Quantum theory (or quantum mechanics) is the foundation of our modern world. Without it, we wouldn't have computers, the Internet, GPS, and so many other inventions that we've come to take for granted.
I'm fascinated by quantum theory.
Though it is generally associated with goings-on at the atomic and subatomic level, not at the level of everyday life, since everything is made up of particles and energy, obviously the existence of we humans and all that surrounds us is dependent on quantum processes.
This is where much of the mystery of quantum theory resides: how is it that the uncertain, shape-shifting, probabilistic realm of quantum mechanics becomes the certain, dependable, deterministic realm of the world we inhabit?
The April 19, 2025 issue of New Scientist features a cover story, "The Idea That Shook Reality," in honor of 100 years of quantum physics. Two of the articles about quantum physics particularly appealed to me.
Physicist Carlo Rovelli tackled the history of quantum mechanics and how a misunderstanding of one of the pioneers in this field affects how we look upon quantum physics today. Here's a PDF file of his article, along with an excerpt that talks about how Rovelli views quantum phenomena.
Download Carlo Rovelli on what we get wrong about the origins of quantum theory | New Scientist
What quantum phenomena tell us about reality is still debated (see “What does quantum theory really tell us about the nature of reality?”). There are various interpretations. I think that Schrödinger’s waves are only a mathematical representation of the information that a physical system has about another. This reading of quantum phenomena is called “relational”, because it emphasises that we can only describe how systems affect one another, not how they are in isolation. In other interpretations, such as “QBism“, quantum states only code our own knowledge of a system.
In light of these ideas, it is clear to me that Schrödinger’s waves obscured, rather than clarified, the theory developed by Göttingen’s wizards and Dirac. It misled the community into viewing quantum theory as a revelation about mysterious waves (or mysterious “quantum states”), instead of reading it in the straightforward Göttingen way: a theory of the probabilities of the manifestations of a system to any other system.
I think what quantum phenomena tell us is that the world is genuinely probabilistic and granular at the scale fixed by the Planck constant, and that reality is constituted by manifestations of physical systems to one another. This is captured in the words of Niels Bohr: “In quantum physics the interaction with the measuring apparatus is an inseparable part of the phenomenon. The unambiguous description of a quantum phenomenon is required in principle to include a description of all the relevant aspects of the experimental arrangement.”
Little about this idea needs to be changed, a century later: all that is required is to replace “the measuring apparatus” with “any other physical system” the object is interacting with. The world is the ensemble of ways that physical systems affect one another. This is what quantum physics seems to me to be about. That is quantum mechanics as Max Born, the scientist who named it, had conceived it.
I like Rovelli's perspective. It downplays the view of some physicists that the measurement or observation of some quantum phenomenon by a conscious being is what converts the probabilistic "could be this, could be that" quantum realm into the certain "it is this, not that" nature of everyday reality.
When mangled by New Age types who have a very shallow knowledge of quantum mechanics, that view becomes "we create our own reality" — which isn't at all what quantum theory says. As Rovelli noted, it is likely that any physical system that a quantum object is interacting with results in the so-called collapse of the wave function.
That collapse manifests in a shift from a probability that a quantum phenomenon will take on some value, to a certainty that it has that value. This is why quantum computing is so difficult. In order to preserve the quantum nature of computing, which is highly powerful in some unusual ways, the workings of a quantum computer have to be isolated from the outside world or the quantum phenomena go away.
A curious thing about quantum mechanics is that while the mathematics are well known and highly effective, the meaning behind all that math is hotly debated. Some physicists take the "shut up and calculate" attitude in which the search for meaning is downplayed in favor of practical applications.
Daniel Cossins takes on the question of meaning in his New Scientist article. It's fairly long, so here's a PDF file. Since I like the notion of objective collapse, which seems to be Rovelli's position, I'll share some of what Cossins says about this subject.
