QV5: The Conscious Universe

The Quantum Veil
Part 5
The Conscious Universe

In my past segments on “The Quantum Veil,” I have relied heavily on Roger Penrose’s ideas about quantum physics and consciousness. I have done this because I think he has seen the most helpful path through the complexities of these topics. But he is not the only person who sees a connection between quantum physics and consciousness. In 1990, Springer-Verlag published a book by Menas Kafatos, a physicist, and Robert Nadeau titled The Conscious Universe. This book was motivated by the results of a particular experiment which confirmed the predictions of quantum physics against an hypothesis put forward by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1935.

The hypothesis put forward by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, named the EPR hypothesis, attempts to show that quantum physics either violates relativity by requiring faster than light communication or is incomplete because it does not account for the dependency resulting from quantum entanglement is a realistic way. One example of quantum entanglement is the simultaneous emission of two photons by an atom whose electron has lost energy and changed its orbit. Conservation of momentum requires that states of the two photons be mirror images of each other. This means that the measurement of the state of one photon will instantaneously require the other photon to take on the opposite state. Einstein called this instantaneous action, “spooky action at a distance.”

The EPR hypothesis proved impossible to test until John Bell, a particle physicist at the European Center for Nuclear Research, devised an experiment to test the predictions of quantum theory against the EPR hypothesis. The technical requirements of Bell’s experiment could not be accomplished until 1982 when Alain Aspect of the University of Orsay in France performed the test that confirmed, indeed, there is an instantaneous synchronization of quantum states when a measurement is made on one of the photons. This instantaneous action means that quantum physics exhibits ‘non-local’ attributes. It is non-local in the sense that one photon cannot be treated independently of the other and the dependency is beyond our ability to understand realistically. The two photons seem to be part of an undivided whole.

Kafatos and Nadeau draw two conclusions from this development in physics. The first is that this undivided whole is a property of the entire universe by virtue of the presumption that all phenomenon in the universe is taking place at the quantum level and that quantum entanglement is the presumed normal situation:

• “What this means, in short, is that non-locality can be assumed to be a fundamental property of the entire universe.” (The Conscious Universe, p 9.)
• “And yet we will also make the case that the discovery that non-locality is a new fact of nature allows us to ‘infer,’ although certainly not to ‘prove,’ that the universe can be viewed as a conscious system.” (The Conscious Universe, p 3.)

The second conclusion is that this undivided whole cannot, even in principle, be the proper subject of scientific inquiry:

• “Whether one chooses to regard this indivisible whole as having an ontological dimension is, of course, a matter of personal belief or conviction. And yet it seems clear that any ontological or metaphysical questions that we might choose to raise regarding this indivisible whole, or what we have chosen to call reality-in-itself, cannot be legislated over by the truths of science for the reason we have already noted – this reality cannot ‘in principle’ be disclosed or described by scientific theory or experiment.” (The Conscious Universe, p 10.)

It is my opinion that Roger Penrose does a better job of showing the conscious nature of the universe by proposing the actual biological means that life uses to tap into this universal consciousness. But Kafatos and Nadeau have raised the metaphysical question directly where Penrose prefers to stop short. The implication of Kafatos and Nadeau’s conclusions is that if one chooses to attribute this universal consciousness to God, a God who cares about our destiny, and if one views quantum physics as the hand of God, such views are reasonable metaphysical interpretations of our universe.

Some view this attempt to connect God to physics with discomfort. Lawrence Fagg a physicist at Catholic University fears this type of discussion leads to a god-of-the-gaps, or a god that is limited or perhaps too well defined for his taste (see Divine Action and God of the Gaps by Lawrence Fagg at http://www.metanexus.net/institute/.) That is a warning worth listening to and one I have tried to honor by insisting that faith must come first and that one’s sense of God’s presence and intent come through faith and not physics. But a small group of writers about religion have raised the question of whether faith is necessarily delusional or at least a palliative activity to help us feel more at home in a universe that is indifferent to our fate. That question, once raised, must be answered or one must accept that faith is not a primary reality in life.

