Josephson: String Theory, Universal Mind, and the = Paranormal

From: Subject: Josephson: String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:02:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Josephson: String Theory, Universal Mind, and the = Paranormal

arXiv:physics/0312012 v3 9 = Dec=20 2003

arXiv:physics/0312012 v2 = 2 Dec=20 2003

String Theory, Universal Mind, and the = Paranormal *

Brian = D.=20 Josephson
Department of Physics, University of = Cambridge

Cavendish=20 Laboratory, Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

= ABSTRACT

A=20 model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal = phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical = skills=20 are assumed to derive from a special =91mental vacuum state=92, whose = origin is=20 explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking = into=20 account the need for the informational processes associated with such a = state to=20 be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms = of=20 shared =91thought bubbles=92 generated by the participants out of the = mental vacuum=20 state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes = made=20 claiming to =91rule out=92 the possible existence of paranormal=20 phenomena.

Keywords: ESP, string theory, anthropic principle, = thought=20 bubble, universal mind, mental state

* To = appear in the=20 Proceedings of the 2nd. European Samueli Symposium, Freiburg, October=20 2003

1. Introduction

Critics of claims of the paranormal, = e.g. Deutsch = (2001), have=20 declared extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal phenomena to = be=20 =91nonsense=92 . Such absolutist positions give little weight to = the=20 experimental evidence (Radin 1997) = in support=20 of the reality of such processes, and seem naive given the range of = imaginative=20 proposals concerning the nature of reality currently being put forward = for=20 serious consideration by conventional physicists. One important = advance=20 has been the superseding of the so-called Standard Model as a = fundamental theory=20 of nature by string theory (http://superstringtheory.com/), where the Standard = Model=20 features merely as a subset of the set of permitted possibilities. = As Carr=20 (2001, 2003) (whose = approach is=20 centred on the alternative Randall-Sundrum picture) has suggested, such = a change=20 in perspective opens up new possibilities in science, including the = possibility=20 of accommodating paranormal phenomena within physics. In the = following a=20 number of concepts are combined, each in essence consistent with = accepted ideas,=20 resulting in a qualitative explanation for ESP, with the promise of an = eventual=20 clear cut basis for understanding paranormal phenomena in = general.

2. A=20 separate mental reality

A key assumption we make is one which, = while it=20 has no clear connections with experimental physics, does make contact = with a=20 position that was advocated by mathematicians such as G=F6del (Davis and Hersh = 1981, Penrose = 1994). =20 This is the idea that some aspects of mentality involve a realm of = reality=20 largely, but not completely, disconnected from the phenomena manifested = in=20 conventional physics. The idea of a disconnected realm does have=20 precedents, for example in the way two of the fundamental forces (the = strong and=20 weak forces) play no role in large areas of physics and chemistry, = whilst in=20 other contexts they have a very important part to play. Next note = that=20 string theory, involving as it does spaces having more dimensions than = the usual=20 three, and also a non-unique vacuum state (and according to Susskind (2003a, b), a very = large=20 number of such states), is consistent with there being such a = =91separate realm=92,=20 in a way that the Standard Model, with its unique vacuum state contained = within=20 a limited number of spatial dimensions, did not.

The point in = regard to=20 mathematical thinking, which motivates our model, is the = following. =20 Consider first of all what the brain does in visual perception. = Here the=20 primary information from the visual receptors goes through various = levels of=20 processing until it ends up as a high-level representation of the = content of the=20 visual field. It is not unreasonable to identify mathematics as a = similar=20 process, except that higher levels of abstraction are involved in this=20 case. With the visual case, the mechanics are straightforward: the = visual=20 field typically contains for example edges, for which abstraction a = dedicated=20 neural system has evolved, related to our ability to perceive = edges. It is=20 hard to see why we should have such ready access to higher mathematical=20 abstractions having little connection with experience (Penrose = 1994). =20 One resolution of the problem would be for mathematical concepts to be = in some=20 way =91in the physics=92, rather than being emergent properties of = brains. In=20 case it is felt that such a drastic solution is not necessary to explain = our=20 ready access to mathematical ideas, and that neural networks can provide = an=20 adequate explanation, a stronger argument for the existence of some kind = of=20 Platonic realm can be made on the basis of the aesthetic aspect of music = (Josephson and = Carpenter=20 1996).

So far, in shifting the locus of mathematical thinking = (and=20 music?) to another realm, we have only replaced one mystery by = another. =20 But why should such a realm exist at all? The explanation we = provide is of=20 a biological character, taking account of the fact that information = processing=20 is an essential component of biological functioning, but with only very = specific=20 informational processes having a life-supportive character. While = it is=20 commonly taken that the informational processes involved are mediated by = ordinary physical means, it is not a logical necessity that this should = be the=20 case. Some informational processes in an organism are specialised = to the=20 nature and circumstances of the organism concerned, but some have a more = abstract and universal character, and so could be mediated by a quite = different=20 system with which individual organisms would = interact.

Next we=20 observe that a form of proto-life, defined as fluctuation patterns = surviving=20 longer than typical patterns do, can be hypothesised as occurring at the = Planck=20 scale, evolution of such life being expected to involve evolution of the = accompanying informational systems also. We get to the proposed = model by=20 supposing that the ordinary physical component and the informational = component=20 can evolve separately. and that the informational component can even = survive the=20 creation and destruction of individual universes, remaining as an = ever-present=20 background with which new universes, Planck scale fluctuations and more=20 developed life forms can all beneficially interact. Assuming an=20 indefinitely extended time scale, the most persistent part of the = informational=20 background can evolve indefinitely, so that its dynamics might come to = include=20 features corresponding to mathematical concepts and operations as=20 well.

This idea can be fruitfully connected with anthropic ideas, = particularly taking the point of view of Susskind (2003a, = b), = who explains=20 the way our universe seems to be mysteriously fine tuned to develop in = such a=20 way that life is possible in terms of it being only one of a vast number = of=20 coexisting universes, a small proportion of which have such a property, = one of=20 which we find ourselves occupying. Our speculations can be seen as = the=20 application of a similar idea to the informational aspect of = life.
While=20 Susskind treats life as a passive occupant of whatever universe can = permit it to=20 develop, our proposals see life in a more general light, able to shape = its=20 environment in a partnership with it, in a manner analogous to the = proposals of=20 Lovelock = (1995)=20 (the Gaia hypothesis, for which there is now considerable supportive = evidence),=20 to the effect that life may be able to interact cooperatively with its=20 environment, discovering how to operate upon it to its best = advantage.

3.=20 A model for ESP

We need to add another piece of detail to our=20 model. In order that it can model individual thought, we suppose = that=20 individual life forms can perturb the background state so as to create a = localised =91thought bubble=92, tied to the individual concerned. = This=20 suggests that the vacuum state involved is close to a phase transition, = so that=20 an appropriate perturbation can create a domain with a different kind of = order=20 to that of the vacuum.

Assuming the validity of the scenario that = has=20 been described, the picture proposed can be adapted to account for the = phenomena=20 we set out to explain, namely telepathy or ESP. In the first, the = grounds=20 for the existence of such a process can be taken to be the advantages = that might=20 be conferred in certain situations if two life forms could in some way = share=20 their mental states (there could also be accompanying disadvantages, the = significance of which will become clear later). It is natural to=20 postulate, in this case, that a shared=20 =91mental bubble=92, whose contents are available to both life-forms, is = involved. We assume, as would need to be assumed generally in the = model,=20 that the state of this bubble plays the role of information that is = meaningful=20 in the context and, by virtue of this, usable by the connected=20 systems.

The physics involved in the =91sharing=92 that has to be = assumed in=20 the above can be clarified by means of an analogy based on the = M=F6ssbauer effect,=20 which is a phenomenon involving the decay of radioactive nuclei embedded = in a=20 crystal (M=F6ssbauer=20 1961). In a certain fraction of cases, depending on parameters = such as=20 the decay energy and the temperature, the recoil from such a decaying = nucleus is=20 in effect transmitted to the crystal as a whole rather than generating = activity=20 in the vicinity of the decay. These =91no local recoil=92 = processes involve a=20 certain subset of all possible final states of the system, for which, as = quantum=20 mechanics allows, the state of the lattice vibrational system (phonons) = is=20 unchanged by the decay. This somewhat esoteric possibility = suggests a=20 mechanism, dependent on analogous constraints upon the possible states = of the=20 thought bubble, that could fit our requirement of a system state being = shared by=20 two individuals as in the ESP situation.

4. Countering the=20 critics

The problem any such analysis has to face is that of = explaining=20 how it is that, if such a mechanism for ESP or other paranormal = processes=20 exists, these processes manifest themselves only in very specific ways, = and in=20 ways that are not readily controllable. This should not be seen as = an=20 insuperable objection, since other phenomena (e.g. those involving the = weather),=20 have similar features. The point to bear in mind is that in the = biological=20 realm the phenomena that manifest are governed not only by what is = physically=20 possible, but also by which of those physically permitted possibilities = are=20 likely to be of overall benefit to the organism concerned. In the = ESP=20 context, an undifferentiated sensitivity to the thoughts of all other = people, as=20 would result from the uncontrolled sharing of thought bubbles, would = tend to be=20 disadvantageous rather than of benefit, leading to the individual being=20 overwhelmed by thoughts of others. Most of these would be merely=20 distracting, and interfere with constructive activity. The right = way to=20 think about ESP is therefore to see it as a slowly developing phenomenon = for a=20 given individual, and one which may not develop at all if conditions are = unfavourable. We see from this analysis that the frequently made=20 counter-argument to the existence of ESP, that if it were possible it = would have=20 such a survival value that we would all evolve to be very good at it, is = based=20 on a misleading concept of what would be involved.

A related = problem is=20 the one raised by Weinberg = (1993), who=20 asks what possible physical signal could move distant objects and yet = have no=20 effect on scientific instruments? Such a question ignores the = possibility=20 that there might be a threshold for psychokinetic effects. A = similar=20 argument would lead one to be equally sceptical of claims that the heat = of the=20 sun can induce chemical reactions (i.e. burning) in a piece of paper,=20 analogously something that happens only under special circumstances = (e.g. using=20 a magnifying glass to focus the sun=92s rays on to a spot on the paper), = the=20 amount of burning under normal conditions being negligible.

The = moral to=20 draw would seem to be that one should not be too ready to dismiss = paranormal=20 phenomena on the basis of apparently plausible arguments; as =92t Hooft = (2001) has said=20 in a slightly different context, plausible arguments come with their own = =91small=20 print=92, viz. assertions to the effect that assumptions that seem = reasonable to=20 their authors may be violated in the real world.

5. Concluding=20 comments

This work was motivated primarily by the perception that = the=20 arguments commonly made against the possible existence of paranormal = phenomena=20 are not well-founded, suggesting a need to discover how they might be=20 accommodated within conventional science. Proposals with this aim = have=20 been made previously, based upon Bohm=92s causal interpretation of = quantum=20 mechanics (Josephson=20 and Pallikari-Viras 1991, Valentini = 1991), but=20 the fact that the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics has not = developed=20 in ways relevant to current scientific concerns suggests it may be more = fruitful=20 to look elsewhere for ideas. The present paper is the outcome of = such an=20 investigation. Clearly, it is at best a sketch of a theory, since the = arguments=20 are of a very qualitative character, but this qualitative sketch brings = to light=20 a number of specific issues whose resolution may provide the basis for a = more=20 complete account of the phenomena.

6. Supplementary remarks = (added after=20 submission of paper for Proceedings)

Susskind's arguments suggest = that=20 reality may be much more complex than has normally been assumed. = Further=20 changes in fundamental science (which may include consideration of the = influence=20 of life) may be required to address this complexity. Since our = proposals=20 (such as thought bubbles emerging from some kind of background) do not = involve=20 the precise details of string theory, they may survive any such changes = that=20 fundamental science may undergo.

7. Acknowledgements

The = author is=20 indebted to Dr. Fotini Pallikari for many illuminating discussions = concerning=20 the nature and mechanisms of ESP. No funding from = counter-innovative=20 sources was involved with the preparation of this = paper.

Note on=20 categories for this paper: I believe that this paper would be most = appropriately=20 listed in gr-qc or hep-th, but the automatic system transferred the = initial=20 posting from hep-th to physics, subsequently blocking attempts to = crosspost to=20 either of the above lists. Requests to the archive for this situation to = be=20 remedied have, to date, met with no response. Comments people may have = on this=20 state of affairs could be directed to the moderators (for details see=20 http://arxiv.org/uploads), or to members of the advisory board (see=20 http://arxiv.org/ad-board.html for a = list).

References

B. Carr (2001), =93Can physics be extended to = accommodate psi?=94,=20 Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Meeting of the Alternative = Natural=20 Philosophy Association, ed. Arleta Griffor, ANPA = (anpa-list@sitename.com, using=20 =91yahoogroups=92 for the sitename).
... (2003), = =93Is there=20 space for psi in modern physics?=94 abstract for Euro-PA 2003 = conference, http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/carr2003.html=
P. J. Davis and R. Hersh (1981), The Mathematical = Experience, Brighton: Harvester Press.
D. = Deutsch (2001).=20 quoted in Robin McKie, =93Royal Mail=92s Nobel guru in telepathy row=94, = The Observer,=20 September 30, 2001, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,56060= 4,00.html
G =92t Hooft (2001), =93How Does God Play Dice? = (Pre-)Determinism at=20 the Planck Scale=94, arXiv:hep-th/0104219
= B.D. Josephson and T. Carpenter (1996), =93What = can Music tell=20 us about the Nature of the Mind? A Platonic Model=94, in Toward a = Science of=20 Consciousness, ed. S.R. Hameroff, A.W. Kaszniak and A.C. Scott, 691-694, = MIT=20 Press, http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/tucson.tx= t
B.D. Josephson and F. Pallikari-Viras, Found. = Phys., Vol.=20 21, pp. 197-207, 1991, http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html<= BR>J. Lovelock (1995), The Ages of Gaia : a biography = of our=20 living earth (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
R.L. M=F6ssbauer (1961), Recoilless Nuclear = Resonance=20 Absorption of Gamma Radiation, Nobel Lecture, http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1961/mossbauer-lect= ure.pdf
R. Penrose (1994), Shadows of the Mind, Oxford: = Oxford=20 University Press.
D. I. Radin (1997), The = conscious=20 universe : the scientific truth of psychic phenomena, New York:=20 HarperEdge.
S. Weinberg (1993), Dreams of a = Final=20 Theory, London: Hutchinson Radius.
L. = Susskind (2003a),=20 =93The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory=94, arXiv:hep-th/0302219.... (2003b), =93A universe like no other=94, New = Scientist 180=20 (2419): 34-41.
A. Valentini (1991), Physics = Letters=20 A158, 1-8 (abstract at http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/valentini.html)=20