| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"MauritsvandenNoort" |
| Date: |
11 Mar 2005 11:34:22 AM |
| Object: |
The Measurement Problem finally solved? |
The Measurement Problem finally solved
Maurits W. Van den Noort*
*Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of
Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 91, Bergen 5009, Norway
[b:1ac4c83683]Quantum Mechanics describes the deterministic unitary
evolution of a wave function. The wave function allows us to compute
the probability that certain macroscopic events can be observed. In
the mathematical model, there are no events and there is no mechanism
for creating events. It is this dichotomy between the wave function
model and observed macroscopic events that is the source of the
interpretation issue in Quantum Mechanics. In classical physics, the
mathematical model describes about the things we observe. In Quantum
Mechanics, the mathematical model by itself never produces
observations. We must interpret the wave function in order to relate
it to experimental observations. From the beginning of Quantum
Mechanics, the concept of measurement has proved a source of
difficulty. In this paper, I show that the solution to the
measurement problem lies not in a special role for consciousness, but
in unconscious information processing of the observer.[/b:1ac4c83683]
In 1905, Einstein proposed his revolutionary hypothesis of the
light-quantum. In 1916 Einstein took his light-quantum hypothesis a
stage further. He formulated the probability laws governing the
emission and absorption of radiation by an atom1,2. Many physicists
did not accept Einstein’s hypothesis. One of the main problems in the
interpretation of the quantum theory was how to reconcile the idea of
the discontinuous exchange of energy between the atom and the
radiation field with the classical notion of the continuous
transmission of radiation in vacuo. In Bohr’s point of view, the
disjunction between the wave hypothesis and the light-quantum
hypothesis was not mutually exclusive.
In 1927, Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle, which tells
us that we cannot establish a particle’s position and velocity with
arbitrary accuracy. The more precise the position of an object is
known, the less precise is its momentum known (and vice versa), and
the more precise the energy is known, the less precise the time is
known3,4.
Bohr, however, wished to employ the wave theory in the derivation and
to regard the uncertainties as a consequence of wave-particle
duality. Unlike Heisenberg, who regarded wave mechanics merely as a
useful tool for solving mathematical problems in quantum mechanics,
Bohr placed the wave-particle dualism among the basic conceptions of
the theory. The procedure of measurement has an essential influence
on the conditions on which the very definition of the physical
quantities in question rests5,6. Moreover, our forms of perception
fail in microphysics, not just because the objects are not directly
perceivable by means of the senses but, more importantly, because
there is no clear-cut distinction between the object and the
instrument of observation7. In other words; the theory of relativity
reminds us of the subjective (observer dependent) character of all
physical phenomena.
From the beginning of Quantum Mechanics, the concept of measurement
has been a problem. London and Bauer8 suggested that the reduction of
state is not a straightforward physical process at all, but one which
involves the consciousness of the observer. Since the cut is movable,
they argued, the object together with the measuring instrument, the
sensory organs, and the brain of the observer may be treated as a
composite object and described in terms of the Schrödinger9 equation;
in which case the cut must be placed between this composite object and
the consciousness of the observer. The consciousness of the observer
could not be included in the object system if an observation were to
be made, since observation requires a subject of awareness as well as
an object of awareness.
The measurement problem and its associated paradoxes (the ‘Schrödinger
cat paradox’ and the ‘Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox’)10 show that
Quantum Mechanics is an incomplete theory. Despite of many attempts,
like the relative state solution and the introduction of non-linear
terms in the Schrödinger equation, the measurement problem has not
been solved yet11-15. In this paper, I show that not conscious, but
unconscious information processing of the observer is the solution to
the measurement problem.
[b:1ac4c83683]Human information processing[/b:1ac4c83683]
This failure to clearly resolve the problem has left the physics
community polarised. Some are of the opinion that the problem remains
a fundamental shortcoming of the wave packet16. Others have suggested,
by using arguments provided by von Neumann that none of these
solutions are acceptable and that subjective reduction is still a
possible and even preferred alternative17-20. The most radical
solution to the measurement problem is the proposition that the
reduction of the wave packet is a physical event, which occurs only
when there is an interaction between the physical measuring apparatus
and the psyche of the observer21. Before I come back to the
measurement problem, I want to discuss what we know about human
information processing.
