Who Does Quantum Mechanics Belong To? - An Epistemological, Not Ontological, Quantum Mechanics

Articles on "quantum mechanics" as pseudoscience, which bears no resemblance to the quantum mechanics of modern physics, are increasing on the internet. In reality, the quantum mechanics of physics has nothing to do with the "Law of Attraction." Claims that consciousness changes the object based on some mechanism related to the "measurement problem" in quantum mechanics, or that quantum entanglement possesses non-locality and is the source of the Law of Attraction, are scientifically completely incorrect.

Just like the law of conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics, the fact that humans cannot do anything without limit in this world is an important starting point for thinking about quantum mechanics. Also important is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This serves as a very sharp knife that cleanly separates the problem of consciousness from the problem of science.

First, science is the act of having a self, using one's five senses and various mechanical devices beyond them to stimulate the external world, collecting the responses, and analyzing that information. What is particularly important in quantum mechanics is the premise that "a self with consciousness, who perceives and experiences moment by moment, exists because a single event is selected from among various possible event candidates with a certain probability determined by the wave function." We accept this as an axiom for beginning empirical science. Quantum mechanics itself is, after all, just such an activity of the human being that is the self.

Quantum mechanics is only effective when the separation between the observed target system and the self (and the measuring instruments used) that observes it can be rationally achieved. Quantum mechanics only teaches us, "If that setup can be secured, then these things can be said probabilistically."

On the other hand, the point is that the claim (proposition) that "other humans also have consciousness similar to my own, and a single event is selected from among various possible event candidates with a certain probability determined by the wave function, which they perceive and experience moment by moment" actually lacks falsifiability. In other words, no matter what scientific method is taken, the truth or falsehood of this proposition cannot be determined.

If the proposition "other humans also have consciousness similar to my own..." were falsifiable, there should be a way to rationally determine the answer to the question of whether the other person is a conscious human or an unconscious AI, based solely on the response (reaction) to the question (stimulus) given. This is also called the Turing test. However, it is impossible to know whether the other party has consciousness or not based only on questions and answers (stimuli and responses). This is because it is theoretically possible to build a program that well considers human reaction patterns to any stimulus. In fact, recently, there are more and more AIs that have become indistinguishable from humans even when having a conversation.

In empirical science, including physics, it is actually impossible to prove that "the other person has consciousness similar to my own and must be experiencing a single event moment by moment just like me." This means that the problem of human consciousness itself is outside the scope of quantum mechanics and science. In other words, it is merely a matter of meta-science.

However, interestingly, quantum mechanics has a structure where even if you add equality and uniformity—the idea that "since I am likely not a special human, other humans also have consciousness similar to my own"—as an unproven axiom to the other axiom systems of quantum mechanics, it remains consistent as a theory and never causes contradictions. This part is a very non-trivial and important property. If "what quantum mechanics says about my future experiences" and "what the same quantum mechanics says about the future experiences that will happen to other people" were to contradict each other, the theory would be broken, but the theory of quantum mechanics has a structure that never causes such contradictions.

Furthermore, even if you add a new axiom that "like humans, AI will acquire consciousness in the future, and a single event will be selected from among various possible event candidates with a certain probability determined by the wave function, which it will perceive and experience moment by moment," the system of quantum mechanics does not collapse. The AI experiences predicted by quantum mechanics and human experiences have a structure that does not contradict each other. Therefore, quantum mechanics is by no means only for humans. Even if it is not an AI, if a monkey, a dog, or a cat could understand quantum mechanics, calculate the probability of events from the wave function, and perform experiments, it would be the same thing. If the environment for a user who wants to use quantum mechanics is prepared, quantum mechanics does not choose its users.

In quantum mechanics based on the standard Copenhagen interpretation, the term "consciousness" appears only in the minimal axioms and is cleanly separated elsewhere. Therefore, quantum mechanics does not have the power to answer anything regarding the problem of consciousness. It is merely a tool that becomes meaningful only in situations where the premise that the subject, the self, has stable consciousness is satisfied. It can be said to be an ultimate tool that can be used when one wants to understand the world to the maximum extent, down to the finest details, with one's own consciousness.

Note that in quantum mechanics as a science, if the premise that the subjective self has stable consciousness is realized, even if only approximately, the axioms are considered satisfied, and quantum mechanics only teaches us what humans can experience in that environment. The philosophical question of whether this premise holds strictly does not have meaning as a pragmatist empirical science. There are many anecdotes in the world from people who say, "my consciousness continues to recognize one experience after another, moment by moment." As long as the situation where their consciousness is not clouded continues, those people can rationally use this epistemological quantum mechanics. This pragmatist perspective alone is sufficient for scientists.

Please refer to the blog post below regarding the "collapse of the wave function," which is the source of the misunderstanding that consciousness influences the object.

The wave function is merely an information concept based on the probability distribution of physical quantities, and the collapse of the wave function is merely the updating of the wave function as information because knowledge of the target system was obtained through observation. It is just that the knowledge of the target system for oneself has increased, and the passive act of observation, which is "seeing" the signal coming naturally from the object, does not exert a physical influence on that object.

Compared to what the general public thinks, quantum mechanics is not something amazing for physicists. It is merely a tool that provides the information necessary to decipher the world. It is just that the world view presented by quantum mechanics is so far removed from human daily life that it is unfamiliar. I believe that in the future, many "quantum natives" who intuitively understand such quantum mechanics will appear, even in terms of their senses. I hope that you, the readers, will aim to become such quantum natives, and I believe that quantum mechanics belongs to all of you.

I am writing the following textbook for physics students who aim to become quantum natives.