@M.C. Kafatos
PHYSICS & CONSCIOUSNESS:
Quantum Measurement, Observation and Experience
Menas C. Kafatos
Points related to the panel talk in the Workshop on the Frontiers of Consciousness Research
Prologue
This document provides useful information for our workshop in general, and my presentation in particular. As the
topics I will cover are vast in scope, 20 minutes can only cover some top level issues. It will also provide points
that we may wish to discuss more in the ensuing open discussions. Various points are presented in bullet form to
facilitate quick referencing. I would like to acknowledge useful discussions with several people, including but not
limited to Deepak Chopra, Federico Faggin, Karla Galdamez, John Hagelin, Dean Radin, Neil Theise, and
particularly Subhash Kak. I request that these notes remain among workshop participants only as they are for
background information and discussion purposes.
Introduction
 The fact that we are all here is significant, ten years ago such a meeting would not have been possible.
 The once absolute division between idealism and materialism (roughly represented by Platonism and
Aristotelialism) has now taken new forms, and we hope, a meaningful dialogue on the issue of mind-body
problem, the role of observation and the underlying nature of consciousness. There is of course an
intermediate philosophical standing, dualism, which has a rich history as well.
 Although I am going to be covering the connection between physics and consciousness, one cannot of
course ignore the connections with other fields, particularly biology, neuroscience and psychology. I will
have some things to say about that.
 Why physics? Because modern physics is based on quantum theory and quantum theory is the only one
that raises the issue of the role of observation and measurement in understanding Nature.
 Let’s hear what some of the protagonists of the quantum revolution had to say on the role of
consciousness: Erwin Schrödinger: “To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless.”
“There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness…. In truth
there is only one mind.” Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind
consciousness." Werner Heisenberg: “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they
form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” Niels Bohr: “It is wrong
to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about
nature.” John Archibald Wheeler: “No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed
phenomenon.” John von Neumann: “First, it is inherently entirely correct that the measurement or the
related process of the subjective perception is a new entity relative to the physical environment and is not
reducible to the latter.” And Albert Einstein: “Theories are free inventions of the mind.”
 If these were the views of the founders of quantum theory, why are they not the starting point in
formalizing theories of consciousness? There are several reasons:
 A) The problem for a material reality is that no one can account how inert matter can give rise to
consciousness. The problem of a reality founded on consciousness is exactly the opposite, no one can
account how consciousness becomes the material universe (Chopra, Kafatos and Kak, 2014). One can
then easily become agnostic and follow the science dictum “shut up and calculate”. B) The explosive
growth of neuroscience, molecular biology and modern fields has turned attention away from
1
foundational issues in quantum mechanics. C) We tend to assign reality to mechanistic explanations and
associated technologies or fields (computer science, information theory, neuroscience, etc.) and assume
that consciousness must somehow be tied to them. D) Our own belief systems of a materialistic world
extend to whatever reality may be, (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000; Nadeau and Kafatos, 1999), etc.
 As such, standard neuroscience considers consciousness as an emergent property, of a large and complex
physical brain, mediating awareness and remembrance. In this standard view, consciousness emerged
from evolution of homo sapiens sapiens and possibly other higher species. If, however, complexity was
the main criterion, then complex modern societies would themselves be conscious!
Quantum Mechanics Primer
 In contrast, the subjective view, which is closely linked to the role of observation in quantum
measurements in the Copenhagen Interpretation and particularly its revision by John von Neumann,
known as the orthodox view, “holds that consciousness provides the individual observer with agency and
freedom” (Kafatos and Kak, 2014).
 As such, quantum measurement theory has yielded in the words of John Archibald Wheeler the
“participatory universe”. The falling tree would not make a noise in the forest if no conscious observers
were around.
 Therefore, properties of quanta and quantum systems in general, are “contextual”, they don’t exist by
themselves but are tied to acts of observation.
 What of course is meant here by “observer” is undefined in orthodox quantum theory. The ultimate
position may be that the observer is universal and can only be a single one. This is the view held by two
famous founders of quantum theory, Max Planck and Erwin Schrödinger.
 This resonates with ancient perennial teachings which assigned existence and consciousness to ultimate
Being. We term the singular observer as the Observer.
 Moreover, in von Neumann’s (1955) view, Nature also exhibits free choice of response to an act of
observation by an observer. Thus, there is a free choice in an observer deciding what aspect of Nature to
study, as well as Nature’s response with particular values, prescribed by quantum probabilities. Nature
and the observer are free.
 Specifically, quantum theory presents us with a world following a completely different view than
everyday experience:
o Quanta can behave as particles or waves, which normally are considered as opposites, dependent
on the context of observational choices. This is termed as complementarity.
o Quanta are described by probability theory with many possible outcomes. The many possible
outcomes are contained within a mathematical construct known as the wave function.
o There are limits to what can be known about properties of quanta described by Werner
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
o The wave aspect of a quantum system is really a probabilistic wave and the Uncertainty Principle
is a fundamental aspect of the quantum world.
o However, whenever a quantum is measured, it is always localized as a particle.
o As such, when an observational choice is made, one and only one of the many possible outcomes
predicted by the wave function manifests.
o This is known as the “collapse of the wave function” (also known as the “reduction of the state
vector”).
