Q&A: A Comment on the Book "The Science of Freedom"
A Comment on the Book "The Science of Freedom"
Question
Hello Rabbi Abraham,
First of all, thank you very much for the Rabbi's important books. To the best of my knowledge, these are the only books in the world that deal with the findings of the modern scientific world in an appropriate way and with great depth.
This Sabbath I went through the book "The Science of Freedom" again, and I was reminded that for a long time I had wanted to comment that in my opinion there is strong evidence in quantum theory that it's a shame the Rabbi missed:
The foundation and claim on which the book stands is that the physical world is deterministic, with the exception of human will. a0
The strong evidence we have from quantum theory is that we see a very striking exception in physics—in which, wonder of wonders, human consciousness can cause a change (the collapse of the wave function), and here the honorable Rabbi missed the strong evidence when he argued that apparently this is not an exception specific to human consciousness, but that it also happens even when human consciousness will never know about it (for example, the case the Rabbi brought of the information later being destroyed).
However, the strong evidence from quantum theory is that without a doubt, what causes the collapse is connected in one way or another to human consciousness or to the potential for human consciousness. Otherwise there is no meaning at all to a measuring device, whose entire essence is to bring the information to human knowledge—even if in the end no one looked at it or could have looked at it. Matter itself performs "measurement" on its own in many ways that do not cause collapse of the wave function; only a device that has the ability to bring the information in some way to human knowledge—only that causes the collapse of the wave function. So we have strong evidence, with no parallel at all in the material world, for the exceptional status of human consciousness and the will to perform a measurement on matter itself and change it forever.
A weaker but more philosophical proof is that the very concept of "measurement" belongs only to an external and non-deterministic consciousness. Because otherwise, who is the measurer? What is its meaning relative to a measurement not performed by some other matter that interacted with the measured matter? Measurement must be carried out by an entity capable of making the determination of a "measurement." If all consciousness is only an epiphenomenon, why should the wave function care at all about some epiphenomenon?
True, today we have no way to prove that consciousness has the power to change reality in a non-statistical way and thus introduce free choice; but in a person's choice to perform a measurement there certainly is something that changes reality.
All the more so since our understanding of quantum theory is far from complete, and therefore the very proof that human consciousness has the power (even if no one knows the result, as I explained) to bring about a change in matter constitutes strong proof of the exception you were looking for in the physical picture of the world.
I would be very grateful for your response,
Answer
Hello.
The question whether consciousness is required in order to bring about collapse of the wave function is a factual question. It cannot be decided on the basis of mere reasoning. In the book I referred to an experiment that shows it is not.
Discussion on Answer
You cannot bring proofs from a phenomenon when you do not know what it is. As long as it is not clear what has an effect and what does not, there is no proof here of anything. A measuring device is not a different physical object. And it is highly implausible that its intended purpose is what determines the physics. As long as it is not clear that this is indeed the phenomenon, one cannot rely on it.
I understand, and that was not my claim (that consciousness is needed to bring about collapse).
I am claiming that the uniqueness of a measuring device lies in its definition as a device that can bring the results of the experiment to a person's knowledge, and in that there is an exception involving human consciousness,
even if no person ever knows the results of the experiment. That is the meaning of carrying out a measurement.
For some reason the wave function collapses when a "measurement" is performed—that is, when a test is carried out in a way that in principle can bring the results of the test to the knowledge of a human being, even if in the end
the measurement was arranged in such a way that the result would not reach the person's knowledge. The definition of measurement still remains the same, and in that there is an exception involving human consciousness.
To the best of my knowledge, and as far as I was able to check, no experiment has ever been performed that managed to prove collapse in a device that had no possibility of bringing the result to human knowledge.
Therefore, as I said, this really is not a matter of mere reasoning. The whole definition of performing an act of "measurement" is setting up a device that can theoretically bring the result to the knowledge of a human being.
Matter itself is "measured" many times by other matter, and as long as it has not passed through a device whose whole uniqueness is that it can bring the results of the experiment to human knowledge—no measurement has taken place.
Best regards,