It is also worth repeating at this point that all of the above discussion and argument is speculative. No one can say with certainty what lies behind the quantum veil, but reason can be a guide in finding a way through the maze of science to arrive at a possible reconciliation between science and religion.

So what is Roger Penrose’s proposal for biological systems? Stuart Hameroff, M.D., Department of Anesthesiology, Arizona Health Sciences Center, first put forth, in the 1980’s, the actual proposal that Penrose describes. I described the tubulin protein in the previous segment. It consists of two parts named alpha-tubulin and beta-tubulin. The physical shape of the combined protein can be controlled by the position of a single electron located between the two parts. These tubulin molecules are usually organized into long filaments called microtubules. Microtubules are hollow cylindrical tubes with a 25 nm (nm: nanometer or one billionth of a meter) outside diameter and a 14 nm inside diameter. Multiple microtubules are sometimes found twisted together to form larger structures.

Microtubules play a crucial role in the life of the cell. They are formally part of the cytoskeleton, which gives the cell physical structure. They exist in all cells of almost any kind of living cell, plant or animal, the only exceptions being blue-green algae, bacteria and viruses. For example, Microtubules form the cilia of paramecium, a one-celled animal. Microtubules play a critical role in cell division by physically separating the nucleus into two parts. Microtubules also form the protein highways that guide proteins as they travel between the cell wall and the interior of the cell. In the brain, microtubules carry the neurotransmitter molecules back and forth as needed by the cell. They play a role in the strengthening of connections between neurons.

Penrose contends that the shape of the microtubules, basically a hollow tube, is ideal for making use of quantum coherence. Quantum coherence is the phenomenon responsible for lasers and superconductivity, among other things. Superconductivity is the ability of electricity to flow without resistance through a medium under the right conditions. Penrose and Hameroff propose that quantum coherence in the microtubules of the brain lasts long enough for meaningful decision-making to take place. It is essential that the coherence be isolated from the environment so that the coherence does not collapse too quickly due to the random influences of the surrounding tissue. Hence, the shape of the microtubules is ideal for such isolation. The microtubules act like miniature receivers tuned in to the universe. Penrose is insistent: whatever process that is taking place inside microtubules, it must be non-computational and non-deterministic for consciousness to take place. For the person of faith, that leaves the door open for belief in a God who will, if we acquiesce, participate with us in the decisions that affect our destiny.

What evidence is there that microtubules and their sensitive quantum components, tubulin, are responsible for consciousness? Penrose and Hameroff consider the case where consciousness is absent. Unconsciousness can be induced by anesthesia in the right concentration. There are numerous anesthetic agents that have little in common with each other in terms of chemical composition. For example nitrous oxide is N(2)O and chloroform is CHCl(3). Even the chemically inert gas xenon can act as an anesthetic agent! Although the pathway through which anesthetics act to induce unconsciousness is poorly understood, Hameroff and others have proposed that there are subtle electrical forces within the tubulin molecule that are nullified by anesthetic agents. Penrose summarizes:

• “It is a strong possibility that the relevant proteins are the tubulin dimmers in neuronal microtubules – and that it is the consequent interruption of the functioning microtubules that result in the loss of consciousness.” (Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, p. 370.)

It is no accident that the English words ‘consciousness’ and ‘conscience’ are derived from the same root. Conscience is the awareness (consciousness) of moral choices and the preference for choosing right over wrong. Both words come from the Latin, scire, to know, discern, to separate one thing from another (to choose). The prefix ‘con’ means ‘together with.’ So to have a conscience or to have consciousness both relate to being ‘with knowledge’. The English word ‘science’ also comes from the same Latin root, scire. Religion has been shaping our understanding of right and wrong for thousands of years and science has been shaping our understanding of the universe for almost as long. Given the relatively recent antagonism between science and religion, it is intriguing to contemplate that both types of understanding might come from beyond the quantum veil.

If I do take on the task of writing about faith, it would be interesting to approach the subject through the phenomenon of consciousness. But, it is self-consciousness that really interests me and there is anecdotal evidence that self-consciousness is the first to go when one goes under a general anesthetic, and the last to be revived when one comes back out. Sometimes patients will tell well-protected secrets to complete strangers when they are being awakened from anesthesia after a surgical procedure. The common name for nitrous oxide is ‘laughing gas’ because it causes a mild euphoria. Ethanol, the alcohol found in alcoholic beverages, is also thought to lower self-consciousness and ethanol is chemically similar to ether, another anesthesia. George Bernard Shaw is said to have quipped, “Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life.”

And so it is fascinating to me to think that the part of consciousness called self-consciousness, which we sometimes find painful enough to administer an anesthetic called alcohol, might be the pathway to another way of dealing with life. Faith is ultimately a decision we make about how we see ourselves related to life itself, to the universe, to our fellow beings and to our own self. And we just might need some extra help in making that decision.

QV4: The Universe Chooses

The Quantum Veil
Part 4
The Universe Chooses

In my past segments, I have presented the argument that something non-computational and non-deterministic is taking place in human consciousness. In so doing, I have introduced the comparison of human beings to machines, particularly computers. On the surface the comparison is preposterous. Ask anybody! No serious person takes the comparison as a realistic possibility. Most people seem to know intuitively that people are capable of more than machines. So why not drop the whole subject and talk about something more interesting? Because we are interested in where reason will lead us in the search for God and because there are thoughtful and intelligent people who do believe that the universe is a giant computer.

For example, John Tierney, a science writer for the New York Times, states, “it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation” (“Our Lives Controlled From Some Guy’s Couch” by John Tierney, New York Times, August 14, 2007). In other words, the universe is a giant computer. He has based this conclusion on the work of Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University. Professor Bostrom, for the record, states, “My gut feeling, and it’s nothing more than that, is that there’s a 20 percent chance we’re living in a computer simulation.”

But Mr. Tierney also raises the interesting question of how we should behave if, indeed, we are the products of a giant computer simulation. He presents the alternatives of living the traditional moral life or the ‘interesting’ life, the moral life presumably being dull. Perhaps, he muses, “You should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation.” Presumably, that might include all sorts of nefarious dealings to enhance one’s interest quotient. (It is intriguing to note that this choice between the ethical life and the interesting life is exactly the choice presented by Soren Kierkegaard in Either/Or more than 160 years ago.) From my point of view, the salient connection is that one’s view of the universe has moral repercussions and there are at least some people who think that the universe is a computer simulation. But perhaps Bostrom and Tierney have not pushed that thought through to the question about determinism.

So the question remains, if the universe is non-deterministic, where does that come from? Roger Penrose is a mathematician and a physicist and he thinks that ultimately one has to come to terms with the basic physics. Perhaps, a biologist would direct us to a biological answer. One is always most comfortable with the tools one knows best. But physics does occupy a unique position to address the question. We can make the case that quantum physics controls the action of atomic particles which make up atoms which form biological molecules which are the building blocks of all biological entities. The counter argument is that molecules – especially biological molecules – are much too large to be affected by quantum actions. Certainly the chemical composition is not affected by quantum actions.

Perhaps not directly, but remember that there are some very subtle processes taking place in the living cell. I shall use as my example an important biological molecule called tubulin, which Penrose introduces late in his book as one answer to the search for a science of consciousness. Tubulin consists of two separate units called alpha tubulin and beta tubulin, each composed of about 450 amino acids. Amino acid molecules are the building blocks of biological proteins. This tubulin dimer appears in two configurations that differ in the separation angle between the alpha and beta parts. In one configuration the angle of separation is about 30 degrees more than in the other configuration. These two different configurations of tubulin are controlled by the position of a single electron that resides midway between the two parts. Tubulin plays a significant part in the structure and life of the cell. The significant problem of protein folding is a generalization of the tubulin example. The placement of a few electrons can affect the particular way that a protein folds. Improperly folded proteins have been implicated in several disease processes, most notably the prion diseases of creutzfeltd-jakob disease in humans and ‘mad cow’ disease in animals. DNA folding and RNA folding can affect the genes that are expressed within the cell. Folding of biological molecules is a huge area of research and folding can be controlled by the position of a few electrons, and that is within the power of quantum action.