2
o Which outcome will manifest is unknown prior to the (free) measurement by the observer. This
manifestation demonstrates the fundamental freedom of Nature.
o Quanta are entangled in both space and time.
o Non-locality is implied in quantum measurements.
o In several experiments the decision related to random choice is prefigured in electrical activity
before the choice appears to have been made, i.e. even the usual forward moving sense of time is
violated.
o In the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum theory, the wave function is not real, it is only a
prescription of possible outcomes. In von Neumann’s view, there is a universal wave function,
however, as in CI, there is collapse through the consciousness of the observer.
o Many quantum physicists hold the view that the world is really mental as the wave function
implies mental decisions playing a primary role.
 An alternative to the orthodox quantum view is a realistic interpretation of quantum outcomes.
 The realist position as encapsulated in Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) takes the wave
function to be real and the underlying reality.
 In that view, non localities exist as the wave function is non local.
 If non localities existed, that would support the MWI view and global entanglements would prevail at all
levels.
 The epistemological and ontological consequences of such MWI views are both counterintuitive and
contrary to everyday observations of an objective reality (Kafatos and Kak, 2014).
 (Mathematical formalism for quantum mechanics). The three axioms of quantum mechanics (QM) (see
also Weinberg, 2013) are: a) Linearity of the operator observables. b) Hermiticity of the operator
observables. c) Unitary time evolution. To begin with, in QM observables are mathematical functions
which when applied to a state vector (in the Heisenberg picture—see below) or the wave function (in the
Schrödinger picture) yield an observed value. In the Heisenberg picture A |v> a |v> where A is the
operator acting on the state vector |v> and a is a number (which can be complex). QM is characterized by
an abstract Hilbert space. It suffices to say here that the Hilbert space used in QM is a complex (i.e.
vectors have both real and complex number components) vector space, with standard vector relationships
being satisfied, such as vectors being associate and commutative. Therefore, the three axioms have the
specific details: a) The vectors and operators in QM are linear in the usual sense, for example if two
different wave functions and are solutions to Schrödinger’s equation (see below), then a+ bis
also a solution (or a|v1> + b|v2>, is also a solution), etc. b) Hermiticity means that the operators in QM
have real expectation values (when a measurement is carried out on a physical variable characterized by a
mathematical function A, the expected value must be a real number. c) Unitary time evolution means that
the magnitude of a state vector in quantum interactions remains the same (or the total probability which is
1 remains the same), even though the vector can be thought of as rotating in space (or the relative weights
for the various components of the vector change).
 Let’s examine a bit more a few dominant quantum interpretations (Omnes, 1994):
 A) CI “…holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only
with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities that fit neither the
classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. The act of measurement causes the set of
probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of
mathematics is known as wave function collapse (ref. Wikipedia). In CI, the wave function completely
3
describes the quantum system under observation. The wave function evolves deterministically in time
until a measurement is conducted, at which point it “collapses” to one of the characteristic states
(eigenstate) of the physical observable. A better term perhaps is “reduction of the state vector” as the term
“collapse” conjures an actual physical event which may or may not be the case.
According to CI, our understanding of nature is probabilistic (described by the square of the absolute
value of the wave function—as proposed by Max Born), with limits in knowledge (Bohr, 1934, 1958).
However, the variables measured must conform to macroscale classical analogues, as any apparatus in the
lab would be a classical system. Thus CI has a duality built into it. Also, not all physical variables of a
quantum system can be simultaneously be known (this is the famous Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).
In CI, quantum systems behave in complementary structures either as particles or waves (Bohr’s famous
Principle of Complementarity). Complementarity applies to much more general than the wave-particle
structure of quanta. For example, the time dependent Schrödinger equation for the wave function (where
H is the energy function or Hamiltonian)
has the solution
In the complementary Heisenberg picture, where an observable is evolving in time, the Heisenberg
formalism (which is totally equivalent to the Schrödinger picture) yields (the expression in square
brackets is known as the commutator) the Heisenberg equation
In the above equation note that no wave function appears (see also Doran and Lasenby, 2013). In Bohr’s
view, descriptions of quantum systems must be classical and measuring devices are classical. This
introduced a duality and an unknown point where quantum descriptions become classical (we will return
to this point below).
 B) The many worlds interpretation (MWI) first developed by Hugh Everett, asserts that there is a
universal wave function which is objectively real. There is no collapse of the wave function and all
possible outcomes described by the wave function are realized in some parallel worlds. Closely related
(although not the same) is the concept of the multiverse. In the many worlds, what appears as collapse is
actually due to quantum decoherence, manifesting in different branches (the “many worlds”). Everett’s
interpretation has certain advantages (e.g. Schrödinger’s cat is both dead and alive but in different worlds
not communicating with each other), but in Wheeler’s words, it comes with too much metaphysical
baggage. Also, the Born rule (which is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics and its great observational
successes) does not naturally arise in the MWI and has to be assumed or added.
