The main conjecture in Physics of Human Intention (hereafter PHI) is that the whole Universe is a living entity evolving along some universal time arrow. To describe this new time arrow, two modes of the Universe have been postulated, called local time mode and global time mode. The latter can not be observed with inanimate (dead) measuring devices but the effects and blueprints from it can be inferred from standard Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Einstein's General Relativity (GR). The local time mode refers to a physical section or slice of the Universe, which we can physically observe only in our past light cone, in line with the relativistic causality. If we look at the Sun, for example, we see how the Sun might have looked nearly eight minutes ago, but not at the instant of observation. Hence we can not, even in principle, verify experimentally the state of the Sun at the very instant 'now', as read with our clock. Accepting the commonsense view of the world at the macroscopic level, which says simply that there is a world independent from our observation (objective reality 'out there'), we can safely assume that what we see by looking at the Sun had been in fact the state of the Sun eight minutes ago, while its actual state in the instant of our observation is always shifted ahead of our local 'now', in the sense that it does exist 'out there'1 but is not yet observable (the so-called relativistic nonobjectivity, P. Busch). In the context of the theory suggested here (see John's jackets parable), this is equivalent to saying that the Sun has had only one propensity-state or 'jacket', and its 'quantum die' (cf. the quote from Einstein) has been too "narrow" to accommodate more than one 'jacket'. The situation is entirely different in the quantum worlds, as inferred from standard QM: there are always more that one possible 'jackets' (or 'interpolating states', A. Peres) but, due to Heisenberg relations, they can not possess simultaneously point-like values. Not surprisingly, if you read Yakir Aharonov and Erasmo Recami. This is the crux of the problem of reconciling QM with Special Relativity, as stressed by Erwin Schrödinger back in 1931. If we observe the state of the Sun (=eigenvalue) at t0 , we do know that (i) what we observe at t0 is a state that the Sun should have had 8 minutes ago, and that (ii) after 8 min we should observe the next (for us) state of the Sun at t0 . In Newtonian mechanics, we always have two finite intervals, in the past and in the future, and we can subsequently apply the notion of 'objective reality out there'. This is not possible in QM, however. Consider some eigenvalue actually obtained as the result of some measurement, recorded at time t0 with your wristwatch. When did the quantum system jump into its eigenstate? Before t0 (case A), "during" t0 (case B), or after it (case C)? The question is meaningless. It presupposes that we can distinguish between cases A, B, and C, which is simply wrong. We don't have 'objective reality' in QM, and can't build a relativistic quantum theory of measurements based on two finite time intervals, as in the example with the Sun above. (An explanation for pedestrians: if we picture the spacetime as a blue sweater with a red dot interwoven, our intuition tells us that there must be some invisible red thread behind it. Then we can assume that there is a point from the invisible red thread that corresponds to a point on the blue sweater before the red point, and also a point from the invisible red thread that corresponds to a point on the blue sweater after the red point. If the invisible red thread exists as 'objective reality', as in the example with the Sun, we have two time intervals on the blue sweater, before and after the red point. However, if the red dot comes from the quantum realm, we face the problem of mapping the quantum realm on our world of tables and chairs. The 'common denominator' for these two worlds, called 'global time mode of the Universe', is the main idea in the hypothesis for universal time arrow.) Unlike the human brain, measurements made with inanimate devices can not reveal the quantum reality of non-commuting observables, such as the Wigner wavelet for the coordinate and momentum of a quantum particle, which shows that in some regions of position-momentum phase space there is "negative" probability2. Paul Dirac has interpreted this probability as a "fully defined mathematical analogue of a negative amount of money"3. Where does Mother Nature keep this quantum dough of non-commuting propensity-states? The conjecture offered here is the global time mode of the Universe, presented with two virtual worlds of "positive" and "negative" existence. Figuratively speaking, these two virtual worlds 'run against each other' and 'cast one jacket from John' (say, the jacket 'cloud'). The rest of 'jackets' do not come into existence for the particular selection, but they do not "collapse" because they exist like Platonic ideas. This intelligent selection mechanism is suppose to work in the global time mode, in which everything is ONE. (This is a very old idea, as explained eloquently by Chuang-Tzu: Before Zen, a tree is a tree and a mountain is a mountain. During Zen, a tree is not a tree and a mountain is not a mountain. After Zen, a tree is again a tree and a mountain is again a mountain.) Briefly, if certain things or events do not happen, they may still exist as two propensities, happen vs. not-happen, which were canceled for the particular case only, with equal "negative" and "positive" amplitudes. They were simply chosen not to happen, a bit like the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, as told by Sherlock Holmes. Hence a new interpretation of the quantum vacuum as some sort of 'memory of the Universe'. It resides in the global time mode of the Universe. It does not have energy nor does it move, simply because there is no place left to go to. It is literally everywhere, as a unphysical bootstrapping web for all physical stuff, living matter included. The latter emerges along the local time mode of the same Universe. One may also speculate that the global time mode also determines the mass of physical bodies, as a quantum-mechanical version of Mach's principle. This issue is under investigation, at this point I would like to stress that upon 'casting jackets from John', in the case of Schrödinger's cat, one has a choice from two possible jackets, |dead cat> and |live cat>, which are already normalized for the act of choice, in line with the requirement for unitarity. Their common source (John) always remains intact, in the global time mode, "outside" the spacetime surface created upon the intelligent selection mechanism, and "outside" the Hilbert space. It is intelligent in the sense that it takes into account every physical stuff in the Universe. It is a perfect example of the rule "think globally, act locally". Going back to the quantum vacuum, note that there is a big difference between the established interpretations of the vacuum energy contributions and the one suggested here. For example, in Feynman path integral we may talk about some 'sniffing out' that takes place "during" the global time mode, while I suggest a cancellation of "positive" and "negative" modes represented with two virtual worlds, material and tachyonic. In this manner we should be able to obtain a general theory of renormalization providing custom-made cutoff and subsequently finite values of physical quantities. The difference is that in this case we would (hopefully) have quantum gravity installed from the outset, which literally eliminates certain possible values by a complete cancellation with equal positive and negative amplitudes/probabilities, hence allowing only ONE set of finite values to be 'projected' from the global time mode. The rest are chosen not to happen but they 'stay tuned' in the global time mode (or 'memory') of the Universe that we call 'quantum vacuum'. Finally, by setting the global time mode effectively zero, we should be able to recover General Relativity and classical mechanics. (The complete proposal will be delivered at a later date, hopefully by the end of 2003.) The apex in Minkowski's cone can't hold more than one event, hence anything we observe with inanimate devices comes inevitably with point-like values in our past light cone. Thus, by making physical observations on a quantum system, we inevitably squeeze one of its non-commuting observables (say, by measuring position we totally destroy its genuine momentum by forcing it to accept infinite value). We utterly deform the state of the quantum system by performing any physical observation on it, which is one of the reasons why we can not apply the comfortable notion of 'objective reality' to the quantum world. If we are to seek some new ontological status applicable to the quantum world, we should examine the logical possibility that all non-commuting observables might exist in a special propensity-state, and that its 'holder' or 'quantum die' could be the so-called global time mode of the Universe. Next, if we accept Heraclitus' dictum Panta rei, and also assume that the two modes of the Universe are connected, we arrive at the point at which this hypothetical universal time arrow can match what we call 'learning', in Ulric Neisser's cognitive cycle: every physical slice of the Universe (local time mode) is projecting its possible future states in the global time mode, as some sort of "offer wave", then the selection of one future state occurs, which is sent by a "confirmation wave" to be the obligatory next physical state of the Universe. This is the elementary step of the universal time arrow. It is indeed an arrow because every new step contains more information than the preceding one (information gain, as opposite to information loss), and hence the chain of these step is irreversible. If we are to use probabilities, they should be ontological, not epistemic, and would perhaps lead to a Bayesian framework, which essentially says that, given the state of affairs at some instant, there is a single probability distribution P that summarizes the possible state in the next instant. Hence P will change along with the non-unitary, creative evolution of both local and global time modes of the Universe. Here the human memory can provide many clues. It is important to realize and understand the unique structure of human memory: it is an amazing mental stuff of interconnected "discrete values" of meanings attached to everything we perceive. For example, when we surf the Net, or search for a proper word from a thesaurus, or translate a phrase from one language to another, we sort of extract in our mind discrete values of meaning, but at the same time we bear in mind a holistic image of all related words or concepts (see an effort to explain the Platonic ideas with an analogy of discrete trees and their holistic forest). There is nothing in the inanimate macro-word around us that could even resemble the structure of human memory, because every discrete element or 'meaning' is bootstrapped with the rest of discrete meanings constituting our memory. The meaning I attach to the word 'chair', for example, is linked to everything I know about chairs, furniture, and hence with all my life experience. I keep memory traces about how the word 'chair' sounds in Bulgarian, I can translate it into English, and would recognize it if I see it written, I know how to use a chair, etc. But I'm sure that my brain, compared to that of any other person (not to mention my dog who does know what 'chair' means), keeps entirely different memory traces about a chair. These memory traces change, they can never stay the same during our lifetime, and yet we can understand each other (smart dogs and baboons included). This is why we say that Platonic ideas do exist, such as 'a chair per se' or 'an apple per se'. Now, if we reject the possibility for some ghosts or any other mystical entity that could be totally independent from the physical world, we need to find the physical nature of this holistic structure of our memory. The proposition here is that this holistic "forest", bootstrapping all localizable "trees" (memory traces), is due to a universal time arrow in which the "forest" occupies the global time mode of the brain, while the "trees" or memory traces are in the local time mode of the brain. Thus, the Platonic ideas are not hooked on the local or physical mode of the brain but emerge from the state of the Universe as ONE through brain's potential states placed in the global time mode of the universal time arrow. These potential states can not be normalized (I see a vague similarity with Everett's interpretation of QM), they occupy the global time mode of the brain as some virtual dough of propensities which may or may not be explicated as a discrete meaning of "this chair, here-and-now". To eliminate the Platonic ideas and the need for finding its physical connection, the global time mode of the brain and the whole Universe as ONE, all we have to do is to prove that the brain is some information-processing machine. If the human brain were processing information and nothing but information -- which is what students are taught in school, regrettably -- then the human mind and all our subjective experience would be just an epiphenomenon. We would function like those robots assembling cars in modern car factories, and all our subjective experience would be a totally unneeded bypass product from information processes in our brains. If everything is in the brain, why do we have it duplicated in our subjective world? This is in brief the so-called hard problem, and its "solution" in present-day theoretical physics, suggested by Murray Gell-Mann and Jim Hartle, is by denying the ontological status of the human psyche and reducing it to some "information gathering and utilizing systems", IGUSes. Well, I have no idea why many physicists still believe this is a "scientific viewpoint", it reminds me the story about that drunken man who lost his key in the dark but is trying to find it under the lamp simply because it is brighter there. There is a very clear and straightforward way to find out whether our brain processes information and nothing but information: if there is an isomorphism (something like the information encoded on a video tape and its presentation on a TV screen, crudely speaking) between our brain and our subjective experience, then the latter would be an epiphenomenon, and hence we would be nothing but "information gathering and utilizing systems". To be more specific, I suggest we examine the case of face recognition, and try to locate in the brain the neural storage of its Platonic idea. Once created, it will not change during our lifetime and will provide an exceptionally fast (80 to 300 msec) visual pattern recognition by its link with the brain. Can we reduce all this to information and nothing but information? Information must be about something. Lines on a piece of paper, for example, are not inherently information until it is discovered that they correspond to something, such as (in the case of a map) to the relative location of local streets and buildings. This is the meaning of those lines on a piece of paper. Likewise the neural correlates of our memory, spread across the whole brain, can not be considered as 'information' without the Platonic ideas fused with the potential states of the brain, which would endow them with particular meaning. We constantly perceive the world on two layers: physical layer, on which there are written signs on some physical media (e.g., a piece of map, or a piece of paper with a barcode, or a neural network in the brain), and a mental layer, in which the Platonic ideas provide meaning to the signs written on the first layer. Our brain is constantly corresponding with this second layer, which is not in the physical brain but in the potential states of the brain, according to the hypothesis for universal time arrow. What we call 'mind' is our ability to attach meanings to physical signs, i.e., to link Platonic ideas to some signs written on some physical media, human brain included. Don't try to find the human mind in the brain though: you will find just its blueprints called 'neural correlates of consciousness', but not the mind itself. (For a different interpretation of the nature of mind, with emphasis on depressions and emotions, see Baroness Susan Greenfield below.) An example: consider five billion people with different brains which change along with their life experience. All you have to do is to locate in these five billion brains some neural structure that does not change, and some neuronal mechanism that would read and interpret the "information" encoded in such a way that these five billion people would recognize a face they know very well. So, does our brain processes nothing but information? If something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not necessarily a duck, wise men say. We can understand the meaning of this saying due to the Platonic idea delivered with/by it, although our brains read only words related to ducks. Same with horses. Again, if we are to reject all mystical ghosts in the brain and all living matter, first we have to find the physical basis of mind, which is what I suggest with the global time mode of the brain and the whole Universe. Of course, then comes the next challenge, that of the nature of what we call 'mental reflection' and how it depends on its neural "filter", which will not be addressed here, to keep the subject focused on the physics of human intention. To illustrate the difference between local time mode and global time mode of the Universe, imagine this: you stay in a pitch-dark room with a camera in your hands, and take snapshots which you record with your camera clock placing time stamps on your photos at tn , n=0,1,..., which are events from your local time. Not the time read with your