Psychophysical Interpretation of Quantum Theory PDF

NeuroQuantology | December 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 4| Page 629-645 629
PradhanRK., Psychophysical interpretation of quantum theory
Article
Psychophysical Interpretation
of Quantum Theory
Rajat K. Pradhan
ABSTRACT
It is shown that the formalism of quantum theory naturally incorporates the psychophysical parallelism and thereby interprets
itself, if the subjective aspects are taken as equal partners alongside the objective aspects as determinants of Reality as a
Whole. The inevitable interplay of the subject (observer) and the object (observed) in making up Reality is brought out
succinctly through a comprehensive psychophysical interpretation which includes in its bosom the truths of many of the major
interpretations proposed so far as essential ingredients. At the heart of this novel approach lies the interpretation of the

complex conjugate quantities such as the conjugate wave function *(r, t), the bra vector <|, and the adjoint operator A etc.
as representing the subjective counterparts of the corresponding objective aspects represented by the wave function (r, t),
the ket vector |>, and the observable A etc. respectively. This brings out the psycho-physical parallelism lying hidden in the
quantum mechanical formalism in a quite straightforward manner. The measurement process is shown to be a two-step
process comprising objective interaction through the retarded waves and subjective observation leading to rise of knowledge
through the advanced waves.
Key Words: psychophysical parallelism, conscious observer, interpretation of quantum mechanics, state vector collapse,
quantum measurement, quantum non-locality
NeuroQuantology 2012; 4: 629-645
1. Introduction1 issues ever since its inception. The difficulty

A century after the advent of quantum theory was very well paraphrased by an exasperated
and in spite of the unenviable success it has Feynman (1967) when he remarked I think it
achieved in explaining diverse phenomena is safe to say that no one understands
ranging from the microscopic elementary quantum mechanics and this,
particles to the macroscopic universe itself, it notwithstanding the fact that he happens to be
suffers from a serious deficiency which is the one who developed the path integral
denoted by the general phrase the approach to quantum mechanics.
interpretation problem (Albert, 1992; Interpretations have been proposed
dEspagnat, 1976; dEspagnat, 1979; Home, mainly along two distinct lines- those which
1997). While the QM formalism offers avoid or deny the necessity of a conscious
readymade handy tools for calculation observer and those which admit of such a
purposes, understanding the meaning of the necessity.
wave function, its collapse in the measurement
process to an eigenstate and nonlocal The first category starts with the original
correlations among spatially separated Born (1926) interpretation known as the
components have been extremely difficult ensemble/statistical interpretation which was
supported by Einstein (Karanth, 2011) and
later on espoused by Ballentine (1970); then,
Corresponding author: Rajat K. Pradhan there is the official, textbook interpretation
Address: Rajandra College, Balangir, Odisha, 767002, India. known popularly as the Copenhagen
rajat@iopb.res.in
Received July 27, 2012. Revised August 10, 2012. interpretation enunciated and elucidated by
Accepted Nov 2, 2012. Bohr (Bohr, 1935) and Heisenberg
eISSN 1303-5150
www.neuroquantology.com
(Heisenberg, 1927); then comes the pilot wave not. The need to modify the QM formalism
interpretation of de Broglie (de Broglie, 1927; arises primarily because of the wish to keep
de Broglie, 1925) ,which was later on modified the conscious observer out of the formalism,
by Bohm (1952) to the well-known de Broglie- while the straight and simple fact is that it is
Bohm hidden variables theory; the Quantum inevitably present not only in QM but also in
logic scheme of Birkoff and von Neumann the entire scheme of science all the way right
(1936), the original relative state formulation from the beginning.
of Hugh Everett (Everett, 1957) expanded and We discuss this inevitable and
popularized by deWitt and Graham as the undisputable role of the conscious observer in
many Worlds interpretation (deWitt and the scientific scheme in detail in the next
Graham, 1973); Nelsons Stochastic quantum section and then in section-3, the three main
mechanics (Nelson, 1966) in which the interpretational issues namely, the meaning of
Schrdinger equation emerges as a state, the measurement process and quantum
consequence of a Markov process; the non-locality are discussed. Section-4 gives the
objective collapse theories (Ghirardi, Rimini motivations for attempting a psychophysical
and Weber, 1986; Bassi and Ghirardi, 2003) interpretation of quantum mechanics and
modifying the Schrdinger equation by adding addresses each interpretational issue from a
non-linear terms to bring about spontaneous psychophysical standpoint. Section-5 discusses
wave function collapse; the Histories approach the intimate relationship of this interpretation
(consistent and decoherent) of Omnes (1994), with other major proposed interpretations. We
Griffiths (Griffiths, 1984; 2002), Gell-Mann conclude in section-6 with a discussion of
and Hartle (1991; 1993), the strikingly quantum determinism.
straightforward transactional interpretation of
Cramer (Cramer, 1986; 1988) based on the
Feynman-Wheeler absorber theory of 2. The conscious observer in the
electromagnetism (Wheeler and Feynman, scientific scheme
1945; 1949), the modal interpretations (Dieks It is a fact that all our scientific theories are
and Vermaas, 1998), the relational quantum productions of very fertile brains of conscious
mechanics of Rovelli (1996), which bases itself observers and in order to make contact with
on observer-dependent states following the physical reality represented by observed
Special Relativity but is non-committal about phenomena, they must take in, and finally tally
granting living or conscious status to the with, the observations of such conscious
observers. observers. Therefore, we discuss below this
all-important, but usually played down in the
Prominent among the less-favored name of objectivity and observer-
second category are the formulations by von independence, role of the conscious observer
Neumann (1955), supported and extended by in the scientific scheme in general.
London and Bauer (1983), Wheeler (1978) and
Wigner (1961); the Many minds interpretation Indeed, it is the conscious observer
of Zeh (2000), Albert and Lower (1988); the alone that gathers the data; classifies,
work of Stapp (2001; 2009) in bringing out the organizes, analyses and interprets the data
key role played by the conscious observer in by looking at structural symmetries,
the measurement process through the mind- regularities, periodicities etc; proposes
brain connection; the SQM formalism of Page hypotheses, postulates, laws and principles
(2011), and finally, the significant work of etc. which satisfactorily explain these
Manousakis (2007) in his consciousness-based symmetries etc., often using mathematical
interpretation. tools; tests these hypotheses etc. by
purposefully designing further fact-finding or
With due apologies to the many other fault-finding experiments; and then, if need
interpreters of QM, we do admit that the above be, enunciates new hypotheses etc. on the
is by no means an exhaustive survey of the basis of more detailed and more refined data.
landscape of interpretations proposed in either This is precisely the scientific method as has
category. Some of the interpretations in the been in practice for the last few centuries. But,
first category (e.g., quantum logic) are fence- all the while, the practice and the claim has
sitters and can easily accommodate the been to apply the method in as objective (i.e.,
conscious observer. Some modify the observer-independent) a manner as possible
formalism of quantum theory while others do keeping the all-important and ubiquitous
observer-- the data - gatherer, the data- Schrdinger, 1967), we shall adopt the
interpreter, the hypothesizer, the fact-finder dualistic view in this work-- The nature of
and also the fault-finder-- out of the scheme! Reality as a whole is neither fully objective
Evidently, there is a limit to this artificial nor fully subjective but is the result of the
isolation of the observer from the observed coming together of the subject and the object
and our classical objective science program through the process of subject-object
fails when we have to describe: interaction. The perceiving subject as the
observer, the perceived object as the observed
properties (e.g., conjugate observables) and the process of perception as the
of a microscopic system which gets observation- all three come together to make
inevitably disturbed by the very act of up Reality. However, a series of rather
observation so that the accurate artificial bifurcations are introduced in the
measurement of those properties process by the observer (Figure 1):
becomes practically impossible
(uncertainty principle).
properties which depend on the mode of
subject-object interaction in which case
we cannot ascribe the properties to the
system alone (complementarity).
properties which are not purely objective
i.e., the felt qualia which are dependent
on the perceptions of the observing
subject, e.g., colour of an object.
The first case is applicable even to purely
Figure 1. The three bifurcation levels employed in the
classical measurements on macroscopic scientific approach to Reality.
systems, but because of the ignorable
smallness of the errors introduced in the
measurement compared to the large values of (a) She egoistically separates herself out
the classical observables we conventionally as the observing subject- distinct and
ascribe the quantity to have the measured different from the observed object (the
value, of course with the errors specified. world);
Strictly speaking, as noted by Dirac (1947), we
(b) She bifurcates the observed world
can never ever make an error-free
into a system and rest of the world
measurement of the exact value of any
with the latter including her physical
quantity in practice, whether the system is
body also, unless the body itself is the
classical or quantum mechanical.
system;
The second and the third cases are also
(c) She further partitions the rest of the
applicable in classical as well as in quantum
world into the apparata (physical body
mechanics always but we conventionally
included) and the environment, for
disregard them by resorting to an objectivity
scientific study;
which is more a result of practical agreement
among observers rather than an actual non- And, after having done all this, she also
dependence on observers. Scientific criteria uses her human intellect for the analysis and
like repeatability and verifiability etc. ensure inference but feigns subjective non-
that the last two cases are forcibly kept out till interference and vehemently claims that
such time as they make their presence very Reality is fully objective!
strongly felt thereby forcing a paradigm shift This scenario is depicted in the fig-1
in science. This has happened in case of above where the dashed line connecting the
quantum mechanics. system and the apparata represents the
In the absence of any compelling interaction between them during
scientific theoretical or experimental evidence measurement while that connecting the
for the material origins of mind or for the subject and the apparata represents the
mental origins of matter, and in view of observation of the result which completes the
psychophysical parallelism (Page, 2011; Pauli measurement process. The dashed line from
and Jung, 2001; Schrdinger, 1954; the system to the environment represents the
fact that no system can be absolutely isolated 3.2. Quantum measurement and state
from the environment. Although this is a collapse
dualistic scheme, it is the most pragmatic one The second major point of interest is the issue
and in the present stage of development of our of measurements in QM. A measurement leads
empirical sciences, it is the most acceptable to a specific eigenvalue for the measured
and perfectly unbiased scheme regarding the observable from amongst a spectrum of
nature of Reality, since we dont have any possibilities. This collapse of the state to one
viable theory for consciousness or the mind. eigenstate is a non-unitary process not
describable by the Schrdinger equation which
3. Main Issues of Interpretation describes the unitary evolution of the state and
3.1. The nature of the quantum state thus becomes an independent postulate of
What does the quantum state |> of a system QM. This also makes QM indeterministic and
represent? Three possible answers have observer-dependent. Here, we encounter the
emerged: (a) The objective state of the single debate concerning role of the conscious
system, (b) The subjective knowledge of the observer in the state collapse. According to von
state of the single system, and, (c) An Neumann (von Neumann, 1955) and Wigner
ensemble of systems. (Wigner, 1961) the chain of events in the
measurement process logically culminates
Needless to say, even though the above when the knowledge of the definite eigenvalue
three possibilities appear very distinct, all is registered in the mind of the observer.
interpretations often have to struggle hard to Without bringing in the conscious observer as
interpret the wave function in a consistent way the end-point of the causal chain we cannot
when it comes to measurement and escape the infinite regress.
verification of the probabilistic contents of the
state. However, each proposed interpretation The uneasiness in accepting the
has its own advantages and oddities, and we conscious observer as having a role (curiosity
need to develop a comprehensive kills the cat!) is understandable since the
interpretation which will encompass all the abstract ego or the observer in the von
satisfactory aspects of the various Neumann chain remains forever outside the
interpretations proposed so far without any formulation. It is entrusted with the job of
bias or prejudice towards a particular collapsing the wave function in a non-unitary
viewpoint. Further, we accept the view that as manner which is not describable by the
a matter of principle, an interpretation should Schrdinger equation. The main reasons for
not modify the theory but should only the uneasiness in accepting von Neumanns
interpret its formalism and establish thereby original proposal are:
the correspondence with Reality which in this Firstly, we do not as yet know or have
case is a consequence of the inevitable mutual any scientific theory or formulation
interaction between the subject and the object. worth the name which can adequately
One rather surprising aspect of the describe the interaction of a conscious
proposed interpretations is that almost all of observer with the inanimate
them fail to say even a word about the instruments, let alone the case of
significance of the conjugate wave function interaction with other conscious
*(r,t) = <|r,t>, the only exception being observers.
Cramers transactional interpretation. Without Secondly, none of the original
the conjugate quantities no quantum formulations of QM by Schrdinger,
mechanics is possible and yet they dont Heisenberg, Dirac or Feynman had any
receive any straightforward interpretation and such intentions of describing the
are treated as mere mathematical counterparts process of conscious perception and
of the quantities concerned. This situation is therefore QM is not expected to
sought to be remedied in the comprehensive describe the same, which has mostly
interpretation proposed here. We will been in the domain of psychology,
interpret here both (r,t) and *(r,t) as being philosophy and, at best, of
equally significant for the comprehension of neurophysiology as far as scientific
QM. acceptability is concerned.
Lastly, because of our classical
reductionist training, we find it very
convenient to take shelter under the One readily sees that the EPR
misty clouds of epiphenomenon or definition of reality is valid only classically.
emergent phenomenon or complexity This is because, the prediction unavoidably
and self-organization when it comes requires (a) the previous knowledge of some
to anything related to consciousness, property of the composite system and (b)
its ramifications or interactions. measurement on one component of the space-
This shows that we, as conscious like separated system. However, Bell (Bell,
entities ourselves are really terribly afraid of 1964; 1966) showed and it has been
ourselves and have failed miserably in dealing experimentally verified (Aspect, Dallibard and
with ourselves i.e. with the conscious Roger, 1982; Aspect, Grangier and Roger,
observers! Further, this state of affairs has 1982) that QM is correct and that non-locality
stalled any real progress that we could have and entanglement are an inherent fact of
achieved by now in the last nearly one nature. However, considering that the EPR
hundred years of struggling with the effect requires previous knowledge,
interpretation of QM by following an unbiased measurement and subsequent inference by an
approach to possible observer participation observer, it does lend support to Heisenbergs
along with the other purely objective knowledge interpretation of the wave
approaches. Of course, the laudable function and this is central to the present
approaches of Penrose-Hameroff (Hameroff interpretation. We quote Heisenberg
and Penrose, 1996a, 1996b) and Stapp (Stapp, (Heisenberg, 1958):
2011) have been there for quite some time now Therefore, the transition from the
and they aim at finding a mechanism of state possible to the actual takes place
collapse taking the observers consciousness, during the act of observation. We may
or to be precise, the neurophysiological brain say that the transition from the
processes into account, but the central issue of possible to the actual takes place as
the mind-brain connection, the hard soon as the interaction of the object with
problem of Chalmers (Chalmers, 196), still the measuring device, and thereby with
remains unsolved. the rest of the world, has come into
In the present work, we will attempt to play; it is not connected with the act of
give a detailed account of the measurement registration of the result by the mind of
process including the conscious perception the observer. The discontinuous change
applying the QM formalism without any in the probability function, however,
modification. takes place with the act of registration,
because it is the discontinuous change of
our knowledge in the instant of
3.3. Quantum Non-locality and related registration that has its image in the
paradoxes discontinuous change of the probability
Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (Einstein, function.
Podolski and Rosen, 1935) gave a definition of
realism thus: If, without in any way Heisenberg very clearly points to a
disturbing a system, we can predict with psychophysical parallelism involved in the
certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) process of measurement with the observation
the value of a physical quantity, then there of the result leading to the completion of the
exists an element of physical reality process of acquiring knowledge about the
corresponding to this physical quantity. state, lacking which we were forced to admit of
Following the maximal of signal propagation a probabilistic description of the pre-
velocity as the light velocity, this criterion of measurement state in terms a superposition.
locality just states the fact that there can be no
communication between space-like separated 4. The way out: Psychophysical
points. What EPR showed was that if QM is Interpretation
correct, and if the above definition of physical As pointed out by von Neumann and Wigner,
reality is accepted as valid then locality cannot the conscious observers subjective
hold good, i.e., non-local correlations (spooky perceptions have to be taken into account if we
action-at-a-distance) must exist between are to have a complete quantum description of
space-like separated points. Reality. Attempts to achieve this goal have
been mostly in the direction of finding out
some underlying neurophysiological brain (Atmanspacher and Primas, 2006) without the
processes which collapse the quantum state in need for any modification, and surprisingly
a measurement. However, it is quite surprising enough, we have all along been very familiarly
to discover that the all-powerful formalism of working with it. Only a little re-interpretation
QM is already having all the requisites for a of the quantum mechanical the formalism is
description of the psychophysical parallelism required.
Table 1. Psychophysical Parallelism
PHYSICAL ASPECTS PSYCHIC COUNTERPARTS
Physical system Mental image
State: | > Knowledge: <|
Wave function : (r,t) = <r,t|> Conjugate wave function: *(r,t) = <|r,t>
Statistical frequency for ensemble Probability for single system
Superposition Indefinite knowledge
Collapse Definite knowledge
Overlap of states (inner product: <| >) Comparison of (knowledge of) images:< | >
Projection operator: P = | >< | Quest: Is the state | > or image < | ?
Density operator: = nPn|n><n| Quest: How many in which state?
Entanglement Knowledge of initial sate of composite system
Non-locality Inference from previous knowledge
Reduction of density matrix Neglect of DOF of one component subsystem
Forward time evolution (Causal) Backward time evolution(Retrocausal)
Retarded wave signals Advanced wave signals (t - t, p - p)
Information sequence from system to brain Knowledge sequence from brain to system
Many-worlds interpretation Many-minds interpretation
Offer wave of transaction Confirmation wave of transaction
The very basic purpose of all science is QM formalism, while Table 2 given below
the explanation of various phenomena on the succinctly summarizes the meaning of the
basis of the simplest and the smallest set of postulates of quantum theory from the
principles. As discussed earlier, we are spatio- psychophysical perspective.
temporally localized observers and we perceive For the purposes of the discussion
such localized sections of the entire universe here, it is very important to clearly distinguish
as are perceivable by our senses and the mind between knowledge and information. We
through the use of various instruments. define information as ordered data and
Accordingly, we describe in empirical sciences knowledge as meaningful information.
only what we sensory perceive or mentally Thus, information, as a measure of order (in
conceive. A system is thus an essentially the sense of symmetry properties which give
inseparable part of the universe, artificially rise to the conserved quantities or observables
separated out by us in the process either of for state characterization), is a completely
sensory observation or of mental abstraction. objective physical quantity, while knowledge,
Such a system we usually characterize by (a) through the association of meaning with
its configuration (b) its properties and, may information, relates to the conscious observer
be, (c) its utility. Some of its properties are the and hence is subjective. Thus, with this
dynamical variables, and out of these, the identification, the ket |> truly contains
physical observables are those that have real information, but the meaning, in the sense of
measurable values which make them more association of structural, functional or
suitable ones for the characterization of the relational attributes for purposes of
system state. comprehension, is obtained only when this
Table 1 above gives us the information is decoded and is obtained with
psychophysical parallelism as is evident in the the help of the bra <|.
Table 2. Elements of Psychophysical Interpretation

