Advertisement

Primacy of Mind in Quantum Mechanics Linking Nature to Existence with Optimalism and Noophelia as Basis of Reality

  • Cynthia Sue LarsonEmail author
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

When considering what kind of ontological picture the empirical success of quantum mechanics supports, we are essentially asking the philosophical ultimate question, “Why are things the way they are, instead of otherwise?” Viewing reality as a matter of optimalism is one of four practicable responses to this question, which requires linking nature to existence. The empirical success of quantum mechanics supports an ontological picture that includes an observer; while assumption of objectivity forms the basis for classical physics, quantum mechanics requires specification of a subject-object split in order that measurements can be obtained. Quantum mechanics suggests measurements are obtained in a process of selection between possibilities, depending upon decisions made as to where and how measurements are devised and collected. This paper explores how optimalization process philosophy proves to be a good fit for quantum mechanics. Henry Stapp’s realistically interpreted orthodox quantum mechanics addresses the necessary issue within an optimalized process philosophy of linking nature to existence by asserting that when a question is asked, “the thought itself is the thinker,” in keeping with the views of William James and Alfred North Whitehead. In this process, an ensuing succession of questions arising in the minds of observers is received and responded to by nature or cosmic mind that chooses and implements responses in accordance with Born’s rule in a physically described universe represented by evolving quantum mechanics states.

Keywords

Free will Noophelia Ontological Optimalism Process philosophy Quantum mechanics 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bergson, Henri.1920 Mind-energy: lectures and essays. H. Holt, .Google Scholar
  2. Boundas, Constantin V., ed. 2009“The promise of process philosophy,” Columbia Companion to Twentieth-century Philosophies.Columbia Univerity PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruza, P., and J. Busemeyer.(2012) “Quantum cognition and decision-makingGoogle Scholar
  4. Gare, Arran.(2002)“Process philosophy and the emergent theory of mind: Whitehead, Lloyd Morgan and SchellingGoogle Scholar
  5. Haladjian, H. H., & Montemayor, C. (2016). Artificial consciousness and the consciousness-attention dissociation. Consciousness and Cognition, 45, 210–225.Google Scholar
  6. Heisenberg, Werner.(1958) “Physics and philosophyGoogle Scholar
  7. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  8. James, W. (1902). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Larson, C. S. (2015). Primacy of quantum logic in the natural world. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 11(2), 326–340.Google Scholar
  10. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr.1996 Leibniz: New essays on human understanding. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm.2000 Theodicy: essays on the goodness of god, the freedom of man and the origin of evil. Wipf and Stock PublishersGoogle Scholar
  12. Montemayor, C., & Haladjian, H. H. (2015a). Consciousness, attention, and conscious attention. London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Montemayor, Carlos, and Harry Haroutioun Haladjian.2015b Consciousness, attention, and conscious attention. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Rescher, Nicholas. (1994) “A system of pragmatic idealism. Volume I. Human knowledge in idealistic perspectiveGoogle Scholar
  15. Rescher, Nicholas.2000 Process philosophy: a survey of basic issues. University of Pittsburgh PreGoogle Scholar
  16. Rescher, N. (2006). Studies in Leibniz’s cosmology (Vol. 13). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Rescher, N. (2007). The promise of process philosophy. In Columbia companion to twentieth-century philosophies (pp. 143–155). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rescher, Nicholas.2010 Axiogenesis: an essay in metaphysical optimalism. Lexington BooksGoogle Scholar
  19. Simmons, A. (2001). Changing the Cartesian mind: Leibniz on sensation, representation and consciousness. The philosophical review, 110(1), 31–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stapp, H. P. (1999). Attention, intention, and will in quantum physics. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(8–9), 143–143.Google Scholar
  21. Stapp, H. P. (July 2006). Already Whitehead, James, and Quantum Theory: Whitehead’s Process Ontology as a Framework for a Heisenberg/James/von Neumann Conception of Nature and of Human Nature. “Mind and matter research: Frontiers and directions” conference. Germany: Wildbad Kreuth.Google Scholar
  22. Stapp, H. (2007). Whitehead, James, and the ontology of quantum theory. Mind and Matter, 5(1), 83–109.Google Scholar
  23. Stapp, Henry P.2011 Mindful universe: quantum mechanics and the participating observer. Springer Science & Business Media, .Google Scholar
  24. Stapp, H. P. (2014). Mind, brain, and neuroscience. Cosmos and History, 10(1), 227–231.Google Scholar
  25. Stapp, Henry P.2017a Quantum theory and free will. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  26. Stapp, Henry P.2017b “Retrocausation in quantum mechanics and the effects of minds on the creation of physical reality.” In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1841, no. 1, p. 040001. AIP publishing, .Google Scholar
  27. Von Neumann, John (1932) Mathematische grundlagen der quantenmechanik. Springer, Heidelberg (Translated as Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1955.Google Scholar
  28. Weissmann, G., & Larson, C. S. (2017). The quantum paradigm and challenging the objectivity assumption. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 13(2), 281–297.Google Scholar
  29. Whitehead, A. N. (1928). In D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne (Eds.), Process and reality (Corrected ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Neuroscientia 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Foundations of MindBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations