http://allanrandall.ca/Phenomenology.html Copyright © 1997, Allan F. Randall Quantum Phenomenology Allan F. Randall Dept. of Philosophy, York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada [email protected], http://allanrandall.ca Abstract. Starting with the Descartes' cogito, "I think, therefore I am"—and taking an uncompromisingly rational, rigorously phenomenological approach—I attempt to derive the basic principles of recursion theory (the backbone of all mathematics and logic), and from that the principles of feedback control theory (the backbone of all biology), leading to the basic ideas of quantum mechanics (the backbone of all physics). What is derived is not the full quantum theory, but a basic framework—derived from a priori principles along with common everyday experience— of how the universe of everyday experience should work if it operates according to rational principles. We find, to our surprise, that the resulting system has all the most puzzling features of quantum physics that make physicists scratch their heads. Far from being "bizarre" and "weird", as is usually thought, the strangest paradoxes of quantum theory turn out to be just what one ought to expect of a rational universe. It is the classical, pre-quantum universe of the nineteenth century that has irrational, mystical components. The quantum-mechanics-like theory that is developed is, furthermore, most compatible with the strictest, most uncompromisingly rationalist of the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, those which add no ad hoc elements to the theory, and which generally trace their history to the relative state formulation of Everett (also called the "many worlds" interpretation). These interpretations take the universe to be quite literally describable as a quantum wavefunction. As with any project this far-reaching in scope, I confess I have had to make some working assumptions along the way. I have attempted to isolate these, and clearly label them as points of possible future revision—they are marked in the text with an asterisk (*). Introduction At some point in your life, dear reader, you have probably been smitten with the sense of wonder. Perhaps not just now, as you sit here with your mind crowded by other things (not the least of which is to understand these words), but at some time in the past, you have probably looked around in utter astonishment at the sheer existence of the world. “What is this that I am experiencing, anyway? How can it possibly be? What am I, and why is there anything at all, rather than just nothing?” If you have never been tormented by such thoughts, the words that follow will mean little to you. The search for the answers to such questions is called “metaphysics”, and the approach to metaphysics I shall explore here is sometimes called “phenomenology”. Broadly speaking, it was invented by René Descartes,1 although it was further developed by many others, including Edmund Husserl,2 who is sometimes called its father. Phenomenology looks at the real question 1Rene Descartes. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy (3rd. Ed.), Donald A. Cress (Trans.). Hackett, Indianapolis, 1637, 1641, 1993. 2Edmund Husserl. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, Dorion Cairns (Trans.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1929, 1950, 1995. 2 that lies behind all other questions asked in science and philosophy: what is the explanation for my current conscious experience? Everything else boils down to some variation on this question. Everything else you know—the external world, your past memories—is known to you as perceptions laid before your consciousness. As such, any science, whether it be metaphysics, physics, biology or economics, must be properly grounded as an attempt to explain consciousness. Any such exploration must start with some variation on Descartes’ Cogito—“I think, therefore I am”—and build on this in a series of movements that step away from the Cogito. We will not require absolute certainty at every step, so long as each movement is motivated by an attempt to understand immediate consciousness, and not some prior prejudice about what that is. This will lead us first to the search for an object within consciousness that can be experienced with complete clarity. We will find that mathematical truth provides the basic model for clarity of experience, and that any attempt to understand consciousness will therefore be mathematical (at least until some other model of clarity is found). We will therefore want to understand what mathematics is, from the standpoint of conscious experience. With mathematics as our primary tool, we will examine our immediate consciousness carefully, and try to build a clear mathematical model that captures the essential structure of , , , experience. This will lead us to rediscover the basic concepts of feedback control theory.3 456 Further investigations will allow us to begin to build a proper phenomenological conception of our “world”, leading to a rediscovery of the basic principles of our most fundamental physical , theory, quantum mechanics.78 Cogito Ergo Sum Phenomenology necessitates putting aside all prejudice as to just what one’s conscious experience is. Initially, we must not assume even the existence of an external world. The world is not known directly to us, only certain conscious perceptions are, so the “world”, if there is any such thing at all, must for the time being be put aside, placed in parentheses or “bracketed”, as an unjustified prejudice. This is Descartes’ method of radical doubt, called by Husserl the epoché. It is always possible, Descartes tells me, that my notions of an external world might be completely 3Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics,” In: The Basic Works of Aristotle, pp. 935-1126. Random House, New York, c. 335-322 BC, 1941. 