TERMINOLOGY OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE
1. State KET VECTOR : | > BRA VECTOR : < |
2. Dynamical Variable OPERATOR : A
ADJOINT OPERATOR : A
3. Physical Observable HERMITIAN OPERATOR
SAME OPERATOR: A = A
4. Expectation Value <A> = <| A| >
<A > = <| A | >
5. Dynamics i(/t )| > = H|> i(/t) <| = H<|
6. Pre-Measurement State LINEAR SUPERPOSITION: INDEFINITE KNOWLEDGE:
| > = Cn| n > < | = Cn* <n|
7. Post-Measurement State EIGENSTATE: | n> DEFINITE KNOWLEDGE: <n|
8. Probability Amplitude PHYSICAL OVERLAP: MENTAL COMPARISON:

Cn = <n|> Cn*= < | n >
9. Probability FREQUENCY:Pn = |Cn |2 PROBABILITY: Pn = |Cn|2
10. Projection Operator Pn = |n><n| Pn= |n><n|
It may be the probability of obtaining an quantities. The reason is that since the
eigenstate as a result of measurement or the conjugate complex pair (Z, Z*) with Z=x+iy
expectation of an observable (Born Rule) or a =(x2+y2)1/2exp(i ) and Z*= x-iy =
transition probability (Fermi Golden Rule) or (x2+y2)1/2exp(-i ) are related by Re(Z)=Re(Z*),
whatever it is, we have to take the help of the |Z| = |Z*|, Im(Z*) = -Im(Z), and happen to be
bra <| to get meaningful information hidden reflections of each other about the real axis on
in the ket vector |>. This also points to the the complex plane, each of them can represent
fundamental role of conscious observation in equally effectively the same real (measured)
measurement for acquiring information about value of a physical observable. Thus, when the
a system. We express these important quantity Z =|Z| exp{i(kr - t)} represents a
identifications as follows: retarded wave solution of any wave equation
i) Information = Data Order propagating fro past to future, Z*=|Z|exp{i(-
kr+ t)} represents the corresponding
ii) Knowledge = Information Meaning advanced wave solution propagating in the
iii) Measurement = Interaction Observation reverse direction from future to past. It is the
observed causal sequence of emission and
The interaction between the system and
propagation (or absorption) events that leads
the apparata in the measurement process does
us to discard the latter and retain the former
lead to a collapse, but unless and until it is
only as representing physically meaningful
observed leading to the rise of definite
solutions. Complex conjugation in this case is
knowledge, the measurement remains
equivalent to the time-reversal and
incomplete and no meaningful information i.e. momentum- reversal transformations: {t - t,
knowledge is obtained. Information is
k - k}. We list below several clues to this
transacted during the interaction part of the
identification of the complex conjugate as
measurement, while knowledge is obtained
representing the mental counterpart of a
only by the observation of the pointer states of
physical phenomenon which is central to the
the apparata.
psychophysical interpretation.
4.1 Interpreting the wave function and (a) Indications from the actual
its conjugate mechanism of visual perception
The most vital ingredient of the As delineated above, advanced waves are the
psychophysical interpretation is the vehicles of mental perception through
interpretation of the complex conjugate backward ray-tracing along a straight line of
quantities as representing the psychic the signals received by the brain through the
counterparts of the corresponding physical knowledge sequence. For every retarded
solution for the wave function , we have a time? And, this is precisely what the advanced
corresponding advanced solution represented waves achieve.
by the complex conjugate wave function *. An interesting example of the
The psychophysical parallelism is most exactly independent existence of these advanced
represented if the external object denoted by waves would be that of the perception of an
has its mental image denoted by *. atmospheric mirage as depicted in fig. 2 below.
Further, backward tracing is essential for a The upright object BC is seen by the observer
causal comprehension of phenomena, since we O to have the inverted image BD on account of
can remember only the past and using this a gradual decrease with height of the refractive
faculty of memory we can mentally go index owing to the temperature gradient of air.
backwards into the past to verify the actual The physical retarded signal from C to O
forward movement of the retarded wave (green line) has its mental advanced wave
solution as required by causality. In fact, it is counterpart from O to C (dashed brown line).
actually the other way around: Causality is a When the retarded signal from C via the
consequence of our ability to remember only curved refraction path CAO is mentally
the past and not the future. reversed, the mind retraces along the straight
For the specific case of visual line OA up to A, and further on along the
perception, for any object that is seen, there is straight line path from A to D, and not along
a retinal image formed, but we dont see this the reversed curved path from A to C, although
retinal image; instead, we see the object advanced waves are present alongside the
outside! How? This most basic phenomenon retarded waves in every segment in this curved
begs a proper scientific explanation. We path. The mental retracing via the advanced
propose that the advanced waves can greatly waves follows the straight line path from A to
help us in this mater. The image cast by the D, as if absolutely unaffected by the presence
object on the retina is truly left-right and up- of air, thus giving the perception of the
down inverted as well as diminished in size. inverted image BD.
Similarly, an object moving east casts an image
that moves west; a clockwise rotation casts a
counter-clockwise rotating image and so on
and so forth. The mental reconstruction of the
object as well as determination of its location
in space-time giving rise to determinate
perception is impossible to comprehend unless
backward ray-tracing by the conscious mind
using advanced waves is taken recourse to.
To understand the role of advanced
waves in visual perception the case of
perception of virtual images is very
illuminating. The traditional optics textbook Figure 2. Atmospheric mirage as an illustration of an
statements right from the days of Euclid advanced wave phenomenon.
through the times of Kepler (Lindberg, 1986)
and Newton (Newton, 1952) till today like -
rays appear to come from the point where This also shows that for matter-matter
the virtual image is formed- need to be interactions, the familiar Maxwellian retarded-
probed further regarding how such wave electrodynamics is sufficient and there is
appearances come about. If there is a no need for bringing in advanced waves. It is
physical object, or more generally, a source of only when we want to describe conscious
light- a point wherefrom real retarded-wave perceptions by mind-matter interaction (e.g.
light rays emerge or where they meet, then the virtual images) that advanced waves are
perception of the said object or point is easily required. Basing on this, one may also
explained. But, when there is neither of them speculate about explaining the ability of the
as in the case of a virtual image, how can the mind to have independent perceptions via the
corresponding visual perception come about, past-directed advanced waves whether the
unless the retarded wave light rays are corresponding physical retarded waves and
mentally retraced backwards in space and their sources exist or not, as in the case of
recollection of the past from memory or in the Now, one problem is, by what process
case of dream perceptions. Indeed, taking the do we see light? There have been many
mind as a perceiver of advanced waves theories, but it finally settled down to
through the physical brain which interacts one, which is that there is something
with the external world through the which enters the eye- which bounces
combination of advanced and retarded waves. off objects into the eye. We have heard
To further shed light on the observer- that idea so long that we accept it, and
participation in mirage perception, we may ask it is almost impossible for us to realize
a la Einstein (Mermin, 1985): Is the mirage that very intelligent men(obviously
out there when nobody looks? Clearly, its the referring to himself and Wheeler in his
backwards tracing by the observers mind that own inimitable way) have proposed
is responsible for the mirage. We note that a contrary theories- that something
similar phenomenon also happens in case of comes out of the eye and feels for the
auditory perception, when, for example, the object, for example.
sound waves from the source come to the The Wheeler-Feynman theory would
observer through a detour and by mental thus perfectly well account for the mind-
backward retracing the mind locates the matter interaction, with the mind utilizing, in
source to be situated in the direction of the process of observation, the advanced
reception rather than its actual location. waves to gain knowledge of the matter-matter
retarded wave interactions.
(b) Indications from Wheeler-Feynman One may speculate about purely mind-
absorber theory mind interactions via advanced waves only,
The afore-mentioned one-to-one which would explain a whole lot of
correspondence between the advanced and the accumulated data on Retrocausal phenomena
