A New Science of Reality - Part II
by Dr. H.J. Rudolph (MD), Microvita Research e.V.
!
!
Layers of Existence
Earlier, we described in detail how microvita relate and connect the imaginary (Citta) with the real world (Annamaya Kosha). Similar rules apply to
the Krta- and the Jina-Purusha: Creation and annihilation operators are
able to perform all the necessary transformations between the described
layers, i.e. from Jina-Purusha to Krta-Purusha, Citta and Annamaya Kosha, from Krta-Purusha to Citta and Annamaya Kosha, from Citta to Annamaya Kosha, and vice versa.
!
The matrix product as well as the sum and the Hamilton product of two
quaternions can be computed by standard procedures (1, 2). But beyond
these technicalities, the crucial question remains as to what all this actually
means.
!
On the whole, we are dealing with four spaces, suffused with physicality
(Annamaya Kosha) or different levels of consciousness (Citta, Krta-Purusha
and Jina-Purusha). From each level contents can be witnessed, where the
radius of observation is biggest for Jina-Purusha, medium for Krta-Purusha and smallest for Citta.
!
Here the question arises, as to whether such observations can have any
influence on events in the Annamaya Kosha. In a religious context, we
could also ask: Is it that God can influence our worldly affairs – is He omniscient and allmighty, or simply disinterested and disabled?
!
But let’s better proceed with Alan Turing, who wrote as early as 1954:
It is easy to show using standard theory that if a system starts in an eigenstate of some observable, and measurements are made of that observable N times a second, then, even if the state is not a stationary one,
the probability that the system will be in the same state after, say, one second, tends to one as N tends to infinity; that is, that continual observations will prevent motion (3).
Taking this into account, a continual observation from Citta, Krta-Purusha
or Jina-Purusha should allow to reduce motion in the Annamaya Kosha;
which means that the natural course of things can be changed by the action of a suitable Microvita tensor, mediating between the real and the
imaginary layers of existence.
!
!
!
!
The Quantum Zeno Effect
The Quantum Zeno Effect got its name from the Greek philosopher Zeno
of Elea, and was brought into prominence by an analysis of Baidyanath
Misra and George Sudarshan dealing with an unstable quantum system
whose decay could be inhibited by repeatedly measuring its initial state (4).
The notion points to the fact that such systems can be “freezed” by continuous observation (see Fig. 1).
In the given context, the crucial question is what it means to observe or
measure a quantum system:
!
In contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, London and Bauer advised as early as 1939 that it is not a macroscopic device, but human consciousness which completes a quantum measurement (5).
!
In 1955, von Neumann discussed the conceptual distinction between the
observed and the observing system. Thereby, he considered the general
situation of a measured object system (I), a measuring instrument (II), and
the brain of a human observer (III). His conclusion was that it makes no difference for the result of measurements on (I) whether the boundary between the observed and the observing system is posited between (I) and (II
& III) or between (I & II) and (III). As a consequence, it is inessential whether
a detector or the human brain is ultimately referred to as the “observer” (6).
!
In 1958, Heisenberg introduced a distinction between the potential and
the actual, implementing a decisive step beyond the operational Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg’s notion of the
actual is related to a measured event in the sense of the Copenhagen interpretation. His notion of the potential, however, relates to the situation
before measurement, which expresses the idea of a reality independent of
measurements (7).
!
On this background, Henry P. Stapp used the freedom to place the interface between the observed and the observing system and located it in the
observer’s brain. Consequently, he advanced that the mind is 1. able to
hold the brain in a superposition of states, using the Quantum Zeno Effect,
and that this phenomenon is 2. the principal method by which the conscious can effect change (8). As to the quantum aspect of a template for
action, Stapp argued that the attention devoted to intentional acts can
protract the lifetime of neuronal assemblies representing such templates
(9).
!
Danko Georgiev criticized Stapp’s model in two aspects:
1. In this model, the mind acts upon the brain using projection operators
without having an own wavefunction or density matrix, which would be
mandatory in standard quantum mechanics.
2. Stapp’s claim that the Quantum Zeno Effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory according to which the von Neumann entropy production
by mental efforts is always non-negative, provided that the mind is able to
act only locally at the brain (10).
!