In the late seventies, the cognitive approach to human information
processing was more or less the only approach. It was thought that
humans need consciousness to process, for example, emotional
information. Robert Zajonc22, however, argued on the basis of logic
and clever experiments, that emotion can exist before and without
cognition. Nowadays, it is known that a great deal of human
functioning is rooted in unconscious information processing23-28. In
my first experiment, I wanted to show that humans indeed process
information unconsciously. Positive and negative words were presented
subliminally (10 ms) on a computer screen and the order of the words
was randomised with replacement. The participants had to evaluate the
words as either positive or negative. The results showed that
participants evaluate the positive and negative words significantly
better than the 50% that might be expected if they were completely
guessing. This indicates that they had unconsciously processed the
emotional information. In addition, it was found that the positive
words were evaluated significantly faster than the negative words.
These results are in line with other studies, which showed that
humans evaluate objects at an unconscious level29,30.
The second study that I present is a skin conductance study. Skin
conductance is a frequently used measurement technique in research on
information processing. It is an electrical measurement of the minute
amounts of sweat being produced by the skin and it indicates changes
in the autonomic nervous system, which in turn indicate, for example,
emotional changes31. In this study, “emotional” and “calm” stimuli
were presented to participants while psycho-physiological measures
were continuously monitored. In the skin conductance study32, an
expecting orienting response was found after the target photo was
displayed.
There was a much larger response after the presentation of highly
emotional pictures compared to the calm pictures. Moreover, it was
found that 10 milliseconds after presenting highly emotional and calm
stimuli, the baseline was higher for the highly emotional than for the
calm stimuli, suggesting that the information was already
unconsciously processed. Finally, evidence for non-linear information
processing of the human brain was found. There was a 1 second
non-linearity in information processing, in which a significant
larger skin conductance response for the highly emotional compared to
the calm stimuli was observed. In replication studies, the same
general results were found. Interestingly, non-linear information
processing was not only found in experiments by using visual
material, but also in a study by using auditory stimuli.
[b:1ac4c83683]Brain processing [/b:1ac4c83683]
The same experimental set-up as in the skin conductance study was used
for the Event Related brain Potential (ERP) study33. So far, evidence
for unconscious information processing was found in reaction times-
and skin conductance studies. By using ERP, the underlying brain
mechanisms behind unconscious information processing can be studied.
Results for the group as a whole showed a significant difference in
ERPs after the presentation of highly emotional- compared to calm
stimuli on the fronto-polar electrodes. In addition, a significant
difference in ERPs was found after 10 milliseconds of presentation,
showing that people had processed the information unconsciously.
Moreover, evidence for non-linear information processing was found.
The ERPs for highly emotional stimuli were more negative, with the
point of maximum negativity occurring slightly before that of the
ERPs for the calm pictures. A positive shift with a steep slope was
observed approximately 4 seconds before the emotional stimuli. In
both locations, this positive shift in the emotional trial ERP
occurred approximately a second before the shift occurred in the calm
trial ERPs. An extra analysis showed that eye movement artefacts did
not contribute to the ERP results.
A functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) was conducted by
Bierman and Scholte34 to study the brain structures that are involved
in unconscious information processing. Again, highly emotional and
calm pictures were presented to the participants. The results at the
conscious level of information processing showed visual cortex
activation after presenting the pictures, which could be expected
because visual stimuli were used. Interestingly, all the regions of
interest resulting from the contrast analysis, showed a response for
all stimuli (including the calm pictures). An exception to this was
the subcortical region close to the amygdala. In this area, only a
response for the highly emotional pictures was found. The fact that
erotic stimuli have impact on the BOLD signal from the amygdala is in
line with results from Everitt35, who found dramatic change in sexual
behaviour after lesion of the amygdala in rats. Moreover, the
amygdala plays an important role in most brain-referenced theories of
emotion36-41.