retarded solutions of Maxwells equations has not strictly describable by our sciences so far.
been exploited by Wheeler and Feynman It is then most natural to conjecture that the
(ibid.) to propose the absorber theory of Psychophysically Extended Wheeler-Feynman
electrodynamics. According to their proposal, theory would be as follows:
the time-symmetric combinations of half- (a) Matter-matter interaction Purely
advanced and half-retarded waves emanating Retarded waves
from the emitter as well as from a future
absorber can lead to the same consequences as (b) Mind-matter interaction Half Retarded
we find with purely retarded waves emitted by waves +Half Advanced waves
the emitter in conventional Maxwellian (c) Mind-mind interaction Purely Advanced
Electrodynamics, the only difference being the waves (see the discussion in section-6)
fact of the participation of the absorber. The
question is: why do we find all EM phenomena The psychophysical parallelism thus
taking place with the perfectly causality- leads us quite naturally to identify <| with
respecting retarded waves only and why there knowledge of the state |>. It further reveals
is no direct experimental proof of the existence that electromagnetic signals have another dual
of Retrocausal advanced waves? character: They can couple to both, matter as
well as mind, via the retarded and advanced
It is clear that matter-matter waves respectively. What ordinarily concern us
interactions can be understood completely in in physics are the purely matter-matter
terms of retarded waves but if the absorber interactions which are quite well explained by
happens to be the physical sense organ of a only the retarded waves of classical
conscious observer, then the very process of electrodynamics. And, It is only when we move
causal reconstruction described above requires on to quantum theory to describe Quantum
the mental reversal of time and momentum of measurements with the apparata-observer
the retarded signals, which are nothing but the interaction leading to rise of knowledge and
corresponding advanced waves. Thus, it might the consequent state collapse, we need the
be postulated that Nature does use the Feynman-Wheeler formalism of half advanced
advanced waves in the process of acquiring and half retarded waves.
knowledge by a conscious observer. Feynman
(Feynman, Leighton and Sands, 1964a) says:
(c) Indications from the transactional system to the future-directed ket vector
interpretation |(t)> for t>t, also creates simultaneously
The Wheeler-Feynman theory was used by the past-directed state <(t)| with t<t so
Cramer (ibid) in the Transactional that the state of the system within the relevant
interpretation (TI) to interpret the solutions time interval between two successive
*(r,t) of the conjugate Schrdinger equation: measurements is completely specified by the
i */ t = - H* two-state vector <| |>. However, the time
symmetry envisaged in the TSF is not
as the advanced waves of the Wheeler- automatically ensured for all situations since
Feynman absorber theory, which are emitted the past is certain while the future is not.
by the absorber to enable the confirmation of a However, at the exact instant of measurement
transaction with the emitter, thereby which creates these states we have:
establishing the Born rule P=* for
probability of confirmation at the emitter |(t)> = lim tt ( | (t)>) =
location.
{lim (<(t) |)}
t t
(1)
In TI, the confirmed transaction is
equivalent to the collapse of the Copenhagen
Due to the finite propagation speed of the
Interpretation and it is proclaimed that there
signal from the apparata, the observer has got
is no need for a conscious observer and that
to extrapolate mentally into the past to get to
only the material absorber is required
the state at the measurement instant t in order
(Cramer, 1986). But, it does not provide the
to infer about the state of the system at that
answer to the question as to which one among
moment from his current brain state. Indeed,
all the possible transactions is materialized in
the TSF is a direct representation of
a particular measurement unless and until the
psychophysical parallelism and the entire QM
confirmed transaction (collapsed state) is
formalism can be recast and reinterpreted in
confirmed again (i.e. known) by the conscious
terms of the bra-ket as representing the state
observer! A confirmed transaction is thus the
rather than the single ket with the bra left
result of two back-to-back transactions: the
uninterpreted. The back-ward evolving bra
(system-apparata) interaction transaction
however can have its interpretation only as
followed by the (apparata-observer)
representing a mental state since it is the mind
observation transaction which leads to the rise
alone (apart from antiparticles in the
of definite knowledge and thereby collapses
Feynman-Stuckelberg interpretation) that has
the pre-measurement state. This can be
the peculiar ability to move backwards in time.
achieved only by the use of the advanced
We are thus led in a rather straightforward
waves in the second transaction between the
manner by the TSF to interpret the past-
conscious observer and the absorber (detector
directed bra as the knowledge state or the
or apparata). Thus, it is clear that the TI
mental counterpart of the future-directed
cannot avoid the conscious observer as the
physical state represented by the ket vector as
ultimate collapser of the state.
proposed here.
(d) Indications from the ABL Time- (e) Indications from the dual nature of
Symmetric Formalism (TSF) probabilities
The past-directed bra vectors have been used It is well known that Probabilities possess a
on an equal footing with the future-directed dual character: objective (frequency
ket vectors as the essential ingredients in a interpretation) as well as subjective (belief
time-symmetric formalism (TSF) of quantum interpretation). Mainly, the Bayesian
mechanics developed by Aharonov (Aharonov conditional probability approach has been in
et al., 1964). Though this formulation yields the forefront of all research aimed at
results completely in agreement with the incorporating the dual aspects of probabilities
standard formulation, the state of a quantum in quantum theory. However, a very simple
system is not completely specified by the ket and straightforward non-Bayesian approach
vector only but by conjoining it with a bra has been proposed by the author (Pradhan,
vector. In particular, any ideal von Neumann 2011) in a recent work. The quantum
measurement at time t that collapses the probability given by the Born rule P = *
suggests that we can straightaway take the purpose whatsoever. Even when the results in
conjugate wave function * to represent the an experiment are null or inconclusive, such
mental counterpart of the physical wave nullity or inconclusiveness must be known by
function , such that the dual nature becomes an observation of the apparata.
self-evident. Thus, if the system-apparata (matter-
If we accept a dualistic view of reality, matter) interaction constitutes the objective
then all these indications from various half of the measurement process, then the
perspectives do put forth a very strong case for apparata-observer (matter-mind) interaction
interpreting the bra as the mental state leading to the knowledge of the system state
corresponding to the ket as the physical state. may be said to be the subjective half.
The psychophysical interpretation then The conscious observer (subject) here
explains the emergence of a real physical may be identified with the abstract ego of von
world from the probabilistic quantum world as Neumann, since the entire physical universe
arising from the interaction of the conscious including the physical body of the observer is
observer with the latter. The mental states of in the object part of the bifurcation level-1 of
the observer are the past-directed bras which section-2 above. As mentioned in the previous
are compared with what is received by the section, while doing science objectively, we do
brain through the sensory apparata in a always strive to keep ourselves, i.e. the
measurement, and accordingly the system observers, out of the scheme, which naturally
properties are ascertained. For the purposes of presupposes a non-physical or, at the very
prediction of outcome of measurements the least, a non-material (hence called abstract by
subjective mental amplitude * is multiplied von Neumann) subjective ego that actually
by the objective physical amplitude as it cognizes everything.
should be for independent probabilities, and
this explains the Born rule.
More explicitly, with reference to table-
II above, for a given system described by the
general superposition state | > = Cn| n >,
the objective amplitude for collapse to state
|n> is the overlap function Cn = <n|>,
while the corresponding subjective amplitude
for the same is given by the comparison
function Cn*= < | n > representing the
knowledge of the objective amplitude Cn and
the probability is then given by the product of Figure 3.Schematic of an actual von Neumann measurement
these two amplitudes Pn = Cn*Cn = <|n > process.
<n|> = |Cn|2, which is the Born rule.
All the above different approaches
The process of observation is then a
suggest that we can interpret the formalism of