 C) In von Neumann's (1955) approach (see also Stapp, 2009), the state transformation due to
measurement (called process 1) is distinct from that due to time evolution (called process 2) as described
by the Schrödinger time dependent equation. Time evolution is deterministic and unitary whereas
measurement is non-deterministic and non-unitary. Von Neumann says “…we must always divide the
world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer”. For the two types of
processes, “…quantum mechanics describes the events which occur in the observed portion of the world,
so long as they do not interact with the observing portion, with the aid of process 2, but as soon as such an
4
interaction occurs, i.e. a measurement, it requires an application of process 1”. Today, von Neumann’s
interpretation is the golden standard against which all other interpretations must be compared.
von Neumann developed in a clear and crisp way issues re. to the measurement theory (see below). He
divides the world into three parts, I, the system observed; II, the measuring instrument; III, the actual
observer. The cut between the observed and the observer is an arbitrary boundary: “The principle of
psycho-physical parallelism is violated, so long as it is not shown that the boundary between the observed
system and the observer can be displaced arbitrarily in the same sense…” (von Neumann, 1955).
Putting all of it together, von Neumann takes the entire world as being quantum. Other physicists who
follow von Neumann’s approach were Eugene Wigner (1983) , and John Archibald Wheeler. The wave
function, in contrast to CI (this is the main departure of von Neumann from the older CI) is real.
However, von Neumann developed the role of observation and measurement to a point that CI had not.
For von Neumann, collapse is real (as in CI) but where exactly it occurs remains an open issue. We will
return to these points later on.
 The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) was developed by John Cramer (1986). In
TIQM, two waves describe all quantum processes, forward in time and backward in time. In TIQM there
is no collapse at a specific time but is outside time, occurring along the entire transaction. There is no
role for an observer, so we would conclude TIQM is agnostic on the issue of consciousness. As such, the
waves (as in MWI) are physically real.
 The above four interpretations of QM are not the only ones (see for example Penrose, 2007) but illustrate
the intricacies of explaining quantum phenomena, the role of the observer and measurement. We
emphasize that the golden standard is the von Neumann approach. In all interpretation of QM, the
mathematical foundations are shared. “An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements
which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although
quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these
experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought,
differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of
quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters” (ref. Wikipedia).
 Leaving aside the issue whether the wave function is real (MWI, von Neumann, TIQM) or a mental
construct (CI), and whether there is actual collapse (CI and von Neumann), or not (MWI, TIQM) and
moving beyond the microscopic world of quantum physics, a general applicability of the framework of
complementarity beyond the confines of quantum world has been proposed in several works, namely in
biology and brain dynamics (Roy and Kafatos, 1999a, 1999b, 2004; Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000, Theise
and Kafatos, 2013b, etc.).
Measurement Theory
 The role of observation in quantum theory, issues about what constitutes an observation, who the observer
is, are now not just philosophical issues, they are being asked by standard physical theory, they are part
and parcel of the most successful theory of physics, QM (Braginsky and Khalili, 1992; Wigner 1983).
 For von Neumann, if one starts from a a priori probability distribution, which has many possible
outcomes, once an observation takes place, one possibility becomes actualized. A sharp value is obtained.
There are different possible measurement scenarios, involving pure (specific value) states, mixed states
etc.
 For von Neumann, “In the former (i.e. the observed), we can follow up all physical processes (in principle
5
at least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter (i.e. the observer), this is meaningless”. Using the observation of
an object (a thermometer) by the eye, utilizing photons, he showed that the boundary between I, II and III
“…can just as well be drawn between I and II+III as between I+II and III. But the question remains,
where is the role of observation manifesting, i.e. where does the role of consciousness become
unambiguous? This is the point of where the “cut” is. In von Neumann’s gendanken eye experiment, one
has an analogy to the two slit experiment, asking the question where/when does the collapse occur? For
von Neumann, consciousness is interacting with physical matter, or an external reality and as such,
consciousness becomes real at the level of interaction (we will return to the eye photon interaction).
 But then, how what is intrinsically a quantum world become (or appear) classical? This is a fundamental
question. The world of our perceptions is classical. Measurement theory must ultimately address this
issue. The knowledge we gain is always classical. There is here a deep epistemological issue for science
 We note that consciousness also exhibits complementary and paradoxical aspects.
 Given the parallels of subjective sense of consciousness and quantum theory as well as the underlying
principle of complementarity in both, it has been proposed that perhaps quantum theory will unlock the
mystery of consciousness.
 But, again, the question arises, how is the world of everyday experience so different than quantum reality?
Realizing of course that the “map is not the territory” (Korzybski, 1973), our theories are not the
phenomena, they are about the phenomena.
