp-prev]
 That is how the von Neumann rigorous formulation of quantum theory
works. [Even though this formalism was originally placed in a
nonrelativistic context, it can be used in relativistic quantum field
theory, modulo  difficulties at Planck scale seemingly associated with a
breakdown of the idea of space-time at such tiny scales. If these
problems at very tiny  distances, and hence very large energies, are
ignored then one has a beautiful and consistent mathematical formalism
that accounts for all empirical data that is accounted for by either
classical or quantum theory.]

[Wolf]
I agree, but again what does this have to do with subjective awareness?

[Stapp] Empirical data means experiential increments in knowledge: Quantum
theory is a calculus for computing statistical connections between
experiential increments of knowledge of the kind that
we can describe to ourselves and to our colleagues: it is directly ABOUT
the experiential realities upon which science is based.


**********************************************************************************************
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@well.com>

Subject: [q-mind] Libet data and causation -- Henry Stapp
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 +0000

    [Stapp-prev]
Perhaps this "retroactive" effect WITHIN orthodox causal
quantum theory is important enough to warrant a review.

[Jack]
That is the understatement of the year. :-)


    [Stapp-prev]
By orthodox quantum theory I mean what Wigner meant:
essentially what I have been calling the pragmatic vN/W
interpretation. [The entire universe is represented by a
quantum state S(t) that evolves in accordance with the
Schroedinger equation between jumps that occur at a
sequence of times

...., t_{n-1}, t_{n} ,t_{n+1},... [t_{n} is t subscript n
etc.]

Each jump is associated with an experiential increment in
knowledge, and with an associated "physical" event (P_e S
P_e), where P_e acts on the degrees of freedom associated
with some brain.

[Jack]
OK I did not sufficiently understand before that you use the
quantum state of the "entire universe" in a vital way so
that you have quantum gravity and Hawking's "Mind of God"
built into the foundation of your Bishop Berkeleyan "quantum
animism". This makes a big difference.

[Stapp]
I specifically said that I was neglecting Planck-scale effects.
I was referring there to effects associated with general relativity.
My presumption is that gravity, except in the simplest direct way
of the earth's pull upon our bodies, is not important in the mind-brain
interaction.  



      [Stapp-prev]
[Eventually, some generalization must be made, as explained
previously, but at present this pragmatic approach will do].
Nevertheless, the transformation S-->(P_e S P_e), acting on
the entangled state S of the universe
will, *automatically within the quantum formalism*, act on
the state of the entire universe, and bring it into accord
with the increment of knowledge `e' that was associated
preferentially with just one brain.

[Jack]
It's this last step that requires more explanation. I
suppose you mean the Everett "relative state" idea?

[Stapp]
No! Just the opposite! Everett's central idea is that there is no collapse or
reduction: I am speaking exactly about the reduction, which is an effect
of an increment in knowledge, according to orthodox quantum theory.


      [Stapp-prev]
That is how the von Neumann rigorous formulation of quantum
theory works.

[Jack]
Well you extended it to the entire universe of quantum
gravity. Gell-Mann says you can't do that in his "The Quark
and the Jaguar" - but what does he know? His Ch 12 is for
the birds. :-) So, anyway, this also connects with Penrose's
orch OR. You are also saying that quantum gravity is
fundamental to consciousness in this very deep sense.

[Stapp]

The entire universe, Yes: but I have assumed that gravity
is not important, and hence have used here normal quantum
theory in a flat space-time.


   [Stapp-prev]
I assume that the quantum rules hold exactly: if one relaxes
this condition then tremendous flexibility ensues; one can
allow one's imagination to run wild.

[Jack]
Well Wheeler's quantum geometrodynamics may be wrong, and
Sidharth's application of it may be wrong, and Penrose's
idea may be wrong, Modanese's idea may be wrong, and now
this guy Woodward's idea may be wrong, and I may be wrong.
That is all possible I agree.

     [Stapp-prev]
But the proper way of science is first to see whether the
data can be accommodated within the most orthodox
framework, without allowing violations of the *predictions*
of the theory, which is something that "all" quantum
physicists agree about, no matter which ontological or
interpretive framework they may favor.

[Jack]
Correct, but evidence on precognitive remote viewing
violates the passion-at-a-distance of orthodox quantum
theory. 