perception of the result of the system-apparata
quantum mechanics in a complete manner
interaction through the apparata-observer
only by interpreting the bra vector and the
interaction, where, as mentioned earlier, the
conjugate wave function as the mental
apparata include the measuring instruments
counterpart of the physical ket vector and the
and also the physical body (senses and the
corresponding wave function respectively.
brain etc.) of the observing subject. The actual
process of a measurement leading to the rise of
4.2. The measurement problem and definite knowledge of these observables
state collapse by the conscious proceeds by the following two sequences.
observer
In general, we must agree upon the fact that a
(a) Information Sequence (IS): The
measurement is completed only upon the
Physical part
observation of the results and not before that.
IS-1: Electromagnetic signals from the system
Otherwise, we have measurements with
(or apparata) to the sense organs,
unknown results or unobserved
measurements which serve no meaningful
IS-2: Nervous signals from the senses to the for the rise of definite knowledge are already
brain, adequately described by the quantum
IS-3: Excitation of a corresponding brain state formalism as tabulated in the above two tables.
or neural correlate (NC). To briefly explain with reference to fig-
As usual, these steps do proceed by the 3 above, we note that what is actually observed
familiar retarded waves in the forward time in any act of observation is the brain state or
direction. But, we get the knowledge by neural correlate | n(t2)> resulting from the
drawing inference through establishing a signals received through the sense organs and
causal linkage from the effects to the cause in a conveyed through the nerve channels to the
backward time direction by mentally reversing brain. The lack of definiteness before the
the time and the momenta in all processes observation vanishes upon the registering of
involved in the perception (fig. 3). this definite state as an element of knowledge.
This brain state has the corresponding pointer
It is common experience that our minds state |n(t1)> as its source and in its turn the
are endowed with the uncanny ability to move pointer state comes about because of
backwards in time by reversing the interaction with the system in state |n(t0)>.
information sequence. The ego focuses the The forward time sequence in the information
attention on the NC and identifies itself with it reception process in the objective half is
and then starts the process of time and through retarded signals and therefore there
momentum reversal of all the signals that led must be different successive times to, t1 and t2
to the formation of the NC. From the interface of the events at the system, instrument and
of the signals with the sense organs such as the brain respectively. Similarly, the processing in
eyes, a momentum reversal along a straight the brain for generation of knowledge must
line path from the reception point is mentally proceed via backward propagation (or mental
done backwards in time and results in the reversal) of the signal reception sequence. This
perception of the object outside. The cognition is the reason why we usually have the sense of
(definite knowledge of state) of the system or now in regard to any perception irrespective
object then takes place by comparison with of the distance of the object perceived.
previously stored images in the memory. Thus
the following knowledge sequence results: As in Cramers transactional
interpretation, we take the advanced signals to
be the momentum-reversed and time-reversed
(b) Knowledge Sequence (KS): The counterparts of the retarded signals. However
Psychic part in our interpretation, while matter-matter
KS-1: Mental reversal of the excitation of the interactions proceed through retarded
NC forming the brain state backwards in signals, in case of mind-matter interactions
time. resulting in knowledge, the ego sends forth
KS-2: Mental reversal of the nerve currents advanced signals to interpret the information
(from the senses to the brain) backwards in received and thereby gains knowledge.
time. First of all, the ego reverses the neural
KS-3: Mental reversal of the (electromagnetic) excitations which formed the correlate
signals received by the senses backwards in corresponding to | n(t2)>and thereby gains the
time. knowledge of the definite brain state; then it
moves backwards through the advanced nerve
The steps of the Knowledge Sequence
signals to the retinal image and then through
take place with the help of the advanced waves
the advanced electromagnetic waves it moves
propagating in the backward time direction
further backwards to reach the instrument at
from the observer. Usually, in the last step KS-
time t1 which collapses to a state of definite
3, the mental reversal occurs along a straight
knowledge |n(t1)>upon the gaining of this
line from the sense organ outwards, even if the
knowledge; and then moves on through the
original incoming retarded waves might have
advanced signals to the system to reach it at
suffered reflections or come along curved
time t0 and collapses it to the state
paths, as evidenced by the perception of virtual
|n(t0)>upon gaining such knowledge. The
images and mirages etc. It is rather surprising
association | n(t2)> |n(t1)>|n(t0)> by
to note that the steps in the Knowledge
the ego is done in such a manner that the
sequence as well as the comparison required
observer presumes that the pointer or the
system is observed now i.e. at time t2, the |n> of the apparata or with the brain states
moment of the observation of the brain state, | n> of the observer because of the
when the measurement process gets entanglement which guarantees one-to-one
completed. correspondence of all the three sets of states.
We now derive the Born rule in the One important theme of the
psychophysical interpretation. Consider a interpretation proposed here is the fact that
detailed POVM in a complete von Neumann any measurement must involve observation
measurement with the Projection operators alongside interaction and that the brain state
Pn = |n><n| (2) corresponding to the system state |>is
nothing but the image state <|. Thus, there
are two collapses: the objective one is the
as the Krauss Operators. The premeasurement interactive collapse and the subjective one is
state of the system is given by the the observational collapse that completes the
superposition measurement. Between the instant of
interaction (t1) and the moment of observation
|> = <n|>|n> (3) (t2) by an observer, the system and the
apparata remain entangled for all observers
which, upon measurement, evolves to the state while the subjective collapse occurs only for
post-measurement unnormalised state the observer(s) that make(s) the observation.
For all the other observers, they either have to
Pn|> = |n><n|> = <n|>|n make fresh observations on the apparata for
> = Cn|n > (4) themselves, or, have to believe in the account
given by the first observer, in order for
subjective collapse to occur in them regarding
For the rise of definite knowledge of the outcome of that particular measurement.
the post-measurement state of the system, the
observer has to compare the resulting state
Pn|> with the corresponding copies <m| 4.3. Non-locality and related paradoxes
previously stored in the memory, and then Quantum non-locality in all situations can be
update his knowledge accordingly by replacing explained as arising from the observers
|> with |n> as the new state of the system. inference basing on previous knowledge of
The result of this comparison correlations between constituent subsystems
of the whole system. The paradoxes cease to be
<m|Pn|> = <m|n><n|> =
paradoxes once the knowledge of the
mn<n|> = Cn (5)
conscious observer is taken into account as an
element of Reality. We consider below the
is non-vanishing only for the projected state most bizarre kind of non-local situation
due to the orthonormality of the basis states, possible - A Universal entanglement, and show
which are mutually non-overlapping distinct how the EPR like paradoxes are very simply
eigenstates explained.
<m|n>=mn. (6) Consider a system S (which may, for
example, be a Hydrogen atom) and the rest of
the world S = A U . Here, the apparata A
When the system was assumed to be in |> include the brain of the observer and is the
before measurement, it had unit norm: environment such that the whole objective
<|> = 1. Now, after the measurement, the Universe U = S U S = S U A U is described
norm of the new state Pn|> will give us the by the direct product Hilbert space HU =
measure of How much of |> was along |n> H HS = HSHAH . As per the
?, which is the probability of obtaining |n> : psychophysical interpretation, if, upon
Pn = <| PnPn |> = <| Pn |> = observation, the observers brain state
<|n><n|>= |Cn|2 (7) collapses to the state corresponding to the mth
pointer state confirming the eigenvalue m, the
system, the apparata and the environment all
Please note that the whole analysis can collapse simultaneously to the state m. The
be done equally well with the pointer states universal pre-measurement pure state is then
described by the globally entangled state in the En=E0 - En (11)

product space: The apparatus, thanks to decoherence,
|> =mCm |m>|m> = mCm acts in this case as a simultaneous measurer of
|m>|Am>| m>, m |Cm |2 = 1 (8) the energy of S and S both. In fact, it is highly
plausible that the total energy of the whole
universe is exactly zero (Bermann, 2009) i.e.,
The reason for the entanglement being E0=0, in which case, En=-En, and the pointer
the fact that the quantum numbers m are states precisely become the preferred basis
those that characterize globally conserved states of both the system and the rest of the
quantities like energy, charge, angular universe.
momentum etc. which follow from very
general symmetry considerations in quantum This means that a perfectly local
theory. The corresponding universal pure state measurement of the system energy by an
density matrix is given by: observer has yielded the value of the energy of
the rest of the world which obviously contains
=|><| vast regions of space, which are space-like
= mnCmC*n |m>|m><n|<n| separated from the system. Now, what does
this mean? Has any Einsteinian spooky-
=mnCmC*n|m>|Am>| m><n|<An|< n| action-at-a-distance taken place or is it merely
(9) the inference from previous knowledge?
Now suppose, an observer makes a It is clear that in all EPR-like situations
measurement of the energy of the system S it is the previous knowledge of the observer
with the help of apparata A, and as usual, we that leads to the correlatedness and there is
have to ignore the vast no of DOF of the rest of nothing surprising in this. The paradox is
the world which cannot be taken care of in any resolved once the previous knowledge of the
conceivable way. As is well known from the observer is taken into account through
environment-induced decoherence effects, psychophysical parallelism. The detailed
einselection (Zeh, 2010; Paz and Zurek, 1999) mechanism course has to be that of the
singles out the energy eigenbasis as the transactional scheme as shown by Cramer
preferred pointer basis for the rest of the world (Cramer, 1980) but with the additional
S = A U composed of the apparata A and the interpretation of the advanced waves as
environment . The environment states | n > knowledge producing signals for the conscious
thus also quickly become orthonormal, observer. The conclusion here is the same as
i.e.,< m| n>mn. This means that by tracing arrived at by Smerlak and Rovelli using the
over the states of , the reduced density matrix relational arguments (Smerlak and Rovelli,
sA for the system S and apparata A will be of
2007), the only difference is that they
the form: consciously try to avoid granting conscious
status to their observers.
sA =tr = mnmn Cm C*n |m>|Am><n|<An|
n |Cn|2 |n>< An|<n|<An|
5. Connection with other major
=n|Cn|2PnsPnA (10) interpretations
The psychophysical interpretation is in no
conflict with many of the major interpretations
where, Pnsand PnAare respectively the
proposed so far, rather it augments them by
projectors onto the eigenstates of the system
incorporating the conscious observer into the
and the apparata (observer).
scheme as an equal partner in determining
But, the total energy of the whole reality as a whole. Since it keeps intact the
universe is a globally conserved quantity formalism of QM, it obeys all the tenets of the
having value, say, E0. Now, making a Copenhagen interpretation. It bases itself on
measurement of energy on S, if one obtains a Heisenbergs knowledge interpretation with
value En for the system which has a probability the distinction that it is the bra that encodes
|Cn|2, then from previous knowledge of the the knowledge of the system which is
total energy for the whole universe, one represented by the ket. It supports the idea of
immediately gets the energy of the rest of the state collapse by the abstract ego of the
world i.e. S = A U as: conscious observer as envisaged in the von
Neumann approach to quantum It comprehends in its bosom the basic