In addition, evidence for both unconscious- and non-linear information
processing in the fMRI-study was found, which was widely distributed
over many brain regions, including hippocampus, pallidum, amygdala,
and nucleus caudatus. Most brain regions did not show striking
differences for the emotional- and the neutral stimuli. However,
larger activation preceding emotional stimuli compared to neutral
stimuli was found in the right amygdala and in the nucleus
caudatus34. For the male participants this appeared before the erotic
stimuli, while for the females both erotic and violent stimuli
produced this effect. So far, evidence was presented for both
unconscious- and non-linear information processing of the human
brain. Since human consciousness is restricted, it is necessary that
a lot of processes happen unconsciously. Now, I want to come back to
the special role of consciousness in physics and to the general
question of this paper: how can we solve the measurement problem?
[b:1ac4c83683]The solution[/b:1ac4c83683]
A conceptual replication of the Hall, Kim, McElroy, and Shimoni-study
was conducted by Bierman to test the “subjective reduction”
interpretation of the measurement problem in Quantum Physics42. In
the experiment, a quantum event (a radioactive decay) was measured in
a Geiger-Muller counter and the signal was displayed on a scaler. An
observer 1 looked at the scaler. The scaler signal was transmitted
through a delay unit and displayed again. Observer 2 looked at the
second scaler. Observer 1 did sometimes observe and sometimes not
observe his scaler. Rather than asking the second observer for a
conscious guess, as was done in the original study, the participant’s
brain responses to the stimulus were measured. If unconscious
information processing of the second observer is the solution to the
measurement problem, differences in brain potentials should only be
found for the unconscious- (< 50 milliseconds) and not for the
conscious components (>300 milliseconds).
With regard to the signal from the frontal electrodes, the results
show a significant difference between the conditions in the very
early unconscious peaks at 20 and 40 milliseconds. This difference is
gone after about 100 milliseconds.
To conclude, the results of this study support a solution to the
measurement problem that gives a special status to unconscious
observation in the measurement process. No differences were found in
the experiment when one asked the second observer to consciously
express his feeling if the observed quantum event had already been
observed by the first observer. The results were only at chance
level. Moreover, the absence of significant differences in the late
evoked potentials are in line with these findings. The solution to
the measurement problem lies not in the conscious-, but in the
unconscious information processing of the second observer, which is
from a neuroscientific point of view what we could expect, since most
human information processing takes place at the unconscious level43.
[b:1ac4c83683]Nature as an information processor[/b:1ac4c83683]
The results that were presented in this paper might surprise
scientists, who have a more conservative point of view at quantum
physics and neuroscience. Scientists often do not like the idea that
unconscious information processing plays an important role in human
beings. I wish to emphasize that I am not saying that consciousness
is not important for human beings, on the contrary, it is of great
importance, but human consciousness is also restricted. Therefore,
for optimal functioning, it is vital that consciousness is only used
for some higher mental processes, whereas unconscious information
processing is needed when the conscious mind is otherwise
occupied44.
In physics, nature is normally described in particles, molecules,
waves etc., which is very useful from a mathematical point of view,
but from a strict physical point of view: it is wrong. In fact
particles, molecules, waves etc. do not exist but are only used to
describe nature. It is the opinion of the author that we can use
these concepts in our calculations, but perhaps it is time to
redefine nature and describe it not in particles, molecules, waves
etc., but as a very large information processor, of which human
beings are only a small part.
[b:1ac4c83683]Methods[/b:1ac4c83683]
Reaction time experiment
In the reaction time experiment, positive- and negative emotional
words were used. These words were selected from a previous
pilot-study on 67 university students, in which participants had to
evaluate 100 emotional words on an 11-points rating scale as either
positive or negative. The 42 most positive and the 42 most negative
evaluated words were selected for the experiment. In the study, after
presenting a fixation-cross, positive- and negative words were at
random subliminally presented on a computer screen with duration of
10 milliseconds. The words were controlled for length and frequency.
Forty-three subjects (20 males and 23 females) participated in the
study. The participants had to evaluate the words as either positive
or negative by pressing a button. After 50% of the experiment, the
positive and negative buttons were changed so that handedness
preference was controlled for.