Download What does quantum theory really tell us about the nature of reality? | New Scientist
But there is also objective collapse, a suite of models proposing that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that something else has to be tacked onto the Schrödinger equation to explain wave function collapse. “The [key] difference with the standard interpretation is that the collapse of the wave function is not something that occurs by magic at the end of the measurement process,” says Angelo Bassi, a theorist at the University of Trieste in Italy. “It’s just part of the dynamics.”
Collapse models have garnered more attention than most in recent years, partly because they offer a plausible explanation of how classical reality emerges without reference to human observers. We don’t see large objects like picture frames and paint brushes in a superposition, it says, because the collapse process works in such a way that the more interacting particles there are, the more readily collapse occurs.
What triggers this continuous collapsing isn’t entirely clear. Some models don’t say, others posit that it is just gravity. But Bassi says there may ultimately be no good answer – it may just be a property of nature. “That’s why I like collapse models, because they try to open the door to a new world which we don’t understand at the moment – something beyond quantum mechanics that we are not grasping.”
What really sets collapse models apart, however, is that they can be put to the test. Uniquely, they make explicit observational predictions that differ from what standard quantum mechanics predicts. The idea is that this constant process of spontaneous collapse should cause quantum objects such as particles to constantly jiggle around, which, in turn, means they emit excess energy that should be detectable, even if the signal is extremely faint.
The bottom line is that physicists don't agree about the meaning of quantum theory — what it tells us about the nature of reality. This is the way of science: disagreement, debate, theorizing, experimentation, uncertainty, open doors, blind alleys, progress, setbacks.
Anyone who believes that they know what the meaning of quantum theory is doesn't really understand quantum theory. I speak from experience here. I read a lot of books about quantum mechanics when I was researching my first book, God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder, which is about the relation of modern physics and ancient mysticism.
I was quite accurate in discussing the basics of quantum theory. Where I went astray was trying to make the meaning of quantum theory fit with the teachings of the religious group I belonged to at the time, Radha Soami Satsang Beas. In other words, I embraced a view of quantum physics that matched my personal philosophical view of reality rather than taking a more objective and dispassionate perspective.
Live and learn. That's a good scientific motto. Also a good motto for everyone else, certainly including me.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Was Gurinderji talking to us or to himself when he said not to analyze?? Hmm I’ll ask for advice when I need another vice.
Speed-read through the article you’ve linked, cool read. Didn’t quite see what new resolution is being proposed, though — but, on the other hand, and like you say, I emphatically don’t “understand” QM, in the full-on sense of the term “understand”, so maybe it was in there but in my speed-reading I didn’t quite see it?
Incidentally, the Penrose article, embedded within that article? Just glanced at it, is all, didn’t actually read through it: but that’s the usual scientist-pulling-stuff-out-of-his-backside-orifice category of nonsense. But again, it’s only being proposed as speculation, I think, and Penrose may well have formulated some potentially testable hypothesis out of it, so all good: as long as one is clear that is all this is. And if the hypothesis clicks home someday, then more power to him, we’ll be happy to *then* take his meanderings more seriously.
…And, haha, appreciated, Brian, your mea culpa over going over-the-top with forcefitting QM to RSSB dogma in your past avatar as RSSB acolyte. That clear recognition and acknowledgement of one’s past mistakes, and the intellectual integrity that that bespeaks, IMO that’s one key ingredient that facilitates our search for truth and understanding.
Rssb followers don’t have to relate to any gurus except the one that initiated them and the one true guru inside in the shabd form. Personally I think Jasdeep was appointed for tax purposes and Gurinder could live for another twenty years,he’s cried wolf so many times. He might be a narcissistic hypochondriac ,like me ! LOL
Ar: “Incidentally, the Penrose article, embedded within that article? Just glanced at it, is all, didn’t actually read through it: but that’s the usual scientist-pulling-stuff-out-of-his-backside-orifice category of nonsense………..we’ll be happy to *then* take his meanderings more seriously.”
Hey, I’m sure Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most famous and respected physicists of the 20th century will be ecstatic with joy that AR has set the criteria for being taken seriously!:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
One can sense his immense relief from here!
AR: “forcefitting QM to RSSB dogma in your past avatar as RSSB acolyte. That clear recognition and acknowledgement of one’s past mistakes, and the intellectual integrity that that bespeaks, IMO that’s one key ingredient that facilitates our search for truth and understanding.”.
Nice, now we have AR setting the criteria for integrity! I’m sure there is no doubt he’s an expert on it!
And what shouts integrity more than only becoming ultra critical about something when you are FIRED from their organisation?:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2005/10/ive_been_fired
https://groups.io/g/RadhasoamiStudies/message/113452
Some people are just experts at clowning their own selves and don’t need a hand from anyone else!
😘
Sigh.
Penrose is a well known physicist. Most people would be aware of who he is, without having to look up Wikipedia.
However, Penrose is given to woo. That also is fairly well known. Especially in his golden years, he is something of a fixture at the more academically minded “spiritual” conventions all around the world. I’m well aware of who he is. While I’ve not had the privilege of interacting with him, but in fact I’ve twice been indirectly involved with seminars where he was a speaker.
Penrose’s woo is low-key. He is given to suggesting that our consciousness is somehow linked to QM. He is given to thinking of consciousness as somehow beyond its materialistic basis. Things like that. Nor is it necessarily unreasonable, in as much as he presents it as merely his general opinion: but it is oftentimes seized on by woo-flingers as gospel truth, as coming from the mouth and pen of, gasp, a Nobel Laureate. (The gasps, while perfectly apposite if all they indicate are personal respect and adulation even, maybe, but they’re misplaced if they’re implicitly tranferenced on to the woo. More on that in the next section.)
The specific articles embedded within the article linked in the main post, that I glanced at earlier, are both paywalled. But here’s another one that discusses those same ideas of his: https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/
A brief quote, that gels in exactly with what I’d said in my own comment above:
“Once you start poking around in the muck of consciousness studies, you will soon encounter the specter of Sir Roger Penrose, the renowned Oxford physicist with an audacious—and quite possibly crackpot—theory about the quantum origins of consciousness. He believes we must go beyond neuroscience and into the mysterious world of quantum mechanics to explain our rich mental life. No one quite knows what to make of this theory, developed with the American anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, but conventional wisdom goes something like this: Their theory is almost certainly wrong, but since Penrose is so brilliant (“One of the very few people I’ve met in my life who, without reservation, I call a genius,” physicist Lee Smolin has said), we’d be foolish to dismiss their theory out of hand.”
Which kind of gels in with what I’d said myself, in my comment above.
———-
This actually makes for a cool illustration for a variation of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. A renowned scientist is certainly an authority specifically on his subject domain, sure, at least so far as us laymen who do not share his particular expertise. However, when that same scientist says things outside of his specific domain, and says things that are unsupported by hard science, then he is no more of an authority than you or I. To appeal to him on those terms is fallacious.
We’ve seen this exact same fallacy, in this exact same form, paraded around far more egregiously, here in these pages. I’ve addressed them myself, on more than one occasion. (Albeit not involving Penrose before this, not that I remember.)
———-
As for manjit’s comment above:
It is possible his mistake was an honest one. It is possible that he actually, honestly did not understand what I was trying to say. Even though my words were clear enough.
If so, then this is the point where he comes out and clearly acknowledges his error in understanding, and humbly apologizes for his mistake. And apologizes further for his unprovoked and uncouth personal attack.
Or, given the kind of person we now know him to be, maybe not.
————————-
Happy, manjit? You’ve finally got the pat on the head you were slavering for, yayy.
I realize you aren’t even capable of realizing that your attempts to embarrass me end up embarrassing you instead. Just you, not me. You’re like a naked, shit-covered crazy man running up and down the streets shouting, entirely unprovoked, at people going about their own business. The spectacle here is you, just you, not the person who you imagine is your victim. The object of ridicule here, every time to do this, is just you, and not the one you’ve set out on with fond hopes of bullying.
I’ve no wish to arm-wrestle with you. I’ve no wish to be anywhere near you, or to have anything to do with you. You’ve made a habit of attacking me, unprovoked. I can’t stop you, other than by maybe just discouraging you, now, by pointing out that it makes no difference to me at all, but that it reflects on you, just you, not me but you, every time you do this.
So, can you now please go and do your attention-whoring somewhere else? Go sell your wares, and turn your tricks, for someone who hasn’t seen right through you, yeah?
As for the science, consciousness, quantum rec stuff… have a glance at what federico faggin and characters like Bernard last run have to say in many interviews of people that have been mentioned here as experts in the field of pro or contra materialism … all on youtube
And .. do not forget some coffee be prepared in advance
Federico faggi
And
Bernardo kastrub
Hadn’t heard of either gentleman, tbf, Um. Looked them both up. Bona fide creds, absolutely, even if not quite of the stature of Penrose.
Listened in on (a bit of) this interview of Bernardo Kastrup’s, just now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=FcaV3EEmR9k
Interesting! Very Advaitic, actually.
Like I said in my comment preceding: bona fide scientists discussing ideas like these is compelling on the face of it, at any rate for those interested in such. For two reasons: first, because their analytic mind will usually ensure that what emerges from the discussion will be internally consistent, and also not directly inconsistent with known science; and two, because usually (although not always) they’ll spring their woo merely as opinion not as fact. And even if they don’t do that, as Kastrup apparently doesn’t (or so I gather, from a quick listen-in of that vid I linked), even then, as long as we take that onboard, our understanding that their unevidenced opinion is no more than speculation merely, even if informed speculation: then I say it’s all good, and let’s have fun exploring these ideas, why not.
And many modern scientists and philosophers have been seduced by the depth and the sheer grandeur of advaitic ideas. Schopenhauer, Muller, Oppenheimer, Berkely as well I suspect even though I haven’t seen him directly acknowledge having read advaita, and a whole host of such. No wonder Kastrup seems so taken with his “analytic idealism” ideas.
@ . At
Not being a scholar on any of the fields these gentlemen have reached respect of their colleages, I am in no position to judge what they say but you people here with enough expertise might be able to do so
That said …I am grateful for the trouble they take to come up with metaphors that helps lay ignoramus like myself have a glimpse of their research on onsciousnes, worldview, quantum mechanics
And .. it is also my opinion that any worldview that can only be understood by a minority of academics is a disgrace for humanity….it’s fooling uneducated people with scientific ..woo woo …with … WORDS
Hey, Um.
———-
“I am grateful for the trouble they take to come up with metaphors that helps lay ignoramus like myself have a glimpse of their research on onsciousnes, worldview, quantum mechanics”
I agree, populizers of science do provide a signal service. Provide they do that accurately.
I agree, we need even more, much more, of them.
———-
“And .. it is also my opinion that any worldview that can only be understood by a minority of academics is a disgrace for humanity….it’s fooling uneducated people with scientific ..woo woo …with … WORDS”
Depending on what you meant, Um, I don’t disagree, at all.
Penrose is a renowned physicist. When in his talks in seminars, or in his articles in books, he talks about the explanation of consciousness resting within the realm of QM, or when he talks of consciousness not explicable directly as an emergent property of mundane material inputs, then I have no issues with it, really, because I understand him to be hypothesizing, not claiming that as having been scientifically validated. However, people might — and people do — misunderstand his words to mean that, coming as they do from a renowned scientist, this is actually so validated (by science).
Likewise, Kastrup is, let’s see, a computer scientist. Not quite of the status of Penrose, nowhere close, but still. When he talks about his “analytic idealism”, when he talks about consciousness being the only thing there is, and about matter and energy and time and space not so much emerging out of consciousness as actually aspects of consciousness: then again, I myself find his words interesting, and have no issues with his ideas, because I know them to be no more than hypotheses; but again, I can see how people can go away with the impression that coming as they do from a scientist, they are what science has uncovered.
In short, there is always the risk of people mistaking what is essentially empty unevidenced philosophizing by these scientists, as actual science.
Now I’d described this in my earlier, longer comment as a fallacious Appeal to Authority. Which it is, certainly. But in so doing, I had put the onus of it squarely on the consumer of whatever they have to say. Which again is not wrong.
But, Um, thinking over what you said just now: I agree, part of the blame for this also lies with scientist in question. With Penrose I’m not so sure, but with Kastrup I get the impression he’s actively colluding in presenting that impression. And regardless of intention, if the net result is that people end up misled, then surely at least some part of the blame for it must lie with the scientist in question, who should have known better?
If this is what you meant, Um, then like I said, I don’t disagree. If so, that’s actually a very interesting and a very important observation.
Absolutely: Scientists like Penrose and Kastrup, when they step outside their scientific domain and get down to philosophizing, then they must make fully sure to state, right at the outset, that what they are now going to discuss is not established science, but only their speculation, at best an unproven hypothesis. Or that it is no more than extra-scientific philosophizing, and that anyone who’s not a scientist is fully equipped to meet with them on those grounds on equal footing. Every time they open their mouths to philosophize, they should preface their discussion with that disclaimer. Else, they are, functionally even if not intentionally, actually befooling the masses. I agree.
———-
Incidentally: I’d earlier, before watching — well, part-watching, I only spent a few short minutes on it) that vid, although it’s interesting, and stays bookmarked for a further watch for later when I have time — I was saying, I’d earlier on just glanced at his creds, and saw that he’s a computer scientist, is all. And I told you about the Advaitic slant to his “analytic idealism” basis what I heard him say in that interview.
Well, just now before writing this comment, I looked up Kastrup’s Wikipedia profile, and find that he does actually actively draw inspiration from Advaita. And has, apparently, sat in on discussions with our friend Swami Sarvepriyananda (whom Brian has introduced here on more than one occasion, and whose talks I enjoy). In fact, Kastrup goes so far as to describe his own “analytic idealism” as “a modern dressing of what was known to the people in Indus valley”.
That’s very interesting! I’ll look up this man and his work some more, bookmarked.
@ AR
Sometimes maybe always, we know things without knowing it as we can be aware without being able to express it …rob with thumb and index finger of one hand the area in between the same fingers in the other hand ..you feel something but there are no words to describe what you feel.
In order to be human to the full, there is no particular activity, feeling or thought needed.
No explanation is needed and whatever explanation is used is only obscuring what is obvious for all.
Describing what a bird does, no matter how detailed, scientific, philosophical poetic ..you name it, does not make the bird a bird, more bird …in fact it doesn’t matter at all
Science is, a restrictive description of what is. It is restrictive by its theory and its practice …as i have written before several times ..science cannot study what makes live human, worth to be lived. It cannot study phenomena that do occur just once. These phenomena that occur just once are the phenomena for which humans want to kill and be killed.
I have known this always without knowing it as I do these days and I owe gratitude to those by being in their company that without words they transferred to knowledge.
I have been around when dad interacted with different people, with different achievements on different fields of interest and noticed that he overlooked these achievements as irrelevant. I should not use the word “irrelevant” here as it does not right to him, as it might suggest an inner attribution of meaning and value towards his guests and their achievements and it was NOT…it is difficult to describe what is NOT and yet there ..honorable Wittgenstein was right.
The baker bakes bread
The artists makes art
The scientist, the politician etc they all do their [restricted] thing
None of them is able to make assessments of the whole and nothing of what they do, know is needed to be human, that realization as brought peace of mind and it makes me smile realizing that I had known that all the long and made seen by people like my dad without any words…just with their being
This realization has also caused me to let go of much of my interest in what experts have to say …without losing respect and gratitude for what they do and what they offer to the world
So ..yes AR …science has nothing to offer about consciousness beyond an hypothesis
With an ax I can cleave wood … very useful to heat the house but there is more to live in a house as a human than cleaving wood.
Think again about the “evil of wealth”…the wealth is not only the material riches of the world but also the mental [scientific, academic, artistic political, etc etc] wealth of the world ..and .. as said before and said again what does not matter is the wealth itself, nor the way it was attained but the EVIL is the suggestion that without that wealth an full-fledged human life is impossible.
THAT ..is what I meant with disgrace
Some “tasty”cookies for the Honorable gentleman,
while sipping and enjoying their afternoon tea:
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/
And …. for the connoisseurs among these honorable gentlemen,
the dispute between Penrose, Kastrub annd Faggin:
https://www.essentiafoundation.org/discussing-quantum-consciousness-with-worlds-greatest-minds-penrose-vs-faggin-vs-kastrup/seeing/
In the meantime I will have some coffee.
PS
Who of the honorable gentlemen considers himself academically qualified enough to judge, to evaluate or even to appreciate the truth of what any of these experts state, claim to be the truth?
I do lack any academic qualification in any of the fields in which these giants excel.
Not that I am asking for a response .. it is just an remi det
“the EVIL is the suggestion that without that wealth an full-fledged human life is impossible… THAT ..is what I meant with disgrace”
Who has made that suggestion, Um?
@AR
You can put that question in that way but it cannot be answered in that way as it is a social cultural thing
#AR
see what is appreciated in your society, … ask yourself how that came to be.
Who advertises, promotes, propagates etc what and who have access.?
Christ is said to call the religious scholars …THIEVES!
Why?
Because first of all they take what is not theirs, they own what belongs to somebody else …AND …they tell others that THEY are needed to have access to this or dat information, information that is dearly needed.
This happens in many fields where experts present themselves as the lost key ..a key that was lost in the house.
Haha, what?!
This is not a trick question. I’m trying to find out what on earth you’re talking about here, is all.
Sure, organized religion tends to peddle its wares in those terms that you decry. As something without which the purpose of life cannot be fulfilled. Sure, purveyors of “spirituality” do that sometimes as well, if less directly, as something whose lack will leave us without full appreciation of what it means to be human — so that I know where you’re coming from when you say that in respect of, for instance, Spence’s endlessly droning on about his “experiences”.
I’m just trying to find out what you’re referring to this time. In the present context, what are you talking about, Um? What is the “wealth” that you refer to this time, and this time who all are you referring to as claiming that without it people’s lives cannot be complete?
It’s a simple question, and admits of an easy direct answer: Who are the “thieves” that have made that suggestion?
@AR
if it is not clear, it is just is not clear, what can you do?
Maybe have a coffee 😇
“if it is not clear, it is just is not clear, what can you do?”
I can ask, like I have just done.
And what *you* can do, Um, is explain clearly. It will take far less effort, and far fewer words, to answer clearly, than it is taking for you to keep on prevaricating like this.
@AR
Having said what I had to say to the best of my ability, there is nothing I can do.
I drew the painting, a work of art, others are free to look at it or not and make of it what they feel like.
I have stood so many times before pieces of art that made no sense to me …that was never a problem.
After all there was always some coffee to be had.
I’m not a fan of obscurantism masquerading as depth and wisdom.
*walks firmly away from the willful incoherence*
@AR
Agreed …
life of an art critic is not always that simple
Stop this silly posturing. There is no art there, just empty artfulness.
And the life of the habitual dissembler and charlatan is sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but it is always without honor.
Just stop, please. You have nothing worthwhile to say, and are simply trying to sound mysterious, and pretending to be wise. Been taken in by that nonsense before. Won’t again.
Feel free to blather on incoherently as much as you like, I won’t intrude. Just do it without expecting me to collude in the play-acting.
@ AR
I thought that the wind had died down but the opposite seems to be the case.
Calm down and have some coffee.
It must have been a difficult time for art critics when the artists left “naturalism” behind and started to express themselves more abstract.
Maybe time has come for you also to offer some art of yourselves instead of describing, judging and criticizing what others have to offer.
And ..AR ..you are not alone here…others might understand and even appreciate what I write