Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition by Bruce Rosenblum (PDF)

Description

In trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics, the most successful theory in science and the basis of one-third of our economy. They found, to their embarrassment, that with their theory, physics encounters consciousness. Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and anecdotes about the theory’s developers. They present the quantum mystery honestly, emphasizing what is and what is not speculation. Quantum Enigma’s description of the experimental quantum facts, and the quantum theory explaining them, is undisputed. Interpreting what it all means, however, is heatedly controversial. But every interpretation of quantum physics involves consciousness. Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself–and encounter quantum mechanics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing. Readers are brought to a boundary where the particular expertise of physicists is no longer the only sure guide. They will find, instead, the facts and hints provided by quantum mechanics and the ability to speculate for themselves.In the few decades since the Bell’s theorem experiments established the existence of entanglement (Einstein’s “spooky action”), interest in the foundations, and the mysteries, of quantum mechanics has accelerated. In recent years, physicists, philosophers, computer engineers, and even biologists have expanded our realization of the significance of quantum phenomena. This second edition includes such advances. The authors have also drawn on many responses from readers and instructors to improve the clarity of the book’s explanations.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Before reading this book my thinking on the interaction of quantum mechanics and consciousness was:1. Quantum mechanics states that “nothing exists until it is measured.”2. An object can’t be measured unless there is a conscious mind to measure it.3. Therefore Quantum Mechanics implies that consciousness (God) created the universe.This book was important to me because it broadened my understanding of the “enigma” that I have thought about for much of my life — did consciousness create the universe or did the universe create consciousness?It is miraculous that this book was ever written. Scientists, at least in their public lives, must rigorously separate their work from their philosophy or theology. It is career suicide for a scientist to even speculate on the idea of consciousness creating the universe. The authors have engaged in exactly that kind of speculation. They have trespassed into the forbidden encounter of consciousness with the universe.The starting point is that even the most agnostic of physicists have pointed out how amazing it is that the universe, from its largest macrostructures to its tiniest subatomic particles, conforms to precise mathematical formulas conceived by the human brain. Why IS the universe so orderly when odds are it should have been disorderly? Was the universe conceived by the “Old One” (Einstein’s reference to a Divine Creator)? Did the universe imbed itself in the creation of consciousness, or did consciousness imbed itself in the creation of the universe? Does OUR IMAGINING the past, present, and future bring it into being for our micro-universe of personal experience?The ENIGMA of Quantum Mechanics is whether reality creates consciousness or whether consciousness creates reality. That is because the heart of Q.M. is that an object does not come into existence until it is observed and measured. This is not only a weird idea, but a revolting one. Albert Einstein never reconciled himself to it. He famously said, “I like to believe the moon is there even when I’m not looking at it.” Einstein dedicated the later years of his life to refuting Q.M, debating furiously with the likes of Niels Bohr. He always came up short. The authors make clear that despite its counterintuitive weirdness that:============Quantum mechanics is stunningly successful. Not a single prediction of the theory has ever been wrong. One-third of our economy depends on products based on it. However, quantum mechanics also displays an enigma. It tells us that physical reality is created by observation, and it has “spooky actions” instantaneously influencing events far from each other-without any physical force involved. Seen from a human perspective, quantum mechanics has physics encountering consciousness.============To comprehend this enigma you’ll need to be intimately familiar with the thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat, understanding why the imaginary cat goes from an undetermined state to life or death the instant it is observed, and why the transition to a state of life or death appears to create a history of causality. Observation appears to define the life or death event. Causality is then created backward from the point of observation. Of course the “cat” is a proxy for all phenomena in the universe. It illustrates that at a macro-level cause appears to create effect whereas the quantum reality is that observation creates effect and effect creates cause.The essential insight of the book is whether the observation that materializes objects into reality has to be made by a CONSCIOUS entity. Does a distant star come into being when a scientist looks at it through a telescope, or does it come into being because its light impacts the telescope, even if no conscious mind is there to observe it? The book answers the question this way:===========Entanglement with the world constitutes observation, and the atom collapses into one box or the other as soon as its wave-function enters the box pair and encounters the Geiger counter. After that, the cat is either dead or alive. Period!============I interpret that to mean that “big” objects at the visible level come into existence because their macro-effects such as emission of light and gravitational attraction make them “observable” to inanimate objects in their environment. Thus, the moon WAS “there” even when Albert wasn’t looking at it. But at the subatomic level particles ARE too small to influence their environment and therefore they DON’T exist in any definite state of being UNTIL some conscious entity uses an instrument to measure them.Thus, the book proves, at least to my satisfaction, that there is no way of knowing whether consciousness created the universe or whether the universe created consciousness. Faith remains faith and science remains science. Both have survived their forbidden encounter and come away unscathed.However, this is just my interpretation. The authors explain that there are currently 10 interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that attempt to correlate consciousness to the physical realities of the universe. They are:1. Copenhagen (named for Niels Bohr and other physicists at the University of Copenhagen) is the “orthodox” view that observation creates microscopic reality2. Extreme Copenhagen – the view that consciousness creates ALL reality, macro and micro3. Decoherence – an extension of Copenhagen dealing with the interaction of micro particles with the macro world.4. Many Worlds – Each quantum possibility creates a separate universe5. Transactional – an observation in the present instant creates the entire reality chain from the beginning of the event to its present observation.6. Bohm (named for David Bohm) – Quantum events are not random but are cause by a hidden “quantum force”7. Ithaca (named for the physicists working at Cornell University) – the uncertainty is in the observation, not the state of the particle that is being observed.8. Quantum information9. Quantum logic10. GRW (Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber) – objects are brought into reality by the RANDOM collapse of their waveforms (having nothing to do with observation). When one atom in an object materializes, it interacts such that all other atoms in the object materialize. That is why macro objects ALWAYS exist, but micro particles exist only when observed. Each individual atom might take a billion years to randomly materialize from its waveform, but large objects consist of quadrillions of atoms, so they materialize immediately.Thus, there is a sense of COMPLETENESS about this book in that it has discussed in some detail these ten interpretations covering the spectrum of current knowledge of Quantum Theory.IMO this book is not only intensely profound but outstandingly comprehensible and enjoyable for lay readers. It is one of the most meaningfully illustrated books I’ve ever read. It is lacking nothing in its explanation of the fundamental Q.M. concepts that govern the universe. Just make sure you have made a casual acquaintance with Schrodinger’s feline of indeterminate life before you start reading!