[u:1ac4c83683]Skin conductance[/u:1ac4c83683]
In the visual skin conductance studies, a computer randomly selected
and presented target photos from a pool of digitized photographs32.
In this experiment, the calm pictures included pastoral scenes and
neutral household objects, and the emotional pictures included
erotic- and violent scenes. The presentation of emotional and neutral
stimuli was randomised with replacement so that each trial was
completely independent of the previous ones. Four different
experiments were conducted in which 31 participants were involved and
1060 target photos were presented. In the auditory skin conductance
study, 125 participants heard 20 stimuli per session with a 50%
chance of an auditory stimulus or a silent control.
[u:1ac4c83683]ERP[/u:1ac4c83683]
Twenty-six adult participants, 11 males, 15 females, participated in
the experiment. The same experimental paradigm as in the skin
conductance studies was used33. Each participant was fitted with an
EEG (Electroencephalography) electrode cap according to the
International 10-20 System. An additional electrode for recording the
electrooculogram (EOG) was placed above the right eye to monitor eye
blinks and movement. Data editing was blind to stimulus category
(calm or emotional targets). Because of the significant findings at
the left frontopolar- and right frontopolar electrodes, an additional
randomised permutation analysis (RPA) of the EOG channel was
conducted, which revealed that eye movement artefacts did not
contribute to this result.
[u:1ac4c83683]fMRI[/u:1ac4c83683]
In the fMRI-experiment, a 1.5 Tesla Siemens system was used. In
general, the same experimental paradigm as in the skin conductance-
and the ERP-studies was used. Ten participants (6 male, 4 female)
entered the study34. A MPRAGE high resolution scan which lasted for
about 20 minutes was first conducted for each participant. The task
instruction was given outside the scanner. Then, a position localiser
scan was conducted lasting 2 minutes, after which the experimental
task of about 13 minutes was presented. The participants were
instructed to relax while passively looking at the pictures that were
randomly presented by a computer connected to a video projector onto a
screen. The stimulus material consisted of a picture pool of 36
emotional (18 erotic, 18 violent) and 48 neutral stimuli. The neutral
and violent stimuli were taken from the International Affective
Picture System45, while the erotic material was taken from a previous
study on sexuality by Laan et al.46. For each stimulus presentation,
the stimulus condition was determined randomly with a priori chance
of 2 neutral versus 1 emotional. Each stimulus sequence started with
the 4.2 second presentation of a fixation point during which the
anticipation was measured. After the exposure of the stimulus
picture, which also lasted 4.2 seconds, there was a period of 8.4
seconds during which the participant was supposed to recover from the
stimulus presentation. Data were analysed using Brainvoyager.
[u:1ac4c83683]Measurement Problem-study[/u:1ac4c83683]
In the replication study, quantum events were generated by an alpha
particle source that was mounted on a slider, allowing the source to
be moved with respect to a lead shielded Geiger-Muller counter42. The
distance was set so that on the average, 1 particle was detected about
every second. The counter pulse was amplified and fed to the trigger
channel of an EEG data-acquisition system. Nine male and 21 females
participated in the experiment. Both participants in two separate
runs played the role of observer 1 and 2. Sintered AgCI EEG
electrodes with active preamplifiers were connected to the head of
observer 2 using The Standardized 10-20 System. The total run
consisted of 120 radioactive decay events.
1. Einstein, A. Quantentheorie der Strahlung. [i:1ac4c83683]Phys.
Z.[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]18[/b:1ac4c83683], 121(1917).
2. Klein, M. J. Einstein and the Wave-particle Duality.
[i:1ac4c83683]Nat. Philos.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]3[/b:1ac4c83683], 3-49 (1963).
3. Heisenberg, W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der
quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Dynamik. [i:1ac4c83683]Z.
Phys.[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]43[/b:1ac4c83683], 175-180
(1927).
4. Heisenberg, W. [i:1ac4c83683]The Physical Principles of the Quantum
Theory. [/i:1ac4c83683] (F. C. Hoyt, Chicago, 1930).