{Stapp]
I have repeatedly pointed out that the Eberhardt theorem of 
"orthodox quantum theory" is based on the extra assumption
of "good measurements"; my vN/W theory is completely
othodox, but it relaxes the requirement that every experience
corresponds to a "good measurement" in the sense of von Neumann's 
theory of measurement. Consequently, it can, if certain assumptions about
the absence of relevant proto-experiences (and hence reductions)
are made, automatically accommodate the purported evidence. 

[Jack]
So this is experimental violation of orthodox
quantum theory, or, it is bad experimental data. It's one or
the other. 

[Stapp]
No! IF the data are good, then it points to a failure of certain intuitions
that are widely held by most practicing experimental physicists, namely
that reduction actually do occur already when physical records
are made. 

There has never been a shred of empirical evidence
that supports that "common sense" notion. I see as one important virtue
and value of returning to the pragmatic stance the fact that it does not
inject this classical-type prejudice, which has no empirical basis, into
the  basic theoretical structure. 

Injecting this prejudice creates ambiguities, because it introduces into
the theory an alien a pure prejudice, that has no empirical backing. This
injection of an alien  element into the purity of the quantum structure
disrupts the logical coherence of the theory without creating any
benefit at all.
....

[Jack]
So I strongly differ with Stapp that the backward causation
is only "apparent". This is not the optimum way to
understand Libet's raw data. You can choose to understand it
that way given the traditional causal paradigm that Stapp
embraces, but then you come to Hodgson's dilemma that free
will in the brain-mind system is a delusion in a causal
world, at least for quick decisions. 

[Stapp]
No! The exact point of my target article was to show that the vN/W 
quantum theory does allow mental-force and free-will to enter into the 
causal process in a way that "supervenes" on the physical (i.e., on the 
quantum theoretical representation S(t) of the evolving state of the universe) 
and hence is tightly bound to the physical, but is nevertheless NOT 
causally determined by the physical.

[Sarfatti]
This is now a clash of paradigms. Stapp's quantum paradigm forbids 
normal free will as well as the paranormal. My post-quantum
paradigm demands both normal free will and the paranormal.
Which do you free choose?

[Stapp]
As regards my theory that description is upside down: the orthodox vN/W
pragmatic theory can accommodate both, completely within the orthodox
quantum theory, without violating any principle of orthodox quantum theory
and without adding anything to the orthodox theory, except for a
postulated connection between the intentional-attentional aspect of an
experience `e' and an otherwise-undefined feature that MUST BE DEFINED
SOMEHOW in order to make complete the quantum dynamical equations
 
The addition is this: the experienced intention in `e' to attend 
to a possible experience e~ is assumed to identify the experience
e that occurs in the question to be put to nature "Will e occur next?"
Quantum dynamics stalls unless some definite question like this is
is put to nature, but there is nothing else within vN/W quantum
theory that fixes these questions.

This same intentional mental process that exercises important control
over the brain process, but is not wholly controlled by brain process, 
would, if not blocked by reductions associated with physical recordings
---such as (unobserved) printings out of results onto sheets of paper---, 
automatically extend out from the brains into the environment,
in the way discussed in my Phys. Rev. A paper. Here the direct effect of
the intentional effort replaces the effect of the non-Hermitian term in
the Hamitonian that I there postulated to exist. There I assumed that this
that this extra term, which violated the quantum princilples, was
"somehow" associated with volition. Now I require no violation of quantum
theory, but require rather a *completion* of quantum quantum theory.
A "free" volition is brought in not in some mysterious way
through the introduction of some extra term whose connection to
the consciousness we feel would just be a new puzzle, but by
exploiting the fact that quantum theory is basically about 
consciousness, and about the rules connecting experiences to later
experiences. The question posed to nature at the Copenhagen level
is whether an experience of some specified is going to happen.
But if the question is of the form "Will experience e happen?",
and the variable e is an experience, then that experience should
be, or could be part of an earlier experience. This opens the door
to a vein of causal influence that goes from experience to experience
without descending to the physical level. But mind still 
"supervenes" on the brain, and is closely linked to it, because
each experience e is represented in the physical domain
by a reduction of the brain state S_b-->(P_e S_b P_e), and we can suppose
that no two different e's will give the same reduction.