 In everyday experience:
Non localities in classical dynamical interactions don’t exist
Time seems to move only forward
There are no entanglements between classical particles
Particles are localized and have no wave nature
Therefore, the classical world obeys local realism, which means that non locality and
entanglement are implied in quantum measurements, such as those settings in the famous Einstein
Podolsky, Rosen experiments, as proposed by CERN physicist John S. Bell
o The world of everyday experience described by classical physics seems to be mechanistic and
determinate, not wavy and probabilistic, and
o Gravitationally collapsed objects, predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GR), that
have formed black holes, are surrounded by event horizons which prevent the collapsed black
hole “singularity” from ever been observed--this prevention is called “cosmic censorship” (we
will return to this point below).
o
o
o
o
o
 Specifically, the question of how what is a quantum world becomes classical has been widely addressed in
the literature. Recently, substantial work has been done on the role of decoherence and the environment.
Environmental decoherence though is not collapse as in standard orthodox (von Neumann) QM. A
supersposition of states can go on and on, involving more and more of the environment but at some a
specific state is chosen and becomes known. This reminds one of Darwin’s ideas on the role of the
environment. What then happens when the environment performs a measurement?
“Quantum Darwinism explains the transition of quantum systems from the vast potentiality of superposed
states to the greatly reduced set of pointer states…as a selection process, einselection, imposed on the
quantum system through its continuous interactions with the environment. All quantum interactions,
including measurements, but much more typically interactions with the environment such as with the sea
of photons in which all quantum systems are immersed, lead to decoherence or the manifestation of the
6
quantum system in a particular basis dictated by the nature of the interaction in which the quantum system
is involved. In the case of interactions with its environment Zurek (note: see below) and his collaborators
have shown that a preferred basis into which a quantum system will decohere is the pointer basis
underlying predictable classical states. It is in this sense that the pointer states of classical reality are
selected from quantum reality and exist in the macroscopic realm in a state able to undergo further
evolution” (reference Wikipedia).
 How from a vast set of quantum we get a few classical set of states? Why the preferred states that the
system decoheres to are classical? The issue is addressed by W.H. Zurek (2003):
"The manner in which states of some quantum systems become effectively classical is of great
significance for the foundations of quantum physics, as well as for problems of practical interest such as
quantum engineering. In the past two decades it has become increasingly clear that many (perhaps all) of
the symptoms of classicality can be induced in quantum systems by their environments. Thus
decoherence is caused by the interaction in which the environment in effect monitors certain observables
of the system, destroying coherence between the pointer states corresponding to their eigenvalues. This
leads to environment-induced superselection or einselection, a quantum process associated with selective
loss of information. Einselected pointer states are stable. They can retain correlations with the rest of the
universe in spite of the environment. Einselection enforces classicality by imposing an effective ban on
the vast majority of the Hilbert space, eliminating especially the flagrantly nonlocal “Schrödinger-cat
states.” The classical structure of phase space emerges from the quantum Hilbert space in the appropriate
macroscopic limit. Combination of einselection with dynamics leads to the idealizations of a point and of
a classical trajectory. In measurements, einselection replaces quantum entanglement between the
apparatus and the measured system with the classical correlation. Only the preferred pointer observable of
the apparatus can store information that has predictive power. When the measured quantum system is
microscopic and isolated, this restriction on the predictive utility of its correlations with the macroscopic
apparatus results in the effective “collapse of the wave packet.” The existential interpretation implied by
einselection regards observers as open quantum systems, distinguished only by their ability to acquire,
store, and process information. Spreading of the correlations with the effectively classical pointer states
throughout the environment allows one to understand “classical reality” as a property based on the
relatively objective existence of the einselected states. Effectively classical pointer states can be “found
out” without being re-prepared, e.g. by intercepting the information already present in the environment.
The redundancy of the records of pointer states in the environment (which can be thought of as their
“fitness” in the Darwinian sense) is a measure of their classicality. A new symmetry appears in this
setting. Environment-assisted invariance or envariance sheds new light on the nature of ignorance of the
state of the system due to quantum correlations with the environment and leads to Born’s rules and to
reduced density matrices, ultimately justifying basic principles of the program of decoherence and
einselection."
 In this situation, knowledge becomes sharper, which in information theory implies the entropy (or
disorder) of the system has become less.
 Since quantum phenomena involve non locality and entangled states, how does the world appear
classical? One approach was given above on the role of the environment. But there may be deeper
reasons: We don’t observe non localities in everyday experience. It may very well be the case that non
locality becomes veiled in the classical world. Starting with the idea that non locality may be veiled as
one of the ways cosmic censorship operates (involving general relativity GR), which states that naked
singularities or regions where space-time breaks down cannot be observed, and in order to preserve the
ordinary objective reality described by local realism and general relativity (the macroscopic world being
local, even in GR), veiled non locality and cosmic censorship are indispensable operational aspects of the
interactions of observers with physical systems.
7
 In the above view of Kafatos and Kak (2014), the inability to directly observe non locality and naked
singularities must be what gives the observed world a classical appearance.
 As has been argued before (Kafatos and Nadeau 2000), all non localities are of one type (see also Aspect,
Dalibard and Roger, 1981), namely tying space-time together but which cannot be observed through
observations of objects that reside in space-time. In other words, the appearance of the world implies a
non local reality outside of space and time.
 On the other hand, it would then follow that the primary role of conscious observations and the
preservation of an apparent local realism are implied by the lack of non localities.
 Therefore, returning to the grand question of consciousness in science, consciousness appears to work in
a nonlocal manner, and one might speculate that this non locality is similar to that of quantum theory.
 The apparent paradox of freedom of making observational choices and the corresponding freedom of
response of Nature (as von Neumann held) to specific observations must somehow be reconciled with
Nature following physical laws. This is one of the reasons that consciousness is a controversial subject.
 This should not be surprising since it is well known that mathematical logic, which is the basic tool that is
used in the scientific methods, has its own paradoxes. Specifically, Kurt Friedrich Gödel’s Theorem
provides limits to self-referential mathematical systems.
 Another peculiar phenomenon is the Quantum Zeno effect (Braginsky and Khalili, 1992). It is different
than making an observational choice in standard measurement theory. Quantum Zeno Effect makes it
possible for the observer to steer the state to one of his choice or to freeze it.
 In a quantum Zeno effect, a two-level, for example, system is continuously observed. In the limit of
continuous observations, the object is frozen forever in its initial state and it never evolves!
 Observations through the quantum Zeno effect yield stable outcomes, all in spite of decoherence due to
the environment, of collapse of the wave function, etc.
Consciousness, Principles Limiting Consciousness, Qualia
 In the subjective view, most behavior is instinctive or driven by scripts, while the individual is free at
creative moments.
 The dichotomous behavior between the objective world and the objective experience creates its own
paradoxes but it is consistent with the view that there are limits to what can be obtained by the scientific
method and it is also consistent with the idea of universal complementarity.
 We note that locality and non locality are complementary aspects of physics and they characterize
experimental setups and resulting worldviews of classical physics and quantum physics, respectively.
 As a complementary pair they seem to characterize an intuitive understanding of consciousness.
 As such, these two aspects may indeed constitute fundamental characteristics of the nature of reality. It is
possible that this dichotomous pair play a role in complex systems, tying observations to choices made by
observers who study such complex systems.
 Scientific theories must conform to the nature of the mind which has both local and nonlocal aspects. The
local aspects of the mind give rise to the classical view of the cosmos and classical neural networks of the
8
brain account for such local aspects of the mind.
 On the other hand, if the brain is also subject to quantum processes, then quantum non locality would be
applicable and the ability of the mind to perceive non locality, not bound by space and time, would be tied
to quantum non locality.
 We emphasize that this world of experience is the only one that is directly accessible to us.
 In this sense, the universe is mental at its core. The mind may be quantum.
 The case for a quantum mind has been made by many scientists. Primary colours are not a fundamental
property of light as but are related to the physiological response of the eye to light (as Schrödinger
emphasized). Fundamentally, light is a continuous spectrum of the wavelengths that can be detected by
the human eye, an infinite-dimensional stimulus space. However, the human eye normally contains only
three types of color receptors, called cone cells. Additive mixing of red and green light produces shades of
yellow, orange, or brown. Mixing green and blue produces shades of cyan, and mixing red and blue
produces shades of purple, including magenta (from Wikipedia).
 Life and brain processes are characterized by a huge amount of complexity (Grandpierre, Chopra,
Doraiswamy, Tanzi, and Kafatos, 2013) and have different levels of information rates.
 Since complexity implies non-computability, we have a new way to look at non-computability as tied to
veiled non locality. If that is the case, then one can assert that observational selection is inherently and
irreducibly coupled to observed systems (e.g. biological structures) and has nothing to do with
mathematical computability.
 The situation in quantum measurements is then not unique as all measurement processes reveal different
aspects of reality, all driven by choices of conscious observers.
 Reality is then tied to observation in an integral way—specific views of the world come into existence
because of specific observations, which in turn are determined by free choices of observers.
 This, again, reinforces what we described above, that the universe is mental or mental choices being
special aspects of conscious processes, that the universe is conscious.
 The proposition of a “Conscious Universe” is not then an outlandish statement but the result of formal, in
the scientific sense, process that we develop here and has been developed before.
 The study of veiled non locality presents a fundamental way to bring in the non-computable (as Roger
Penrose also believes) aspects of subjective perspective in the study of reality.
 In the view held here of consciousness being the fundamental underlying reality, the principles of veiled
non locality and cosmic censorship are naturally necessary to provide for an external, “objective” reality.
 If these principles did not exist, a very strange, globally-entangled, singularities-rich reality would exist,
beyond the limits of any way to make sense of the world of appearances. In fact, such a reality would
even be violating everyday experience.