Therefore, Penrose traces the source of non-deterministic action to quantum physics. But he does not think that quantum action on a few electrons is sufficient to give rise to consciousness. Penrose goes straight to the critical dilemma at the heart of quantum theory: the measurement problem. The measurement problem arose because quantum theory did not address in detail the issue of when the wave nature prevailed and when the particle nature prevailed. The theory says that the wave nature prevails until a measurement occurs or could in principle occur. When a measurement is made, the wave function is said to ‘collapse’ and the particle directs its energy to a specific location and with a specific momentum. When the wave function collapses, one of the possible locations is chosen at random by the universe according to standard theory. However, that randomness is modified by the set of possibilities given by the physical arrangement of the environment. At one point in his book, Penrose wonders if it really is random, but that is what the standard theory presumes. Once again, this is all behind the quantum veil and subject to informed speculation. When the expected result of an experiment needs to be calculated, a set of pseudo-random numbers can be used to simulate the assumed randomness. As Penrose makes clear in his discussion on non-computability, neither randomness nor pseudo randomness is any help toward solving the problem of consciousness.

In order for us to understand exactly where within the bounds of quantum theory this non-determinism is happening, we need some of Penrose’s terminology. There are two key processes that quantum physicists use to calculate the outcome of any quantum experiment. The first process Penrose calls ‘unitary evolution’ designated by the letter U. This is the process controlled by the wave function. This process is a completely deterministic rule for how the quantum state evolves with respect to time and position. Its value can be thought of as a kind of complex probability precursor, but it is not properly a probability function. This part of the process can be and often is calculated on the computer.

Penrose calls the second process ‘state vector reduction’ or ‘collapse of the wavefunction’ and is designated R. This process converts the complex probability precursor value of U into an actual probability distribution and, amazingly, chooses one of the possible outcomes. Converting the complex probability precursor into an actual probability function is completely deterministic. It is the ‘choice’ that Penrose points to as the source of quantum non-determinism. This part of the process cannot be calculated on a computer for a single quantum action, because the computer has no way to choose the outcome in the same way that the universe does. When an experiment is done to verify the U and R process, the individual outcomes appear random and not according to any recognizable pattern. If the experiment is done many times, the pattern that emerges conforms to the probability function derived by applying the deterministic part of the R process to the deterministic U process. The process of verifying an experiment, which is repeated many times, can be verified on the computer by substituting random or pseudo random choices for the non-deterministic choices of the R process. It is this substituting of random choices that gives the whole process a feel of statistical modeling.

A single quantum action, for example the transfer of a single photon of light, consists of a two-part process: U followed by R. The R process contains a non-deterministic choice of the actual time and location of the transfer from the various possibilities allowed by the physical arrangement. These two processes may be chained together so that one energy transfer follows another: U, R, U, R, etc. In addition, most events are composed of many, many transfers. For example, an ordinary electric light will produce an unimaginably huge number of photons each second (more than 1 followed by 17 zeroes.) To further complicate the analysis, the U process is often linked with other U processes and the outcomes of the associated R processes are dependent on each other. This has been called ‘quantum entanglement.’ It may be that the quantum entanglement between a controlled experiment and the uncontrolled environment is what gives the appearance of randomness.