⭐Well, it IS a curious thing- try as physicists might to come up with purely “objective” quantum mechanics without need of an “observation”- that a subjective element seems to creep its way back into the standard interpretations of QM. This bothers many working physicists no end, who naturally want a “clean” theory, and the attempts to exorcise the ghost of consciousness have been mighty. Even the great Murray Gell-Mann has done his best to get rid of the ghost, albeit unsuccessfully. For, you see, even if you could successfully remove conscious interaction (aka “the observer”) out of the direct subatomic realm, you still have to somehow account for the selective process the environment does when a quantum event interacts with the macroscopic world around it. Gell-Mann, for instance, proposed his “information gathering utilization systems” (IGUS), organisms which recognize and process information and patterns in the environment. Does this look to you, dear reader, like a satisfactory resolution of the subjective element in physics? Okay, me neither…While modern theories of decoherence partly explain the environmental interaction process, they don’t completely solve the mystery of why one particular outcome occurs vs. another…(known as the “superselection” problem in physics). Why this and not that? The mystery, alas, remains. Quantum mechanics by itself currently doesn’t seem to have the answer within it’s own scope without appealing to higher levels of complexity, although recent attempts within QM itself may be promising, such as decoherence theorist Wojciech Zurek’s “quantum darwinism”.Even allowing for the difficulties in producing a “clean” theory without need of an observer, simple logic should caution us to be skeptical of the idea that what is responsible for the “collapse” of a wavefunction is human consciousness itself. There are too many good reasons (some are just common sense) why human interaction is irrelevant in the evolution of quantum processes. Difficulties in proving this is so (currently) shouldn’t override the observation that “conscious-collapse” is a questionable premise. *Something* occurs to bring an abrupt singular outcome to a linear superposition of quantum potentialities, but what? And just as importantly, *when* does it happen along the chain of a wavefunction evolution? I don’t know, sorry. Amazon readers will doubtless be disappointed I can’t solve the measurement problem :-). I take solace knowing that the real experts- i.e., actual physicists – can’t agree amongst themselves either. Probably each theorist seems to have his/her own favorite interpretation of the formalism which seems obvious and everyone who disagrees just can’t think very clearly :-). As a university physicist once complained to me, “modern physics is a real mess”. Hence the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, which can’t all be true. Very likely, maybe none of them are true…at least in present form. But, were I a betting man, I’d wager the most likely NOT to be true would be this idea that human consciousness is needed to produce a “collapse”. Simple common sense should here say “not likely”.But since consciousness seems to be such a theme in this particular book, let’s run with it for a moment. Those who want to insert human consciousness into QM have a problem explaining why Nature is so anthropomorphic, as Abner Shimony observed long ago. Why just human consciousness? How about an ant’s observation? How about a single cell? And so on. A. Shimony (and others) have pointed out that anyone who wants to stick with “consciousness” as a factor in subatomic processes is logically compelled to the conclusion that we cannot limit conscious interaction to merely humans, and one needs to adopt a quasi-Whiteheadian view of nature, which even a few physicists have found compelling. If one buys this chain of reasoning, one comes to the realization the standard “conscious collapse” mechanism (London and Bauer, Wigner, Henry Stapp and so on) should extend far broader than merely human mental actions on physical systems; the logic leads to some type of proto-consciousness (aka panpsychism or less boldly, Whiteheadian panexperientialism) which might be sufficient to induce “collapses”, even by primitive biological organisms (or in some versions, even within seemingly non-sentient matter). Along this line, as philosopher David Chalmers speculates, mind (or “experience”) might be an irreducible, fundamental property of nature. (However, let me say here one can appreciate the issues that Chalmer’s “hard problem” brings up without necessarily viewing consciousness as a direct agent in wavefunction collapses).But the end result is, if one buys the idea that consciousness is somehow directly involved in subatomic processes (which seems to be hinted at by the authors of the present book), one logically must extrapolate into a quasi-Whiteheadian view of the world, if not some type of panpsychism itself… The latter would be some form of a modern “animism”, when said and done- not necessarily the same as primitive versions found throughout various pre-modern cultures, but a type of animism nonetheless. Which, oddly enough, doesn’t seem to be necessarily “disallowed” by modern physics…but although some type of sophisticated animism seems like an interesting conjecture, is it plausible? The same can be asked regarding Whitehead’s “panexperientalism”. The beauty of inserting any mode of “consciousness” into any current picture is that it is a buzzword that sells books, and nobody knows enough about it to say if one’s theory is “wrong” or not… So speculations on panpsychism or Whiteheadian experientialism can be made freely with little fear of empirical rebuttal.But who knows…these types of books may be on the right track emphasizing consciousness and the skeptics may be flat out wrong. The fact that the subjective aspects of consciousness remain a mystery even to this day leads me to suspect the usual “reductive” methodology may be inadequate on this level, but I can only speculate. Many scientists feel, of course, consciousness will eventually be well understood and a complete “physicalist” description will be forthcoming that is agreeable to an orthodox reductive methodology…but judging by the frustrating inability of current physicalist descriptions to account for even the simplist features of human subjectivity, one should reasonably be allowed to explore other perspectives looking at consciousness, perhaps such as a strongly “informational” perspective. And let’s not forget, as Whitehead reminds us, there is an “experiential” aspect of reality that present physical science seems poorly equipped to account for. Modern physics research seems to function well enough by endeavoring to eliminate the “consciousness” aspect as much as possible (which seems to be a carry-over tradition from classical physics, for better or worse), and this certainly seems successful as far as it goes, but when we weigh what this approach brings to the table for a “worldview” or a comprehensive “ontology”, it simply is too limited. You and I both know something important is missing. Since physical science enjoys such an authoritative role in our postmodern cultural mentality (at least among the educated), the limitations of a particular area of focus (i.e., a particular methodological bias) should also be kept in mind, yes? If so, please remind some of our popular science writers, some of whom seem oblivious that anything exists other than the latest buzz in the physical sciences…Of course, the “objective” physicists will continue to search for a “pure” interpretation of their discipline and stay committed to an “objective” interpretation of QM. Is this a misguided enterprise? Not necessarily. It seems reasonable to suspect the subatomic realm has no direct dependence on conscious human interventions, perhaps suggesting that environmental decoherence factors may play a more important role. The fact that modern interpretations have trouble accounting for a “clean” measurement solution perhaps suggests the entire topic needs to be moved up to sciences working at a level of more complexity. Or perhaps QM is poorly formed at present and the future will find such objective purity within QM itself, who knows. But current offerings (spontaneous collapse, consistent-histories, transactional interpretation, etc etc) all have their problems, including the selection outcome I mentioned earlier- why one result and not another?Good luck on the “objective” objective, physicists- even if you’re on the right track you seem to have your hands full… But at any rate, back to book reviews. Three and 1/2 stars. Some experts have criticized the authors for sloppy use of ordinary language, especially centered around that nebulous term “observation”; or that the authors have misled readers by deliberately stacking the deck to make descriptions look like consciousness is a likely feature…I see the critics’ points. The language in the book DOES tend to be misleading.With an emphasis in the book on consciousness as a conjectured player in physics, of course not all physicists will be pleased. And NOT just because they’re trying to “hide” something in the closet, which I think is a silly statement. Nobody is trying to “hide” an embarrassing secret here… It’s just that the mainstream of physicists perhaps do NOT see consciousness as a determining factor in quantum measurements.Anyway, at least the book has decent descriptions of some of the startling implications of modern physics, far above the ridiculous new-agey, consciousness-creates-reality crap that seems to abound on this theme. And it serves to get Joe-Blow-Public interested in reading about science, so I as a layman am more forgiving of poorly-framed arguments than picky Mr. Rigorous (Rigormortis?) Physicist…heck, I’m often guilty of sloppy language myself 🙂

⭐Great book – a must for everybody – students, people with or without background in physics. Easy to read having in mind the subject. So, don’t be afraid of it! There is ton of literature on similar topics that is totally inaccessible for most, but this is not the case.I find the second edition worth it as it has some important additions.

⭐Lacks the experience of life. The Buddha had the experience and wisdom way before this writer.

⭐An excellent book, requiring some thought – not an easy read, but I didn’t want that. Also, the Kindle app is very good and easy to use.

⭐Best book of this type I’ve ever read. That includes A Brief History of Time. But, for my poor brain, not easy

⭐Best read in tandem with anything about Biocentrism.

Keywords

Free Download Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition in PDF format
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition PDF Free Download
Download Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition 2011 PDF Free
Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition 2011 PDF Free Download
Download Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition PDF
Free Download Ebook Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness 2nd Edition