Heisenberg On The Probability Wave Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

In his 1958 text Physics and Philosophy, Heisenberg states:

In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But atoms and the elementary particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts ... The probability wave ... mean[s] tendency for something. It's a quantitative version of the old concept of potentia from Aristotle's philosophy. It introduces something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, atoms and elementary particles are just as real as any phenomena in daily life, in the sense that all such phenomena are construals of experience as meaning. The probability wave, 'a world of potentialities or possibilities', identifies the range of potential construals of experience as reality.

This perspective is not quite Aristotle's concept of potentia, because, unlike Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Aristotle's philosophy did not relate potential to actual by the vector of instantiation.

From this perspective, the probability wave does not introduce 'a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality'. Instead it identifies the possibility of reality: the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, graded in terms of probability.

The Needed Perspectival Change In Physics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1045):

The spacetime singularities lying at cores of black holes are among the known (or presumed) objects in the universe about which the most profound mysteries remain — and which our present-day theories are powerless to describe. As we have seen, there are other deeply mysterious issues about which we have very little comprehension. It is quite likely that the 21st century will reveal even more wonderful insights than those that we have been blessed with in the 20th. But for this to happen, we shall need powerful new ideas, which will take us in directions significantly different from those currently being pursued. Perhaps what we mainly need is some subtle change in perspective — something that we all have missed . . . .

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the required subtle change of perspective is that confirmed by the experiments of quantum mechanics. Meaning does not transcend semiotic systems, and a construal of experience as meaning instantiates the most probable of a range of potential construals.

∞

This is the final post on The Road to Reality (Penrose 2004).

The Notions That Biology Reduces To Physics And Is Controlled By Mathematics

Penrose (2004: 1043):

Many of these developments certainly depend directly upon physics in one form or another. Moreover, the basic rules of chemistry, as understood today, are also fundamentally physical ones (in principle if not in practice) — mainly coming from the rules of quantum mechanics. Biology is a good deal further from being reducible to physical laws, but we have no reason to believe (consciousness apart) that biological behaviour is not, at root, purely dependent upon physical actions that we now basically understand. Accordingly, biology seems also to be ultimately controlled by mathematics.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, biological systems and chemical systems do not reduce to physical systems, since if they did, they would just be physical systems. Instead, physical systems are the foundation from which chemical and then biological systems emerge. A chemical system is both chemical and physical, a biological system is biological, chemical and physical. Physics models the physical level of chemical and biological systems.

In this view, biological behaviours are not "dependent" on physical actions. Instead, biological and physical are two levels of description of biological phenomena.

Moreover, mathematical models of phenomena do not "control" phenomena, biological or otherwise, any more than a map controls the territory it models.

Some Ultimate Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1033-4):

I hope that it is clear, from the discussion given in the preceding sections that our road to the understanding the nature of the real world is still a long way from its goal. Perhaps this goal will never be reached, or perhaps there will eventually emerge some ultimate theory, in terms of which what we call ‘reality’ can in principle be understood. If so, the nature of that theory must differ enormously from what we have seen in physical theories so far. The most important single insight that has emerged from our journey, of more than two and one-half millennia, is that there is a deep unity between certain areas of mathematics and the workings of the physical world, this being the ‘first mystery’ depicted in Figs. 1.3 and 34.1. If the ‘road to reality’ eventually reaches its goal, then in my view there would have to be a profoundly deep underlying simplicity about that end point. I do not see this in any of the existing proposals.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no ultimate theory, because there is no meaning outside semiotic systems to be matched by the meanings of theory. Instead, the symbolic processing of consciousness construes experience as meaning, and reconstrues such meaning as theory. Theories, as semiotic systems, are open-ended evolutionary systems with no ultimate goal, like biological systems. Moreover, each theory circumscribes its range of possibilities by its foundational epistemological assumptions.

The de-Broglie–Bohm Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1032):

As far as I can make out, the only interpretations that do not necessarily depend upon some notion of ‘conscious observer’ are that of de-Broglie–Bohm that require some fundamental change in the rules of quantum mechanics, according to which U and R are both taken to be approximations to some kind of objectively real physical evolution.

As I have stated in many places in this book, I am an adherent of this last view, where it is with gravitational phenomena that an objective R (i.e. OR) takes over from U. This gravitational OR would take place spontaneously, and requires no conscious observer to be part of the process. In usual circumstances, there would be frequent manifestations of OR occurring all the time, and these would lead to a classical world emerging on a large scale, as an excellent approximation. Accordingly, there is no need to invoke any conscious observer in order to achieve the reduction of the quantum state (R) when a measurement takes place. 

On the other hand, I envisage that the phenomenon of consciousness — which I take to be a real physical process, arising ‘out there’ in the physical world — fundamentally makes use of the actual OR process. Thus, my own position is basically the reverse of those referred to above, in which, in one way or another, it is envisaged that consciousness is responsible for the R process. In my own view, it is a physically real R process that is (partly) responsible for consciousness!

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the de-Broglie–Bohm 'pilot wave' interpretation of quantum mechanics posits two levels of reality:

a firmer ‘particle’ level of the reality of the configuration of the system, as well as a secondary ‘wave’ level of reality, defined by the wavefunction ψ, whose role is to guide the behaviour of the firmer level.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'wave' level identifies the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, and the 'particle' level constitutes an instance of those potential construals. From this perspective, both levels are intersubjectively real.

The 'taking over' of R from U — the collapse of the wavefunction — is the instantiation of potential when a conscious observer takes a measurement, and the wavefunction 'guides' the 'behaviour of the firmer level' in the sense that is delimits the range of potential that can be instantiated and grades it in terms of probability.

Consciousness, in this view, is mental and verbal symbolic processing, rather than a physical process, but it is realised by physical processes of the brain, the observation or thought of which is an instance of a construal of experience as meaning.

The Observer In Interpretations Of Quantum Mechanics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031-2):

The consistent-histories approach is also explicitly dependent upon some notion of what an ‘observer’ might be (the notion referred to as an IGUS in the Gell-Mann–Hartle scheme). The point of view suggested by Wigner that consciousness (or perhaps living systems generally) might violate U evolution is also one which makes explicit reference to the role of the mind (or whatever constitutes an ‘observer’) in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Blogger Comments;

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the conscious observer is necessary in the interpretation of quantum mechanics because it is the observer who instantiates one construal of experience as meaning from the range of potential construals identified by the wavefunction.

The Conscious Observer in The Many-Worlds Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031):

The many-worlds viewpoint is manifestly dependent upon having a proper understanding of what constitutes a ‘conscious observer’, since each perceived ‘reality’ is associated with an ‘observer state’, so we do not know what reality states (i.e. ‘worlds’) are allowed until we know what observer states are allowed. Put another way, the behaviour of the seemingly objective world that is actually perceived depends upon how one’s consciousness threads its way through the myriads of quantum-superposed alternatives. In the absence of an adequate theory of conscious observers, the many-worlds interpretation must necessarily remain fundamentally incomplete.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the many worlds interpretation misconstrues alternative potentials as actual alternative instances (many worlds). From this perspective, each 'perceived reality' is an 'observer state' because a perceived reality is a construal of experience as meaning by the observer. It is not that consciousness 'threads its way through the myriads of quantum-superposed alternatives', but that the act of observation instantiates one of superposed alternatives as an actual construal of experience as meaning.

The Environmental Decoherence Perspective Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031):

The issue of environmental decoherence also provides us with merely a stopgap position, since the inaccessibility of the information ‘lost in the environment’ does not mean that it is actually lost, in an objective sense. But for the loss to be subjective, we are again thrown back on the issue of ‘subjectively perceived — by whom?’ which returns us to the conscious-observer question. 

In any case, even with environmental decoherence, if we retain rigorous adherence to U evolution for the ‘true’ quantum description of the universe, then we are driven to the many-worlds description of reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'Environmental Decoherence' interpretation of Quantum Theory misconstrues the interdependence of potential as an entanglement of instances (states of the environment). The 'information' is inaccessible to a conscious observer because it is potential, not because it is 'lost in the environment'.