Roger Penrose does not avoid controversy and he readily admits that he takes a more realistic view of the U and R processes than many physicists do. Since both U and R take place behind the quantum veil, this is an open question:

• “To such as myself (and Einstein and Schrödinger too – so I am in good company), it makes no sense to use the term ‘reality’ just for objects that we can perceive, such as (certain types of) measuring devices, denying that the term can apply at some deeper underlying level. Undoubtedly, the world is strange and unfamiliar at the quantum level, but it is not ‘unreal’. How, indeed, can real objects be constructed from unreal constituents? Moreover, the mathematical laws that govern the quantum world are remarkably precise – as precise as the more familiar equations that control the behavior of macroscopic objects – despite the fuzzy images that are conjured up by such descriptions as ‘quantum fluctuations’ and ‘uncertainty principle’.” (Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, p. 313.)

But R is still subject to the measurement problem, since we don’t really know when it might occur. Penrose then proposes a new procedure called ‘objective reduction’, or OR, for the type of action that is needed to solve the measurement problem. Objective reduction takes place according to a set of criteria involving the amount of energy or mass that is being separated by the wave function. Once the amount of energy or mass becomes great enough or the separation becomes great enough, objective reduction takes place. The amount of mass / energy / separation is small enough that we never see quantum action in everyday life. The universe is still required to choose among the various possibilities for the transfer of mass /energy, but Penrose calls that decision non-deterministic rather than random. Penrose uses the phrase ‘nature chooses’, but I prefer to say the universe chooses because ultimately, if the process is objective, then it is happening throughout the universe and not only where consciousness is present.

But what kind of choice is the universe making? There are three possibilities as I see it. The choice could be calculated, like a calculated pseudo-random number, but the algorithm remains hidden from us. This is the possibility that Penrose has debunked by the Godel-Turing argument. The choice could be truly random, meaning that the possible outcomes are spread evenly over some interval and that there is no algorithmic connection between the random values chosen. The model for this type of choice is the throw of a dice as in “God is not playing at dice.” It is this possibility that perhaps led Albert Camus to write about the “benign indifference of the universe” in The Stranger. Note that the lack of an algorithmic connection between random values means that the choices are essentially free choices, unconstrained by prior or subsequent choices. But neither Penrose nor I think that truly random choices can lead to the coherence and power of consciousness. The third possibility is that there is some reasoning or intelligence behind the choice, but that reasoning is hidden from us behind the quantum veil. It would have to be this third possibility that biological entities use for intelligent decision-making, but only if there is some way for biological systems to prolong the period of quantum action.

Now we are at the point where we can plausibly say that the universe is making a choice for every transfer of energy that takes place in the universe. From the Godel-like arguments given previously, we have plausibly eliminated a method of choosing based on calculation. Penrose and many others think that biological components have the ability to tap into that choice-making power behind the quantum veil in order to arrive at a theory of consciousness. Can we now plausibly conclude that the choice-making power is consciousness, intelligent, and whole? The next segment will describe one possible way that biological systems can tap into the decision making power of the universe.

QV3: Incompleteness

The Quantum Veil
Part 3
Incompleteness

In September 1930 at Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia), Kurt Godel stunned the group of mathematicians and logicians by announcing his famous incompleteness theorem. The proof was not published until 1931, so it took awhile to sink in. But the end result was a radical rethinking about mathematics. Why was Godel’s theorem so unexpected? It helps to remember that there was a movement in mathematics at that time to encapsulate all of mathematics into a formal system of axioms and theorems. Part of the motivation was to eliminate the uncertainties associated with mathematical proofs. David Hilbert, a German mathematician, initiated a program in the 1920’s to formalize all of mathematics. Before Hilbert started his program, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead published a 3-volume work named Principia Mathematica, which was an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a single, consistent set of axioms. The title of the article published by Godel in 1931 was On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I.

So what did this famous theorem prove? In as simple a statement as I can make, it says that there is no consistent, formal system that can encapsulate all of mathematical truth. Put another way, it says that there will be some true mathematical propositions that cannot be proven within such a system. Therefore, any formal system is incomplete and the hopes of mathematicians who wanted to encapsulate all of mathematics in a single formal system were dashed.

