Retrocausal Effects as a Consequence of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics Refined to Accommodate The Principle of Sufficient Reason

The principle of sufficient reason asserts that anything that happens does so for a reason: no definite state of affairs can come into being unless there is a sufficient reason why that particular thing should happen. This principle is usually attributed to Leibniz, although the first recorded Western philosopher to use it was Anaximander of Miletus. The demand that nature be rational, in the sense that it be compatible with the principle of sufficient reason, conflicts with a basic feature of contemporary orthodox physical theory, namely the notion that nature's response to the probing action of an observer is determined by pure chance, and hence on the basis of absolutely no reason at all. This appeal to pure chance can be deemed to have no rational fundamental place in reason-based Western science. It is argued here, on the basis of the other basic principles of quantum physics, that in a world that conforms to the principle of sufficient reason, the usual quantum statistical rules will naturally emerge at the pragmatic level, in cases where the reason behind nature's choice of response is unknown, but that the usual statistics can become biased in an empirically manifest way when the reason for the choice is empirically identifiable. It is shown here that if the statistical laws of quantum mechanics were to be biased in this way then the basically forward-in-time unfolding of empirical reality described by orthodox quantum mechanics would generate the appearances of backward-time-effects of the kind that have been reported in the scientific literature.Comment: v3: Added extra descriptive material and background comment

Chance, Choice, and Consciousness: The Role of Mind in the Quantum Brain

Contemporary quantum mechanical description of nature involves two processes. The first is a dynamical process governed by the equations of local quantum field theory. This process is local and deterministic, but it generates a structure that is not compatible with observed reality. A second process is therefore invoked. This second process somehow analyzes the structure generated by the first process into a collection of possible observable realities, and selects one of these as the actually appearing reality. This selection process is not well understood. It is necessarily nonlocal and, according to orthodox thinking, is governed by an irreducible element of chance. The occurrence of this irreducible element of chance means that the theory is not naturalistic: the dynamics is controlled in part by something that is not part of the physical universe. The present work describes a quantum mechanical model of brain dynamics in which the quantum selection process is a causal process governed not by pure chance but rather by a mathematically specified nonlocal physical process identifiable as the conscious process.Comment: 27 pages, no figures, latexed, uses math_macros.tex that can be found on Archive, full postscript available from http://theor1.lbl.gov/www/theorygroup/papers/37944.p

On quantum theories of the mind

Replies are given to arguments advanced in this journal that claim to show that it is to nonlinear classical mechanics rather than quantum mechanics that one must look for the physical underpinnings of consciousness.Comment: 8 pages, Sumbitted Nov 25, 1997 to J. for the Study of Consciousnes

Is Mental Process Non-Computable?

It has recently been claimed that certain aspects of mental processing cannot be simulated by computers, even in principle. The argument is examined and a lacuna is identified.Comment: Latex, 9 pages, uses math macros.te

Human Rights and National Minorities in the United States

Three human rights myths serve to limit the debate over human rights in the United States and bias our perspective in dealing with the human rights claims of citizens from other countries. The first myth is that human rights belong solely to individuals and protect them largely from negative actions by the state. The second myth declares that civil and political rights are primary while economic, cultural, and social rights are secondary. The third myth asserts that the only rights that count are legal in nature and that moral or personal claims are invalid or irrelevant. Even a brief historical analysis reveals that all three myths are just that -- myths. The group rights of corporations are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, economic rights have been upheld over political claims as witness the Supreme Court\u27s Dred Scott decision, and legal debates over rights have often obscured the political, personal, and identity questions that many rights arguments revolve around. Only a conception of human rights that views them as the gradual empowerment of people or groups or the deconcentration of power removes them from the realm of an elite debate among experts and allows for cross-cultural comparison and action