In 1962 an interesting book appeared: “The Scientist Speculates: An Anthologyof Partly-Baked Ideas”, of David Bohm, Arthur Koestler, Michael Polanyi, Harlow Shapley, etc.; edited by Irving John Good, Alan James Mayne, John Maynard Smith. The book contains a lot of “partly baked ideas” from all domains of science. In particular, we can find there “The Dimensions of Consciousness” (Dennis Gabor), “Clues to an Understanding of Mind and Body” (Michael Polanyi), “Mind and Consciousness” (Cyril Burt), “Speculations concerning Precognition” (I. J. Good), “The Generation of Psychic Phenomena by 'Intelligent Networks'“(Michael Watson), “On the Threshold of a Transcendental Science” (A. K. Talbot), “A Possible Application of Extrasensory Perception in the Determination of Crystal Structure“ (S. C. Wallwork), “Precognition and Reversed Causality” (Alan J. Mayne), “A Proposed Topological Formulation of the Quantum Theory” (David Bohm), etc.
I am quoting so many examples in order to show that scientists, I mean real scientists which I define as those that are curious, do not refrain from speculations. All discoveries start with speculations, and one should not condemn a scientist when she/he speculates. But, of course, it is always good, though not always practically possible, to distinguish between a bona fide scientific contribution and a speculation. Moreover, speculations come in different qualities, though it is next to impossible to tell in advance which speculation will lead to progress, and which ones miss the target.
Eugene Wigner: The Mind-Body Question
One of the papers published in the book came from a Nobel Laureate in Physics,Eugene P. Wigner. Its title was “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question”, and the paper was addressing the question of whether human consciousness is somehow intrinsically and deeply related to quantum physics, whether it is unavoidable in the future development of physics. In short, Wigner concluded that consciousness may have an effect on physical phenomena, that this effect may be hard to detect, though many scientists would discard such phenomena. However, Wigner writes:
… every phenomenon is unexpected and most unlikely until it has been discovered-and some of them remain unreasonable for a long time after they have been discovered. Hence, lack of success in the past need not discourage.
These speculations of Wigner’s played an important role in the development of physics. They were even noticed by the U.S. military, probably because of their possible applications for artificial intelligence (see e.g. Howard E. Brandt, “Deconstructing Wigner’s density matrix concerning the mind-body question", Foundations of Physics Letters, Volume 15, Number 3, 287-292) They were also important for the path I chose myself, But to discuss them, to think about them, to use them as an inspiration for a scientific research, open-mindedness and curiosity are needed. And as we have seen, not all those employed by scientific institutions exhibit and use these important qualities.
Primas and Esfeld: Constructive Criticism of Wigner
Wigner’s paper about mind-body problem has been thoroughly scrutinized (practically: destroyed) in a long critical paper, “A Critical Review of Wigner's Work on the Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Theory” by Hans Primas and Michael Esfeld. Hans Primas, physical and theoretical chemist from ETH, Zurich, and Michael Esfeld, professor of philosophy at the University of Lausanne, analyzed Wigner’s paper from the point of view of mathematics, physics and of philosophy. The main objections, summarized in their conclusion, include:
It is difficult to understand why Wigner never used his deep knowledge of the underlying mathematical structure of quantum theory to overcome the serious limitation of the Hilbert-space formalism of the traditional codification of quantum mechanics. It is hard to believe that Wigner did not recognize the importance of the many possible physically inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations and the associated symmetry breakings for our understanding of molecular, mesoscopic, and macroscopic phenomena.
From our present point of view, most of the so-called paradoxes which Wigner discusses are not deep conceptual problems, but simply technical challenges for the mathematical physicists. The "measurement problem" as formulated by Wigner is ill-posed. Von Neumann and Wigner did not discuss measurements in physical terms.”
From a fundamental point of view, the open question is not the state reduction but the derivation of the statistical expectation-value postulate from an individually formulated fundamental quantum mechanics in an ontic interpretation - a problem never mentioned by Wigner.
Wigner's confusion of conceptual and mathematical problems is due to misplaced physical idealizations (like the idealization of instantaneous observations, the neglect of the effects of the environment, a narrow positivistic view) and to inadequate mathematical codifications (like the inadmissible use of the uniqueness theorem by Stone and von Neumann). (Italics, mine.)
Yet, in spite of all these hard words, Primas and Esfeld did not act in a pure destroying capacity, they were not politically motivated, their criticism was a genuine one, it was motivated by their search for Truth as indicated by these further comments:
Wigner showed much courage in relating the then unresolved questions of the measurement problem to the much deeper problem of consciousness. Many of Wigner's papers on mathematical physics are great classics.”
Nevertheless, Wigner's discussions of the measurement problem was historically important. He could not give a generally acceptable solution. Yet to see a problem is much more difficult and important than to give a solution. Wigner was the leading scientist who always insisted that there is a problem, and that it is important to see the problem. (Italics, mine.)
In other words: even if Wigner was wrong, badly educated in some domains, and also if he was using inadequate or wrong arguments, nevertheless he had the courage to start a discussion of an important and unresolved problem, and he was not slandered and defamed, but treated with honesty and respect.
Primas and Esfeld were also constructive, and not exclusively destructive. Wigner’s ideas and mathematical methods were inadequate to the problem, but, especially Primas, had a several original ideas about how these problems should be dealt with – mainly through the rethinking of the fundamental postulates of quantum theory, and by using somewhat more flexible and more powerful mathematical apparatus than the one coming from the standard textbooks, including von Neumann’s “Mathematical Foundations ofQuantum Theory” - on which Wigner relied.
