One might divide nature into four basic components, which are space, time, energy and mass, at least in the sense that all natural phenomena are described using combinations of these four. They are of course, intricately intertwined, so that we have the bending of space-time by energy-mass (gravity), but the four-fold division is still useful.
From
these four, physics has developed an operational scheme of causation, in which
there are two concepts. One is the
concept of determinism, that is, strict cause-and-effect, where in principle,
every event can be traced to its cause(s) and afterward, to its inevitable effect(s).
The
second causative agent is random chance, which Einstein denied, at least in the
manner in which it is defined in quantum mechanics. Pure randomness must be distinguished from
pseudo-randomness. Pseudo-randomness
describes outcomes, not causes. But in
QM, as I understand it, pure randomness causes certain outcomes to occur within
statistical boundaries, introducing an inherent uncertainty into all future
events.
The
conflict between the strict determinism of Einstein (general relativity), and
the inherent uncertainty of Bohr (quantum mechanics) has not been
resolved. This unreconciled conflict is
seen by many physicists as the greatest mystery in, and challenge of, science.
Einstein
argued that the uncertainty in QM is due to our ignorance of hidden factors yet
to be discovered, and which when eventually discovered, will prove
deterministic.
Bohr,
on the other hand, argued (if I have this correctly) that there is no hidden
factor in quantum events except pure randomness itself. In this view, pure randomness is not a
result, but a cause, of quantum events. Using
the analogy of a shuffled deck of cards, the top card in a quantum deck does
not depend on how the cards were shuffled.
The top card is determined at random, and it depends on the moment at
which the top card is observed.
We
can identify two important consequences of this view of pure randomness.
One
consequence has to do with the fact that even at the macro level, events are
determined purely at random, even when the random outcome is ninety-nine point
a million nines likely. A Geiger counter
links the subatomic, probabilistic likelihood (quantum decay) with the macro
result (an audible click). In answer to
Einstein’s famous question, is the moon where we see it (?), the answer is not
a definite yes, but rather, an overwhelmingly likely probability, a ninety nine
point, followed by many miles (perhaps light years) of nines.
Another
consequence is that, in QM, according to some interpretations, the outcome of a
purely random event is dependent on a conscious observer. While there is significant dispute about
this, many established physicists argue that without a conscious observer,
there would be no collapse of probability waves. In other words, a lifeless universe would be
an abstraction, a dice roll that never comes to rest.
The
definition of consciousness, in this context, is not the outward appearance,
but rather, the ineffable inward experience that every conscious human has, a
definition that defies all formulable physical explanations so far proposed.
Taking
these two together, (pure randomness and inward consciousness), a plausible
hypothesis (IMO) is that consciousness is not a peripheral, resultant
phenomenon of the universe, but every bit as central and essential to it as are
space-time and energy-mass.
And
since consciousness requires life, it may not be coincidental that the universe
is exquisitely fine-tuned to support life.
This fine tuning may be no more a coincidence than that the universe
supports space-time and energy-mass. All
these components might be fully and inextricably embedded in the fabric of the
universe.
To
cap off the hypothesis, one might link to consciousness the property of free
will, without which, logical absurdities come into play. In this scheme, free will is neither
deterministic nor random, nor any combination of these two, but (within limits)
a causative force in nature.
Whether
or not this hypothesis is false, or even falsifiable, I think it does point to
a conceptual framework that will be needed, in some form or other, in order to
formulate a future theory of unification.
Without some kind of outside-the-box thinking that incorporates
consciousness as a fundamental necessity in the architecture of the universe,
my prediction is that unification theory will forever elude physics.
If I
have no free will, then I have no choice but to propose this hypothesis. Nature made me do it.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment