Mind makes collapse interpretation of the EPR paradox
The laws of physics (in a strict sense) are relativistic invariants,
but only describe the structure of the Hilbert space, not the
wavefunction collapse. As the wavefunction collapse is not a
physical process but a conscious (metaphysical) event, it has no
necessity to be exactly bound by the structures of physical laws
(such as relativistic invariance), nor any "further laws of physics"
in the sense of a mathematically well-defined description at the
microphysical level. Instead, a description in terms of emergent
structures, and precisely the structures of decoherence, seems to
fit much better the metaphysical principles.
In this context, the method followed by the Matrix to "collapse the
wavefunction" is not bound by any fundamental necessity of
respecting the relativistic invariance. There is no theoretical
obstacle in conceiving its operations as based on some "universal
time" that admits a relation of "absolute simultaneity" between
conscious events, as long as this simultaneity relation remains
compatible with the physical relation of causal independence in
space-time.
Such a simultaneity structure, if it is needed, still has a major
advantage over the simultaneity structure needed in some other
interpretations of quantum physics (such as hidden variables and some Spontaneous
collapse interpretations), because it is a
non-physical structure :
- It does not suffer from the impossibility to specify a
mathematical determination of how this simultaneity relation
itself evolves in space-time in the face of the space-time
curvature described by General Relativity;
- It does not need to exist between all physical space-time
points, but only needs to exist between individual minds, to
order their conscious events of physical perceptions;
- We do not need to search for any new mathematical
reconstruction of Quantum Field Theory relatively to this
simultaneity structure so as to formulate new non-local physical
causality laws for collapse (or any kind of world selection)
there.
However, just this absence of a major obstacle to this idea of an
absolute simultaneity structure in the Matrix, while the EPR paradox
seems to involve some faster-than-light communication to explain the
observed results, still does not seem to me a sufficient reason to
positively conclude that such a structure actually exists. Quantum
physics itself taught us to be careful with any assumption of hidden
realities, either physical objects or hidden variables, as causes of
our perceptions, and that a logical positivist attitude may be the
most relevant to describe the world. Since the Matrix is all about
consciousness and connections between the perceptions of individual
minds, even if its way of working is hidden, maybe it has itself,
after all, a "logical positivist behavior" by which hypothetical
"hidden causes", such as a hidden simultaneity structure at the root
of quantum non-locality, will keep playing hide-and-seek with us
until the end, and observations will stubbornly keep the appearance
of a relativistic invariance.
Now let us consider this latter hypothesis and see where it goes.
Consider an EPR experiment where both measurement events A and B
(conscious perceptions) are separated by a space-like interval, so
that the question of which one happens first, is not a relativistic
invariant.
In one viewpoint, A happens first, so that it "chooses" its result,
only bound by the constraint of compatibility with the quantum
probability law as it comes in the absence of the measurement B.
Then B happens, but facing a different context: its "choice" is
bound by the fact that A happened first, which modified the quantum
probability that B faces, in comparison with the case if A did not
happen. Moreover, in the extreme case that both measurements are
done along the exact same axis, B does not have anymore choice at
all.
In the other viewpoint, the time order between A and B is reversed,
so that the same story can be said, but exchanging the roles of A
and B.
Now the question is : can we reconcile both viewpoints, by adding up
their necessities, and telling the story in a way that keeps the
symmetry between A and B ?
Note that if A comes first but both measures happened to be made in
the same direction, then B's result cannot be chosen at all, but is
determined by A's result. But this should remain true if
reinterpreted saying that B comes first. In this case the question
whether B has any choice or not, cannot depend anymore on whether
the directions of measures are the same or not, since A's direction
cannot be claimed to have been chosen yet. Therefore we should
conclude that, anyway B's result is not chosen at all, disregarding
what A does.
Note that this conclusion simply coincides with the way things
naturally appear : when we are observing something, we do not have
the feeling that we are making any choice on the result of our
observation. It all looks like, this result is given to us from the
outside. However, it cannot come from a physical outside, since...
there is no such a thing as a physical reality, and the measurement
result did not really exist before it was perceived.
Instead, what exists outside the individual minds, and that provides
the perception results, is the Matrix. And the Matrix provides to
each individual mind his perception results, every time immediately
in reaction to this mind being about to have that perception (thus
after decoherence). And in order for this behavior of the Matrix to
keep a relativistic invariance, it has to strictly operate, in its
way of "choosing" the data, a randomness in conformity with the
quantum probability laws, in a non-local, holistic manner.
Now what if experiments do not confirm this, but on the contrary,
display an effect deviating results from chance even when there are
several observers (and with even higher amplitude) ? Maybe, because
this cannot anyway constitute a faster-than-light communication,
since the different observers are quite close to each other and they
have a perception delay of, maybe 0.1s, that is much slower than the
time needed by the light to cross the distance between them; so that
it is not "who observes first depends on the space-time coordinates
system" but "all observers are equally first observers anyway".
Randomness vs. Free Will
The above considerations suggest a possible "reason" why most
physical experiments seemed to strictly follow the quantum
probabilities, instead of letting the observer decide the results by
free will. This reason is, in fact, quite natural: that, when
experiments are made in outside, lifeless systems, there is no
clearly first observer of the measurement result from a relativistic
invariant viewpoint; then, the Matrix reacts to this ambiguity by
providing the result at random without letting anyone influence it.
From this, follows an idea of answer about how the situation inside
the brain differs, so as to open the possibility for the mind to
exert free will inside the brain by deviating the perception results
from a randomness complying with quantum probabilities : that, when
a quantum random process occurs inside a brain, there is only one
mind that will clearly be the first observer of that process, with
no ambiguity from a relativistic invariant perspective.
The interest of this idea, is that it might be experimentally
tested, by setting a quantum randomness generator whose output would
be carefully confined for having a clearly well-defined first
observer, and checking if that observer's will can influence the
output of this generator. The most obvious way would involve a
device like Google Glass to directly project such random light
signals onto the retina. However I am not sure if such confinement
methods would suffice. If it fails, it might be because of
insufficient confinement. Maybe, a effective success would require
some way of inserting a random generator directly into the brain.
Such an experiment might be tried on animals too, though it would be
much harder to explain to them to "try to influence the result by
will"...
Related pages
A call
to clarify the debate on the links between quantum physics and consciousness
Specifications
for a Mind Makes Collapse interpretation of quantum physics
A
mind/mathematics dualistic foundation of physical reality
Introduction to
quantum physics (notions of states and measurements)
Main page of
arguments on quantum physics interpretations
On materialism and its
pathological pseudo-arguments far from science
my
reply on quantum idealism and science