4Norbert Wiener. Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (2nd Ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1948, 1961. 5W.R. Ashby. An Introduction to Cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1956. 6William T. Powers. Behavior: The Control of Perception. Aldine Publishing, Hawthorne, NY, 1973. 7Nick Herbert. Quantum Reality. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1985. [The best nonmathematical introduction to quantum theory that I know.] 8Marvin Chester. Primer of Quantum Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987. [The best mathematical introduction to quantum theory that I know.] 3 wrong. Perhaps there is an evil daemon deceiving my senses into believing in a world. Or perhaps somehow my consciousness is literally all there is, and nothing else exists at all. As a starting point, anything that can possibly be doubted must initially be set aside. Since all we can know with absolute certainty is our current conscious experience, it is this immediate consciousness, which cannot possibly be doubted, that is the starting point for real science. We may at some future time find ourselves driven back to re-adopting the common sense notion of “world”, but then again, perhaps not. For now, we “bracket” the world, and put the matter aside. Descartes said that there is one thing that cannot be doubted: that I am thinking. This is one thing I can be absolutely certain of. But just what is it I am certain of? The frustrating thing about the Cogito is that any attempt to formulate it in language seems to introduce at least a tiny bit of doubt. Already, we are introducing the term “I”, which is an extrapolation from consciousness. Even terms like “thinking” and “consciousness” introduce at least the possibility that we could be using language incoherently. Properly understood, then, we must separate the absolute certainty of our immediate consciousness from the particular language in which we express this certainty. The certainty of the Cogito is pre-reflective and pre-linguistic. Immediate consciousness does not itself necessarily reflect on the nature of consciousness at all, let alone make linguistic statements about it. It is this immediate conscious experience that is our starting point for science, not some particular expression of it in language. So what, then, is this pre-reflective consciousness? We say it is absolutely certain, but this is not certainty of anything beyond the immediate consciousness of our current state of mind, not even of this linguistic expression of that very certainty. Even a fuzzy, unclear thought, in which we cannot clearly understand the object of our perception, is still absolutely certain in this respect. It is only an “unclear” thought with respect to some object within consciousness that one is conscious of. Yet if we insist on sticking to the absolute certainty of the Cogito, we cannot make the move to speaking of this object as something separate from immediate consciousness. It is the object’s status in relation to consciousness that is uncertain. Almost any consciousness at all, no matter how uncertain we may be of the objects we are conscious of, is equally and absolutely certain in itself. Exceptions may be made here for states of mind where we are only quasi-conscious to begin with, such as certain states of sleep or stupor. However, as we will not be conducting philosophy in such states, for our purposes, we know them only through memory and they will not figure in our explorations. From here on out, then, we will assume that consciousness is always completely certain in itself. Immediate consciousness is thus our starting point, and we are not yet worried whether it is or is not consciousness of anything. In consciousness-of, there is always the possibility of error. Even for something as seemingly certain as “2+2=4”, we could just feasibly be mistaken. Perhaps we erred in our calculations. Or perhaps the whole notion of addition is flawed in some way we have not considered. So “2+2=4” does not deserve the label “absolutely certain” in the 4 same way immediate consciousness does. Yet still, such simple mathematical statements seem to have such clarity compared to almost anything else, that we will want to give them a very high degree of certainty, if not an absolute certainty. For this reason, we will distinguish between certainty in general, which admits of degrees, and the very special kind of certainty that is associated only with immediate consciousness, for which I will adopt Husserl’s term “apodictic”. This kind of certainty is absolute with respect to consciousness, and cannot be diminished without diminishing consciousness itself. The only kind