 No observations of distinct objects, no scientific theories and, ultimately, no distinct conscious observers
would exist, and in fact could not even be conceived in this situation.
 If the consideration of these two principles is assumed to be tied to conscious awareness of what appear to
9
be external objects, it can provide the starting point for constructing an abstract scientific theory dealing
with consciousness.
 We believe this new way of doing science will install subjective experience to its rightful place.
 In this new way of doing science and including the first person in a fundamental, will open up huge
potentials for human evolution in the most challenged modern world dominated by split visions of reality.
 In the quantum world, conscious observers play a fundamental role.
 Several prominent physicists such as Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner and John Archibald
Wheeler considered that consciousness is singular and the universe is participatory.
 Consciousness is singular and top-down.
 We also hold a top-down view of reality.
 Moreover, in our view, Consciousness (the “C” emphasizing the universal nature of cosmic
consciousness) manifests the universe.
 Universal Consciousness then would be the one and only Being (Kafatos, Tanzi and Chopra, 2011).
 Such statements resonate with the monistic schools of thought, particularly evident and based in
philosophical systems of India and certain ancient Greek systems such as the Platonic system of thought.
 In these systems, reality is beyond appearances.
 The monistic schools hold that Reality consists of the universal Self, which is Consciousness (see e.g.
Kak, 1997; Kafatos and Kafatou 1991).
 In these systems, universal Consciousness is absolutely free.
 In its freedom, it manifests the universe.
 This freedom is reflected even in observational choices of “observers” (who are really just one Observer)
and, supposedly, objectified nature, in freely responding to such choices.
 Biology must be tied to quantum theory in a fundamental way, perhaps through the mediation of the
quantum vacuum (Grandpierre and Kafatos, 2012). Any further advance in QM must involve biology.
 In this view of reality, Consciousness undergoes self-limiting processes to project the universe and create
the world of experiences (Kafatos, Tanzi and Chopra, 2011).
 It is only in appearance, to manifest the world of objects and experiences.
 The world “below” this level of self-limitation would then consist of nothing but subjective experiences.
These subjective experiences are known as qualia. The “hard problem” (Chalmers, 1996) is to account for
the qualities of experience, such as “redness” in the color red, etc.
 As such, reality is fundamentally consisting of experiences manifesting as qualia (Chopra, Tanzi and
Kafatos, 2014; Chopra and Kafatos, 2014; Tononi, 2014; Hoffman, Prakash, and Singh, 2014, as well as
10
in many other works). To be sure, there are differences in the way qualia are approached in these different
works. As Kak points out, the "integrated information" of Tononi is tied to some underlying physical
process, and, therefore, qualia would have a physical basis, governed by classical logic. Hoffman’s
approach is very reasonable as it is tied to the quantum nature of phenomena.
 In our view, qualia are tied to conscious processes and should be related to quantum processes, not
derived from them as they are not physical, but nevertheless tied to the quantum world.

Moreover, the subjective aspects of experience of qualia should be tied to non locality: Universal
Consciousness becomes limited through veiled non locality and a vast number of qualia arise as the
building blocks of the world of experience.
 It is after all that a long time ago, Schrödinger argued qualia are not physical: “The sensation of colour
cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account
for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set
up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so”.
 The world of experiences reveals three fundamental principles which are reflected in science and in the
way Consciousness objectifies the world: Complementarity, recursion and sentience. This reminds us
what in particle physics is known as “symmetry breaking”.

Complementarity is the unifying principle, where the apparent opposites become unified at the deeper
level of universal Consciousness. Complementarity is at the foundation of CI and von Neumann
interpretations. As complementary relations are to be found everywhere, this constitutes an indirect
argument that indeed von Neumann theory is the starting point for QM. A consequence of
complementarity principle is that it provides horizons of knowledge (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000; Theise
and Kafatos 2013b). To be conscious of an object, we have to see it as separate. Boundaries, or horizons
of knowledge, are not absolute: In von Neumann’s picture, they depend on the act of observation.

The second principle is recursion, which can be simply stated, “as here, so elsewhere”, “as above, so
below” (Theise and Kafatos, 2013a). Recursion makes all particles to be similar all physics laws to apply
everywhere, all electrons to obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, etc. The world (and therefore
Consciousness which is at the foundation) operates through recursive, complementary relations.
 The third principle, sentience, provides a framework of interactions at many different levels, universally.
Sentience is in a sense a fundamental aspect of Consciousness, more elementary than conscious
awareness in conscious beings. Sentience also leads to contextuality, which is at the core of QM:
Quantum phenomena depend on the context of the measurement process and as such, the third principle
gives meaning to the universe.
 It has been argued that there is an intimate relationship between veiled non locality, cosmic censorship
and consciousness, enabling the emergence of a classical world with the existence of distinct observers
and distinct objects, through distinct observations.
 In a sense, the veiling of Consciousness, limits its infinite, nonlocal, entangled, outside of space-time
nature and henceforth appears as individual subjects and objects.
 However, it never loses its fundamental nature.
 This constitutes the most fundamental complementarity.
11
 Final remark: In pursuing the Theory of Everything (TOE) that seeks to unify all science together, one
may argue that consciousness is fundamental and efforts to produce unification of physics will be tied to
the issue of the role of the observer. Mathematical approaches (Baily and Longo, 2011; Brown, 1972, etc.
are of course paramount to applying any physical theory).
 But then it would follow that to have consciousness being fundamental in a universe that behaves
quantum mechanically, that quantum theory itself will have to be developed so that consciousness does
not have to be introduced in an ad hoc way.
Observed Phenomena and Future Possibilities
Guidelines for speakers presenting theoretical models or concepts were provided in the 3 questions below in
italics. Brief answers are provided here. The list in bullet form that follows is for further discussion at the
workshop and might provide proposals for specific experimental research projects.
1. Assuming that one or more nonlocal consciousness phenomena are genuine, how can they be
explained in scientific terms? How does this theory compare with ideas proposed in the past?
Nonlocal phenomena can be understood as genuine as a vast array of quantum phenomena are
intrinsically nonlocal. Quantum theory which in our view is the starting point for any attempts to
bring in consciousness into a scientific framework, is the only theory that can be brought in.
2. Is the theory sufficiently developed to guide systematic research programs? If so, what testable
predictions does it suggest? If not, what are the next steps?
QM is for surely sufficiently developed and guides a vast set of research programs, technologies and
science in general. Predictions re. to conscious processes are to be discussed and form the crux of
what should be pursued.
3. Is the theory compatible with existing scientific knowledge? Does it require radical changes to
prevailing assumptions? If it is compatible, is it likely to be readily adopted within the scientific
mainstream?
Quantum theory is the existing scientific knowledge (and of course still needs to be integrated with
GR, perhaps in ways suggested here). It does require fundamental changes to current assumptions in
neuroscience, most likely along the lines suggested by von Neumann: The world is quantum and
measurement processes and the role of the observer are fundamental.

Can more persuasive experiments involving conscious observers directly interacting with quantum
systems as related to non locality be performed? Perception (neuroscience) experiments seeking traces of
non locality would provide an important scientific advance in the study of consciousness.

Dean Radin’s long and impressive experimental results (see many references) might be indicative of
changes of quantum states due to observation. This topic is covered at the workshop by Radin.
Also impressive are Daryl Bem’s (2011) experiments which indicate quantum-like phenomena (as
delayed choice or time reversal, both of which are quantum phenomena). This topic is covered at the
workshop by Bem.


Kak has pointed that future experiments testing even more directly the role of the observation might
involve the Mach–Zehnder interferometer (to be discussed).
12

The role of the quantum Zeno effect in keeping quantum states in great stability should be designed in
realistic experiments. As discussed, it makes it possible for the observer to steer the state to one of his
choice or to freeze it. A demonstration of the quantum Zeno effect would be a great plus for the concept
of quantum mind.

Eyes may indeed be quantum detectors: Eyes can detect single photons. Moreover, photon wave packets
from the Sun would be spread many meters in size. A single such photon would cover both eyes. When
detected, it is however, detected in a single photosensitive cell in the retina.
In the far field case, the path difference between two waves travelling at an angle θ is given by
(Reference: Wikipedia):
The interference fringe maxima occur at angles
The angular spacing of the fringes, θf, is given by
The spacing of the fringes at a distance z from the slits is given by
In our case, if the two slits (the eyes), are separated by ~ 7 cm and if they receive a 0.6mm wavelength laser (λ),
then at a distance of 10 cm (z), the spacing of the fringes will be ~ 1 mm. It is interesting that the photoreceptors
in the fovea (the optical axis in the eye) are packed together in space of that order of magnitude size.
If the width of the slits (i.e. the eyes) b is greater than the wavelength (which is the case), the intensity of the
diffracted light is given by the Fraunhoffer diffraction equation gives the intensity of the diffracted light, while for
the near field, we have the Fresnel diffraction pattern. As the plane of observation (where the photoreceptors are
located at the back of the eye) gets closer to the plane in which the eyes are located, the diffraction patterns
associated with each slit decrease in size, so that the area in which interference occurs is reduced.
If one of the eyes is closed, we will get a single slit diffraction pattern (“particle” aspect).
The question arises, what happens if we have few photons reaching the eyes?
So in the particular case of the photon-eye interaction, the photon enters an initially quantum regime as it leaves
the photon source and falls upon a single rhodopsin. Assuming that the photon is not immediately absorbed at
interaction but stays in a superposition state, the wave function collapse further into the retina may occur. This is
not quite a double slit situation unless the integration occurs in the brain, rather than on the retina.