measurements. As such, any interpretation truths of many previous interpretations.
that keeps intact the formalism of QM will It aids the comprehension of many of the
have no conflict with the psychophysical subtleties of quantum theory.
interpretation. It is based on the analysis of the process
It is truly a many-minds interpretation of conscious perception or
and reduces to the many-worlds comprehension.
interpretation in the special case when one It makes a quantum measurement a two-
takes, as usual, the bra as merely the step process. The state remains a
mathematical complex conjugate of the ket superposition as long as the knowledge
bereft of any mental significance. But, still remains indefinite, even though the system-
then, it requires in addition the existence of at apparata interaction might have collapsed the
least one conscious observer (mind or psyche), system to one of the eigenstates. The cognition
for otherwise, if all the worlds are bereft of of the pointer state finally leads to definite
consciousness then the interpretation problem knowledge and the knowledge state collapses.
itself vaporizes and vanishes in toto? The The pre-measurement physical state |> of
many worlds, in order to make sense, do the system matches with the pre-measurement
require the cognizance of at least one of them, knowledge state < | i.e. <|> =1, but the
like the one inhabited by us, by at least one post-interaction physical state say, |n>, does
conscious observer, which may of course be a not match with the knowledge state < |, but
cosmic observer, if not an earthling like us. It has an overlap Cn= <n|> 1, till the time of
is of course a matter of future research to truly observation of the pointer state. The post-
comprehend the relationship of such a cosmic observation knowledge state <n| matches
consciousness with individual centers of perfectly well with the post-interaction
consciousness inhabiting the component physical state |n> i.e. <n|n> =1, and we
worlds in regard to the measurement problem have the collapse process completed with the
(Pradhan, 2010). rise of definite knowledge. Between the time of
interaction and observation, the probabilistic
It respects and heavily depends upon
description holds just as it did for the pre-
the transactional interpretation through the measurement period. The great advantage is
use of past-directed advanced waves for that this formulation applies equally well not
gaining knowledge of the system. It extends only to classical and quantum measurements,
the relational interpretation by allowing for but also to any ordinary process of conscious
states relative to conscious observers. It perception and cognition.
augments Manousakis formulation of QM
(Manousakis, 2007) on the basis of conscious Determinism and Free-will
perceptions through the psychophysical This comprehensive Psychophysical
parallelism. It keeps alive the hopes of finding interpretation opens a new vista for perfect
the location in the physical brain for the ego, determinism in QM through the use of
the ultimate collapser of the state, as envisaged advanced waves. The future can be predicted
in the valiant attempts by Penrose-Hameroff with certainty if the advanced waves from the
(Hameroff and Penrose, 1996a) and Stapp future that are intercepted by the brain are
(Stapp, 2011) employing interactive dualism. captured and interpreted by the mind, which
We remark in this connection that quite unlike unfortunately is mostly preoccupied either
many of the founding fathers of QM, most of with the job of interpreting the continuously
us by routinely avoiding and shying away from impinging retarded wave signals through
matters relating to consciousness not only various senses or with the job of sending past-
impoverish science but also do a great directed waves from the present to recall past
disservice to its claims of being an unbiased events stored in the memory. Probably, the
approach to Truth.
way out is to stop this routine manner of
incessant conscious and subconscious activity
6. Discussion and Conclusion of the mind, to calm it down to an almost
The psychophysical interpretation is thoughtless condition, so that it can be made
comprehensive for three reasons: receptive enough to capture and interpret the
feeble advanced wave signals from the future
events reaching the brain.
The traditional argument (Feynman et it is the other way around: Perfect knowledge
al, 1964b) that a future event F, if known in (quantum determinism) of the future arises
advance, may be prevented from materializing only in one who has given up individual free-
by doing the right thing at the right time i.e. will.
by appropriate rearrangements made in the Traditionally, the advanced waves are
present set-up P, does not hold, since in that branded as unphysical and so also the mind. It
case it is the advanced wave signals from the may be conjectured that the mind is nothing
altered future event F due to the but a dynamic centre of incoming (from future
subsequently changed present P (including to present) and outgoing (from present to
those from P itself which is in the future of P), past) advanced waves around the Central
that would be intercepted and accordingly the Nervous System (CNS), always busy
latter (i.e., F) would be predicted in the first generating, receiving and interpreting them.
place and not F. If F were really not to happen The detailed mechanism of this knowledge-
due to our re-arrangements, then obviously producing aspect of advanced waves is again a
that could not be known as a future event. matter for serious future research.
Now, this brings in the question of free will
also into the picture can we not really make, Further, it should be made clear that
by our own free choice, such willful changes as neither the age-old Cartesian subject-object
would really prevent F from occurring? The dualism nor the psychophysical parallelism
answer is no, because of the logical may be an ultimate fact, and, the mind may
contradictions it engenders. finally prove to be having an upper hand over
matter, purely because of the subtlety of the
Further, when we meekly and readily advanced waves, if not for anything else. But,
accept without any arguments our inability to for the time being we do not delve into this
alter the past in any manner whatsoever, why issue and leave it for future work. The more
should we complain if we are likewise denied our mainstream researches are reoriented and
any free-will to intervene in the future affairs focused towards scientific investigations of
because of time-symmetry? For example, we consciousness with an open-mindedness that
are forced to helplessly accept the future should be characteristic of anything worth
certainty of death of every one of our human calling science, the more fascinating will be the
society, and that too, certainly within a span fundamental discoveries that are sure to be
of, say, a maximum of 125 years after the birth, made both in theory and experiments alike.
and we can hardly do anything about it! Only The road from the widely accepted materialist-
the exact timing of the event is uncertain, but reductionist approach to the Ultimate Reality
not the event itself! Or, to take less frightening has to be waded through an humble
examples, we cant change, by any amount of appreciation of the Dualist view in its fullest
exercise of our so-called free-will, either the ramifications as an interim measure, and then
universal constants (like Plancks constant) or and only then can we confidently work
the many constraints imposed by them on us towards a unified formalism of Reality as
or the cosmic-scale phenomena like the whole and a Truly Final Theory of
expansion of the universe or, for that matter, Everything.
even a solar eclipse. The concept of Free-will is
truly of extremely restricted validity. The Acknowledgements
question of free-will arises as long as the The author is grateful to L. P. Singh for
future is uncertain. But, once the future is discussions. The ongoing technical support of
known with certainty by an individual subject, Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar is also
the free-will simply ceases to operate. In fact, gratefully acknowledged.
References
Aharonov Y. Bergmann PG and Lebowitz JL. Time Mechanics. Trans. By Karanth D. 2011; arXiv:
Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement. 1107.3701.
Phys Rev B 1964; 134(6):1410-1416. Einstein A, Podolski B and Rosen N. Can quantum-
Albert DZ. Quantum Mechanics and Experience. mechanical description of physical reality be
HarvUniv Press, 1992 considered complete? Physical Review 1935; 47:777
Albert D. and Loewer B.Interpreting the Many Worlds 780
Interpretation.Synthese1988; 77:195-213. Everett III H. Relative State Formulation of Quantum
Aspect A, Dalibard J and Roger G. Experimental Test of Mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1957; 29:454-462
Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzer. Phys Feynman RP. The Character of Physical Law. MIT Press.
Rev Lett 1982;49: 1804 Mass, 1967; 129.
Aspect A, Grangier P and Roger G. Experimental Feynman RP, Leighton RB and Sands M. The Feynman
Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Lectures on Physics. Addison Wesley, 1964;1:26-1.
Gedanken experiment: A New Violation of Bell's Feynman RP et al. The Feynman Lectures on Physics,
Inequalities. Phys Rev Lett 1982; 49:91 Addison Wesley, 1964; 1:17-3
Atmanspacher H and Primas H. Paulis Ideas on Mind Gell-Mann M and Hartle JB. Classical equations for
and Matter in the Context of Contemporary quantum systems. Phys Rev D 1993;47: 3345.
Science.Journal of Consciousness Studies Gell-Mann M. and Hartle JB. Quantum mechanics in the
2006;13(3):5-50. light of quantum cosmology. Complexity, Entropy
Ballentine LE. The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum and the Physics of Information: Santa Fe Institute
Mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1970: 42: 358. Studies in the Science of Complexity. Addison-
Bassi A and Ghirardi GC. Dynamical Reduction Models. Wesley. 1991;VIII:425-458;
Physics Reports 2003;379: 257 Ghirardi GC. Rimini A. and Weber T. Unified Dynamics
Bell JS. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. for Micro and Macro Systems.Phys Rev D 1986;34
Physics 1964;1:195200. :470-491
Bell JS. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum Griffiths RB. Consistent Histories and the Interpretation
mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1966;38: 447. of Quantum Mechanics. J Stat Phys 1984;36:219.
Berman MS. On the Zero-energy Universe.Int Jour Griffiths RB. Consistent Quantum Theory. Cambridge
TheorPhys 2009;48:3278. University Press, 2002;
Birkhoff G and von Neumann J. The Logic of Quantum Hameroff SR and Penrose R. Conscious events as
Mechanics. Annals of Mathematics 1936;37:823843. orchestrated spacetime selections. Journal of
Bohm D. A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Consciousness Studies 1996; 3(1):3653
theory in terms of Hidden Variables. Phys Rev Hameroff SR and Penrose R. Orchestrated reduction of
1952;85(2): 166 quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model
Bohr N. Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality. for Consciousness, Mathematics and Computers in
Nature 1935; 12: 65 Simulation. 1996; 40:453-480.
Born M. On the quantum mechanics of collision Heisenberg W. ber den anschaulichen Inhalt der
processes. Zeit fur Phys. 1926; 38: 803. quanten-theoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeit
Chalmers DJ. The conscious mind: In search of a fur Phys 1927; 43: 172.
fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. New Heisenberg W. Physics and Philosophy.Harper &
York. 1996. Brothers. New York, 1958.
Cramer JG. Generalized Absorber Theory and the Home D. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Physics:
Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox. Phys Rev D 1980; An Overview from Modern Physics Perspectives.
22(2):362-376. Plenum Press. New Delhi. 1997.
Cramer JG. The Transactional Interpretation of London F and Bauer E.In Quantum Theory and
Quantum Mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1986; measurement. Wheeler JA. andZurek WH. (eds.)
58(3):647. (Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1983; 217-
Cramer JG. An Overview of the Transactional 259.
Interpretation. Int Jour Theor Phys 1988;27 (2): 227. Lindberg DC. The Genesis of Kepler's Theory of Light:
dEspagnat B. Conceptual foundations of Quantum Light Metaphysics from Plotinus to Kepler. Osiris.
Mechanics.2nd ed. Addison Wesley, 1976. 1986; 2nd Series, Vol. 2,
dEspagnat B.The quantum theory and reality.Scientific Manousakis E. Founding Quantum Theory on the basis
American 1979 Nov: 15881. of Consciousness. Found Phys 2007; 36:6
de Broglie L. The Interpretation of Wave Mechanics with Mermin ND. Isthe moon there when nobody looks?
the help of Waves with Singular Regions. Compt Rend Reality and the quantum theory. Physics Today 1985;
de Science 1927; 185 April: 38-47.
de Broglie L. Une interpretation nouvelle de la Nelson E. Derivation of the Schrdinger Equation from
mechanique ondulatoire: est-elle possible? NuovCim Newtonian Mechanics. Phys Rev 1966; 150:1079
1955; 1: 37 Newton I. Opticks, Book-I, Axiom-VII, (1730), 4th
de Witt B and Graham N. (eds). The Many-Worlds edition, reprinted, Dover, N Y, 1952.
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton, Omnes R. The Interpretation of Quantum
1973. Mechanics.Princeton. 1994
Dieks D and Vermaas PE. (ed.). The modal interpretation Page DN. Consciousness and the Quantum. arXiv: quant-
of quantum mechanics. Kluwer, 1998 ph/1102.5339
Dirac PAM. Principles of Quantum mechanics. Pauli W and Jung CG. Atom and the Archetype: Pauli-
Clarendon Press, Oxford. 3rd ed. 1947; 48. Jung letters: 1932-1958, ed. C. A. Meier. Princeton
Einstein A. Elementary Considerations on the University Press.Princeton, 2001.
Interpretation of the Foundations of Quantum
Paz JP. andZurek WH. Quantum limit of decoherence: von Neumann J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
Environment induced super selection of energy Mechanics. Princeton Univ Press, 1955.
eigenstates. Phys Rev Lett 1999; 82:5181-5185. Wheeler JA. The Past and the Delayed-Choice Double-
Pradhan RK. Are All Probabilities Fundamentally Slit Experiment. In Mathematical Foundations of
Quantum mechanical? Arxiv.org quant-ph 2011; Quantum Theory. Marlow AR. ed. Academic Press,
1105:5695. 1978; 948
Pradhan RK. Subject-object Duality and the States of Wheeler JA and Feynman RP. Interaction with the
Consciousness: A Quantum Approach, absorber as the mechanism of radiation. Rev Mod
NeuroQuantology 2010; 8(3):262-278. Phys 1945; 17: 157- 181.
Rovelli C. Relational Quantum Mechanics. Int Jour Wheeler JA and Feynman RP. Space-time approach to
Theor Phys 1996;35: 1637, non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys
Schrdinger E. Nature and the Greeks, Cambridge 1949; 21: 425 433.
University Press, 1954. Wigner EP. Remarks on the mind-body question. In The
Schrdinger E. What is Life? And Mind and Matter. Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked
Cambridge University Press, 1967. Ideas, Good IJ. ed. London: Heinemann, 1961;284-
Smerlak M and Rovelli C. Relational EPR. Found Phys 302.
2007; 37:427- 445. Zeh HD. The problem of conscious observation in
Stapp HP. Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Quantum Mechanical description. Found Phys Let
Nature. Found Phys 2001; 31:1465-99. 2000; 13: 221
Stapp HP. Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics, Zeh HD. Quantum discreteness is an illusion. Found
Springer-Verlag. Berlin. Heidelberg, 2009. Phys 2010; 40: 1476-1493.
Stapp HP. Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and
the Participating Observer. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, 2011.

Psychophysical Interpretation of Quantum Theory PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Psychophysical Interpretation of Quantum Theory PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NeuroQuantology | December 2012 | Volume 10 | Issue 4| Page 629-645 629

PradhanRK., Psychophysical interpretation of quantum theory

1. Introduction1 issues ever since its inception. The difficulty

Table 2. Elements of Psychophysical Interpretation

8. Probability Amplitude PHYSICAL OVERLAP: MENTAL COMPARISON:

described by the globally entangled state in the En=E0 - En (11)

Neumann approach to quantum It comprehends in its bosom the basic

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen