CC BY
63
Секция 11. Философия
2. Тарасова О. В. Социальная диалектика предпринимательства: Личность. Самоуправление. Культура. Творчество. - Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета, - 2005 г. - с. 238.
3. Шабатура Л. Н. Онтогенез традиции. Монография. - Екатеринбург: Издательство Уральского университета, - 2002 г. - с. 264.
Tsekhmistro Ivan Zakharovich, Kharkiv National University, professor chair in theory of culture & philosophy of science E-mail: ivantsekh@yandex.ru
Wolfgang Pauli about spin and consciousness (possible quantum correlation base of consciousness and experiment to prove it)
Abstract: The ideal (non-entropic) nature of consciousness (and thinking) and their ideal “mechanisms” are considered in this article. It is not easy to understand these points from a common point of view. On the other hand, at present we are aware that there is a unique connection in nature that is deliberately not physical-causal, but implicative-logical by its nature. This is the implicative-logical nature of quantum correlation in EPR-experiments. Therefore, we may consider a possible appearance of EPR-correlations in the synaptic transitions in the brain as a real basis for generation of consciousness. Thus, an experiment is proposed to prove the quantum-correlation hypothesis for consciousness generation on the basis of a well-known experiment on the cross-section of the reticular formation in the brain.
Keywords: quantum correlations, implicative logical correlation, non-entropic nature of consciousness, synaptic transition, cross-section of the reticular formation, wholeness, quantum wholeness.
1. Introduction: Wolfgang Pauli’s prediction
W. Pauli, one of the founders of elementary particle physics, once wondered what role the most important properties of elementary particles — mass, electric charge, and spin — play in the universe. His answer was: mass determines the structure and metric properties of space and time; electric charge provides the existence of chemistry, living and non-living matter. And what is spin responsible for in nature? After the lingering and silent pause was heard such the unexpected answer by W. Pauli: “Spin is responsible for the existence of consciousness” (!).
Let us now turn to the ideal nature of consciousness and reasoning as well as real processes in the brain.
2. Ideal (Non-Entropic) Nature of Consciousness and Thinking
The comparison of psychology data about nature of thinking and theoretic informational approach of its modeling shows that real thinking and its modern theoretic informational models are absolutely different processes.
All information processes in the systems are based on a causal paradigm (in its determinative or probabilistic statistical form). According to this all existing and generally imaginable cybernetic machines are built on the basis of some specific physical causal relations (determinative
or probabilistic). Stafford Beer, a famous specialist in the field of cybernetics, claims quite frankly and rationally: "We must admit that all our ideas about management are naive, primitive, they are subordinated to almost fatal idea about causality. The management, as most people think, (no matter how sorrowful it is for the developed society) is the process of rough compulsion" [1, 38].
In the basis of thinking processes in the natural intelligence not causal schemes but implicative (logical) relations and dependencies lie. In a real thinking process the result of an operation appears to be logically unavoidable, absolutely reliable and even predetermined through containing some accepted premises and postulates of the logic. A syllogism demonstrates the simplest implication. For example:
"Allpeople are mortal" — (the major premise);
"Socrates is a man" — (the minor premise).
Conclusion:
"Socrates is mortal" — (logically unavoidable result).
The mechanism of other logical truths is exactly the same — implicative. The truth 2*2=4 is not a “cause” of the truth 4-2=2 in the sense when a carom (a type of blow in billiards) is the cause of the moving of two balls, or some stimulus is the cause of some reaction. The validity of a judgment 2*2=4 is supposed to have (or includes, comprises) the validity ofjudgments 4-2=2; 4-1=3; etc.
217
Section 11. Philosophy
Precisely this way of implicative relation characterizes a form of relations and dependencies in other fields of consciousness. The meaning of objective or duty concepts in the moral aspect does not cause, but involve quite specified actions. Besides this, according to the historical facts of martyrdom and asceticism, heroic deeds of prominent figures, who have come to realizing the historical necessity as his or her own aim with tremendous and truly overwhelming power. A person, who has totally devoted oneself to one’s moral aim or duty, would rather lose one’s life instead of giving up one’s acts implicatively resulting from the contents of one’s aim and duty that are inseparably linked with one’s consciousness and finally one’s being oneself. The life and deeds of such people virtually demonstrate that physical causality is actually the lowest, the simplest and the most primitive form of connection in the systems, and it has quite remote relation to the processes of governing in an organism and society to which St. Beer fairly pays attention [1, 38].
The whole theoretically informational ideology does not go beyond an abstract concept of the set and purely multiple interpretation of the thinking processes. There appears a concept of information on this basis: information is a measure of diversity on the sets.
On the other hand, the implicative properties of consciousness result from a phenomenon of its unique wholeness, evidently unavailable to any multiple (and therefore to theoretically informational) interpretation in theory.
Let’s assume that the purely multiple paradigms are true when explaining the thinking, and that the reasoning process and its realization mechanisms have exceptionally set nature. It means that the reasoning process at its every stage is exhausted by the sets of any elements, their interaction and states (not necessarily finite, but also numerable powers). These abstract sets comprise in their generalized form everything that can be ascribed to the thinking nature in the network of any existing approaches from the extreme physical reductionism, where thinking processes are simply identified with neurodynamic physical processes, including the concept of psycho-physical parallelism, when the thinking is reduced to the world of ideal processes, flowing isomorphically to neurophysiological processes and up to extreme idealistic concepts of thinking and consciousness as a special spiritual world of ideal substances, but (what is here substantial for us) absolutely isolated, distinguishable, oriented to create some ideal multiplicity: a set of ideas, symbols, images, etc.
Let’s introduce on the basis of this assumption a generalized set concept of the consciousness elements Mc that include everything in its generalized form: physical fractions of any nature, intelligence operations, abstract symbols and visual images, ideas, etc. The significant thing here is that this set of elements of consciousness (no matter what they are) must exhaust the nature and mechanisms of thinking so that there is nothing left in the thinking besides this set.
So our assumption is that both the contents and the thinking mechanism have exceptionally and exhaustively set nature, and therefore the concept of abstract set must be a sufficient base to describe and explain the thinking mechanisms.
But hardly we make this assumption, so natural and common that it is not always apparent, clear enough and quite distinctly expressed, when at this it’s problematic character becomes clear and distinct. The issue is that the absolute set postulated on the basis of the thinking mechanisms (even if it has quite an abstract nature) is inconsistent with the fundamental for thinking law of identity. It comes from a possibility to bind with even an abstract set some (also abstract) generalized entropy Ssets as a measure of some in principle unavoidable and always remaining nonzero ambiguity of sample of subsets from a given set with the help of (again at least abstract) selective mechanism of the Turing type. At this indicates the concept analysis of the abstract set and inseparably connected with it diversity points, thus unavoidable ambiguity concerning the results of any possible procedures of the subsets selection and regulation of such abstract set. Each set has at least two different subsets: this very set and the empty set. All further discussion grounds on the fact of belonging to every set of the empty subset. That’s why it is important to trace the grounds of this fact.
The evidence that the empty set is a subset of any set is determined or concluded on the basis of the specific subset using and empty set concept determination. For example, proving that if A is an arbitrary set then each element of the empty subset belongs to A set. As the empty set has no elements by definition it means that this condition is automatically fulfilled.
We can make the same conclusion with the help of the method of contraries. Suppose that the empty set is not a subset of some arbitrary set. This means that there exists at least one element of the empty set that is not element of the arbitrary set. But it is impossible, because the empty set has no elements by its definition. So it is wrong that the empty set is not a subset of the arbitrary set.
218
Секция 11. Философия
From the said above it is clear that ifwe link the nature of the thinking mechanism with some sets of elements, than the dilemma of thinking modeling comes down to achieving the absolute order and complete non-entropy of these sets corresponding to the absolute rigidity and complete non-entropy of the logical thinking.
A notion of a non-entropy that is useful for the thinking model on the abstract sets needs explaining. For this goal we will consider the abstract set as habitually (“a sack with beans", that is the same as an array of absolutely separate element-individuals), and we will link the realization of any intelligent logical process on the abstract set (making of a syllogism, judgment, proof, etc.) with the achievement of the definite that remains the same by the unlimited repetition of this logical process of its subsets (and elements) order that model the thinking process and its result. The constancy of this set order and the sampling and ordering process that leads to it due to the unlimited repetition will testify to achieving of the complete nonentropy of this abstract multiple thinking model. To obtain such a model one has to perform the action of some abstract mechanism over the “sack with beans”, that in turn makes distinction, sampling and the ordering of the subsets and elements of the given abstract set.
And if this abstract selecting and ordering mechanism is not itselfthe thinking and consciousness [5], but also has exceptionally plural nature and is similar to the Turing machine, then the thinking modeling turns out to be impossible on this abstract plural basis. Because even if we postulate the absolute identity or an indistin-guishability of elements in a set, the sampling process is not going to be completely definite anyway as it cannot be completely definite even over the one-element set. It comes from the fact that diversity is inseparably connected with the set concept (if there is the set, plurality then there is the diversity and vice versa). But if there is plurality, diversity, it means that there already exists a known ambiguity manifested specifically in the assessment of a possible result of the sampling process over this set. Even ifwe link the thinking with the one-element set, the abstract sampling mechanism of the Turing type cannot all the same produce quite definite result with the absolute validity in each act of its response, for example, the subset of a given one-element set, consisting of this very one-element set because of the fact that the one-element set also contains diversity introduced by its subsets: the empty set and set consisting of one element.
Though the possibility of the sampling of the specific one-element subset in a one-element set can be ad libitum close to the unit, it can never be identically equal to
the unit because of the presence of such a non-zero possibility as a “hit” in an empty subset area. And we have to take care of special non-entropy ensuring of the selecting mechanism that would provide the absolute exclusion of the empty subset sample.
By the same sign we come to a conclusion according to which the very set state is incompatible with the complete and absolute non-entropy that however is the most important characteristic of the thinking and consciousness processes. The set, the plurality means that there is at least the first and the second, different from the first. If one saves the meaning of the probability logarithm of some certain occurrence according to the entropy, then under the very fact of the existence of at least two outcomes for the sample results, performed over such a maximally defined set as a one-element set, the abstract entropy can never be equal to the zero as the probability of the certain result sampling can never be strictly equal to the unity.
Of course we can imagine the abstract selecting mechanism to be so perfect that the probability of the subset selection {1} from the set {{1}} would start approaching the unit, and then consequently the entropy would tend to the zero. However, the fact that this entropy becoming ad libitum close to the zero can never be identically equal to the zero until the set state is preserved at all, e. g. availability of {1} and {0} subsets in set {{1}} is significant. But exactly this possibility of the smallest deviation from the absolute validity is totally incompatible with the absolute non-entropy of the logical thinking: Euclidean theorems have been reproduced and proved million times, but always with one and the same logically inevitable result. It is also true of any syllogism as it is as a matter of fact of any other logical product.
Thereby the generalizing of the entropy concept on the theoretically set basis shows its organic connection with the very set state. In the light of this connection the achievement Sset=0 is equal to the refusal from the set state, and it is possible only in this case. Unattainability of the condition T=0 and S=0 for real molecular sets of real physical world finds its natural generalizing in this conclusion.
This means that any even introduced abstract set mechanism cannot strictly model the simplest thinking operation of a type 2-1=1 in principle. That is a fundamental difference between the implication in the basis of the real thinking operations and the behavior of the set mechanisms where the linkage and dependence have a physically causal nature. The main difference of the thinking process from the behavior of any set mechanism is
219
Section 11. Philosophy
revealed in this fact. The identity law that lies on the basis of the thinking process A=A is indifferent to its unlimited reproduction and repeating, and the identity relation expressed by it always remains unchanged. But the behavior of the set mechanisms and in particular the subset sampling {A} from the set {{A}} are not like that. From this results that the forming and maintaining mechanism of the relation of the logical identity also cannot be purely multiple, because in this last case the identity relation has a statistics character and if to take into consideration its unlimited repetition together with A^A it can turn out at least once that A is not identical to A. Even one such occurrence is enough for all theorems and statements to lose their rigor and definiteness. This means that the whole science, logical change among people and the mankind thinking itself would be impossible. All the said above is the generalizing of the famous “thermodynamics paradox of thinking" originally formulated with regard to the task of the thinking modeling with the help of the physical-chemical means [2, 3-240]. Its maximal generalizing level on the abstract set basis is significant for us. Due to this the awareness of the indissolubility of the entropy linkage with the set helps understand that we should look for explaining the nature of thinking in the refusal from the very set state on the thinking grounds. There goes consequently the necessity of facing the phenomenon of the consciousness wholeness. Hence the wholeness phenomenon appears to be the only possible carrier of implicative thinking and consciousness structures.
The term “ wholeness” has become a cliche, but its meaning in the quantum context is very precise albeit somewhat unconventional: whole as opposed to a set — that is, the ultimate unity that does not render itself to decomposition into elements and subsets, which are thus not applicable to its description. It is only this ultimate wholeness or unity that can be the natural source of the property of inseparability of particles described the unified non-factorizable ^-function. Let’s appeal now to some new hopes of a quantum holism, which has brought up to date in the light of quite successful EPR-experiments and recent achievements in the field of the quantum teleportation and quantum cryptography.
3. Two types of probabilities in nature: physical-causal and implicative-logical
a) Physical-causal probability.
This is a well-known type of classical probability which was until recently regarded as the only possible one in nature. It is very easy to come to it. For example, we have quite a definite separate object, but under the influence of multiple factors it can behave in probabilistic
pattern, such as a cube with six faces. We throw it a sufficient number of times and receive — depending on the correctness of the cube, its centering, etc. — one or another probability distribution of the occurrences of its different faces. Here a typical Kolmogorov probability theory is required.
While defining the probability of the occurrence of two or more numbers of random events (faces), their probabilities are simply added up, since these are probabilities ofvarious independent events, unrelated to one another. These are classical probabilities, which evidently have a physical-causal nature, because in each such event of probabilistic behavior of the object, one can virtually always indicate some specific physical cause that induces some deviations in its behavior.
However this is exactly the approach that is not appropriate in the field of quantum phenomena. It does not answer the main questions: why probabilities represented by the Y- function are firstly primary and irremovable on principal, and secondly being allocated all over infinite space in the pure quantum appearance, they are interferable, i. e. mutually coordinated and mutually correlated, which is clearly demonstrated in the reduction of wave function and quantum-correlation effects. In other words: why do probability amplitudes summarize in quantum mechanics rather than the probabilities themselves as shown in the classical example?
b) Quantum implicative-logical probability
It is similarly easy to arrive at quantum probabilities. However, in this case we should start over from another beginning, by the name of Plank’s constant — h. Plank’s constant h is no trifling matter. It is the universal constant!
Really, the physical dimension of Plank’s constant is an action which can be represented in the form of the product: mv-s (impulse multiplied by distance) = e-t (energy multiplied by time) = V4-p (four-dimensional volume universe multiplied by the density of the mass-energy in it) = ф • N (wave phase multiplied by the number of the particles it transferred), etc. It turns out that also discovered by Leibniz was magnitude of action (action formalis as he called it), which always consists of a product of dynamic (impulse, energy, density, the number of particles, etc.) and kinematic (distance, time, four-dimensional volume, wave phase, etc.) quantities. Does it mean the action encompasses all the physics, since what else is there in physics except dynamics and kinematics? Statics, after all, is simply a particular case of dynamics.
Max Planck’s innovation — the universal constant of dimension h — entails incredible consequences,
220
Секция 11. Философия
which are still not fully realized by us (even in a hundred years!). The most important and currently visible consequence: the implicative-logical structure of probabilities in so-called pure quantum states. This comes from the following important condition. On the one hand, no matter what kind of physical quantity we can choose for measurement (a coordinate, time, 4-dimensional volume, wave phase, etc.), for each of them there must be a partner from the world of the dynamic quantities, so that their product generates the action. On the other hand, physical theory and experience unequivocally support Planck’s finding — the existence of the smallest, though finite portion of action in nature. This is the universal constant h.
As a result, this constant, because of its dimension brings forward a unique structural property — a property of wholeness in the universal structure with the help of its finite (and not diminished) value: on the subquantum level, the whole world exists as an indivisible unit, a single whole, rather than a multiplicity of random elements.
The semi-classical presentation of an hN cell in the phase space of the quantum system (N here is a number of the system dimensions) provides a visual illustration to this. Just as it is not possible for this cell either to diminish or to fracture, it is impossible to place any elements, points, trajectories, or other multiple images “inside” of it. This is a convincing illustration of a unique property of the world as wholeness rather than the plurality.
The final and unquestionable quantum-physical fact stems from here: there is no possibility for the exhaustive, single-valued and complete decomposition of the quantum system state in terms of elements and sets.
No matter what physical meaning we put into these notions (set or element) and no matter what corresponding kind of space we can choose: an ordinary geometrical space, momentum, energies, masses, time, space, etc. — each time we out of necessity come across the appearance of the corresponding kinds of uncertainty relations. And these relations turn each of our effort of trying of comprehensive multiple world description in terms of the elements and sets in the inevitably probabilistic picture as the final and unavoidable truth.
Thus, under the fundamental property of wholeness and indivisibility (which is formally expressed as the cell hN in the phase space of the system) the quantum system is not a set of any substances, but it is a system of relations between macroscopically conditioned elements (e. g., some defined value of impulse, coordinate, total spin, etc.) and — under incomplete decomposability
into elements and sets — numbers of potential possibilities for defining corresponding conjugate values (elements), which are inherent to this state. This unique connection in nature, evidently, is given rise to by the universal constant h, which might be the most important stone laid by God for the basis of the universe.
Thus, under the objective existence of the universal Planck’s constant in nature, we do not have the possibility to begin from any separate and quite definite object (element), as can be done in the classical case. Now, if we wish to start from a definition coordinate of some particle (element), we immediately come across a zone of quantum probabilities, defined by a well-known uncertainty relation Д х • Др ~ h, which actually produces quantum probabilities.
Any of our attempts to reduce uncertainty in the value of the coordinate (i. e. to shrink Дх to zero) means the immediate, self-acting, and implicative-logical in their own origin, rather than the physical-causal extension of the zone of probabilities for a value of impulse conjugated through the universal constant h — Др.
It is implicative-logical because it results from an indivisible joint between coordinate and impulse obtained through Planck’s constant which, as a universal constant, is an absolute and unavoidable source of fundamental implication in nature. In the zone of its significance, it acts logically, rather than in a physical-causal way, and out of time and space. This is the zone of specific quantum effects.
If there are any difficulties in understanding the implicative-logical nature of quantum probabilities or quantum correlations or phenomena of a reduction of the wave function, one can try exercising in derivation the relation of uncertainties for any imaginable dimension. While performing this we should take into account the restrictions that come from the fact of the existence of Planck’s constant. The point of these restrictions is that the reduction of this Дх to zero logically, rather than in a physical-causal way brings about the instantaneous and automatic corresponding crowning of Др not because of some — let us stress once more — additional physical-causal effects, but immediately in the implicative-logical way: under the fundamental, non-removable, noneliminating, and indivisible relationship of coordinates and impulse given and held by the universal constant h. (“Implico” — from Latin — “indivisible”, “whole”).
Thereby, a physical-causal influence on the particle, recalling the physical-causal reduction to zero of Дх instantaneously and implicative-logically by the power of an indivisible relationship of coordinate and impulse,
221
Section 11. Philosophy
given by the universal constant h, leads to an infinite impulse, which is deprived of any real physical meaning. We must note that also in the range of any observed real physical values, their relationship (mutual correspondence and correlation) obviously do not have a physical-causal, but rather implicative-logical nature.
In order to feel the full specific character of the quantum implicative-logical relationship, assigned by the indivisible and whole Plank’s constant h, let us present the following illustration. Assume that we have a U-shaped vessel, the left half of which is filled by the indefinite form Дх, and the right half — indefinite form Ду: AxUAy ~ h.
Then it becomes obvious that the diminution of the level Дх always signals the expansion of Ду, and vice-versa. However, this normal physical-causal flow from one branch to the other of the U-shaped vessel of liquid, gas, other free-flowing body, etc. does not have any relationship to the quantum case. Quite the opposite, the correlation of quantum uncertainty is given in the necessary way — specifically logical — resultant from the fundamental wholeness of its product in the dimension of Plank’s constant. It is naturally obvious that even the nature of this correlation is not physical-causal, but implicative-logical.
The experimenter physically acts upon the particle for the purpose to determine the subject of observation. But by the same token, instantaneous, not by force but rather the implicative-logical way through the fundamental quantum property of wholeness of the quantum system he extends the field of potential possibilities (and also probabilities as their mathematical measure) for the conjugate observed, etc.
Let us go on now to the EPR-experiment. Let the system consisting of two particles with the generic spin ofnull be in the extremely detailed so-called pure quantum state, which is described by unique wave function. Since the system in this state is not further detailed (i. e. indecomposable into elements and sets) and exists as an indivisible unity, we are forced to talk about the particles it consists of in terms of the probabilities of its (particles) discharges.
This means that the system structure in this state is formed with the help of collections of the potential possibilities of the states of its separate particles only. None of these states is real, but at the same time each of them as a possibility makes its own contribution to the probabilistic structure of the common system. Eventually only the collections of the probabilities of extracting such substances as the first or the second particle exist here, rather than these particles by themselves.
Because the exact value of the total spin of null exists, the spins making up this system of the particles cannot have a defined value in this case. It is expressed formally in the following way: the defined value of the total spin of the system does not commutate with the defined values of the spins for the 1st and 2nd particles, which make up this system.
EPR-experiments unambiguously indicate that already after the spontaneous breakdown of the system and proj ection of particles, say the 1st to Paris and the 2nd to Tokyo, a perfect relationship remains between them until one of them (e. g. in Paris) experiences the real physical act of measure (or some other physical action). Namely, though the result of the measure in Paris will be always accidental, if it turned out to be that S1^ say, equals +1, then the experimenter in Tokyo having measured the spin of his particle (after the measurement in Paris) will necessarily obtain S2x= -1.
However, the experimenter in Paris who starts first can always voluntarily choose either this or that projection of the spin of his particle for measurement. If, for example, the experimenter in Paris will readjust the equipment for the measurement of S1z and obtains S1z= -1, then the experimenter in Tokyo is doomed to receive only S2z = +1 in his measurement. Now this is not just determinism, but superdeterminism, which was expressed validly by David Bohm. The nature of this effect is evidently not physical-causal, but purely logical. This is indicated by the purely logical binding “if... then,” which is used here. This binding directly expresses a logical implication.
Secondly, this implication unfolds not in the world of physical events (it is simply impossible there), but in its additional and tightly bound world of potential possibilities (and probabilities as its measure), which by their nature can only be bound and mutually correlated purely logically, rather than, of course, physically.
Thirdly, the very act of changes of probabilities for the future measure in Tokyo under the influence of the physical event (measurement) in Paris (reduction of the wave function) is of course momentary, which is conspicuously testified to by the experiments in quantum teleportation. Thus, all quantum-correlation effects take place out of time and space: instantly at any time and over any spatial distances.
It should not surprise us, because the acting characters here are strictly non-spatial substances: potential possibilities (probabilities) and also a non-spatial quantum property of the world as the indivisible unit which produces and holds them.
222
Секция 11. Философия
This very quantum property of the world as the indivisible unit that is a unique sub-quantum non-spatial “operator” that always resists us during the quantum experiment and plays its own game in response to our actions. This is a property of unit, by producing potential possibilities and keeping them, it rules over them, relocating them in strict correspondence with the changing configuration of the multiple (physically verifying) spatial-temporal aspect of the system, in which we create changes by conducting experiments (or measuring).
This approach gives us a simple and exhaustive explanation of the reduction of the wave function. Let the selected system be in a state in the form of such a decomposition: = ciyi(x) + c2t2(x) + ...+cztz(x). The
total sum of these particular states of the initial quantum system introduces the full collection of the potential possibilities inherent to the initial state Y(x). The mathematical measure of these potential possibilities are the probabilities introduced by the factors с1 ... cz.The initial Y(x) in such a pure state has a remarkable integrity and finite indivisibility into any elements: it cannot be divided into the products ofwave functions of the elements that have produced it.
This uniteness (or wholeness) is formally displayed in case when the whole collection of coefficients is normalized c1 ... cz. It is exactly this sum that equals unit. As a result, we deal with the implicative-logical structure that provides purely logical mutual congruousness and coordination of all terms of the given decomposition.
The result of any physical influence (or measurement) on this initial state is going to be the realization of one of the partial states, say, cntn(x), which is always accidental and unpredictable. However, the very act of the realization of any of the partial states involves at the same time an instantaneous transformation into zeros of all other coefficients for all terms of the given decomposition except for cntn(x), where the coefficient has instantaneously transformed into unit in this process. This is called a reduction of the wave function:
*(x) = c1t1(x) + c2t2(x) + •••+ cztz(x) * which
obvious testifies to the implicative-logical properties ofthe probabilistic structure of the initial pure quantum state.
Thus, the use of a holistic idea not only allows drawing the curtains covering the mystery of the property of noncommutativity, but also at the same time finding a direct answer to the question of why probabilities are primary in the description of physical reality, to realize the implicative logical organization of the probabilistic structure of the quantum system in a pure state and on this basis to give a natural explanation to the reduction
of wave function and quantum correlation effects. Their “mechanism” ultimately turns out to be clear — it is implicatively logical. The immediate, not physically causal, but implicatively logical character of quantum correlation effects is visually confirmed by the successfully conducted experiments on quantum teleportation (Dik Bouwmeester), in which actually nothing moves from one point of space to another. But the fact of teleportation is at hand! This result is exceptionally achieved with the help of successful manipulation of the potential possibilities (and probabilities) from a point of “departure” to a point of “destination” on the basis of the prepared quantum correlation connection between these points and its effective actualization.
Summary
How did all these appear to be possible? Through the natural relativization and restriction of the ultimately general abstract notion of set by means of introducing an additional and, in their respect, oppositional notion of non-set as the unique property of wholeness and indivisibility of the purely logical but not physically causal nature. And it is clear why: because the physical is the thing that is physically verified, e. g. is subject to the observation, manifestation, some physically causal outcome, display, etc. This is the world of elements and sets. But all of this is only one side of reality. The second one, and complementary in relation to the first, is the world as a whole and single unit on the subquantum level. This second side of reality on the subquantum level is neither physical, nor observed, nor manifested, nor physically causal, but just mentally comprehensible and purely logical, but in its nature objectively existing on the subquantum level. Thus we come to an amazing conclusion about the unity and mutual complementarity of the physical and logical in the properties of reality.
Along these lines this unique, not physically causal, but logical property of the world as an indivisible unity on the subquantum level is simultaneously both the source of the unavoidable potential possibilities in the structure of the quantum system and “operator” that governs the potential possibilities of the systems under the laws of logical implication in answer to these or those physically causal impacts on the system. The logical implication is a genuine mystery of the phenomena, which are imprecisely called “entangling” or “coupling” of particles.
The extreme generality of quantum physics was noticed a long time ago: no physical interaction exists, which, at sufficiently thin levels of detailed study, would not uncover quantum properties. The considered implicatively logical properties of the potential possibilities of
223
Section 11. Philosophy
quantum systems in a pure state and implicatively logical nature of quantum correlations testifies to the effect that quantum physics is more than just physics. One day it will take us to the understanding of the nature of thinking, consciousness, and life.
4. EPR-Correlation in the Synaptic Transitions in the Brain as a Possible Basis for the Consciousness Generation
Let us now turn to the main question — analysing the possibilities of the application of quantum-mechanical ideas in order to make at least some progress in the Mind-Body Problem.
There is no doubt that sensory information that goes into brain from a peripheral nerve must be described in a quantum mechanical way, at least because of the extreme smallness of the portable energy. Besides, it is well known that any sensory signal that goes to brain inevitably splits into at least two branch signals, one of which goes to the specialized brain parts along the specific afferent pathways, and the second goes to the so-called formation reticularis (or netlike formation) that creates a general excited state of the brain. There abundantly exist conditions in the brain, because ofwhich the only initial quantum system that has appeared in the issue of the irritation of a peripheral nerve receptor is under the split (mostly multiple). In the same way there exist all necessary conditions for the EPR-correlation to occur in the cerebration. And there appears the possibility to develop some ideas about not physics-chemical (not related to the energy transportation) relations of the events in the remote brain spots.
Let’s believe that the only quantum system bearing the sensor information has initiated two subsystems. One of them covers the specific afferent system and the second one takes part in the general diffuse excitement of the main brain through the reticularis formation. Let the first subsystem, arrived at a point of destination in some specialized brain part, turns out to be locked in it because of the mismatch of the information it carries with the information coded on a nerve cell synapse of a given brain part. Then the second subsystem that takes part in the general irritation of the main brain through the reticularis formation can finally find synapse with an appropriate diagram of the polarization and cause a transition in it. This occurrence would result into momentary and unavoidable consequences for the first subsystem too, causing its transition through the synapses according to the EPR-correlation scheme.
In the terms of particles we could talk, for example, about two electrons with mutually antithetic orientation
of the spins: the first electron because of the incompatibility of its polarization spin of the postsynaptic film turned out to be locked on the pre-synapse in the end of a specific afferent pathway in a proper specialized brain part. Then the second electron that belongs to the same common original quantum system as the first one having appeared in the brain through the reticularis formation finds finally the synapse with an appropriate polarization and causes a transition in it. At this the specific transition conditions are those that the orientation of the first electron spin changes to the opposite, as a result it also makes a transition on its synapse. Therefore processing of information that came to the first synapse occurs in the same way due to the EPR-correlation, and the events on two deleted synapses appear to be linked neither in the coercive nor in the physically causal, but in the implicatively logical way [3].
At the end we really come to the possibility of non-coercive and non-physically causal relation of the events on two macroscopically deleted synapses ofbrain. Of course this relation itself between some single events in brain is still not the consciousness, as it is not a display of some consciousness in the experiments that have been made to verify EPR-correlations, it is just an elementary consequence of the holo-parameter ‘operation’ (e. g. the wholeness phenomenon) of the quantum system. However if the frequency of such correlation transitions on the main brain synapses achieves quite a high level, it can turn out that due to the mass character of such events non-coercive relation of separate synaptic transitions combining with the transitions in other synapses and mutually intensifying at their quite high frequency covers extensive brain areas, and on this basis in the actively functioning brain a qualitatively new state is forming — a unique property of its functional integrity due to which the whole system reacts on the incoming irritations as an indivisible wholeness (an indivisible unit). The events taking place in its separate parts turn out to be not physically causal, but they are connected with the events implicative logically in its other parts. This unique wholeness in the brain state formed and maintained with the help of the mass character of the non-coercive correlations on the transitions of its synapses will be the ‘substantial’ basis of our abstract ‘I’. However during such a mass and avalanchelike process of the synapses activation the information as if illuminated by its wholeness reflects the individual experience of a given organism, then this abstract ‘I’ in its semantic aspect is filled right away with some definite informational content turning into a psychic ‘I’ of some specific individual — Ivan’s ‘I’, or Peter’s ‘I’, etc.
224
Секция 11. Философия
A secondary quantum process that appears in brain in such a way, and that creates its functionally integral state reproduces and imitates in it the subquantum wholeness for the whole neuron system that takes part in this process. Brain neurons occur to be linked to this created by them functional state of the brain wholeness, and they get under its influence to some degree. That’s why a control over the neurons that take part in the production and maintaining of the consciousness process turns out to be captured and held back by the given secondary phenomenon -that is a unique wholeness property of the whole nervous system functional state. It means that a control over the distribution and correlation of the whole system potential possibilities in the process of the consciousness generation already belongs not to the natural holo-parameter as we could say from a physical point of view, and as it really happens in the real EPR-experiments, but to its imitating and substituting wholeness property of the nervous system functional state (that very our ‘I’ or famous von Neumann ‘abstract I’), and it happens in such an extent in which the described systems take part in the generating and maintaining of this state.
By the same token we have a possibility for the first time to build a bridge from the ‘spirit’ to the ‘matter’ and to realize how the ‘thought’ can move a ‘mass’, how the ‘sentient’, or ‘psychic’ can cause some changes in the ‘physical’ and manipulate it. It is demonstrated in the fact that the manipulation of quite material sensor, motor and information neurons that take part in the common quantum process that generates the consciousness is not now performed with the natural holo-parameter, but its outcome in a given process — a unique integrity property of the brain irritated state. But if the natural holo-parameter of the quantum system just controls potential possibilities of the physical system in compliance with a given configuration of its maximum detailed state that is introduced by the ^-function, then the phenomenon of the consciousness wholeness being generated by the quantum process that has linked the sensor and motor neurons with the information structures kept in the brain achieves the status of a reflective or psychic phenomenon.
This means the following: in an awake state the appeared wholeness state of brain activates the main part of a given body informational thesaurus at the cost of the persistently incoming through the sensor canals energy and persistently “reads” it. In this persistent and mass activation of the information structures in a single quantum process there appears and exists the brain wholeness state — our ‘I’ (that is unique and inimitable for everyone
due to the individual experience). Then the selectively picked out sensor information that has been let in on this level of the psychic ‘I’ and that is compared with its ‘personality’ informational thesaurus or ‘reflected’ in it, of course, in the general case must lead to the inimitable reaction-behavior of a given organism due to the inimi-tability of the gained experience saved in its information structures (memory).
Thus the quantum holism allows us to make the consciousness problem clear:
1) the achievement of not physically causal, but implicative logical relation of the events on the macroscopi-cally deleted synapses of brain. This relation can be an objective basis from which the structure logical properties of the thinking and consciousness develop that are not reduced to the causal linkage and dependencies;
2) the emergence of the unique property of brain functional wholeness on the basis of such implicatively linked and mutually correlated synaptic transitions (at their quite high frequency), due to which brain reacts on the incoming irritation as the indivisible unit. And this is the basis of our ‘I’ existence. Events happening in its separate parts appear to be connected with the events in the other parts not physically causal but implicative logically.
3) Therefore the unique wholeness property ofbrain functional state, generated by the mass process of the non-coercive EPR-correlation transitions on the synapses, which maintain them, connect the states of the sensor, motor and information neurons and controls them. In the issue a wave function that has linked the states of given neurons, the potential possibilities of which are now controlled by the unique wholeness property of the whole brain functional state, can be ‘arbitrary’ contracted to the states, which do not only correspond but also contradict indirectly incoming sensor information. These states are dictated by the irritated configurations of the information neurons imitating some expected or projectable future state of the organism that correspond to the will, desire, intention demonstration and a great many of other shades of the individual psychological behavior getting bigger because of the information activation and reading from the informational thesaurus of an organism and its continuous correlation with the incoming sensor information about the outer space and the organism state in it. By the same indication we find the answer to the nowadays nagging Mind-Body Problem at least to some degree.
Here it is important to answer the usual objections that arise with the idea of using quantum-correlated effects in explaining the nature of consciousness. They
225
Section 11. Philosophy
come from the evident fact that quantum-correlated effects in every concrete case need enormous protection from thermal action and other accidental events now, which can provoke impossible decoherense of the original pure quantum state and make a quantum-correlated connection. Indeed, let us remember how, for example, thermodynamic protection of sensory information and its transportation from the first receptor to the highest cerebral cortex is provided. Very specialized research is needed in order to answer this question. It is important that this defense actually takes place in a living organism. However, life may have invented something like fiber optic paths, though it is scarcely probable.
What is more probable and what actually takes place in a functioning neural system is a quite effective defense from the thermal dispersion of information by way of transportation through regeneration, i. e. through the exact reproduction of the original sensory signal along a nerve fiber from one point to another step by step, etc.
In any case, questions of thermal protection of information are solved by the organism quite effectively: while walking quickly, your heel suddenly slips and your body immediately responds with a series of skilled movements that occur automatically and without any visibly conscious efforts due to how you manage to balance yourself and continue walking. The information traveled very quickly and without any distortion — it happened quickly and precisely, and a corresponding ruling signal traveled immediately to your heel, and not just there! One might start thinking that momentary quantum-correlated effects would be quite appropriate here.
The more difficult question is that of the appearance of the described phenomenon of functional integrity in a neural system that generates and keeps consciousness (conscious perception of reality). The quantum- correlated effect of connection of extracted synapses according to the scheme of the EPR-experiment may be possible, but it is exceptionally vulnerable to thermal influence in such a complicated and thermodynamically distant medium as the brain. The very thought of gaining protection from thermal influence with the help of traditional modern scientific cryogenic technologies is clearly absurd. Meanwhile, a brain in an active state functions as an accurate and effective machine, which is more delicate, flexible, refined, and inventive than any of its modern cybernetic parodies.
Moreover, every person is aware that he or she can always raise the intellectual and creative abilities of his or her brain. And it is possible not by means of liquefied nitrogen but vice versa — by heating up his or her brain
with a good cup of coffee or a strong drink, such as commonplace alcohol or even LSD, different stimulants, or drugs, etc.
The thing is that despite all the laws of thermodynamics, the brain functions better the more it is heated! Indeed, we know well that the phenomenon of consciousness (conscious perception of reality) disappears as soon as the general activity of the brain falls below 10 6 synaptic connections per second for the whole brain in general — the state of sleep inevitably takes place beyond this threshold.
And to the contrary, the awakening of the brain and its changing to an active state starts from the 10 6 of synaptic transmissions per second. Outwardly these circumstances look as if they should have raised the entropy and consequently hampered effective and precise processing of information in the brain, i. e. hampered the functioning of the brain. Alas! Considering the problem of consciousness, it seems that nature mocks at us, our ideas and technologies.
Meanwhile, a great amount of simple events that are necessary for generating and keeping a state of consciousness, can hold within itself the key to the mystery of consciousness. Indeed, the quantum-correlated link between extracted synapses is still not and cannot be consciousness. However, as it has been shown above, implicative-logical rather than physically-causal connections can be reached on the extracted synapses on the basis of quantum-correlated effects. In this way, the processing of incoming sensory and other information, reaching synaptic passages at quite a high level of frequency in the brain, means a new state — the unique property of its functional integrity, by which the whole system reacts to incoming stimulation as an indivisible integrity. Though this functional integrity of an excited brainstate is inherently caused by a mass avalanchelike accumulation of events — by EPR-transitions on single synapses, it is secondary with respect to them, it cannot be brought to them and has its own meaning and gains a completely new reflective function towards a common physical world that is beyond sensory receptors. This very phenomenon is a completely new and secondary unique functional integrity in the state of the brain, which is created and kept with the mass character of non-power correlations in the transmissions in its synapses. It makes its way to a possible “substantive" base of our abstract “Me”.
However, from a thermodynamic point of view, how is the achievement of such a pure quantum state bounding together most parts of neurons of the brain possible?
226
Секция 11. Философия
It appears possible due to the rapidly growing avalanche-like stream ofEPR-events that form its foundation!
Many of these events will turn out not to be implemented or destroyed by thermal influence. But since events, which surmount in their quantity a number of 10 6 per second, come into play, many of them will remain intact and become realized in accordance with EPR-schemes. These are statistical laws of thermodynamics. And there will be enough of them to awake and provide an active state of the brain. This is why in this case nature resorted to huge, indeed astronomical, numbers and in addition to that quite a limited spatial volume — altogether 6-7 inches in diameter of brainpan.
5. Possible Experiment to Prove the Set Out Hypothesis
Is there any possibility to prove experimentally presented here ideas? Evidently that these ideas themselves must de carried to a more detailed and clear exposition, which allows to single out some empirical proved consequences that is very difficult to do right now. Nevertheless we can indicate one experiment. It can be enough to prove the main idea about involvement of the EPR-correlations in the generating of the consciousness state. Its point is the following: the importance of the activation and maintaining of the consciousness state has been proved due to many experiments of the dissection of the brain reticular formation. The experiments have proved specifically that when all parts of the brain, receptor and conductive devices (it means that the brain has been subjected to a continuous irritation by the incoming afferent impulses) are completely preserved, an animal, however, went immediately into hibernation during a cross-section of the reticular formation of the brain that is not more than one/thousands part of the central nervous system. The state of sleeping under anesthetic also occurs due to the blocking action of some drugs on the reticular formation.
The usual explanation of these facts is made by the assumption that the reticular formation creates the general tonic (irritated) state of the brain necessary for the consciousness to come into effect. But we can go further and assume that the impulses transferring into all parts of the cerebral cortex by the reticular formation are in the state of the EPR-correlation with the impulses moving to the cerebral cortex along the direct afferent pathways, since every time a pair of such impulses has a single source — a single original quantum system that has been formed in a receptor neuron. Then the following scheme to prove this assumption is possible. We should try to dissect the reticular formation with simultaneous introduction of
the diffusely distributed stimulation through the appearing cut that is equal to the usually observed potentials for the normal wakefulness state in the reticular formation.
In this case it is impossible to say that the cross-section of the reticular formation ‘excludes’ the general tonic state of the brain, because it will receive activating impulses trough the reticular formation cut. And on the other hand, if the consciousness state does disappear (we assume it has to happen!), this fact will confirm the assumption about the decisive role of the EPR-correlation effects in the consciousness formation.
We could explain the experiment by indicating the fact that despite the preserving of the main brain activated state and its receiving of the sensor information through the specific afferent canals, the consciousness however disappears because of the evident missing of the EPR-correlation between the signals that come to the brain through the reticular formation cut and the signals that come to the brain along specific afferent pathways from quite a different source — from the receptors of the peripheral nervous system. This fact eliminates any possibility of the generating of the brain wholeness phenomenon on the basis of the EPR-cor-relations effects. By the same token we can achieve the explanation why the consciousness state disappears in the described experiment though the activated state of the main brain would be maintained by the impulses delivered into the upper part of the brain through the reticular formation cut.
We can also suggest another version of this experiment. The two animals of the same biological species with pronounced sleeping and wakeful states are exposed to a cross-section of the reticular formation with a simultaneous connection of impulses from the lower part of the reticular formation of one animal to the upper part of the reticular formation of another animal. It would cause the mutual exchange of the information between the animals that comes from the reticular formation to the brain. It is also obvious that in this case, any possibility of EPR-correlations between the signals, which come to the brain along straight afferent pathways, and somebody else’s signals that come to the brain of the animal from the reticular formation of another animal are absolutely ruled out. We suggest that in this case as well both animals would hibernate in spite of the ensuring of all conditions for the excited state of the brain of both animals. In this way our hypothesis about the decisive role of the EPR-correlations for the wakeful state to appear, e. g. consciousness would be proven.
227
Section 11. Philosophy
Reference:
1. Beer St. Cybernetics and Management for the Production. 2 nd edition. Nauka. Moskow, - 1965, - p. 38, (translation from English into Russian).
2. Kobozjev N. I. The research in the field of thermodynamics of thinking and information processes. In the book: Kobozjev N. I. Selected works. Vol.2. Moscow University Publishers. Moscow. - 1978, - pp. 3-240 (in Russian).
3. Tsekhmistro I. Z. Implicative logical nature of quantum correlations (Il).//Voprossy Philosophie, - 2012, - N 5.
4. Tsekhmistro I. Z. Implicative logical nature of quantum correlations.//Physics-Uspekhi (44), 4, April, 2001.
5. It can’t in essence be the task, whose exact target is the explanation of the possibility of thinking and consciousness. Otherwise it is the inevitable mistake, known in logic by the name per idem — that is to say, explanation by means of involving the explained.
Chernyakova Natalia Stepanovna, Herzen Staty Pedagogical University of Russia, Professor, Northern People Institute E-mail: Cherns2011@yandex.ru
The notion of truth: between rejection and rescue
Abstract: The notion of truth is considered in the article as the category of thought by which we express the property of our thinking to reflect, to be in correspondence with objective entities, which are transcendent to the thinking itself. This universal meaning of the notion of truth couldn’t be changed by any theoretical interpretation of the notions “being”, “correspondence" or “criteria of truth”.
Keywords: truth, being, thinking, knowledge, correspondence, true, false.
For the last two millennia the sacramental question “What is Truth?” turned into a ritual formula, the recitation of which demonstrates respect to the mysteries of human existence and cognition, but not to the notion of truth itself. The content of this notion seems for many philosophers so obvious that, like R. Rorty and after him, they think that “the fact that we possess such a notion is in itself no guarantee that there will be an interesting philosophical theory about it” [1, 282]. Calls to resolute reconsideration of the classical concept of truth were heard in the philosophy of the second half of the 20th century so often, and prospects for the future use of the very notion of truth were discussed by philosophers so seriously, that we should doubt not so much possibility of any interesting theory of truth as the fact of availability in our minds of just the notion, and not only a word “truth”. Do we really understand the content of the notion “truth” and its status in intellectual activity, if, like K. Popper, believe that anyone can destroy or rehabilitate truth? At the XVIII World Congress of Philosophy (Brighton, August 1988) K. Popper considered it his duty to express gratitude to Alfred Tarski and to make a confession of his faith: of his “opposition to relativism” and his “54-year-long adherence to the Aristotelian theory of truth, rehabilitated by Tarski and successfully applied by him and by
Gödel to some mathematical problems” [2, 6]. Isn’t it better to refuse the use of the notion “truth” at all than to consider, that two thousand years we fight over the decision of the elementary cartographic tasks, and together with D. Dennett rejoice that “serviceable, modest concept of truth... has its uses: when we want to compare two maps of countryside for reliability, for instance, or when the issue is whether the accused did or did not commit the crime as charged” [3, 97]? I think that the experience of philosophical thought and discussions of the 20th century must not be lost if we don’t want continue to stand before a dilemma: either to use no more “marketable” concept of truth as correspondence of the trivial judgments to the evidences of common sense, or contemplate the greatness of metaphysical Truth, the concept of which can’t be defined and can’t be used in the cognitive process or in practice.
Despite the fact that in Aristotle’s works there is no real definition of the truth and that statements of Aristotle himself, which is often cited in connection with the discussions of the problems of truth, doesn’t form a theory, definition of truth as correspondence of the thought to reality is regarded as the quintessence of exactly Aristotelian understanding of truth. Sustainable philosophical tradition linked not only this definition, but, eventually, even the Latin formula "adaequatio
228