Henry Stapp’s interpretation of quantum mechanics profoundly builds
upon a framework established by John von Neumann (11). Therein, he
concludes that the collapse of the wave function is caused by the consciousness of the experimenter, a view further consolidated by Eugene
Wigner, who designed an extension of Schrödinger’s cat, labeled as Wigner’s friend experiment (12). All these expositions have in common to be
non-local and non-deterministic (13). Insofar, Georgiev’s second objection
(14) comes as a surprise: How is it possible to condition “… provided
that the mind is able to act only locally at the brain“, if the whole theory is
non-local. Needless to say that the ideas disseminated from this platform
are also non-local.
!
Regarding Georgiev’s first objection (14), it is important to know that Stapp
didn’t commit himself to a definite metaphysical position. Asked about
who or what the “observer” actually is, he replied that there are many ways
to answer this question. One possibility is that a “soul-spirit” is instrumental
to specific choices, while another is that we may eventually find a mechanical explanation for this process (15). Consequently, he refrains from
ascribing an own wavefunction or density matrix to the observer’s mind.
!
In contrast, our metaphysical position is unambiguous: Purushottama
(cosmic nucleus) is considered to be the primary, Atman (individual nucleus) the secondary observer. Both of them develop layers of mind with
own imaginary space-times: the macro- and microcosmic Jina-Purusha,
Krta-Purusha and Citta. And the matrices used in transformations between
these layers represent the mental wavefunctions or density matrices conditioned by Georgiev.
!
Zeno Time Factor of Neuronal Assemblies
!
!
!
#
The graph shows the zeno time factor (y-axis) in relation to the number of
observations per unit time interval (x-axis) at non-decay probabilities PN(T)
of 0,90 to 0,99 with
#
So, the main question is, how to estimate the number of observations per
unit time interval.
1. Unit time interval
The available literature suggests that 3-sec segments of time are the basic
temporal building blocks of not only perceptual experiences and motor
processes, but also behaviourally expressed and synchronised, interpersonal, intersubjective experiences (16). Furthermore, E. Pöppel (17) writes:
The subjective present as a basic temporal phenomenon has interested
psychologists for a hundred years (e.g., James 1890). We are now in a
position to indicate how long such a subjective present actually lasts. This
numerical answer can be derived from a number of different experiments
which all converge to a value of approximately 2 to 3 seconds.
And further below: It should be stressed that the temporal platform does
not have the characteristics of a physical constant but that an operating
range of approximately 2 to 3 seconds is basic to mentation; obviously,
one has to expect subjective variability for such a temporal integration
window.
Consequently, the unit time interval should be in the range of 1-4 seconds.
And with a boson production and annihilation of around 100 per unit time
interval, we get 10-40 msec per cycle (25 to 100 cycles per second),
which is well in the range of mean neuronal firing rates.
!
2. Number of observations per unit time interval
Neurons carry information by irregular sequences of action potentials. Histograms of interspike intervals often show skewed distributions, with a
sharp leftward edge at 4 msec, a maximum at 40-80 msec, and a rightward tail corresponding to interspike intervals of up to 300 msec. Within
neuronal assemblies, neurons can switch from unsynchronized to more or
less synchronized modes.
Regarding time perception, Simon Grondin wrote in 2010 (18): One important model … is the one involving a cortico-striatal or, more specifically,
a frontal-striatal, circuitry (Meck & Benson, 2002; see Matell & Meck, 2004;
Matell, Meck, & Nicolelis, 2003). The striatum, which receives millions of
impulses from the cortical cells, plays a critical computational role. The hypothesis is that striatal cells receive inputs from cortical neurons when a
“start-timing” signal is given. These cells, which have firing rates from 10 to
40 cycles per second and are not normally synchronized in their activity,
begin firing simultaneously for a moment, creating a specific pattern of
neural activity. When the timekeeping activity must stop after a specific
time interval, the substantia nigra sends a message to the striatum. The
pattern of activation at that moment is then recorded via a burst of dopamine and serves to identify a specific interval length.
Scheme of a Neuronal Assembly
!
!
So, our hypothesis is that a set of synchronized Microvita
!
*
!
should be able to influence a neuronal assembly
!
**
!
to the effect that its neurons (otherwise unsynchronized in their activity) start firing simultaneously at about 40 (10 to 100) cycles per
second, thereby creating a pattern of activity, representative for a
particular propensity, memory or opinion.
!
And, as the frequency of the bosonic field during observation (µ) should
equal the frequency of the activated neuronal assembly (ν), the Zeno time
factor can be estimated, using the graph given above.
* Synchronizable microvitum ( m ), frequency of the set ( µ ), duration (d).
** Synchronizable synapse (Q n ), frequency of the assembly ( ν ), duration
(∆t).
!
References
!
1. Wikipedia (2012): Matrix product
!
2. Wikipedia (2012): Quaternion
!
3. Andrew Hodges, What would Alan Turing have done after 1954, in
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Alan Turing: life and legacy of a great thinker, C. Teuscher (ed.), Berlin,
Springer Verlag (2004)
4. B. Misra and G. Sudarshan, The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory.
Journal of Mathematical Physics (1977), Volume 18, Issue 4, p. 756
5. F. London and E. Bauer, La théorie de l’observation en mécanique
quantique. Trans. in Wheeler and Zurek (eds.), Quantum Theory and
Measurement, Princeton University Press (1983), p. 251
6. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
Princeton University Press (1955), p. 366
7. W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. Harper & Row, New York
(1958)
8. H.P. Stapp, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007)
9. H. Atmanspacher, Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. In
Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2011)
10. D. Georgiev, Mind Efforts, Quantum Zeno Effect and Environmental
Decoherence. NeuroQuantology (2012), Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 374
11. J. von Neumann: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press (1955), p. 366
12. E. Wigner: Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem, in The Scientist
Speculates, I. J. Good (ed.), Heinemann, London (1961), p. 284
!
13. Wikipedia (2012): Comparison of Interpretations
!
14. D. Georgiev: Mind Efforts, Quantum Zeno Effect and Environmental
!
!
!
!
!
Decoherence, NeuroQuantology (2012), Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 374
15. H.P. Stapp: Quantum Physics and the Psycho-Physical Nature of
the Universe, Esalen Center for Theory & Research (2012)
16. Emese Nagy: Sharing the moment: the duration of embraces in humans. Journal of Ethology (2011), 29/2: 389-393
17. Ernst Pöppel: Lost in time: a historical frame, elementary processing
units and the 3-second window. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis
(2004), 64: 295-301(2)
18. Simon Grondin: Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics (2010), 72/3: 561-582
A New Science of Reality - Part II
by Dr. H.J. Rudolph (MD), Microvita Research e.V.
!
!
Layers of Existence
Earlier, we described in detail how microvita relate and connect the imaginary (Citta) with the real world (Annamaya Kosha). Similar rules apply to
the Krta- and the Jina-Purusha: Creation and annihilation operators are
able to perform all the necessary transformations between the described
layers, i.e. from Jina-Purusha to Krta-Purusha, Citta and Annamaya Kosha, from Krta-Purusha to Citta and Annamaya Kosha, from Citta to Annamaya Kosha, and vice versa.
!
The matrix product as well as the sum and the Hamilton product of two
quaternions can be computed by standard procedures (1, 2). But beyond
these technicalities, the crucial question remains as to what all this actually
means.
!
On the whole, we are dealing with four spaces, suffused with physicality
(Annamaya Kosha) or different levels of consciousness (Citta, Krta-Purusha
and Jina-Purusha). From each level contents can be witnessed, where the
radius of observation is biggest for Jina-Purusha, medium for Krta-Purusha and smallest for Citta.
!
Here the question arises, as to whether such observations can have any
influence on events in the Annamaya Kosha. In a religious context, we
could also ask: Is it that God can influence our worldly affairs – is He omniscient and allmighty, or simply disinterested and disabled?
!
But let’s better proceed with Alan Turing, who wrote as early as 1954:
It is easy to show using standard theory that if a system starts in an eigenstate of some observable, and measurements are made of that observable N times a second, then, even if the state is not a stationary one,
the probability that the system will be in the same state after, say, one second, tends to one as N tends to infinity; that is, that continual observations will prevent motion (3).
Taking this into account, a continual observation from Citta, Krta-Purusha
or Jina-Purusha should allow to reduce motion in the Annamaya Kosha;
which means that the natural course of things can be changed by the action of a suitable Microvita tensor, mediating between the real and the
imaginary layers of existence.
!
!
!
!
The Quantum Zeno Effect
The Quantum Zeno Effect got its name from the Greek philosopher Zeno
of Elea, and was brought into prominence by an analysis of Baidyanath
Misra and George Sudarshan dealing with an unstable quantum system
whose decay could be inhibited by repeatedly measuring its initial state (4).
The notion points to the fact that such systems can be “freezed” by continuous observation (see Fig. 1).
In the given context, the crucial question is what it means to observe or
measure a quantum system:
!
In contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, London and Bauer advised as early as 1939 that it is not a macroscopic device, but human consciousness which completes a quantum measurement (5).
!
In 1955, von Neumann discussed the conceptual distinction between the
observed and the observing system. Thereby, he considered the general
situation of a measured object system (I), a measuring instrument (II), and
the brain of a human observer (III). His conclusion was that it makes no difference for the result of measurements on (I) whether the boundary between the observed and the observing system is posited between (I) and (II
& III) or between (I & II) and (III). As a consequence, it is inessential whether
a detector or the human brain is ultimately referred to as the “observer” (6).
!
In 1958, Heisenberg introduced a distinction between the potential and
the actual, implementing a decisive step beyond the operational Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg’s notion of the
actual is related to a measured event in the sense of the Copenhagen interpretation. His notion of the potential, however, relates to the situation
before measurement, which expresses the idea of a reality independent of
measurements (7).
!
On this background, Henry P. Stapp used the freedom to place the interface between the observed and the observing system and located it in the
observer’s brain. Consequently, he advanced that the mind is 1. able to
hold the brain in a superposition of states, using the Quantum Zeno Effect,
and that this phenomenon is 2. the principal method by which the conscious can effect change (8). As to the quantum aspect of a template for
action, Stapp argued that the attention devoted to intentional acts can
protract the lifetime of neuronal assemblies representing such templates
(9).
!
Danko Georgiev criticized Stapp’s model in two aspects:
1. In this model, the mind acts upon the brain using projection operators
without having an own wavefunction or density matrix, which would be
mandatory in standard quantum mechanics.
2. Stapp’s claim that the Quantum Zeno Effect is robust against environmental decoherence directly contradicts a basic theorem in quantum information theory according to which the von Neumann entropy production
by mental efforts is always non-negative, provided that the mind is able to
act only locally at the brain (10).
!
Henry Stapp’s interpretation of quantum mechanics profoundly builds
upon a framework established by John von Neumann (11). Therein, he
concludes that the collapse of the wave function is caused by the consciousness of the experimenter, a view further consolidated by Eugene
Wigner, who designed an extension of Schrödinger’s cat, labeled as Wigner’s friend experiment (12). All these expositions have in common to be
non-local and non-deterministic (13). Insofar, Georgiev’s second objection
(14) comes as a surprise: How is it possible to condition “… provided
that the mind is able to act only locally at the brain“, if the whole theory is
non-local. Needless to say that the ideas disseminated from this platform
are also non-local.
!
Regarding Georgiev’s first objection (14), it is important to know that Stapp
didn’t commit himself to a definite metaphysical position. Asked about
who or what the “observer” actually is, he replied that there are many ways
to answer this question. One possibility is that a “soul-spirit” is instrumental
to specific choices, while another is that we may eventually find a mechanical explanation for this process (15). Consequently, he refrains from
ascribing an own wavefunction or density matrix to the observer’s mind.
!
In contrast, our metaphysical position is unambiguous: Purushottama
(cosmic nucleus) is considered to be the primary, Atman (individual nucleus) the secondary observer. Both of them develop layers of mind with
own imaginary space-times: the macro- and microcosmic Jina-Purusha,
Krta-Purusha and Citta. And the matrices used in transformations between
these layers represent the mental wavefunctions or density matrices conditioned by Georgiev.
!
Zeno Time Factor of Neuronal Assemblies
!
!
!
#
The graph shows the zeno time factor (y-axis) in relation to the number of
observations per unit time interval (x-axis) at non-decay probabilities PN(T)
of 0,90 to 0,99 with
#
So, the main question is, how to estimate the number of observations per
unit time interval.
1. Unit time interval
The available literature suggests that 3-sec segments of time are the basic
temporal building blocks of not only perceptual experiences and motor
processes, but also behaviourally expressed and synchronised, interpersonal, intersubjective experiences (16). Furthermore, E. Pöppel (17) writes:
The subjective present as a basic temporal phenomenon has interested
psychologists for a hundred years (e.g., James 1890). We are now in a
position to indicate how long such a subjective present actually lasts. This
numerical answer can be derived from a number of different experiments
which all converge to a value of approximately 2 to 3 seconds.
And further below: It should be stressed that the temporal platform does
not have the characteristics of a physical constant but that an operating
range of approximately 2 to 3 seconds is basic to mentation; obviously,
one has to expect subjective variability for such a temporal integration
window.
Consequently, the unit time interval should be in the range of 1-4 seconds.
And with a boson production and annihilation of around 100 per unit time
interval, we get 10-40 msec per cycle (25 to 100 cycles per second),
which is well in the range of mean neuronal firing rates.
!
2. Number of observations per unit time interval
Neurons carry information by irregular sequences of action potentials. Histograms of interspike intervals often show skewed distributions, with a
sharp leftward edge at 4 msec, a maximum at 40-80 msec, and a rightward tail corresponding to interspike intervals of up to 300 msec. Within
neuronal assemblies, neurons can switch from unsynchronized to more or
less synchronized modes.
Regarding time perception, Simon Grondin wrote in 2010 (18): One important model … is the one involving a cortico-striatal or, more specifically,
a frontal-striatal, circuitry (Meck & Benson, 2002; see Matell & Meck, 2004;
Matell, Meck, & Nicolelis, 2003). The striatum, which receives millions of
impulses from the cortical cells, plays a critical computational role. The hypothesis is that striatal cells receive inputs from cortical neurons when a
“start-timing” signal is given. These cells, which have firing rates from 10 to
40 cycles per second and are not normally synchronized in their activity,
begin firing simultaneously for a moment, creating a specific pattern of
neural activity. When the timekeeping activity must stop after a specific
time interval, the substantia nigra sends a message to the striatum. The
pattern of activation at that moment is then recorded via a burst of dopamine and serves to identify a specific interval length.
Scheme of a Neuronal Assembly
!
So, our hypothesis is that a set of synchronized Microvita
!
*
!
should be able to influence a neuronal assembly
!
**
!
to the effect that its neurons (otherwise unsynchronized in their activity) start firing simultaneously at about 40 (10 to 100) cycles per
second, thereby creating a pattern of activity, representative for a
particular propensity, memory or opinion.
!
And, as the frequency of the bosonic field during observation (µ) should
equal the frequency of the activated neuronal assembly (ν), the Zeno time
factor can be estimated, using the graph given above.
!
* Synchronizable microvitum (
m ),
frequency of the set ( µ ), duration (d).
** Synchronizable synapse (Q n ), frequency of the assembly ( ν ), duration
(∆t).
!
References
!
1. Wikipedia (2012): Matrix product
!
2. Wikipedia (2012): Quaternion
!
3. Andrew Hodges, What would Alan Turing have done after 1954, in
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Alan Turing: life and legacy of a great thinker, C. Teuscher (ed.), Berlin,
Springer Verlag (2004)
4. B. Misra and G. Sudarshan, The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory.
Journal of Mathematical Physics (1977), Volume 18, Issue 4, p. 756
5. F. London and E. Bauer, La théorie de l’observation en mécanique
quantique. Trans. in Wheeler and Zurek (eds.), Quantum Theory and
Measurement, Princeton University Press (1983), p. 251
6. J. von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
Princeton University Press (1955), p. 366
7. W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. Harper & Row, New York
(1958)
8. H.P. Stapp, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007)
9. H. Atmanspacher, Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. In
Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2011)
10. D. Georgiev, Mind Efforts, Quantum Zeno Effect and Environmental
Decoherence. NeuroQuantology (2012), Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 374
11. J. von Neumann: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press (1955), p. 366
12. E. Wigner: Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem, in The Scientist
Speculates, I. J. Good (ed.), Heinemann, London (1961), p. 284
13. Wikipedia (2012): Comparison of Interpretations
!
!
!
!
!
!
14. D. Georgiev: Mind Efforts, Quantum Zeno Effect and Environmental
Decoherence, NeuroQuantology (2012), Volume 10, Issue 3, p. 374
15. H.P. Stapp: Quantum Physics and the Psycho-Physical Nature of
the Universe, Esalen Center for Theory & Research (2012)
16. Emese Nagy: Sharing the moment: the duration of embraces in humans. Journal of Ethology (2011), 29/2: 389-393
17. Ernst Pöppel: Lost in time: a historical frame, elementary processing
units and the 3-second window. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis
(2004), 64: 295-301(2)
18. Simon Grondin: Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics (2010), 72/3: 561-582
Dr. Hans-Joachim Rudolph