Approved For Release 2003/09/10
244
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS
were babies born on other days, a theory which simply accepted this fact as an
axiom would not be acceptable as an explanation of this phenomenon and
science could not permit the matter to rest there. The unique behaviour of an
observing instrument when placed in a specific environment is completely
unexplained on Villars’ interpretation of quantum theory and constitutes a
wholly mysterious or occult element. It cries out for explanation, but its author
declines to respond. Instead, he states his opinion that it is “quite possible that
an extended physical theory capable of explaining these events will never be
devised”.
This is the nub of the controversy between us — can an explanation be
devised
for
the apparent
differing behaviour
patterns
of an observing
instrument when
it
is in the process of measuring and those of the same
instrument in other circumstances or of all other physical systems? Walker
and I are attempting to devise such an explanation. We, also, separate physical
systems into two classes, (a) the generality of systems, including observing
instruments, to which the Schrodinger evolution law applies and (b) systems
generating a psychic field to which new laws (yet to be fully formulated!) are
applicable. A type-(b) system is easily distinguishable by virtue of its possess-
ing characteristics which are thoroughly familiar. If a theory of this type were
to be successful,
it would clearly provide a truly scientific explanation of the
reduction of the wave vector effect by placing it in the context of a wider
variety of phenomena. It would not be a mere systematization of the facts, as
Villars approach essentially is, but would point beyond the phenomenon to
relationships with apparently unconnected phenomena in other areas of
science — this is a feature which must be possessed by any theory aspiring to
the status of a scientific explanation. Thus, Kepler noted that the planets
moved in elliptical orbits and his three laws can be accepted as axioms for a
theory embracing all planetary systems. But how much superior is Newton’s
theory of gravitation which provides a truly scientific explanation for the facts
established by Kepler. Villars would freeze us in the Kepler phase of the
phenomenon under
discussion.
Essentially, he
is
failing to discriminate
between a description of an effect and a scientific explanation of the effect.
Villars asserts that his view does not claim unique powers for observing
instruments. Nonetheless, it does require that there exist a unique relationship
between a given instrument and all the systems
it can observe;
it is only a
question of semantics whether we describe this as: “the instrument has unique
powers”, or ‘the instrument-system interaction is unique”, or “the systems
respond to the instrument in a unique way”, etc., etc. The fact
is that the
behaviour
of the
instrument-plus-measured-system combination
is
of
a
special type not governed by the Schrodinger equation and that this unique
type of interaction arises spontaneously, in an occult manner, at some point in
the assembly of the instrument in the pres^ce of an^lpen'pId^svitci^^^Qg^Q
CIA-RDP96-00792R00040001 0002-1
RESEARCH NOTES AND COMMENTS
245
this cannot be accounted for by the switching on of any known physical field
(all of which are known to obey the evolution law). This, of course, is just one
of the consequences of the failure of the theory as a scientific explanation of
the phenomenon.
The suggestion that interference by a psychic field (already demanded on
other grounds — see Lawden, 1981) may account for the phenomenon of the
collapse of the wave vector can be criticised on the basis that it has not been
fully elaborated and
it may even have to be extensively modified or even
abandoned in the light of experiment, but it is a serious attempt at an explana-
tion of the effect. The alternative road taken by Villars is the easy one of the
proliferation of hypotheses. Hiding behind an axiomatic facade, Villarspffers
no explanation, opines that one will never be forthcoming and seetfis to be
criticising Walker and myself for even trying. The issue is still'open and we
shall see!
References
Lawden, D.F. Separability of psychophysical systems J. Psychophys. Sys., 4, 1-10, 1981.
Lawden, D.F. Observing instruments and quantum theory. J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 73-78, 1983.
Villars, C.N. Reply to Lawden, J. Psychophys. Sys., 5, 173-175, 1983.
(&IA-RDP96-00792R00040001 0002-1