There is a sense in which consciousness takes the form of a dynamical agent in von Neumann's expressions and as
such there always exists a separation between object-subject. In regards to what von Neumann calls 'the cut', it is
intrinsically related to the double slit, in the system, measurement device, and observer. Therefore, the photon eye system present a direct way to explore measurement theory.
REFERENCES
Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., Roger, G. (1981). Physical Rev. Letters, 47, p. 460.
Bailly, F., Longo, G. (2011). Mathematics and the Natural Science, Imperial College Press, London.
13
Bem, D. (2011). “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, pp. 407-425, American Psychological Association.
Bohr, N. (1934). Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Wiley, New York.
Braginsky, V.B., Khalili, F.YA. (1992). Quantum Measurement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, G.S. (1972). Laws of Form, Julian Press, New York.
Chalmers, D.J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chopra, D., Kafatos, M. (2014). “From Quanta to Qualia: How a Paradigm Shift Turns Into Science”, Philosophy Study, Vol. 4, No. 4 (May
2014).
Chopra, D., Kafatos, M., Kak, S.C. (2014). San Francisco Chronicle (in press).
Chopra, D., Tanzi, R., Kafatos, M. (2014). “From quanta to Qualia”, in eBook (May 2014).
Cramer, J. (1986), “The transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, pp. 647-688.
Doran, C., Lasenby, A. (2013). Geometric Algebra for Physicists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Grandpierre, A., Kafatos, M. (2012). “Biological Autonomy”, Philosophy Study, 2, Number 9, pp. 631-649.
Grandpierre, A., Chopra, D., Doraiswamy, P. Murali, Tanzi, R., Kafatos, M.C. (2013). “A Multidisciplinary Approach to Mind and
Consciousness”, NeuroQuantology, 11, No. 4, pp. 607-617.
Heisenberg, W. (1958) Physics and Philosophy, Harper, New York.
Hoffman, D.D. (2009). “The interface theory of perception, In: Object categorization: computer and human vision perspectives, S.
Dickison, M. Tarr, A. Leonardis, B. Schiele (Eds.), pp. 148-165, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hoffman, D.D., Prakash, C., Singh, M. (2014). “Objects of Consciousness”, Frontiers in Perception Science (in press).
Kafatos, M., Nadeau, R. (1990; 2000). The Conscious Universe, Springer Verlag, New York.
Kafatos, M., Kafatou, T. (1991). Looking In, Seeing Out: Consciousness and Cosmos, Quest Books, Wheaton, IL.
Kafatos, M., Kak, S.C. (2014). “Veiled Non locality and Cosmic Censorship”, arXiv:1401.2180.
Kafatos, M., Tanzi, R., Chopra D. (2011). “How Consciousness Becomes the Physical Universe” The Journal of Cosmology 14, pp.3-14.
Kak, S.C. (1997), “On the Science of Consciousness in Ancient India” Indian Journal of History of Science, 32(2), pp. 105-120.
Korzybski, A. (1973). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, The International nonAristotelian Library Publishing C., Lakeville, Connecticut.
Nadeau, R., Kafatos, M. (1999). The Non-local Universe: The New Physics and Maters of the Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Omnes, R. (1994). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Penrose, R. (2007). The Road to Reality, Vintage Books, New York.
Radin, D., Nelson, R. (1989). Found Physics 19, 1499.
Radin, D., Nelson, R., Dobyns, Y., Houtkooper, J. (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 529.
Radin,D. (2006). Entangled Minds, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Radin, D. (2008). Explore 4 (1), 25.
Radin, D., Michel, L., Galdamez, K., Wendland, P., Rickenbach, R., Delorme, A. (2012). Physics Essays 25.
Roy S., Kafatos, M., (1999a).“Complementarity Principle and Cognition Process”, Physics Essays, 12, 662-668.
Roy, S., Kafatos, M., (1999b). “Bell-type Correlations and Large Scale Structure of the Universe”, In: Instantaneous Action at a Distance
in Modern Physics: Pro and Contra, A. E. Chubykalo, V. Pope, & R. Smirnov-Rueda (Eds.), Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Roy, S., Kafatos, M. (2004). “Quantum processes and functional geometry: new perspectives in brain dynamics”. FORMA, 19, 69.
Stapp, H.P. (2009). Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Theise, N.D., Kafatos, M. C. (2013a). “Sentience Everywhere: Complexity Theory, Panpsychism & the Role of Sentience in SelfOrganization of the Universe”, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 4(4), pp. 378-390.
Theise, N.D., Kafatos, M. C. (2013b) “Complementarity in biological systems: a complexity view”. Complexity. 18, No. 6, pp. 11-20 2013.
Tononi, G. (2014). http://www.biolbull.org/content/215/3/216.full?view=long&pmid=19098144, Integrated Information Theory.
von Neumann, J. (1955/1932). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Weinberg, S. (2013). Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wigner, E. (1983). “The Problem of Measurement”, In: Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler, & W.H. Zurek (Eds.), Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Zurek, W.H. (2003). http://journals.aps.org/rmp/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715.
14