But Primas gave just hints – he did not develop his ideas much further. I think his hints were, and still are, very important. Certainly they were important for me, as I used them in my own work, though in certain details not exactly the way he was expecting.
P.S.1.
The most typical and, at the same time, detrimental error in human thinking that I have stumbled upon is this: jumping to wrong conclusions, and acting upon them. It happens in both men and women.— william james sidis, age 11, 1909
"The subject we are to deal with here is the explanation of certain psychological facts on the basis of logical methods. Certain actions have been observed which seem to indicate intelligence, but which are supposed not to be phenomena of consciousness. In order to pass a decision on such statements (in which I must assume the facts claimed by both sides to be correct) we must get a general idea of the methods we are going to use.The first of these methods is the method of isomorphism. This depends on the supposition that, if in two hypotheses the consequences are the same, the two hypotheses may be considered as identical for all purposes of further reasoning. In other words, there is no use in drawing arbitrary distinctions where none really exist. When we reason from a hypothesis, its consequences come into play at every step of the reasoning; and if those consequences are the same, all reasoning will be the same, and therefore no difference can really be drawn. Again, a question of decision between two theories whose consequences are and must be the same must necessarily be one where no evidence is obtainable, and is therefore a question which cannot be discussed at all. It is like the old question of the man and the monkey: "If a monkey is on a pole, constantly facing a man who walks around the pole, has the man gone round the monkey?""
"The latter part of the work, which deals with the theory of the reversibility of time and the psychological aspect of the second law of thermodynamics itself, is a purely speculative section, partaking more of the metaphysical than of the scientific. However, even in that section, it is to be hoped that there will be found a basis for putting the theory of the nature of time on a scientific basis and for taking it finally outside of the domain of metaphysics. "
Perhaps one of my Readers, interested in the subject, will find time to read through this book and extract for me what is really essential and needs a further development?
P.S.5. Started reading "The Animate and Inanimate". I am done with the first four chapters. Written in an rather old style (1920), but it forces me to really think about Reality! We have the paradox of irreversibility in a microscopically reversible world. In the past I thought that the solution is in the "quantum measurement" process. That that is where elementary irreversible events (collapses of the wave function) happen. These are not described by reversible Schrodinger' evolution. That is how and why EEQT was created. But since EEQT is not satisfactorily developed to its conclusion, the problem remains open. Continue reading. Perhaps this old book will inspire my thinking constructively....
P.S.6. Hexagram 58 • Joy • Tui, Lines 1,2
The image of Lake over Lake.
When you feel and express joy others will want to be in your presence.
You learn by talking with friends and sharing in discussion.
There is double joy when people interact and replenish each other.
Give a party to celebrate and share joy.
Nine in the first place
It is wonderful when joy is not dependent on anything outside of your self.
Nine in the second place
Find joy and pleasure in ways that do no harm to your body, mind or spirit.
From another book, "Military Ballstics. A Basic manual" by C.L. Farrar and D.W. Leeming I have learned that the theory of these machines had to wait until Newton:
P.S.10. Incredible!
P.S.11. Useful:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou better describe, use facts and logic to justify your opinion.
DeleteOtherwise writing such comments is a waste of time and space. There are as many personal opinions as there are people on the Earth, or even more, because a given person can change opinion depending on the mood.
Bjab -> Ark:
Delete"You better describe..."
Is it an invitation or a threat?
@Bjab
DeleteIt is simply my answer to the question "Shall I describe ?"
The point is that such comments are totally useless. They introduce unnecessary noise. A bold declaration, such as that in the comment under discussion,. without elaboration - this is good in politics and in the show business, where it is important to simply impress the audience. But we are discussing science here.
Delete@Bjab
DeleteA while ago this Reader that you were inquiring about wrote a comment with a simple quote from an abstract of just one selected paper, no original thoughts at all, and, additionally, with totally improper personal remarks at the beginning. It looks as he/she needs a lot of learning experience about how to behave, and what a scientific discussion is about. I always delete comments with an improper mix of personal and impersonal. Waste of my time, and of time of serious readers.
Bjab -> Ark
ReplyDeleteThank you for linking paper on "On Kottler's path...".
I wish I could understand it.
Yes, it is indeed more technical here and there. I am actually studying it, and I will make an effort to extract the essence which I can share.
DeleteActually, I am finding "On Kottler's path" very unsatisfactory, and not clear in those parts where clarity is needed. I will have to look for another exposition of the same topic.
DeleteZ przyjemnością czytam Pana wypowiedzi jako wybitnego fizyka matematycznego,pamiętając Pana z salonu.Aczkolwiek moje zainteresowania wybiegają poza kwanty i dotyczą Wszechświata "ciemnego".Pozdrawiam Porębski
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Delete"Dark" universe? What is THAT?
"Dark" universe.I jak po angielsku cień,co nie zacienia i świetlistość,co nie oświetla i odemknięte odrzwia kostnic.Chyba ban
ReplyDeleteNo bans for those who are anticipating the consequences for their actions. Bans are for those who are stubbornly refusing to see these consequences.
Deleteyou're talking about yourself?
DeleteQuite often, and deliberately, on purpose. Talking to oneself has clear advantages:
Delete"Self-talk is a healthy way to build motivation, calm nerves or analyze a tricky situation. “It's a useful way to check in with yourself and organize thoughts and feelings,” says health psychologist Grace Tworek,"
Continuing: concerning psychology and talking to oneself. Today, while writing the review, I have talked myself into watching a very interesting and useful video about P.H.I.L.:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWUDLnMfH7Y
This lady has a very interesting channel about psychology:
https://www.youtube.com/@LiseLeblanc/videos