# Measurement problem!

```The radical subjective and dualistic
soluton of the measurement problem
.
Dick Bierman, University of Amsterdam
SAND, june 2 1012
Mind-Body Problem
Descartes

Mostly by Philosophers (but also textbooks)


-&gt; discussion of Free Will
Current winner: ‘Materialistic Monism’

Daniel Dennett
• Consciousness explained (1991)
• Free Will is illusion; C is epiphenomenon

However:

Psi data:
• a) Mind over Matter (FoP review)
• b) Non causal events


&amp; Quantum Physics: measurement problem
&amp; Physical formalisms: time-symmetry
What is a measurement?
Consider the following situation
Classical Measurement
Classicial Physics
R
t
Measurement at t= 3
Newton
Yields a precise value of location R
Measurement problem?
Classical Physics
R
Measurement at t= 3
t
Energy is quantized -&gt; jumps
Newton
R
r1
Quantum Physics
r2
t
R described by Statevector
giving the probabilities for r1 and r2
Schrodinger
Measurement problem!
1
P(r1)
System is described as vector in statespace
T=1
0.8
T=3
0.2
Projection
postulate
Measurement
1
P(r2)
Postulate: This ‘collapse’ of the statevector happens at measurement.
Einstein interpreted this as follows:
At the measurement the real situation that already existed locally is revealed.
Measurement is just a gain in knowledge. QP is incomplete
Einstein was wrong
BELL (1964) showed by an argument of only 2 pages that ALL local realistic theories
would give different results for certain specific experiments which were difficult to
perform.
Bell
However Aspect et al (1981) eventually did the crucial experiment and …..
showed It is not the case that the particle had a specific position before measurement
but it gets the position upon measurement.: God plays dice! QP is complete.
THE MEASUREMENT CHANGES THE SYSTEM DRAMATICALLY
So what constitutes a
measurement is really
important
Def1: A measurement is something what
you do with a measurement device….
Usable in the daily practice of physics
But incorrect
(von Neumann)
The Measurement Problem
‘solutions’
 Many
World solution (Everett)
 Deterministic solution (Bohm)
 Non linear Schrodinger equation (GRW)
 Objective Reduction (Penrose)
subjective solution (Wigner, Stapp)

…. The reduction of the state vector is a physical
event which occurs only when there is an interaction
between the physical measuring apparatus and the
psyche of some observer…..
from Hall, J., Kim, C., McElroy, and Shimony, A.
(1977). Wave-packet reduction as a medium of
communication. Foundations of Physics 7 (1977),
759-767.
Note that the radical solution is associated with Schr&ouml;dinger’s Cat.
And is DUALISTIC
Hall et al experiment
Assumptions
1.Consciousness of first observer
collapses the state before second
observation.
2. Final Observer (brain) is sensitive for
difference collapsed and non
collapsed state
3. Final Observer can report this
Weaknesses in Hall
 Assumption
1 is violated: Delay between
first and second observation too short
 Assumption
3 is inconsistent: The
dependent variable is a conscious verbal
report, too late!
Improvements in replications

HALL et al 1977


Obs1 -&gt; Obs2 delay
few microseconds
Dependent variable:
conscious verbal
report

Amsterdam 2002-2007


Delay 1000 msecs
Dependent variable: brain
signals before final
observer is conscious of
event.
Amsterdam original set-up
Amsterdam original set-up
Dependent variable:
brainwaves of final
observer
Pseudorandom switch between conditions Pre-observed - not pre-observed
Results pooled over condition
allfc
[ &micro;V]
N10 0
-5
N30 0
N40 0
N20
0
P3 50
P40
P200
5
-2 00
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
allp
[ &micro;V]
-5
N160 N200
0
P100
5
-2 00
-100
0
100
200
Results split for condition
(preobserved and not-preobserved)
allfc ParentOther
[ &micro;V]
-5
0
5
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700[ ms]
allp ParentOther
[ &micro;V]
-5
0
5
-200
-100
Study 1-RESULTS peak analysis
What
Peak
PreobsT (df=29)
Obs(MuV)
Prob.
N100
P200
N300
P350
0.350
-0.09
-0.04
-0.54
0.66
-0.18
-0.08
-1.17
0.52
0.86
0.93
0.25
N400
P100
N160
0.098
-0.16
-0.152
0.25
-0.67
-0.84
0.80
0.50
0.41
N200
-0.956
-3.93
0.0005
Conclusions study 1
Bohr

Copenhagen interpretation supported

God plays dice

And …Consciousness stands outside of
quantum physics (dualism) or must be
considered a ‘hidden variable’ with non local
aspects

But wait a minute: Strong claims need strong
evidence….. So study 2!
Replication set up
Alpha source
GM detector
Count down clock
EEG amplifiers
Trigger-in
delay
Audio-beep
Visual pre-observation for
~ 50% of the events
Pre Observer
Computer
Final Observer
Results averaged over 4 conditions (classicalquantum, preobserved- not preobserved)
4 clusters of electrodes
Only marginal preobservation effect
But…………
TABLE 4. Differences of
Occipital
Parietal
FrontoCentral
Frontal
Peaks
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
P300
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
P300
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
P300
Na
Pa
Nb
P100
N200
An
P300
A EP peak amp litudes from the quantum and classic source.
Classic
Q uantum
Classic Ğ
t (df=49) p (2-tailed)
Q uantum
-0.287
-0.182
-0.105
-0.503
0.617
0.485
0.642
-0.157
-0.808
0.423
-0.554
-0.416
-0.138
-0.683
0.498
5.725
5.074
0.651
2.697
0.010
-6.956
-7.279
0.323
1.200
0.236
-0.834
-1.090
0.256
1.096
0.278
-0.033
-0.066
0.033
0.230
0.819
0.165
0.322
-0.157
-1.052
0.298
-0.307
-0.258
-0.049
-0.447
0.657
1.503
1.126
0.377
2.457
0.018
-3.700
-3.718
0.018
-0.068
0.946
-0.237
-0.047
-0.190
-1.311
0.196
-0.508
-0.413
-0.095
-0.515
0.609
0.006
0.070
-0.064
-0.352
0.726
-0.659
-0.695
0.036
0.178
0.859
5.612
5.309
0.303
1.242
0.220
-5.477
-5.979
0.502
2.301
0.026
0.633
0.238
0.395
1.984
0.053
-1.513
-1.488
-0.025
-0.143
0.887
-0.587
-0.742
0.155
0.687
0.495
-0.888
-1.028
0.140
0.640
0.525
7.633
7.765
-0.132
-0.774
0.443
-5.652of source
-5.538 of events
-0.114 (Quantum
-0.454 vs Classic)
0.652
effect
1.536
1.204
0.332
1.508
0.138
Conclusions study 2

Preobserver effect is marginal and the effectsize
is much smaller.


Collapse incomplete? Possibly the observation does
not convey enough information.
There is a difference between quantum and
classical triggered auditory evoked potentials

Could that be because the ‘classical decay time
distribution’ differs slightly from the ‘quantum decay
time distribution?
Study 3
- I.e. was the source quantum or classic
Control of ‘decay-times’ distribution in all
conditions.
Preliminary Results
study 3
Over-all no significant effects (but
we are awaiting source analysis of
N200)
Preliminary Conclusion
The support for the idea that ‘consciousness
collapses the statevector’ has declined.
 Initial results due to differences in decay time
distribution? Or do we have a psi-experimenter
effect?


However, it could be that the assumptions
underlying this approach are invalid.

The measurement problem is more alive than
ever.
CIRTS:
Physics can accommodate psi
 Most
physical formalisms are time-symmetric
(Newtonian, EM)
 The solution S=f(-t) is never observed
 Wheeler Feynman (1945) wondered why we
only see S=f(t).
 Price (1996) reinterpreted Wheeler &amp; Feynman
Huw Price’s re-interpretation
 Time’s
Arrow (1996, Oxford Press,p. 71)
 Why time-assymmetry:

….. … involves an imbalance between transmitters
and receivers: large-scale sources of coherent
Basic Assumption in CIRTS
that ‘brain-producingconsciousness’ is a large-scale coherent receiver
thus according to Price:
 Restores Time-symmetry
 Assumption

Weighted by a coherence measure
Physical
formalisms
S1 = f(t)
S2 = f(-t)
S = S1 + {Coh * Brain-volume} * S2
Signal = f(t) + &Ocirc;Cohere nce&Otilde;* f(-t)
Predictions of the theory
 1.
What happens after, happens before
• 2. Larger effect with more coherent brains
Testing the predictions (1)
 What

happens after, happens before
Double stimulus presentiment
Testing the predictions (2)
 Does

Bial grant 34-03
•Effect of Meditation on presentiment (fmri study)
Design
8 Experienced meditators
 2 sessions: Med and NonMed
 8 Matched controls

1 session: C
 64 random pictures (neutral, erotic, violent)
 16 seconds interval, 2 seconds exposure
 All meditators trained
 Replication of fmri study Bierman &amp; Scholte (2002)

Analysis procedure


Find interesting regions by comparing bold RESPONSES
between
 Med &lt;-&gt;NonMed (direct effect of meditation)
 NonMed&lt;-&gt; C (long term effects of meditation)
Compare for those regions the signals BEFORE the emotional
with the signals BEFORE the neutral
Results Spatial

36 regions show significant different responses (picture
shows contrast for meditators while meditating vs nonmeditating)
Most regions are associated with attentional proceses
Results temporal (all regions)
Number of anticipatory peaks
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Neutral
Erotic
Violent
Controls
Med
NonMed
Elusiveness ‘explained’
Elusiveness ‘explained’