(Incidentally, there is a very readable and fascinating account of the history of this period entitled “A Hundred Years of Controversy Regarding the Foundations of Mathematics” (http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/unknowable/ch1.html) by Gregory Chaitin, mathematician and computer scientist.)

Why is this relevant? Well, Roger Penrose’s insight is that for Godel to arrive at this theorem, he must have been using, in his own thinking, something besides a formal mathematical system! Here is his summary:

• “It is in mathematics that our thinking processes have their purest form. If thinking is just carrying out a computation of some kind, then it might seem that we ought to be able to see this most clearly in our mathematical thinking. Yet, remarkably, the very reverse turns out to be the case. It is within mathematics that we find the clearest evidence that there must actually be something in our conscious thought processes that eludes computation. This may seem to be a paradox – but it will be of prime importance in the arguments which follow, that we come to terms with it.” (Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 64.)

Penrose follows this start to Chapter 2 with over 50 pages of explanation, example, argument and counter-argument concerning an extension of Godel’s theorem that applies directly to computers. This extension is named the ‘halting problem’ and is due to Alan Turing, one of the key contributors to the theory of modern digital computers. The ‘halting problem’ states that it is not possible to write a computer program that can, in general, determine if another computer program will ever produce an answer (which is when a computer program halts or stops processing.) Most of this material presents the usual objections to Godel-type arguments of incompleteness along with Penrose’s responses to those objections. Penrose is “trying to show that (mathematical) understanding is something that lies beyond computation, and the Godel (-Turing) argument is one of the few handles that we have on this issue.”

In Chapter 3, “The case for non-computability in mathematical thought,” Penrose tackles the issue directly. He considers several possible ways the Godel argument might not apply. Perhaps mathematicians are knowingly or unknowingly using an unsound algorithm. Perhaps they are using an unknowable algorithm. He considers natural selection; he considers multiple algorithms; he considers learning algorithms; he considers environmental input; he considers random events; he considers chaos theory; he considers acts of God. It is interesting to hear what he has to say about this last point:

• “Possibly there are some readers who are inclined to believe that such an algorithm could indeed simply have been implanted into our brains according to some divine act of God. To such a suggestion I can offer no decisive refutation; but if one chooses to abandon the methods of science at some point, it is unclear to me why it would be reasonable to choose that particular point!” (Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 144-145.)

Penrose is leading us to the point where we may well decide that some divine activity is taking place, but he will not say so directly. Ultimately he drops us off at the doorstep of quantum indeterminism and we will have to make our own decision. But the journey is well worth the effort.

His conclusion at the end of chapter 3, after about 80 pages of such arguments as above, is that “there is something essential in human understanding that is not possible to simulate by any computational means.” Although Penrose does not directly address free will and similar experiences, I think that he subsumes those experiences under the general term ‘consciousness.’ I think the act of understanding requires an act of will to choose the correct interpretation from among the various possible alternatives.

At this point, I should add that I am very much inclined to agree with Penrose. I have spent over 30 years analyzing, designing, programming and testing complex computer systems. I have seen the promise of automatic programming, programming by computer, come and go. If anything, computer programming is a more exact use of logic than mathematical reasoning and, so far, no computer program has been able to do what the skilled human computer programmer can do and that is analyze and understand a problem in ways that are helpful in designing a robust solution. From my experience, there comes a point in the analysis and design of a system when one must choose the best path through a maze of possibilities. There is inherent risk in that choice and many times it takes courage to proceed along a chosen path.

