Planet X
I recently watched the above YouTube video, part of an interview with Dr. Roger Penrose. Dr. Penrose is famous for, among other things, championing the idea that quantum activity in the microtubules of the brain serves as an explanation for consciousness (a theory co-authored with Stuart Hameroff and known as “orchestrated objective reduction,” or Orch OR.)
In the video, Dr. Penrose says he disagrees with one of the most common interpretations of quantum physics — the idea that reality exists in a state of superposition (that is, multiple potential outcomes, none of which is currently realized) until it is perceived by a conscious observer. This interpretation, prominently associated with Eugene Wigner, is commonly expressed as the idea that consciousness collapses the wave function.
No, says Dr. Penrose; it is not consciousness that does this but rather “something in physics” — some missing factor that needs to be identified.
To explain why he’s skeptical of giving pride of place to consciousness, he offers the example of a distant planet that bears no life and has never been perceived by any conscious observer. (The relevant part of the video starts at 4:52.) According to the Wigner interpretation of quantum physics, the details of the planet — the weather, for instance — exist only as potentia, in an undefined state. As Dr. Penrose puts it, “All different weathers … coexist in superposition. It’s a mess.”
(Side note: Why focus on the weather? Because it’s a highly variable system. More stable planetary features, such as mountains, would also exist in a state of superposition, but because their range of options is limited, the superposition would scarcely be detectable. A large, stable object consists of the probability curves of millions of subatomic particles, and its position and state are determined by an average of all these probabilities, with the outlying probabilities almost entirely canceled out. Hence the Moon, say, will occupy essentially the same area of space in all of its superposed states. But weather patterns are another story; they can fluctuate wildly, leaving open almost unlimited options.)
At some point a probe is sent to observe the planet. The probe takes a picture and sends it home. As soon as the signal is received by an astronomer monitoring the probe, as Dr. Penrose tells it: “Snap! His consciousness or her consciousness makes that world into one weather.”
In other words, as soon as a conscious observer perceives the planet, the multiplicity of superposed states (the quantum wave function) collapses down to a single reality, and the planet’s weather, which previously existed only as a potential, is now an actuality.
Dr. Penrose finds this conclusion “absolute nonsense,” and for this reason rejects the Wigner interpretation.
I think most people would find it absurd … but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong.
We might note, first of all, that this objection falls under the category of “the argument from incredulity,” an informal logical fallacy. Many scientific claims are hard to believe but are probably true. For instance, the chair I’m sitting on, according to physics, consists mostly of empty space, and its impression of solidity is the result of electromagnetic fields between its constituent atoms. It may be hard to believe that my chair is mostly emptiness, but such appears to be the case.
But we need to look at Dr. Penrose’s objection a little more deeply. His hypothetical example reminds me of something a reader named Matthew Cromer once posted on my old blog. He asked me to imagine a parallel universe totally cut off from our universe and therefore totally inaccessible to our consciousness. Furthermore, in this parallel universe there are no conscious lifeforms. The upshot is that the parallel universe has never been perceived by any conscious observer. He then asked: In what sense does this parallel universe even exist?
Now, I’ve come to think there is a possible answer to this question, which we’ll get to in a moment. For the moment, suffice it to say that the parallel universe does not exist in our phenomenal realm. It is not part of our reality and never can be.
Let’s glance at my favorite analogy, a video game, for a slightly different perspective. (Incidentally, for those who might wonder, I’m not into video games; I just find them a useful metaphor.) Suppose we’re playing a first-person game involving a quest. After a long journey, we find ourselves approaching our destination, a distant castle on the hill. At first, the castle appears only as a vague outline. As we get closer, we see details such as turrets and ramparts. Once we enter the castle gates, we see an exterior courtyard crowded with many specific details. We go into one of the doorways and explore the interior, finding great halls and chapels and dungeons and so forth.
Now the question is, did all of these details exist before we arrived at the castle? The answer is no … and yes. No, they did not exist, because they were not rendered on our screen. All that was rendered at first was the outline of the castle and, later, some of its exterior features (picture 1 above). It would have been a waste of processing power to render the interior, since it would not show up on our screen anyway. Each new part of the castle was rendered only when we accessed it – when we were in a position to perceive it (picture 2 above). Prior to that, each part of the castle existed only as a potential.
And yet, all the details did exist, because they were present in the source code. The fact that they were not rendered does not mean they weren’t there. In effect, they were part of noumenal reality but not part of phenomenal reality. They became part of phenomenal reality only when we were ready to perceive them.
This offers a somewhat better answer to Matthew Cromer’s enigma. Does the parallel universe exist? No, in the sense that it is not part of our phenomenal reality and never will be. But yes, in the sense that it is part of the source code or underlying noumenal reality. The fact that this particular part of noumenal reality will never be rendered by our consciousness does not mean it doesn’t exist at all. It does mean, however, that its existence will be forever unknown to us and irrelevant to our purposes and concerns.
With all this in mind, let’s return to Dr. Penrose’s planet. I’m sure you can see where I’m going. Until the planet’s weather is perceived by a conscious observer, it exists only in the noumenal source code and not as part of phenomenal reality. Once perceived, it is rendered in phenomenal reality for the first time. Like the interior details of the castle, it is rendered as needed, and not before.
One reason this seems absurd or paradoxical is that we implicitly imagine ourselves, or somebody, observing the planet before the astronomer monitoring the probe has seen it. When we think about the weather, we can’t help but imagine hovering over the planet and seeing rain or snow. It then seems absurd to suggest that such phenomena don’t exist except as potentia. But of course, the point is that there is no hovering observer. Nobody is perceiving the planet’s weather. And so there is no inherent illogic or absurdity in saying that the weather remains indeterminate.
Actually, it can make no practical difference to us if the planet’s weather is precisely determined already or in a state of suspense awaiting resolution. Until the weather enters the purview of some consciousness, it is outside any rendered reality. It is just as irrelevant as conditions in Matthew’s parallel universe, which neither we nor anyone else can perceive. It is also as irrelevant as the details of the castle’s dungeon when we view only the castle’s exterior.
I’m not insisting that this interpretation of reality is correct. It may be wrong. The reason I’m partial to is that it seems to answer many questions that resist resolution on other terms. Many physicists have concluded that quantum entanglement, which has been empirically proven, establishes the reality of a nonlocal universe; but nonlocality is difficult to explain unless we assume an underlying web of connections that serves as a substrate of observable reality.
And once we make this assumption, we are well on our way to something like Kant’s noumenal realm … or a video game’s source code.
Very interesting. I may have missed something, but it sounded like Penrose was thinking it had to be a physical/human observer? If so, that doesn’t m necessarily have to be the case does it? Is it possible that an omnipresent consciousness might have the same effect? Just a thought.