wristwatch, which does include all time stamps placed on your photos. Think only about the events marked with the your camera clock (local time stamps). Any time you take a snapshot, you're wiping out the darkness (global time mode) completely: you get a frozen picture of the room, which shows the state of that room in your past light cone, in line with the relativistic causality. To make the example more transparent, imagine you are a 2-D creature living on Flatland, and can physically observe only the 2-D snapshots, as labeled with your clock in your local reference frame on Flatland. What can you say about the "time" running in some 3-D space? This is the global time mode of Flatland, and it does include all time markers of the photos from Flatland. These time markers form a continuum of events in 2+1-D spacetime, and the inhabitants of Flatland would not be able to imagine the 'dark room' hidden by their "speed" of light. They can only speculate about some global time mode of Flatland needed to explain the elementary increment of motion (Zeno's first paradox), the nature of their de facto continual spacetime, and the peculiar boundaries of Flatland, which certainly have finite numerical values but can not be reached from any place "inside" Flatland. They too will be haunted by some 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' coming from nowhere, and of course by the old story of the Dragon chasing its tale (cf. below). Let's go back to the example with the Sun above. Suppose you and the Sun are entangled, i.e., you are not two isolated and independent systems but are bootstrapped by the phenomenon of quantum holism. Now, consider some 'simultaneous now' at t0 , for you and the Sun. Your possible future states in the next eight minutes on Flatland, as well as the possible future states of Flatland's Sun eight minutes after t0 1, are presented in the atemporal global time (like in a dark room). Then by an "offer wave" and "confirmation wave", in the global time of Flatland, you and the Sun jointly select one next state from the spectrum of all possible states, yours and those of the Sun. The negotiation of the next state takes place exclusively in the global time mode of Flatland (the dark room). In order to have a time arrow made by these next-states, each and every one of them must contain something new which is added irreversibly" during" the bi-directional negotiating process in the global time mode, and comes from some source that does not exist. All people on Flatland would perhaps be amazed to discover this creatio ex nihilo. Their Flatland changes all the time. Not only in the local time mode but in the global time mode as well. Brand new things come into existence on Flatland: "Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once", as John Wheeler put it. So much about Flatland. In present-day physics, however, there is no time arrow. All changes that are supposed to mark the notion of time are fully reversible. It is like shaking a kaleidoscope: you get seemingly different but in fact tautological states of the kaleidoscope, and any of these states could be labeled as 'beginning' or 'end' of the transformations of states. None of these states undergo some irreversible changes, we have a unitary "evolution" from one state to another (non-unitary, creative transformations are excluded), the kaleidoscope is considered to be a "closed system" (this notion I was never able to comprehend), and hence we encounter the notorious problem of time. Not surprisingly, time is not an observable. The global time mode of the Universe is wiped out from the outset, and it seems to me that all we could pray for could be a new theory employing two virtual worlds which, depending on the particular case and boundary conditions, would cancel each other in some custom-made fashion, and hence avoid divergences in coupling quantum fields to gravity, for example. But this would be a static solution only, and nothing more. I suspect that a new theory of gravity would be very different from GR (although not in the direction suggested by Hüseyin Yilmaz, I'm afraid), but don't have any clear idea of how, by using differential geometry and tensor calculus, one can design a higher-dimensional holder of two virtual words (cf. below). We need to resolve the issues of energy and spacetime "curvature" in Einstein's GR (the non-existence of a gravitational field stress-energy in the right-hand side of the field equations), and I anticipate that the new theory would be very different from what we know today. The global time mode has left too many blueprints on the local time mode, such as tachyons, mirror worlds, dark energy, and the like. We certainly must explore the global time, not kill it. Note that the use of temporary notions in the realm of the global time mode is for illustrative purposes only (just like in Cramer's interpretation of QM); the bi-directional negotiation between the two modes of the Universe can not be found in the spacetime of the local time mode of the Universe. Any time we make observations with inanimate devices, we see the final act of delivering an already-chosen state, as in the example with looking at the Sun. The crux of the case of living (and quantum, I suppose) matter is that all already-chosen states look like EPR-like correlated, but an observer inside the local time mode might be tempted to interpret the bi-directional negotiation in the global time mode as propagating in both time directions (here comes a long list of theories claiming some acausal miracles, retrocausation4, and the like). In philosophy, this phenomenon is known as Leibnitzian pre-established harmony, harmoniae praestabilitae5. I believe in can naturally explain many "spooky correlations" and "coincidences" in quantum physics and cosmology. It is very important to note that the global time mode should be presented with two virtual worlds with "inverted" spacetime basis, like a virtual "material" world and a virtual "tachyonic" world. (Without the universal time arrow, you have to choose one world as "material", hence the other world becomes "mirror" or "tachyonic", with the sole interface being the luxonic matter. The inversion of space and time shows up also in Kruskal-Szekeres conformal map.) The two virtual worlds cancel each other almost completely upon projecting a static snapshot of the local time mode. The phrase "cancel each other almost completely" is perhaps related to a vanishing small but still non-zero cosmological constant examined as the gradient for the universal time arrow. The interaction of these two virtual worlds is supposed to select one next state for the local time mode from the spectrum of all potential states in the two virtual words placed in the global time mode. Since we want to build a time arrow, we should suggest that every next physical state contains more information than the preceding one, being extracted from the putative source of creatio ex nihilo. Hence in the physical, local time mode we see a finite slice of the Universe and presume -- wrongly -- that there exists some physical process in the Universe that can reach its end, say, the Planck scale. However, for every physical slice there exists a new, already enriched global time mode from which the next physical slice will be prepared: Panta rei. Thus, the physical, local time mode of the Universe is wrapped by some numerically finite but physically unattainable boundaries. The evolution of the local time mode can never catch the evolution of the global time mode, the latter stays always shifted one step ahead in the universal time arrow. This is nothing but the old story about the Dragon chasing its tale. The Act of Creation comes simply from the need (?) of the Dragon to chase its tale, starting from [John 1:1]. This is the back bone of the theory proposed for solving the mind-body problem, we only need to assume that the universal time arrow has a mental reflection, just like any other physical entity that we perceive with our senses. But what is the crux of the mind-body problem? The human brain and mind are two entirely different, ontologically distinct entities. A theory of their relations has to meet two seemingly contradictory requirements: the brain and mind must be both connected and separated. Their connection should provide the brain with the ability to change the states of mind, and the mind with equally effective ability to change the states of brain, while their separation should secure and preserve their entirely different nature, res cogitans and res extensa. Moreover, the theory in question should be designed in such a way that all undisputed empirical evidence supporting materialistic6 and dualistic views should be accommodated effortlessly: we should be plus catholique que le Pape upon examining data supporting these two seemingly contradictory frameworks for mind-brain relations. Obviously, this is not a trivial task. In addition to the challenge of developing a mind-brain theory, which will not reduce the brain to some information-processing device and the mind to some epiphenomenon, we have to formulate clear physical ideas for the universal time arrow facilitating the bi-directional 'talk' between the brain and its mind, while keeping them somehow separated, like two disjoint parallel worlds. Fortunately, there is a theory of mind-brain relations, suggested by Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung nearly half a century ago7: the brain and mind are presented as two complementary explications of ONE entity, the evolution of which produces correlated changes in its two 'projections'. So far so good, but how these two 'projections' emitted from ONE entity can be safely separated? The proposition made here is that they are separated in the putative universal time arrow: the material projection occupies the past, while the mental projection called 'mind' resides in the potential future of this new time arrow, along with the potential states of its brain. Hence the potential future from the new time arrow is the point where mind meets the potential states of matter, but not the actual ones that are already in the past. To avoid possible terminological misunderstandings, I will denote this proposal with 'trialism', stressing that the only new element in it is the hypothesis for universal time arrow. It will be developed in such a way to ensure the faculty of self-acting17 of a physical system: the brain should be capable of acting on itself, by selecting one from its many potential states in the future. Metaphorically speaking, if we picture the brain states in the past as a car, and the potential brain states as a steering wheel, then the mind is the driver. It does have free will and can go anywhere with its car, but is not detachable from it. It is not some ghost that can jump from the car, because the driver is what it is because of the car, and vice versa. To fully explore the car-driver metaphor, it would be correct to say that the driver has not only control over the steering wheel but can also choose one road from the spectrum of all potential roads ahead (as in choosing a possible universe in Everett interpretation of QM), and hence the whole 'road ahead' is subject to negotiation and joint determination by the driver and all the other drivers sharing a common potential future or 'road ahead'. Compare this framework to the standard presentation of mind-brain relations. Usually their causal relations are pictured with a square box labeled with 'brain' and a little cloud above labeled with 'mind'. The reason for separating the brain from its mind is obvious: the two have nothing in common. Then we have four cases: (1) an arrow pointing from brain to mind would explain the idea of materialism (epiphenomenalism); (2) arrow from mind to the brain refers to dualism; (3) two arrows represent interactive dualism; and (4) no arrow stands for psycho-physiological parallelism. I believe the theory of mind-brain relations based upon the universal time arrow includes the pieces of truth in all four cases above: the brain and its mind are both separated and united via their common source. Of course, here comes a very good question: what could qualify as 'the driver' in the absence of mind, say, shortly after the putative Big Bang? Can we reveal the selection mechanism or 'the driver' in the quantum world 'out there'? A tentative answer could be that the psyche emerges on macro-level only, through its biological system acting as 'filter for mind'. There are no tiny little human minds adjusting the trajectory of an electron, say. Instead, I assume that the selection mechanism in the quantum world, resembling that of the human mind, is the same ONE entity mentioned above. It is the 'chooser' of one possibility amongst many in the quantum world simply because it is ONE, and provides a hidden and intelligent determinism because it resembles the anticipation faculty of the human mind: all quantum systems are pre-correlated, in line with Leibnitzian pre-established harmony. Hence I assume that 'the driver' is built-in in Nature from the outset with the putative universal time arrow and the whole Universe is a living entity. As to the mind, it has the chance to use the same selection mechanism of the universal time arrow when emerges on macro-level through its biological substratum acting as "filter" for mind and psyche. Please note that here I propose a link of the mind to some generic immortal soul, contrary to the established view in neuroscience that the soul, if any, had nothing to do with the study of the mind and consciousness8. Briefly, I conjecture that we should have access, with our brain and its mind, to the whole Universe "from inside", from the most fundamental level at which everything is ONE. The latter shows up in physics as a numerically finite but physically unattainable boundary of the physical world, like the absolute zero "temperature", or Planck scale, or the speed of light, for tardyons. I simply assume that, if we could jump over that boundary, we would wind up in a special ONE entity from which mind and matter can emerge. To the best of my knowledge, this is the oldest idea about the nature of mind and matter, which opens a theoretical possibility for explaining many unsolved mysteries in today's quantum physics and cosmology9, ranging from the nature of quantum of action to the so-called anthropic principle and the cosmological constant problems.10 Briefly, to solve the mind-body and mind-matter problems, first we need something to facilitate the phenomenon of self-acting17, and secondly, we need an entity that possesses a self-referential, self-addressing and self-acting ability, just like the Dragon chasing its tale (cf. above). The former can be physical but not-yet-material -- the potential states of the brain placed in the potential future of the universal time arrow -- while the latter can't be neither physical nor material. The only candidate could be the human mind examined as a non-material agent capable of expressing its self-referential faculty by its brain only, by acting on its brain and with its brain only. Physically, we can observe brain states in the past only, and not the potential states of the brain that are supposedly fused with the mind. The latter should be placed in the potential future of the universal time arrow, as mentioned above. How else the mind can hit matter and stay alive? I'm fully open to suggestions, of course. To be specific, I will be more than happy if someone could explain the mental imagery presentation of cognition. Or cross-modality transfer. Or how do we get invariant pattern recognition from proximal stimulus. Or any simple case of mental rotation: imagine a cube made of some white plastic material, with 3 cm rib, painted blue, which you cut into 27 little cubes, 1 cm each, and ask yourself the question: how many little cubes have 3 painted sides, 2, 1, and zero? Where in the brain is the "cutter", "rotator" and "counter"? What brain process could possibly qualify as the neuronal basis of our 'cognitive light' that is 'looking at the cube', rotating it, etc.? From now on, I will focus on the main issue: the universal time arrow and hence the physics of human intention (hereafter PHI). It is not possible to solve the whole bundle in one stroke, and I will place temporary the issue of the nature of mental reflection on hold, waiting to see whether the theory of PHI suggested here is correctly formulated and falsifiable, and whether it will be unambiguously confirmed by experiments. It goes without saying, however, that an experimental confirmation of the theory suggested here can not be considered automatically as a proof for all underlying assumptions, many of which are clearly in the realm of metaphysics. I personally have no hesitation to employ metaphysical assumptions, as long as the theory rooted on them can suggest simple recipes of the type 'if you do A , you will get B ', which can be experimentally verified. If confirmed, we would have a theory for enhancing human performance. Not a theory of the nature of reality per se. Just a tool for improving our life, and first of all our health often tampered by stress-related reversible dysfunctions of various physiological systems. The cure may all be in the brain, we just have to 'elevate' it on the level of self-consciousness and take control over all psychosomatic problems of our body and mind. Mind you, I don't imply here some "mind-over-matter" or "psychokinesis" but a simple and ordinary mental effort, just like the one we use to move our hand, for example. But hold on:
how do we move our hand? Is that a simple and ordinary thing? If compared
to a pair of compasses, for example, the human hand is full of surprises,
because it is not designed for any particular movement, thanks to which
we can make any movement with it. Same with the human tongue, it
too has too many degrees of freedom, with a huge neural representation.
If the brain is too complicated to grasp the problem, think of a centipede:
how does it walk? Obviously, if we try to construct a machine exactly as
a centipede, by duplicating the neural mechanisms with mechanical and electronic
machinery, we will face an enormous
problem of coordinating and planning any "simple" movement, be it a
centipede
or our arm or our tongue. There is no overall coordinating center nor any
privileged anatomical structure that could act as some homunculus
guiding the whole brain11. Any perception
and action, no matter how simple it might look, does involve the whole
brain, but there is no structure or process in the brain that could instruct
some parts of the brain "get the job done" and the rest of the brain "keep
quiet and stay tuned". There are no traffic jams in the neural networks
of our brain (e.g., Takashi Nagatani (September 2002). The physics of
traffic jams. Rep. Prog. Phys. 65, 1331-1386), no "file duplication" and, unlike any computer, the brain
can fully restore its function after severe structural damages, say, after
a stroke12. Our brain can form memory
traces from music heard in the womb, up to three
months before birth, and keep this "information"
for a whole year! Mind you, we talk here about 100 billion neurons
and many more glia cells,
10-50
times the number of neurons (unlike neurons, glia cells continue to
divide even when in the mature brain) connected by as many as 100 trillion
synapses facilitating their chemical and electrical communication, and
this extremely complex piece of wet soft jelly-like
matter is a thermodynamically open system, which can sustain its stable
functional state only by constant interaction with its environment.
Moreover, it doesn't crash:
no
brain catastrophes. We definitely need new physics here. Neither classical
nor quantum physics could possibly explain the living brain. If
you kill it, you will never discover
the physics of life.
To sum up, let me stress that the established physical community still denies the existence of time and entertains the metaphysics of reductionism, which is a belief (or rather a very sticky anti-theistic religion) that all biological and mental events are reducible to physical events, and subsequently all physical events are reducible to matter-energy. If this were true, we would be forced to confess that some mystical ghosts are taken over our brains, but these ghosts have nothing to do with the physical world for which the notion of time is inherently wrong. On the other hand, Andrei Linde acknowledged that consciousness might play a crucial role in the world, but suggested that it might exist without matter, at "Anthropic arguments in fundamental physics and cosmology" (Cambridge, 30 August 1 September 2001). Such bizarre attitudes might be quite comfortable to string physicists and to those doing experimental work in high energy physics, for example, since they can ignore almost everything from biology and psychology, and continue their search for some "fundamental" particle, one or more. But why explore a dead-end? We very often read statements in mainstream physical journals that physicists have to struggle with words that don't fit reality, such as 'now' and 'here'13. Hermann Weyl had claimed that "The objective world simply is, it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body, does a section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time."13 It seems that the nature of consciousness and physical reality looks quite clear to many physicists. I personally find such statements a bit premature, since physicists can only talk about 35 per cent of the stuff in the Universe. The rest is still a dark secret14. In summary, let me stress that in relativistic causality there is no place for a 'holder' of propensity-states, the global time mode of the Universe. In present-day physics, everything is treated in a very peculiar fashion, as if it had already existed, and hence these propensity-states have to be somehow imposed on the spacetime. This inevitably leads to intractable difficulties with the "collapse" of the wave function15 and energy-momentum tensor16, to nonlocality and self-interaction17, to "vacuum catastrophe", as well as to dark matter and dark energy. To explain the mysterious "peaceful coexistence" of QM and STR, I suggest the propensity-state of matter, in the putative global time mode, as the Common Cause Principle in Leibnitzian pre-established harmony5. It should also be the law determining the mass of matter in Machian gravity18, replacing the notion of spacetime curvature with some new, still unknown concept19. It can correlate distant events "during" their propensity-state existence in the global time mode, but the "negotiation" over which jacket should be selected, as explained by John Wheeler, is hidden due to the speed of light -- we see one final outcome only, localized in our past light cone, and then assume -- wrongly -- that there exists in Nature such thing as 'point-like value of an observable'. There is no such thing as 'point'. Just a 'jacket from John', selected by "negotiating" with the rest of the Universe ("think globally, act locally") and explicated in one instant from the universal time arrow, in line with the principle of pre-established harmony5. I believe that everything in the Universe changes by a creative, nonunitary evolution along the universal time arrow. Even some "fundamental constants" can change their value20: Panta rei. There must be some infinite pool of potential things, viewed as the "source" of creatio-ex-nihilo, for both the material and mental worlds, in line with the doctrine of trialism. Following Pauli and Jung, we may call it 'the ultimate archetype' or simply God [John 1:1-4]. It looks to us as 'nothing', or 'empty set' from which brand new things can emerge, in sharp violation of the requirement for unitarity (applicable only to a frozen, time-symmetric world). The ultimate archetype might be hidden inside the instant 'now' from the universal time arrow, and will show up as 'empty set' (see below). Finally, let me again stress that PHI is regarded as an effect of spacetime metric (not some "psi field") induced by human volition, and it can be used only for humanitarian purposes: in the global time mode of the Universe, we all are entangled, we are simply ONE21. You can't steal, hit, or kill anything with PHI, simply because "before" you do it, you will have to steal, hit, or kill yourself. If someone wants to make a weapon out of the human mind, the place to look for it is parapsychology22. Efforts in this direction are recorded since the time of Roman empire, but the success is zero. Zilch. The only negative side effect from PHI research is that nobody likes it. Physicists don't like it, for obvious reasons. Psychologists don't like it because their favorite models don't work, and brain scientists don't like it because the human mind is not physical and hence can't die8. Well, is this a problem? I believe that further theoretical studies will bring us much closer to quantum gravity, while the immediate practical application of PHI is in holistic healing and psychoneuroimmunology23. PHI works, we have to find out its precise mechanism. The future is open, up to the 'unknown unknown'. It is an empty set which should always be taken into considerations24, although at this point we know nothing about it and can only consider, based upon our past experience, a set of possible outcomes with probabilities which we believe would nicely sum up to unity, hopefully. What I call 'John' does include this empty set, however. That's the whole point about the so-called 'point' and its presentation in H-space25, which, if ignored, leads to the pathologies of the classical spacetime manifold.26 The simple fact that we do not observe in our macro-world tables and chairs being simultaneously both 'here' and 'there' nor some superposition of cat-and-dog27 is the biggest challenge for present-day quantum physics. Only a jacket cast from John can provide a point-like localization, as seen in our past light cone. In order to have 'points' to which we can attach some point-like numbers, we need John. It won't "collapse" upon casting its jackets, just like we don't lose the concept of an apple per se by observing some concrete apple, here-and-now. It serves as some common denominator for its jackets and provides their smooth, continuous explication along the universal time arrow -- we can not observe the gaps "between" jackets (the 'dark room') due to the speed of light, as in the example with the Sun above. In physics, however, we are restricted to unitary transformations, resembling shaking a kaleidoscope, and we inevitably operate with a normalized set of jackets (e.g., 50 per cent chance for 'vase' and 50 per cent chance for 'two faces'). These jackets can "encode" their holistic John-state for one instant of time only, as read with a physical, inanimate clock (not the human brain). Hence our John is completely wiped
out from this set of normalized jackets, and the physical picture becomes
that of a time-symmetric, frozen snapshot.
John is gone, and so is the time. In order to bring time into physics and
to explain the quantum of action28, we need
John. The ideas have been suggested by Henry Margenau29
and Sir Karl Popper30, it remains to be
seen how one could develop the appropriate probability presentation31,
perhaps in the H-space of Ted Newman25
(provided it can accommodate the two virtual worlds above)
or with Lawvere-Kock Synthetic Differential Geometry32,
by replacing Deutsch multiverse33 with the
global mode of time (cf. the 'dark room' metaphor).
Of course, we will also need [John 1:1], to explain our John and to complement
physics and theology. Qui vivra, verra.34
Acknowledgments. I thank Professor Chris Isham for many stimulating discussions and for his valuable preprints sent in November 1996. I am also grateful to Professors Abner Shimony and Asher Peres for sending me papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics and actualization of potentialities. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for possible errors in my work. I am also very grateful to my friend Henry Margenau, the Eugene Higgins Professor Emeritus of Physics and Natural History at Yale University, for his encouraging letters and moral support. He left the spacetime on February 8, 1997. God bless him.
References and notes 1. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 891 (1905): "We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If for instance I say, 'that train arrived here at seven o'clock', I mean something like this: 'the pointing of the small hand of my watch to seven and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events'". [Quoted after: W.M. de Muynck (2001). On measurement in relativity theory. In: Recent Advances in Relativity Theory, Vol. 2, Material Interpretations, M.C. Duffy and M. Wegener, eds. Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, Florida, pp. 156-168.] 2.
D. Leibfried, T. Pfau and C. Monroe (1998). Shadows and Mirrors: Reconstructing
Quantum States of Atom Motion. Physics Today 51, pp. 22-28.
Cf. Fig. 5 below,
3. A.V. Belinski (1994). Bell's paradoxes without the introduction of hidden variables. Physics - Uspekhi 37(4), 413-420. Sec. 4: "The crux of the matter is that the distribution function of random quantities, described by noncommuting operators, is not always positive definite. A striking example is the Wigner distribution function for the coordinate and momentum of a quantum particle. (...) What does the negative joint probability mean? Dirac [20, 23] regards this probability as a "fully defined mathematical analogue of a negative amount of money". It should be mentioned that in describing the results of the experiment in question the negative probability reduces the probability of events corresponding to it and increases the probability of opposite events." See also: Mark William Hopkins, Re:
QM in one sentence, 13 June 1999,
Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventure of Silver Blazes": "Is there any other point to which
you would wish to draw my attention?"
4. O. Costa de Beauregard (1992). Timing in EPR Correlations. Foundations of Physics Letters 5(5), 489-491. 5. Gottfried
Wilhelm von Leibnitz, Monadology, 78: "These principles have furnished
me the means of explaining on natural grounds the union, or rather the
conformity between the soul and the organic body. The soul follows its
own laws, and the body likewise follows its own laws. They are fitted to
each other in virtue of the preestablished harmony between all substances
since they are all representations of one and the same universe." See also: Mark
Kulstad and Laurence Carlin,
Leibniz's Philosophy of Mind, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002,
Sec. 2, Denial of Mind-Body Interaction, Assertion of Pre-established Harmony, 6. Note: I will not consider the case of idealism, and will thus reduce the monistic viewpoint to that of materialistic ontology, as accepted in contemporary physics textbooks. Regrettably, physicists are taught in school that they should either reduce the mind to some epiphenomenon (the so-called psychophysical parallelism, after John von Neumann) or should totally ignore the mind as something not related, in any way, to physics. Hence any evidence for mental action is automatically rejected by the established (and brainwashed, regrettably) physical community, and then classified as mysticism, pseudoscience, or parapsychology, whichever comes first. I hope the time has come to change this utterly wrong and unproductive paradigm. 7. H. Atmanspracher and H. Primas (1997). The Hidden Side of Wolfgang Pauli. Journal of Scientific Exploration 11(3) 369-386; cf. Sec. VI, Matter and Psyche as Two Aspects of One Reality, p. 381. 8. Note: Compare the view of Baroness Susan Greenfield, in an interview related to her book The Private Life of the Brain: Penguin Books: Given your understanding of consciousness, is there a place for God or the soul? Baroness Susan Greenfield: "My own view is that we could define soul as a distinct entity from mind and consciousness and I'll say how I think this can be done. The mind, I argue in the book, is the personalisation of the brain through all the personalised brain cell connections that reflect your personal experiences as you grow. (...) Now what about the soul then, if we've distinguished consciousness mind and brain, where does soul come in? Well, the one thing about a soul, the concept of a soul, whether you believe in it or not, is that it's immortal. Now if it's immortal, then it can't have much to do with the physical brain, because that for sure is not immortal. My own view is to say to people 'look if you believe in the soul I respect that view, but I cannot see how it has anything to do with the physical brain or indeed the mind and that's what I know about. It's fine if you believe in it, it's fine if you don't believe in it, but it has nothing to do with neuroscience, it has nothing to do with the study of the mind and consciousness'." This common objection to immortal soul in neuroscience, as the source of mind and Platonic ideas, may be valid iff we were build by nothing but a bunch of elementary particles that can, under specific conditions, conduct theoretical and experimental research on themselves, and eventually tell other elementary particles about it. Well, all this sounds to me like the story about Baron von Münhausen, who managed to lift himself and his horse by pulling himself up by his hair. I will examine this crucial issue later, in the context of neurophysiology of understanding, where I believe the faculty of our brain to utilize Platonic ideas and to act on itself is more than obvious. 9. M.J. Disney (2000). The Case Against Cosmology. General Relativity and Gravitation 32, 1125; also astro-ph/0009020. Mike Disney: "Of course we would all love to know of the fate of the Universe, just as we'd love to know if God exists." 10. Note: Regarding cosmology, there are many kinds of unsolved mysteries. One of them can be labeled with "miraculous coincidences": the so-called anthropic principle, the cosmological constant problems, the acausal correlation of cosmic background radiation temperature fluctuations due to the hypothetical inflation, and so on. It is suggested that we should approach these issues with the universal time arrow, which incorporates ONE common source for matter and mind and Leibnitzian pre-established harmony5 guiding the evolution of matter to match the prerequisites for life and consciousness. But there is another, far more difficult problem mentioned by Mike Disney: the creation and the fate of the Universe. According to the theory proposed here, the case is really non-trivial: once created by God [John 1:1-4], the physical section of the Universe, called local time mode, can not reach neither its "beginning" nor its "end" for any finite cosmological time, as measured in the local time mode of the Universe. Hence once created, the Universe is effectively eternal for its inhabitants. Let's explain first why it should be eternal. There is a genuine paradox in any born-along-with-the-Universe approach to the cosmological time: should the Universe has ever been in some totally non-physical "initial" state, there would be no physical reason whatsoever to get out of it. To illustrate this, imagine some super powerful vacuum cleaner that could suck absolutely every physical stuff. Run it, and at some critical point the vacuum cleaner will suck itself and would simply disappear, being inevitably sucked by itself. To avoid this, the global time mode of the Universe is suggested, which should prevent the physical section of the Universe from self-destruction, by setting the cosmological time to only tend asymptotically toward its (singular?) initial and final point(s). But the global time mode, just by itself, can't logically explain the Act of Creation. What we need here is some self-acting primordial entity that can exist as 'pure math and cognition' [John 1:1]. If so, where is it now? It might exist inside the instant 'now' from the universal time arrow, and could be literally very much alive! Since we might never fully understand the Act of Creation, I will refrain from humanlike interpretations of Aristotelian First Cause, and will not speak of "Him" or "Her". Should we were able to answer these questions as scientists, the whole theology would be reduced to science, which will be the ultimate end of science. All I can do is to quote Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". 11. S. Rose (1999). Brains, Minds and the World. In: From Brains to Consciousness? Ed. by Steven Rose. London: Penguin, p. 14. 12. S. Greenfield (2000). The Private Life of the Brain. London: Penguin, p. 64; S. Greenfield (2002). Sensational Minds, New Scientist 173(2328) 30-33 (2 February 2002). 13. F. Wilczek (2001). When words fail. Nature 410, 149 (8 March 2001). 14. S. Khalil, C. Munoz (2001). The Enigma of the Dark Matter, hep-ph/0110122; J. Overduin and W. Priester (2001). How dominant is the vacuum? astro-ph/0101484; S. Blinnikov (1999). Cosmic Gamma-ray Bursts, astro-ph/9911138; Z. Berezhianiet et al. (2000). The Early Mirror Universe, hep-ph/0008105; R. Foot (2001). Seven (and a half) reasons to believe in Mirror Matter, astro-ph/0102294; R. Foot (2001). The mirror world interpretation of the 1908 Tunguska event and other more recent events, hep-ph/0107132; Z. Silagadze (2000). TeV scale gravity, mirror universe, and ... dinosaurs, hep-ph/0002255; S. Carlip (2001). Quantum Gravity: A Progress Report, gr-qc/0108040; Straumann N. (2002). On the Cosmological Constant Problems and the Astronomical Evidence for a Homogeneous Energy Density with Negative Pressure, astro-ph/0203330. 15. Euan Squires (1994). The Mystery of the Quantum World. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia, p. 108; see the diagram below.
|
|||||||
| 16.
D.V. Ahluwalia. Three Quantum Aspects of Gravity.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9711075 "The second observation that I wish to report here is that the collapse of a wave function is associated with the collapse of the energy-momentum tensor. Since it is the energy-momentum tensor that determines the spacetime metric, the position measurements alter the spacetime metric in a fundamental and unavoidable manner. Therefore, in the absence of external gravitating sources (which otherwise dominate the spacetime metric), it matters, in principle, in what order we make position measurements of particles [D.V. Ahluwalia, Quantum Measurement, Gravitation, and Locality, gr-qc/9308007]. Quantum mechanics and gravity intermingle in such a manner as to make position measurements non-commutative. This then brings to our attention another intrinsic element of gravity in the quantum realm, the element of non-locality."
17.
T. Padmanabhan. Combining general relativity and quantum theory: points
of conflict and contact.
"All energies gravitate thereby removing the ambiguity in the zero level for the energy, which exists in non-gravitational interactions. This feature also suggests that there is no such thing as a free, non-interacting field. Any non-trivial classical field configuration will possess certain amount of energy which will curve the spacetime, thereby coupling the field to itself indirectly. Gravitational field is not only nonlinear in its own coupling, but also makes all matter fields self-interacting." See also: T. Padmanabhan. Cosmic
inventory of energy densities: issues and concerns.
"Do we understand any of these components at a fundamental level or can we relate them to one another in a meaningful way? Unfortunately, the answer today is 'no'." 18. G. Burbidge. Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, astro-ph/0108051; G.F.R. Ellis. Cosmology and Local Physics, gr-qc/0102017; D.W. Sciama (1991). The Physical Significance of the Vacuum State of a Quantum Field. In: Simon W. Saunders and Harvey R. Brown, eds. The Philosophy of Vacuum, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 137-158. 19.
J.
Baez. Open Questions in Physics,
"Is gravity really curvature, or what else -- and why does it then look like curvature? An answer to this question will necessarily rely upon, and at the same time likely be a large part of, the answers to many of the other questions above." 20. J.
K. Webb et al. Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the
Fine Structure Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 091301 (print issue
of 27 August 2001); P. Weiss. Constant
Changes.
Science News, October 6, 2001, p. 222; J.D. Barrow,
H.B. Sandvik, J. Magueijo (2001). Anthropic Reasons for
21. To understand the collective unconsciousness and the principle of synchronicity (Carl Gustav Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, eds. Naturerklärung und Psyche. Rascher, Zürich, 1952), as well as Sheldrake's formative causation, we have to demonstrate some 'level' of the human psyche, at which we all are ONE. I will refer to Georgian school of Dmitri N. Uznadze (most publications are available in Georgian and Russian only). Very briefly, Uznadze argues that there are three "vertical levels" in human psyche: self-consciousness, sub-consciousness, and unconsciousness. The first level is 'walking-state consciousness', which can be described as 'being constantly aware of what you're doing'. We have real-time feedback from everything we do or perceive at this level, and we call this feedback 'self-consciousness'. The next level, that of sub-consciousness, can be explained as some sort of background activity, which we are not constantly aware of. Example: you walk down on stairs, it's dark, you wrongly anticipate one step more, and at the moment you hit the floor, you become aware that all your body had been fully prepared for one more step. In other words, the presentation of this second level is always accompanied with emotions, and we can post factum analyze our sub-conscious mental activity. Not surprisingly, if we recall that what we perceive at the first level has been "prepared" by the human brain in the past, up to 500ms before the event of conscious observation (B. Libet). The third level corresponds to unconscious activity (ganzkoba, in Georgian) that may not, even in principle, be revealed a the first level. Consider, for example, post-hypnotic suggestions: you genuinely believe that what you plan to do is your business, while it might be implanted during hypnotic session. Perhaps that's the level of Jungian synchronicity and collective unconscious, too. The point is that these three levels are somehow embedded in the brain. We can talk about the first level of consciousness iff the other two are present. It's a bundle, some inseparable holistic entity, and we can't ignore any of these three "levels". PHI does not work at the first level, however. You can't give orders to PHI. Hence it has nothing to do with parapsychology, "psychoenergetics", "psi wars", "ultimate psychic warrior", and the like. 22. W.G. Norton (1985). Psychokinesis and its Possible Implications for Warfare Strategy. Master's Thesis, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Ch. 5. "The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency." 23. R. Ader (2000). On the development of psychoneuroimmunology. Eur J Pharmacol 405, 167-176; K.W. Kelley (2001). It's time for psychoneuroimmunology. Brain Behav Immun 15, 1-6; see also Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 24. See the argument of Hitoshi Kitada utilizing Gödel's incompleteness theorem and a note on undecidable propositions. 25. E.A. Rauscher, R. Targ (2001). The Speed of Thought. J. Sci. Exploration, 15(3), 331; E.T. Newman et al. (1978). The metric and curvature properties of H-space. Proc. R. Soc. A363, 445. 26. I.
Raptis. Presheaves, Sheaves and their Topoi in Quantum Gravity and
Quantum Logic.
"Our original motivation for looking
into the possibility of a noncommutative or, ultimately, 'quantum' topology
for quantum gravity rested heavily on our desire to abandon the geometric
spacetime continuum on which the mathematics of general relativity (i.e.,
the standard differential geometry) essentially rests for some structure
of a more finitistic, algebraic and, hopefully, dynamical character.
27. E.
Joos. Elements of Environmental Decoherence.
"There are many examples, where it is hard to find certain superpositions in the real world. The most famous example has been given by Schrödinger: A superposition of a dead and an alive cat Psi = |dead cat> + |alive cat> is never observed, contrary to what should be possible according to the superposition principle (and, in fact, must necessarily occur according to the Schrödinger equation). Another drastic situation is given by a state like Psi = |cat> + |dog> "Such a superposition looks truly absurd, but only because we never observe states of this kind! (The obvious objection that one cannot superpose states of "different systems" seems to be inappropriate. For example, nobody hesitates to superpose states with different numbers of particles.)" 28. D.
Bohm (1951). Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York, Ch. 8, §
24; I.J. Thompson (November 15, 1999). Philosophy of Nature and Quantum
Reality.
29. H. Margenau (1940). Reality in Quantum Mechanics. Philosophy of Science, 16, 287-302; cf. p. 297. 30. K.R. Popper (1957). The propensity interpretation of probability and quantum mechanics. In: Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics -- With special reference to Quantum Mechanics, ed. by S. Körner in collaboration with M.H.L. Pryce. Constable, London, pp. 65-70. 31.S.
Youssef (2001). Physics with exotic probability theory, hep-th/0110253;
(1995). Quantum Mechanics as an Exotic Probability Theory, quant-ph/9509004;
see also:
32. J.D. Fearns (2002). A Physical Quantum Model in a Smooth Topos, quant-ph/0202079. "Thirdly, the new viewpoint requires a greater repertoire of concepts, not all of which immediately sound physically plausible (how does one observe no bananas? Or empty space?)." 33. A.K. Guts (2001). Topos-Theoretical Model of Deutsch Multiverse. Matematicheskie Strukturi i Modelirovanie, 8, pp. 76-80. (In Russian.); English version physics/0203071. 34. D.G. Chakalov. Two Modes of Time: Biocausality. NATO Advanced Research Workshop The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics & Perception, May 21-24, 2002, Tatranská Lomnica, Slovak Republic. Click here to read an abstract and introduction.
|