This is not a new insight. More than 40 years ago, Joseph Weizenbaum created a computer program named ELIZA that could converse in English somewhat like a non-directive psychotherapist. He wrote a book, Computer Power and Human Reason (W. H. Freeman, 1976,) that presents his views on the proper role of computers in society, a role that he strongly believed should be subservient to human will and subject to human moral judgment. Weizenbaum reached this conclusion not by the Godel-like arguments of Penrose, but from human experience of the way that life is. At the conclusion of this book, he argues that the teacher of computer science must resist the temptation to arrogance because his or her knowledge is somehow ‘harder’ than the knowledge of most people:

• “It the teacher, if anyone, is to be an example of the whole person to others, he must first strive to be a whole person. Without the courage to confront one’s inner as well as outer worlds, such wholeness is impossible to achieve. Instrumental reason alone cannot lead to it. And there precisely is a crucial difference between man and machine: Man, in order to become whole, must be forever an explorer of both his inner and his outer realities. His life is full of risks, but risks he has the courage to accept, because, like the explorer, he learns to trust his own capacities to endure, to overcome. What could it mean to speak of risk, courage, trust, endurance and overcoming when one speaks of machines?” (Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason, W. H. Freeman, 1976, p 280.)

I call this the existential approach and I hope to return to it in a future segment because, for most people, that is the only source of valid knowledge about the way that the universe works.

The Penrose argument is an argument from logic, not from general life experience. It is important because it sets a boundary for what we can legitimately conclude based on our own existential analysis. The Penrose argument is the most complete attempt that I know of to say definitively that the human mind can do something that no computer, no mater how powerful, can do. Whether you call it understanding, awareness, insight or something else, the conclusion is that something non-computational and therefore non-deterministic is taking place in human consciousness. So where does this non-computational capability come from? I will take up that question, and Penrose’s answer to it, in the next segment.

QV2: Is Free Will an Illusion?

The Quantum Veil
Part 2
Is Free Will an Illusion?

Our view of the universe has been radically transformed by the quantum revolution of the 1920’s. At first, this was not the case as quantum effects were minimized as only affecting the very small particles that we could easily ignore in everyday life. Outside of particle physics, even the sciences could usually ignore quantum effects as very small aberrations in an otherwise classical world. The disciplines of chemistry, biology and engineering could, for the most part, continue as though the objects of interest behaved as classical objects, unaffected by quantum indeterminism.

But key problems in understanding our universe persisted in the form of questions about the nature of life. If the universe is basically deterministic, with indeterminism relegated to the very small world of atomic particles, where does free will come from? Do we even have free will or is it an illusion? Is our whole system of law with its reliance on responsibility for our actions based on an illusion? Is the legal concept of premeditation based on the false assumption of free will?

It is interesting to note that the god in which Einstein proclaimed belief, “Spinoza’s God,” was a god for which freedom of choice did not have a place. For Spinoza, freedom of choice was an illusion, but Spinoza also held the difficult philosophical position that determinism does not diminish moral responsibility for our actions.

The question of free will is just the first and most obvious question raised if the underlying principles are deterministic. Besides justice, there is freedom, beauty, truth, faith, love, hope, understanding, insight, awareness, consciousness, happiness, loyalty, courage and the list goes on. Where do these experiences come from in a deterministic world? One explanation is the phenomenon of emergence. Emergence is the idea that certain complex behaviors and experiences arise de novo as systems become more complex. This type of explanation can be found in Darwin’s theory of evolution except that emergence is called adaptation and adaptation is shaped by natural selection.

I don’t think I can over emphasize the importance of this question. If the universe is deterministic, then there is no room for a God who “concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” One could still hold to the Deist’s God, but that god is easily deposed because such a god is irrelevant to daily life, a life filled with uncertainty, risk, heartbreak, happiness, anger, reconciliation, forgiveness and many other challenges of ordinary living. When Time Magazine proclaimed on its cover the question “Is God Dead?” in 1966, some 80 years after Friedrich Nietzsche first broached the subject, the question was really about the nature and relevance of God. It was the Deist God that had to die because that god was no longer relevant.

I am not saying that the converse is true. It is not the case that a non-deterministic universe proves the existence of God. But, if the universe is essentially non-deterministic, then the door is open for belief in a personal God who intervenes in history. One must come to this belief by faith; there is no other route. But if one has come to a belief in God by thoughtful meditation on life’s experiences or by sudden awakening, then the following arguments will show that belief in God does not contradict what is known about our universe.