5. Bohr, N. Die Atomtheorie und die Prinzipien der Naturschreibung.
[i:1ac4c83683]Die Naturwissenschaften[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]18[/b:1ac4c83683], 73-78 (1929).
6. Bohr, N. Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality.
[i:1ac4c83683]Nature[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]136[/b:1ac4c83683],
1025-1026 (1935).
7. Murdoch, D. [i:1ac4c83683]Niels Bohr’s philosophy of
physics.[/i:1ac4c83683] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1987).
8. London, F. W. & Bauer, E. [i:1ac4c83683]La théorie de
l’observation en mécanique quantique.[/i:1ac4c83683] (Hermann, Paris,
1939).
9. Schrödinger, E. Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik.
[i:1ac4c83683]Naturwissenschaften.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]23[/b:1ac4c83683], 812 (1935).
10. Einstein, A., Podolski, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantum-mechanical
description of physical reality be considered complete?
[i:1ac4c83683]Phys. Rev.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]47[/b:1ac4c83683], 777-780 (1935).
11. Neumann, von J. [i:1ac4c83683]Mathematical Foundations of Quantum
Mechanics.[/i:1ac4c83683] (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
1955).
12. Jauch, J. M. [i:1ac4c83683]Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
[/i:1ac4c83683](Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1968).
13. Bell, J. S. [i:1ac4c83683]Speakable and unspeakable in quantum
mechanics.[/i:1ac4c83683](Cambridge University Press, New York,
1987).
14. Everett, H. “‘Relative State’ Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.”
[i:1ac4c83683]Rev. Mod. Phys.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]29[/b:1ac4c83683], 454-462 (1957).
15. Ghiradi, G., Rimini, A. & Weber, T. Unified Dynamics for
Microscopic and Macroscopic systems. [i:1ac4c83683]Phys.
Rev.[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]34[/b:1ac4c83683], 470-491.
16. Griffith, R. B. [i:1ac4c83683]Consistent Quantum
Theory.[/i:1ac4c83683] (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2002).
17. Costa de Beauregard, O. Time symmetry and the interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics. [i:1ac4c83683]Found. Phys.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]6[/b:1ac4c83683], 539 (1976).
18. Walker, E. H. Consciousness as a Hidden Variable.
[i:1ac4c83683]Phys. Today
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]24[/b:1ac4c83683], 39 (1971).
19. Walker, E. H. Information Measures in Quantum Mechanics.
[i:1ac4c83683]Physica B.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]151[/b:1ac4c83683], 332-338 (1988).
20. Walker, E. H. in [i:1ac4c83683]The Physical/Nature of
Consciousness [/i:1ac4c83683](eds Van Loocke, P.) 63-82 (John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2000).
21. Hall, J., Kim, C., McElroy. & Shimoni, A. Wave-packet
reduction as a medium of communication. [i:1ac4c83683]Found. Phys.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]7[/b:1ac4c83683], 759-767(1977).
22. Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no
inferences. [i:1ac4c83683]Am. Psychol.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]35[/b:1ac4c83683], 151-175 (1980).
23. Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. Controlled and automatic human
information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending,
and a general theory. [i:1ac4c83683]Psychol. Rev.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]84[/b:1ac4c83683], 127-190 (1977).
24. Schacter, D. Implicit memory: History and current status.
[i:1ac4c83683]J. Exp. Psychol. Learn.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]13[/b:1ac4c83683], 501-518 (1987).
25. Lazarus, R. S. [i:1ac4c83683]Emotion and adaptation.
[/i:1ac4c83683](Oxford University Press, New York, 1991).
26. Chaiken, S. Heuristic and systematic information processing and
the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. [i:1ac4c83683]J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol.[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]39[/b:1ac4c83683],
752-766 (1980).
27. Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. The Unbearable Automaticity of
Being. [i:1ac4c83683]Am. Psychol.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]54[/b:1ac4c83683], 462-479 (1999).
28. Bargh, J. A. & Ferguson, M. J. Beyond Behaviorism: On the
Automaticity of Higher Mental Processes. [i:1ac4c83683]Psychol.
Bull.[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]126[/b:1ac4c83683], 925-945
(2000).
29. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R. & Pratto, F. The
generality of the automatic attitude activation effect.
[i:1ac4c83683]J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. [/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]62[/b:1ac4c83683], 893-912 (1992).
30. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P. & Hymes, The automatic
evaluation effect: Unconditionally automatic attitude activation with
a pronunciation task. [i:1ac4c83683]J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]32[/b:1ac4c83683], 104-128 (1996).
31. Oatley, K. & Jenkins, J. M. [i:1ac4c83683]Understanding
Emotions. [/i:1ac4c83683](Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1996).
32. Radin, D. I. In [i:1ac4c83683]The Unconscious Brain: The Relative
Time and Information Theory of Emotions [/i:1ac4c83683](eds Van den
Noort, M. W. M. L.) 95-98 (Citadel, Oegstgeest, to appear).
33. McCraty, R., Atkinson, M. & Bradley, R. T.
Electrophysiological Evidence of Intuition [i:1ac4c83683]J. Altern.
Complement. Med.[/i:1ac4c83683] [b:1ac4c83683]10[/b:1ac4c83683],
323-336 (2004).
34. Bierman, D. J. & Scholte, S. H. In [i:1ac4c83683]The
Unconscious Brain: The Relative Time and Information Theory of
Emotions [/i:1ac4c83683](eds Van den Noort, M. W. M. L.) 104-109
(Citadel, Oegstgeest, to appear).
35. Everitt, J. W. Sexual motivation: A neural and behavioral analysis
of the mechanisms underlying appetitive and copulatory responses of
male rats. [i:1ac4c83683]Neurosci. Behav. R.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]14[/b:1ac4c83683], 217-232 (1990).
36. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L. & Berntson, G. G. The affect
system has parallel and integrative processing components. Form
follows function. [i:1ac4c83683]J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.[/i:1ac4c83683]
[b:1ac4c83683]76[/b:1ac4c83683], 839-855 (1999).
37. Damasio, A. R. [i:1ac4c83683]Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason,
and the human brain.[/i:1ac4c83683] (Grosset/Putnam, New York,
1994).
38. Davidson, A. R., Scherer, K. R. & Goldsmith, H. H.
[i:1ac4c83683]Handbook of affective sciences.[/i:1ac4c83683] (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2003).
39. Gallagher, M. & Chiba, A. A. The amygdale and emotion.
[i:1ac4c83683]Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]6[/b:1ac4c83683], 221-227 (1996).
40. Gray, J. A. & McNaughton, N. The neuropsychology of anxiety:
Reprise. [i:1ac4c83683]Nebr. Sym. Motiv.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]43[/b:1ac4c83683], 61-134 (1996).
41. Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. & Lindzey, G. [i:1ac4c83683]Handbook of
social psychology.[/i:1ac4c83683] (McGrawHill, Boston, 1998).
42. Bierman, D. J. [i:1ac4c83683]In The Unconscious Brain: The
Relative Time and Information Theory of Emotions [/i:1ac4c83683](eds
Van den Noort, M. W. M. L.) 134-141 (Citadel, Oegstgeest, to appear).
43. Bargh, J. A., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., Gollwitzer, P. M.
& Trötschel, R. The Automated Will: Nonconscious Activation and
Pursuit of Behavioral Goals. [i:1ac4c83683]J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]81[/b:1ac4c83683], 1014-1027 (2001).
44. Faw, B. Consciousness Science Is Alive and Well In Global
Psychology. [i:1ac4c83683]J. Consciousness Stud.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]12[/b:1ac4c83683], 71-77 (2005).
45. Ito, T. A., Cacioppo, J. T. & Lang, P. Eliciting affect using
the International Affective Picture System: Bivariate evaluation and
ambivalence. [i:1ac4c83683]J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]24[/b:1ac4c83683], 855-879 (1998).
46. Laan, E., Everaerd, W., Bellen, G. & Hanewald, G. Women’s
sexual and emotional responses to male- and female-produced erotica.
[i:1ac4c83683]Arch. Sex. Behav.
[/i:1ac4c83683][b:1ac4c83683]23[/b:1ac4c83683], 153-170 (1994).
[b:1ac4c83683]Acknowledgements[/b:1ac4c83683] I thank several
colleagues for previous discussions with respect to consciousness.
Correspondence and requests for materials (Figures and Tables) should
be addressed to M.v.d.N. (e-mail: or
www.mauritsvandennoort.com.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
| User: "PeggyBosch" |
|
| Title: But do the physicists understand neuroscience? |
11 Mar 2005 03:34:24 PM |
|
|
Hi,
I don't think that these two guys do understand anything of cognitive
neuroscience. Perhaps the results that this van den Noort presented
sound very strange, but if you would understand something of the
underlying mechanisms in the brain you would know that it is not that
clear cut as you might think.
TIP to you guys buy a neuroscientific book!
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The Measurement Problem finally solved? |
11 Mar 2005 01:12:02 PM |
|
|
MauritsvandenNoort wrote:
The Measurement Problem finally solved
Maurits W. Van den Noort*
*Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of
Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 91, Bergen 5009, Norway
[b:1ac4c83683]Quantum Mechanics describes the deterministic unitary
evolution of a wave function.
Neuroscience vs. QM? Ha ha ha.
[snip]
In the late seventies, the cognitive approach to human information
processing was more or less the only approach.
[snip 480 lines of maundering crap]
When you have only a hammer the entire world looks like a screw.
Pound it in anyway.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Measurement Problem finally solved? |
11 Mar 2005 01:03:01 PM |
|
|
MauritsvandenNoort wrote:
The Measurement Problem finally solved
Such a broadly and authoritatively phrased title betrays more ego than
accuracy.
Maurits W. Van den Noort*
*Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, University of
Bergen, Jonas Lies vei 91, Bergen 5009, Norway
[an interesting position to be held by someone who seems to feel
qualified to pontificate on the basis of QM - I'd sooner believe a
patent clerk]
Quantum Mechanics describes the deterministic unitary
evolution of a wave function.
"(T)he deterministic unitary evolution of a wave function" is a phrase
I can honestly say I have *never* previously encountered in several
decades of work and study in chemistry, physics, and mathematics. I
would be interested to learn if it has a well-established definition in
math/chemistry/physics.
Please tell us WTF* you are jabbering about.
(as you are probably not a native speaker of English, I should explain
here that "WTF" is a term in Usenet and Internet use - an acronym for
an English phrase that may politely be reduced to the subordinate
conjunction "what")
The wave function allows us to compute
the probability that certain macroscopic events can be observed. In
the mathematical model, there are no events and there is no mechanism
for creating events.
Your education in QM evidently never got that far. The mathematical
model *does* include events and mechanisms for initiating changes.
Unfortunately for those who persistently maintain a classical approach
to physics, the causal mechanisms in QM are *not* deterministic.
<snip>
In Quantum
Mechanics, the mathematical model by itself never produces
observations.
No. QM readily makes quite *precise* mathematical predictions about the
vaues of observable quantities. "Observations" require the volitional
act of an *observer,* which QM does not provide, nor is it intended to.
We must interpret the wave function in order to relate
it to experimental observations.
The elegance of empirical science is that a well-crafted theory
produces predictions regarding the values of observables. These
predictions can then be independently tested by other observers working
with the same theory. If the results of theoretical predictions are
inconsistent with each other or the observations, the theory is
questioned - by all.
"Mother Nature" provides the ultimate interpretations of the theory as
a 'right or wrong' judgement of the accuracy of theoretical
predictions.
From the beginning of Quantum
Mechanics, the concept of measurement has proved a source of
difficulty.
....not really. A standard is selected. An observation is made. The
observation is compared to the standard. The rest is in the details.
In this paper, I
....ATTEMPT TO...
show that the solution to the
measurement problem lies not in a special role for consciousness, but
in unconscious information processing of the observer
Given that "the measurement problem", "consciousness", and "unconscious
information processing" have not even been provided with operational
definitions - satisfactory for use by independent investigators to
independently and replicably identify any specific instance of any of
the terms - I suspect your efforts are doomed from the start.
<snip>
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
