5 Answers

  1. It is not part of the task of quantum physics to explain self-consciousness, so there is no way. There is no point of view of quantum physics. But I can guess what you're asking. There is such a “theory of quantum consciousness”, its main proponent is the famous mathematician Penrose. The essence of the idea is that consciousness is inexplicable from the point of view of ordinary physics and requires the involvement of quantum physics. Because ordinary physics is deterministic and does not allow free will, and quantum physics supposedly allows you to describe it.

    The idea is marginal and not particularly popular. One of the obvious problems, even for me , is the attempt to replace free will with uncertainty, saying that will is free if it cannot be predicted – just like the behavior of quantum objects. There is such a position on the issue of free will – incompatibilism, that free will is not compatible with determinism, but it is wrong to conclude from this that unpredictability means the presence of free will. Can we call free the behavior of a person who acts on the basis of an ideal generator of truly random numbers? It's unpredictable, but there's no sense of free will. Penrose's idea has the same problem.

    What is interesting about this idea is the statistical nature of consciousness. Here's a lot of interesting things growing out of it.

  2. Any physics is just physics to explain material things, the thinginess of the world. Even Aristotle defined matter simply as “that which is.” And it was precisely physics that he studied the very “what is” or, as I call it, “what is” of the world.

    But the great Greek, you know, also had metaphysics, which studied the” ktoynost “of the world, in other words, “the one who is”, or “the one who is” or”those who are”…

    So, self-consciousness belongs more to the category of “ktoynost”, that is, to metaphysics.

    “Ktoynost” is not a process, although it can manifest itself in time. It is also difficult to localize it with a certain space, since it can be extra-spatial. It can generally be outside of thinking, outside of sensations, outside of feelings, while at the same time appearing in thoughts, sensations and feelings. “Ktoynost” is a certain being, wrapped up, dressed in “chtoynost”.

    Studying “what-ness” with the help of quantum physics, we comprehend the fundamental duality of matter, its basic form of existence as the infrastructural nature of being.

    But we should not forget that consciousness also creates and uses physical Google clouds. By studying hard consciousness, we can understand the mechanisms and infrastructure of consciousness, but consciousness itself, the very body and soul of consciousness are not connected in any way by their clothing of being, even if it is superinfrastructural.

    Self-consciousness, of course, has its own clothes, its own tools, its own infrastructure of manifestation as material shells. But the owner of the house decides for himself where to live, which city or metaphysical country is more suitable for him for self-expression and self-manifestation of his essence.

    At the same time, when we study the form, we certainly touch on the content. But only lightly, guessing it with your intuition, as the same Buddhism likes to do, which gave rise to the formula “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form”.

    Buddhism, studying matter, discovers the emptiness of matter, the emptiness of form. And this fact gives rise to a desire for intuitive insight into the essence of things, to avoid any frozen formalism of judgment, which is especially noticeable in Chan Buddhism.

    Why Buddhism? Yes, this is the same quantum physics in medieval guise, postulating a “wave” and a “particle” in the material structure of reality.

    The world is very simple. But to understand this simplicity of visual “whatness”, coupled with the incredibly absent “ktoynost”, is possible only by treating all this with a large degree of self-irony to your own self-consciousness.

    Be healthy, thank you for the question, which I, of course, did not answer!

  3. The task of quantum mechanics does not include the problem of self-consciousness, and self-consciousness can use the tool of quantum mechanics )). So there are and will be attempts. Quantum consciousness, the problem of free will and quantum randomness, the interaction of quantum consciousness with the “external environment”, and the problem of the existence of the external environment, the problem of measuring and interacting quantum consciousnesses, the criterion for the existence of quantum consciousness, the criterion of free will, real quantum randomness. These issues are being addressed for a long time… Bogolyubov (complexity criterion, etc.), Poincare, Copenhagen interpretation, multi-world, questions in which place of a high-temperature person there are coherent systems… Penrose, Hameroff, Micro-level gravitational collapse, entanglement with classical and intermediate (!) systems. But there are no answers yet. We are waiting for quantum gravity, coherence loss calculations, etc.

  4. As we have already noted, there is still no satisfactory definition of consciousness and self-consciousness. Moreover, even if someone gave the correct definition, we would not be satisfied with it. Surely such an explanation would not be able to give a person anything to understand consciousness on his, human, level.

    Well, quantum laws, of course, must be present in the process of forming qualia, personal conscious experience. As, however, quantum laws are present in any phenomenon, because they are the basis of the structure of reality. Although, of course, not in such a primitive form as Penrose and his pipes. But Penrose tried. How many more there will be, no one knows until we can get closer to understanding the phenomenon of consciousness.

  5. We don't have a “quantum formula for consciousness.” We don't have a quantum model of consciousness. We don't have a good definition of what consciousness is at all!

    Nevertheless, quantum physics provides an answer to a crucial question. It justifies the statistical nature of our solutions by deducing it from quantum uncertainty. This is much better than the position of classical mechanics, where “everything is predetermined”.

Leave a Reply