Despite the alleged non-deterministic nature of the quantum world, there are two main ways the universe could remain deterministic. One way is that quantum indetermination could remain captive at the quantum level, with classical dynamics controlling all actions at the macro level, the level at which we live. The second way is that even if quantum effects do percolate up to the classical level, what if quantum indetermination is simply the result of our inability to lift the quantum veil? What if the quantum world is really deterministic as Einstein thought, but we simply cannot discover the rules because they are hidden from us? Both alternatives need something like a theory of emergence to explain the appearance of free will, justice, freedom, etc. I will call such a theory ‘deterministic emergence’ to distinguish it from other forms of emergence that allow for non-determinism.

The problem with emergence as an explanation is that it is not really a testable theory. We would like to be able to say what criteria must be met before something new emerges from complex systems. In fact, emergence is such a broad category of explanations, that it is not incompatible with quantum indeterminism. However, the logic path that will prove fruitful is the case where emergence is used to explain the presence of intangible experiences like free will when the underlying reality is deterministic. But in order for us to progress to the point of falsifying deterministic emergence in a deterministic universe, we must have a testable theory. We seem to be at an impasse.

Well, maybe not. There is a theory with sufficient rigor that we may well use it as a proxy for deterministic emergence. That theory is the theory of artificial intelligence, or AI. AI is the discipline within computer science that studies how machines learn. This is the area of robots and chess-playing computer programs. Within bounds, AI is a formidable theory. Already, chess and checker playing computer programs beat the best human players. Expert systems, a type of AI program, assist humans in certain skilled areas like oil exploration and medical diagnosis. AI programs can recognize human faces and human speech.

It is claimed by some proponents of AI that someday computers will be fully equivalent to a human being in every way including the ability to experience all of the normal intangible experiences of humanness. This is known as the ‘strong-AI’ viewpoint. Roger Penrose states it this way: “All thinking is computation; in particular, feelings of conscious awareness are evoked merely by carrying out of appropriate computations.” (Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 12.) Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking when Hawking was developing his theories for ‘black holes,’ stars that are so massive that no light can escape. Penrose and Hawking share the 1988 Wolf Prize in Physics for their joint work. But Penrose is no champion of strong AI. He has written two books to argue that something non-deterministic must be taking place in human consciousness.

In order for the strong-AI viewpoint to replace deterministic emergence in our line of reasoning, we will have to replace ‘deterministic’ with ‘computational’ and ‘non-deterministic’ with ‘non-computational.’ Have we lost anything in translation? Not really, because, in theory, a computer can simulate any set of rules that can be defined. If fact, not all of the rules need to be defined if there is a rule or set of rules for generating and accepting new rules based on experience. There is no loss of generality by replacing a putative theory of deterministic emergence with computational AI. The only additional qualification we need is that ‘computer’ means a deterministic computer. Some day computers may be based on biological systems or even quantum actions. For now we will omit such possibilities because we are really interested in whether the universe is ultimately deterministic (or computational), and we have a suspicion that quantum systems and even biological systems somehow make use of non-computational activity.

In summary, here is our line of reasoning: If the universe is deterministic, there is no need for a god who cares about us and intervenes in our lives. Free will would be an illusion, a way of thinking we are making choices when, in fact, our choices are being calculated for us at some unconscious level. The universe may be deterministic because either quantum non-determinism is a result of our lack of knowledge as to what takes place behind the quantum veil or any real quantum non-determinism is confined to the small scale of particle physics. If we could show that human beings possess a capability that is impossible for deterministic computers, then we could show that something non-deterministic or non-computational must be taking place. In the next segment we will step through Penrose’s argument that people have access to truths that deterministic computers cannot reach. Following that we will tackle the more imposing issue: if the universe is non-deterministic then is it reasonable to attribute such non-determinism to God?