of “relatively” or “partially apodictic” experience is one that is only quasi-conscious in the first place. Even the vaguest and most confused thoughts of normal waking consciousness are as apodictic as “2+2=4”. With just this, we will get nowhere. We need to make some nonapodictic moves away from immediate consciousness, to make any progress at all. Ideally, we would like these moves to be apodictic, but that may be asking too much. Therefore, we will mark such moves for later reference with an asterisk (*). Each one will require some justification that seems, if not absolutely certain, at least very difficult to resist. We must recognize that any such move may need to be changed in the future, and that this may require tearing down and rebuilding everything we have built that comes after. Although we will try to make all such moves as certain as we can, we will find that to retain the absolute certainty of the Cogito is impossible if any real progress is to be made. Finally, we note that it is entirely possible, even likely given our fallible natures, that some important unjustified assumptions may miss being asterisked. The first move away from apodicticity is already contained in the Cogito, which says not just that “I think”, or even just “thinking”, but also “therefore, I am”. This is properly thought of, not as a conclusion, an inference drawn from immediate consciousness, but purely as a definition. If we view it as an inference, we run the risk of concluding that the Cogito validates some pre-existing prejudice about existence, such as material substance or some such. The “being” that is alluded to in the Cogito is at this point purely definitional. It points to that which is absolutely certain (consciousness) and gives it a name: “existence” or “being”. But we already have a name for it, “consciousness”, so why all of a sudden do we need this new term? The answer is that while “existence” does not necessarily declare that there is anything beyond apodicticity, it suggests the possibility, without taking a stand on the issue. I point to consciousness and say “consciousness”, then I say “existence”, which I define as being simply consciousness, as something which may or may not be more than what is apodictic. So I allow that “being” may end up to be a synonym for “consciousness”, but I can assume this no more than I can assume an external world. Either assumption is unjustified. The thing that consciousness is may or may not go beyond what is apodictic, but I will use the term “existence” to mean whatever consciousness ultimately is, in either case. (*1) “Existence” is that which is the ultimate explanation for consciousness, which may or may not go beyond the immediacy of consciousness itself. 5 But even to take this small step, as hard as we tried to restrict its scope, goes beyond our starting point, by making a second-order observation of consciousness. Quite aside from the introduction of the term “existence”, consciousness has already become consciousness of something. Even though we make no claim that existence goes beyond apodicticity, the mere use of the word as something potentially different than mere “consciousness” assents to the notion that consciousness is consciousness-of (that it can have an object, namely itself, whatever that is). But we see that to go anywhere from the Cogito, we must entertain this notion. This is what generates in us the desire to explain consciousness in the first place. A consciousness that moves not even so far as to entertain the possibility that there could be an object of consciousness, at the very least consciousness itself, could not ask “why”, or “what is this thing?”. This is the sense of wonder that underpins all science. While admitting that consciousness can be consciousness-of, we have not yet determined that this is an essential feature of consciousness, nor that it is of anything that is beyond its own apodicticity, although we have entertained the possibility. But now that we have admitted that there is such a phenomenon as consciousness-of, there is little if any certainty lost in admitting other instances of consciousness-of. Consciousness of itself, while it provides the sense of wonder, is nothing special with respect to our current move (*1). If I admit that I am conscious of my consciousness, I can likewise note that my consciousness is consciousness of a ball, or a rabbit, or whatever. These phenomena appear as things within consciousness, but I am remaining uncommitted as to whether there is more to them than what appears immediately and apodictically. (*2) Consciousness is consciousness-of. The objects of consciousness include consciousness itself (*1), and other objects within consciousness. This forces us to admit that consciousness has a certain internal structure of some sort, and that it is valid to observe and make statements about it, although we do not here claim that this means the things within consciousness extend also outside of it, nor that these things are things at all separable from consciousness itself. However, we are making the move of allowing analysis of consciousness, without yet understanding what such analysis is. This is not a scientific analysis based on mathematical modelling, at least not as yet. Currently, it is simply instinctive. Straightforward observation of our perceptions convinces us that there are objects appearing within consciousness, and such observation we call “analysis”. The word “consciousness”, while pointing to the immediate apodictic thing that we perceive, does not fully express the sense of wonder, which by its nature questions whether there is more to its own nature, its “existence”, than just the apodictic part. We look at objects within consciousness, such as balls, rabbits and consciousness itself, and the sense of wonder instills in 6 us the desire to know if these objects have a fuller reality than just what appears to us. We are now entering our third movement. Instead of just allowing an analysis of consciousness that somehow involves parts of consciousness (the ball, the rabbit, the angry feeling, the memory of roses), we are now exploring the possibility that there may be an analysis that contains consciousness itself as such a part. This move is forced on us by the sense of wonder. We are still not deciding conclusively that consciousness is part of something more than just its own apodictic appearance, but in asking after the possibility, in asking “why?”, we are forced to at least assume as a working hypothesis that there is indeed something more, since, although consciousness itself is apodictic, it is not apodictic to us what consciousness is. No matter how hard I concentrate, consciousness does not yield up an immediate, apodictic awareness of its own nature. Indeed, consciousness seems inherently unclear to itself. While some objects within consciousness seem at least relatively clear, this core clarity quickly fades away into a fringe that cannot be pinned down. Attempt to examine it, and it slips away into nothingness. More than anything, it is this “fringy” nature of consciousness that generates in us the sense of wonder and the conviction that there must be more to consciousness than consciousness itself. We have now begun our search for an explanation of consciousness that goes beyond consciousness. (*3) Assume for now that there is some explanation for, or truth concerning, our immediate consciousness and what it is. This necessarily goes beyond the immediacy of consciousness, since it is not apodictic to me what my consciousness is. These first three movements (*1-3) are tightly intertwined, and it is certainly possible to lump them together in a single statement, like the Cogito. However, separating them like this will prevent us from falling into the dangerous trap of thinking that the move from consciousness to a larger existence, being somehow “apodictic”, is any more certain than “2+2=4”. A Preliminary Analysis of Consciousness The concept of analysis is crucial. If it is not possible to analyze something in order to understand it, then we can never get past our initial starting point. But we need to know what this analysis is before we can properly proceed. This very statement, of course, assumes that there is more to analysis than just what appears to consciousness, that analysis itself has a deeper structure that we have not yet necessarily grasped. Our sense of wonder is now forcing us to attempt a naive analysis (the only kind we can attempt currently) of analysis itself. So until a more rigorous analysis of analysis is possible, we shall proceed on the basis of plain common sense. So far, our common sense analysis has shown us that consciousness can be consciousness- 7 of. In (*2), we have taken this as a defining characteristic of consciousness. In order to bolster this claim, it will help to allow recollection of past apodictic experiences, in order that we might analyze them. But while these past experiences, as recollections, are apodictic, we have no way to be certain they have any past reality as apodictic in their own right, beyond our current recollection of them, or even that there is any past to our consciousness at all beyond the extent of our current consciousness. While immediate consciousness does seem to have some extent in time, this is perhaps only a fraction of a second. While speaking of our memories of the past as valid information about consciousness is, like the experience of the ball-object or rabbit-object, to admit the possibility that there is something more than just what is apodictic, it actually goes further than this. While we suspended further judgement on what exactly the ball-object is, while assuming it somehow extends beyond consciousness, we must assume more than just this for our memories, if we are to use them in any special way to analyze consciousness. For if our memory of the past is just another object in consciousness like the ball or rabbit, we are restricted to speaking only of our immediate conscious state when analyzing consciousness, something that slips away into memory before we have had proper time to analyze it. If we could not invoke memories of the past, and trust that they are memories of true apodictic experiences, we would not even be able to appeal to our own sense of personal identity. To analyze consciousness, it is necessary to look at more than just one instance of it. So we reluctantly accept memories of past consciousness as valid: (*4) Memories of past consciousnesses reveal real instances of apodictic awareness that exist external to immediate consciousness. Our analysis of consciousness will thus be of consciousness as felt and remembered. This is not ideal. We want to ground everything in the current moment of consciousness, which while it appears as something in time, cannot guarantee the existence of time in the past or future of immediate awareness. If only we humans were smart enough to hold many multiples examples of objects of consciousness in mind at once, and to analyze them, all without letting any of them fade from consciousness, then perhaps (*4) would be unnecessary. But we need to accept our human limitations, and work with what we have. In order to properly ground further movements, we must examine various past experiences of consciousness, bringing them to mind once again and if possible reproducing them so as to experience their apodicticity again. Once we have re-experienced them, they immediately fade away, but so long as we can bring them back whenever we want, we accept them, given (*4), as valid examples with which to analyze our current conscious state. We start by bringing an experience to mind: our perception of a ball. If we just happen upon this perception, then there it is—we did not have to work especially hard to get at it. But if we are remembering a past experience of a ball, getting this perception back into consciousness 8 may take some doing. We may need to seek out the experience, hunting around for it, which may involve manipulating our perceptions of our body (moving it around in perceptual space until a ball comes to view). Or we may need to focus on our memory of the ball, to bring an image of it back into view. All of these things are perceptions: our memory of the ball before and after we bring the image of it back into view, our perception of the ball when we bring it to view by manipulating our perception of our body, and our perception of our body itself. All are perceptions. We do not succumb here to the prejudice of calling any of them “world” objects. Although we have already assumed that they extend beyond immediate consciousness, this means only that somehow there is a truth to what they are that we are not immediately aware of. This “truth” is not necessarily at all like our everyday notion of an external “world”. Therefore, we will call such objects within consciousness, that extend beyond consciousness, “percepts”. They are what our consciousness is consciousness-of, i.e., what our perception perceives. Any instance of consciousness is a perceiving act—an act of perception—that perceives objects of consciousness, or percepts (see figure 1). Perception and percept are, of course, inseperable. Together, they constitute a perceiving act. “Perception” refers to the perceiving act from the immediate viewpoint of the perceiver, while “percept” refers to the perceiving act from the viewpoint of the “truth” of the object perceived, whatever that may be. To talk of perception, then, is to take a subjective view. To talk of percepts is to take a more objective view. Fig. 1: The Nature of Consciousness: Perceiving a Percept. Although we came up with this analysis by looking at consciousness, let us remain uncommitted for now as to whether we want all perceptions and their percepts to be conscious perceptions. We might feasibly discover that our analysis of perception applies in a useful way to a broader range of things than just that which is conscious, and we may find it useful to thus say that consciousness is only one instance of perception. But it is too early to decide on such issues yet. Although we are not prepared as yet to say much about the objective truth of our percepts, we can now proceed to make whatever common-sensical observations about our perceptions and percepts that we want. For instance, we notice that by manipulating the “body” percept we can, with some work, bring a ball percept very strongly into view. Alternatively, by focussing on the memory of past ball percepts, we can also bring a ball percept into view, but this seems to lack 9 the same strength. Both are, of course, equally apodictic, so we don’t mean that the body-ball is more apodictic than the memory-ball. But we seem less certain that we really have a true “ball” percept before us in the case of the memory-ball. This notion of varying degrees of “strength” of percepts, then, presupposes (as so much of our cognition does) that once again there is a truth behind the percept that goes beyond what is apodictic. There is no sense in saying that one ball percept is stronger than another, unless we mean that one is more fully a true ball than the other. Strictly on their own terms, they are equally apodictic. This kind of presupposition infuses so much of our thinking, that the more of these analyses of perception that we do, the harder it becomes to imagine going back on the analysis move (*3). We are constantly presuming that there is truth in our percepts. We presume in the very act of remembering the ball that there is a “true” percept we are trying to bring up, even if we fail to succeed in fully bringing it to view. We feel the body-percept brings the truth even more fully to view, yet the pure apodicticity does not tell us this. Our very perception of the body-percept is of something more than just what is in consciousness, and we perceive that this percept brings more of the “true” object into view than the memory manipulations did. Of course, these feelings of truth could all be bogus, but it seems we cannot help but make such presumptions in our very act of perceiving. Even postulating that perhaps these presumptions are bogus presumes some truth to the matter beyond immediate consciousness. The more we examine experiences the more we realize that all experience is perceptual in the sense we have laid out above, and that by its very nature, conscious experience forces us to believe in some kind of truth. Playing the sceptic, we can certainly step back and question this, but not without abstaining from any investigation or analysis of consciousness at all. Behaviour is the Control of Perception As strong as the perception of the body-ball is, we still do not feel that the object is fully in view. There are still aspects of it essential to its being a ball-percept that are hidden from us. But what are these “hidden” aspects of percepts that are implicit and yet unrevealed in analysis? Are they there in all analyses? Is it even possible to bring an object fully into view? These are the issues we will now begin to explore. We will call a perception that more fully brings its percept into view “clearer” than a perception that brings it less into view. So the body-ball is a “clearer” percept than the memory-ball. The “body” thing that is manipulated is probably even less clear, and the “memory” percept is extremely vague indeed. We see that perception always involves some kind of search through percept-space. Even when we just happened across the ball-percept, it is not as if we did no work at all. We still had to focus our attention onto what was already in view, and pick out the ball-percept from the background context in which it appeared. For the body-ball percept, we searched by manipulating our perception of our body. For the memory-ball, we manipulated our memory. In 10 all these cases, it was not at all clear exactly what we were manipulating. In fact, we do not even necessarily feel when we search our memory that there is something in particular that we are manipulating at all, at least not as clearly as for our body. But even for the body, it is not at all clear what we are doing when we will ourselves to “move arm” or “turn head” and so forth. All we can really say is that we somehow “focus attention” on bringing into view whatever it is we want to bring into view. Our manipulations, whatever they be manipulations of, seem to be attempts to achieve certain results in our perceptions. So we thus say that they are manipulations of the percepts within consciousness, although we remain uncommitted as to exactly what goes on that allows us to achieve such manipulations (perhaps the percepts are only manipulated indirectly). All we know is that we feel some kind of indefinable desire within us, that we want to perceive something (a “ball” percept perhaps), and that we can “focus attention”, in some weird mysterious way, that allows the percept currently in consciousness to change into one that is more like what we want, bringing the desired percept more fully into view. This mysterious manipulation process, achieved by some sort of focussing of attention, we will call our “behaviour”. The manipulation of the percept, we will call “control” of the perception (or its percept). Behaviour is the control of perception.6 The Possibility Structure of Perception It seems quite likely that control is a universal feature of perception, for all percepts are at least, if not manipulated, manipulable. Take the ball percept for instance. Why is it that we seem to believe there is more to the percept than just the percept as perceived? Careful observation of such percepts reveals much that is “hidden” from immediate experience. The ball, for instance, is perceived as having “other sides” hidden from view. The back of the ball is not apodictically in view, yet our current perception of the ball would not be what it is without the implicit feeling that it has a back. While we may not be currently controlling the ball percept in the sense of manipulating it so that we can see the back side, it does not take much reflection to realize that the ball would not be perceived as a ball-percept at all if there was not somehow within our perception the implication of a back side. For what is this perception of the ball? As an apodictic conscious experience, it necessarily involves more than the ball—everything from the surrounding environment around the ball, to the vague feeling of hunger in my tummy, to the sense of the chair pushing up on me whilst I sit here contemplating the ball. To isolate the ball in this way from the rest of my experience is an analysis, which necessarily includes the possibility of further control, that would bring hidden aspects of the ball into view. It is because I perceive the ball percept as a ball, that I feel that I could manipulate my body percept so as to see the rear side of it. Likewise, I feel that I could do this by manipulation of my memory-percepts, although we guess from past experience that this will produce a view of the rear side that has less clarity (although we are as yet still in the dark as