Introduction and comment

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 23:50:54 -0800
From: Stanley Jeffers <fs300017@sol.yorku.ca>
To: quantum-d list <quantum-d@teleport.com>
Subject: Introduction and comment

                   I am, by training, an experimental physicist.
Although I did spend some time working in the area of observational 
astronomy, I have in recent years done work in electromagnetism 
and some experimental work bearing on interpretations of quantum 
mechanics. In recent years, I have also taken an interest in the 
claims advanced by a research group at Princeton lead by Professor 
Robert Jahn that human internationality can produce a marginal but 
statistically significant physical effect on systems that are 
inherently probabilistic. Some of my work in this area has been 
reported at the first Tucson Symposium on the Scientific Basis 
for Consciousness. Like Jack Sarfatti, I have submitted an abstract 
to the forthcoming Second Tucson Symposium.
        I would like to offer the following comments on Jack Sarfatti's
recent post (Jan 25,1996) of his abstract "Is Consciousness a 
Violation of Quantum Mechanics?"

> Bohm showed that the Schroedinger equation and the Born 
> probability interpretation of orthodox quantum  mechanics 
> depend upon the approximation that there is a new kind of 
> "organic" or "wholisitc" non-local and context-dependant 
> "quantum force" that the wave function exerts on matter 
> in addition to the electro-weak, strong and gravitational 
> forces...
 
There is no such approximation involved in Bohm's analysis.  Starting 
with a real wave given by psi=R exp(iS/h), the Schroedinger equation
separates into two equations, one of which is a continuity equation in 
R squared. The other looks, for all the world, like a Hamilton-Jacobi
equation but includes a quantum potential term which is independent of 
the amplitude of psi and distance. The analysis is exact  and does not 
depend on any approximations. The energy associated with the potential 
is tiny compared with that of the particle which moves under its influence.
Hence Bohm's suggestion that the quantum potential is the carrier of 
"active information". The particle responds to this "active information" 
in a manner analogous to a radio-controlled ship responding to directions 
encoded in a radio signal. 
        As far as any connection between mind and matter is concerned, 
Bohm pointed to the aspects of mind that are matter like and to the 
aspects of matter that are mind like and allowed for the possibility 
that at some deep level, the level of the super implicate order, they 
may be grounded in the same entity. I believe I am correct in stating 
that at the level of ordinary matter and at the level of the implicate 
order, mind and matter were not considered by Bohm to interact.
        Jack Sarfatti's suggestion that the wave function represents 
the "mental" and is therefore abstract has more in common with the Bohr
interpretation than Bohm's since according to orthodoxy the wave 
function is determined by the frequency analysis of many repeated 
measures on similarly prepared systems. It cannot then be a property 
of an individual particle. In Bohm's view, the wave of the wave 
function is a real ontological entity. For Bohm, unlike, Jack Sarfatti 
and Niels Bohr, there is no dualism.

             I have enjoyed reading the postings on this group and would
like to urge colleagues to try to make more suggestions of actual
experiments that could be performed to give us insight into the nature 
of consciousness.

        Stanley Jeffers, Department of Physics and Astronomy, York
University,                                         Toronto.


---
the referenced posting by Jack Sarfatti is at
http://www.teleport.com/~rhett/quantum-d/posts/sarf_1-25-96.html