NITAAI-Veda.nyf > Soul Science God Philosophy > Science and Spiritual Quest > Section 2 Machine, Mind and Consciousness > MOLECULAR INTELLIGENCE > 5. Quantum Mechanics Cannot Explain Consciousness |

**5. Quantum Mechanics Cannot Explain Consciousness**

Sir Roger Penrose, in Shadows of the Mind, says that almost all
the laws of science are computational in nature—these are expressed as
mathematical equations, which take the value of some physical parameters as inputs, and can be
solved for any given initial conditions. Interestingly, as we move into the
realm of subatomic particles, these classical laws give way to a theory
that can only predict the probabilities
of different experimental outcomes, to an extraordinarily accurate degree. This
theory is called Quantum Mechanics. Because of its probabilistic nature, it
might offer some hope of explaining
consciousness.A close examination ofquantum mechanics will reveal that even its
laws are completely deterministic.In this section, we argue that Quantum Mechanics cannot explain consciousness. A
close examination of quantum mechanics will reveal that even its laws are
completely deterministic. The probabilities of different observations
arise only when a measurement attempt is
made on a system. Moreover, these probabilities are precisely computable, and
have agreed with experiments with extraordinary accuracy. Furthermore, there is an inherent disconnect in quantum
mechanics between the quantum evolution process and the measurement process,
leading many scientists, including Einstein and Sir Roger Penrose, to believe that quantum mechanics is
an incomplete theory.

"The more success the quantum mechanics has, the sillier it
looks." -Albert Einstein to Heinricn Zangger, May 20, 1912

"/, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw
dice. "—Albert Einstein [7], on Quantum Physics.

"/ definitely believe that Quantum Mechanics is not a final
theory, and it is incomplete. I agree with Einstein in that sense." -Sir
Roger Penrose to Dr. T. D. Singh [6]

"Very interesting theory - it makes no sense at
all."—Groucho Marx

In quantum mechanics, every object has a state, ¥, associated with
it. Its value is a complex number. The state can be expressed as a function of
the position, momentum, energy, or any other
measurable attribute of the object. This attribute is called the basis.
On the other hand, the state is an intrinsic property of the object—its value
does not depend upon the choice of a basis. When scientists want to make predictions about
some attribute, like position or momentum of an object, they represent the
state in terms of a suitable basis. To draw a crude parallel with geometry,
the state is analogous to the actual
position of a point, and the basis is analogous to the coordinate system. The
coordinates of any given point on the plane will be different in the Cartesian
and polar systems, for example.Let's
take an example to show how the position of a particle can be measured,given
that the particle is in a particular state *F(x). The state, in this case is a
function of position, x, given as:

>P(xi) = 0.6

*P(X2) = 0.8

*P(x) = 0, everywhere else.

For a particle in this state, quantum mechanics tells us that the
probabilities of finding the particle at positions xi andx2 are
|*P(xi)|2=0.36and |*P(x2) |2=0.64. This means that any particular measurement will give us a definite value of
the particle's position, but before making the measurement we cannot predict
with certainty what the outcome will be. Further, this uncertainty is expressed precisely as the above
probabilities.Laws of quantum mechanics describe the evolution of the quantum
state function, V, with time based on external conditions. These laws are expressed as the well-known Schrodinger's
wave equation [5]:

This wave equation precisely defines the quantum mechanical state
of a particle at any given time. You can think of it as the "Newton's Laws
of Motion" for quantum mechanics. Much like the Newton's Laws, the Schrodinger equation is
completely deterministic—there are no probabilities or error margins lurking in
this equation. Perhaps surprisingly, we have discovered that there is no indeterminism within laws of quantum
mechanics!Then where does the probabilistic component enter quantum mechanics?
The problem arises when we try to make real world measurements of a particle in a given quantum
state. We find that different measurements on different particles in the same
state yield different values, with the probabilities precisely governed by the state function, *¥. This problem is
called the "Measurement Paradox."Many different interpretations of
the measurement problem have been proposed, like the Copenhagen
interpretation, the many-worlds
interpretation, the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation, Transactional
interpretation, and Quantum logic, to name just a few. Quantum mechanics itself
does not provide any explanation for the
indeterminacy in measurements. All it provides us is with a precise way to
compute these probabilities, but not any physical explanation of why there is
an uncertainty in the first place. In
this sense, quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory of the physical world.
This has led scientists like Sir Roger Penrose to believe that a new science is
needed to explain consciousness. we
certainly don't believe that consciousness can be understood in terms of
present day science. "—Sir Roger Penrose [6]"We can admittedly find
nothing in physics or chemistry that has
even a remote bearing on consciousness. Yet all of us know that there is such a
thing as consciousness, simply because we have it ourselves. Hence,
consciousness must be part of nature, or
more generally, of reality, which means that, quite apartfrom the laws of
physics and chemistry, as laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider
laws of quite a different nature.
"—Niels Bohr

"Whatever process is going on is definitely outside the
present theory. We certainly need a new theory to understand these
phenomena."—Sir Roger Penrose [6]"Another reason for
the incompleteness is
because of the existence
of consciousness and there is no room for it in the physical theories we
now know. Quantum mechanics doesn 't have a place for it. "—Sir Roger Penrose [6]A scientific theory is based upon
observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and searching for an explanation. As
long as a proposed theory continues to explain observations, it is accepted and used to make future predictions.
But if later an observation is made that contradicts the theory, then the
search starts all over again for a better theory. Thus, scientific theories
have a lifecycle, beginning with an unexplained
observation (the falling of an apple), proceeding to the formulation of a
proposed explanation (Newton's Laws of Motion), which continue to
adequately explain observations and
become a theory (Classical mechanics), until another scientist (Einstein),
proposes a better theory (Theory of Relativity) that can better explain
observed phenomena. A similar example is
followed by theories for the structure of an atom, from the Bohr's model to
Quantum Mechanics.This shows that physical theories are temporary in nature,
and newer theories quickly replace older
ones as they become 'invalid.' if we see discrepancy in a paradigm in the
search for truth, we should change it to a better paradigm. On the other hand,
spiritual paradigm or timeless truth or
Absolute Truth or eternal truth should be unchanging."—T. D. Singh [6]On
the other hand, mathematical theorems are non-transient in nature—once a result
is proved, it continues to be true
forever! Moreover, mathematics provides the framework for the formalization and
understanding of physical theories. In some sense, physical theories seem to
emerge out of mathematical abstractions.
The most notable example is Einstein's discovery of the theory of relativity,
without performing any experiments, and validating his explanations against
any observations at all. Later his
theory was validated to a much greater accuracy— much more than what was
possible in his time.

"Mathematics is the language in which the gods speak to
people. "-Plato"One cannot understand ... the universality of the
laws tf nature, the relationship of things, without an understanding of mathematic. There is no other way to do it.
"—Richard Feynman