The Role Of Consciousness In Quantum Experiments Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1031):

There is a quite separate important role played by consciousness in many interpretations of the R part of quantum mechanics .In fact, almost all the ‘conventional’ interpretations of quantum mechanics ultimately depend upon the presence of a ‘perceiving being’, and therefore seem to require that we know what a perceiving being actually is! 

We recall that the Copenhagen interpretation takes the wavefunction not to be an objectively real physical entity but, in effect, to be something whose existence is ‘in the observer’s mind’. Moreover, at least in one of its manifestations, this interpretation requires that a measurement be an ‘observation’, which presumably means something ultimately observed by a conscious being — although at a more practical level of applicability, the measurement is something carried out by a ‘classical’ measuring apparatus. 

This dependence upon a classical apparatus is only a stopgap, however, since any actual piece of apparatus is still made of quantum constituents, and it would not actually behave classically — even approximately — if it adhered to the standard quantum U evolution. (This is simply the issue of Schrödinger’s cat). 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'perceiving being' required in quantum mechanics is a conscious being capable of construing experience as the the meanings of language.

In this view, both the wavefunction and observations are 'all in the mind' in the sense they are meanings construed by conscious processing.

In this view, it is the observation of the measuring apparatus (and the cat) that is required, and this is also a construal of experience by a 'perceiving being': the most probable construal of potential construals, in line with quantum theory.

Anthropic Reasoning Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1030):

Quite apart from the world of mentality having to be considered in conjunction with the other two worlds, in accordance with Fig. 34.1, there are several places in this book where the issue of consciousness has already played a significant role in physical theory, either implicitly or explicitly. 

One of these is in connection with the anthropic principle. Any universe that can ‘be observed’ must, as a logical necessity, be capable of supporting conscious mentality, since consciousness is precisely what plays the ultimate role of ‘observer’. This fundamental requirement could well provide constraints on the universe’s physical laws, or physical parameters, in order that conscious mentality can (and will) exist. 

Accordingly, the anthropic principle asserts that the universe that we, as conscious observers, actually do observe, must operate with laws and appropriate parameter values that are consistent with these constraints. Such constraints could manifest themselves in particular values for the fundamental (dimensionless) constants of Nature. Indeed, it has become quite commonplace to regard the values that we actually find as being the result of some kind of application of the anthropic principle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the anthropic principle confuses two types of cause, mistaking result for reason. Conscious observers are the result of material parameters, not the the reason for them.

The Platonic World As The Most Primitive Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1029):

But are mathematical notions things that really inhabit a ‘world’ of their own? If so, we seem to have found our ultimate reality to have its home within that entirely abstract world. Some people have difficulties with accepting Plato’s mathematical world as being in any sense ‘real’, and would gain no comfort from a view that physical reality itself is constructed merely from abstract notions. 

My own position on this matter is that we should certainly take Plato’s world as providing a kind of ‘reality’ to mathematical notions (and I tried to argue forcefully for this case in §1.3), but I might baulk at actually attempting to identify physical reality within the abstract reality of Plato’s world. I think that Fig. 34.1 best expresses my position on this question, where each of three worlds — Platonic-mathematical, physical, and mental — has its own kind of reality, and where each is (deeply and mysteriously) founded in the one that precedes it (the worlds being taken cyclicly). 

I like to think that, in a sense, the Platonic world may be the most primitive of the three, since mathematics is a kind of necessity, virtually conjuring its very self into existence through logic alone. Be that as it may, there is the further mystery, or paradox, of the cyclic aspect of these worlds, where each seems to be able to encompass the succeeding one in its entirety, while itself seeming to depend only upon a small part of its predecessor.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, 'reality' is meaning construed of experience, so the meanings of mathematics are mathematical 'reality', which does not logically entail an 'ultimate reality'.

In this view, physical reality is not constructed from abstract notions, but the the reverse: the abstract notions of mathematics are intellectually constructed from physical reality. That is, first-order physical reality, construed of experience, is reconstrued, by conscious (mental) processing, as the second-order reality of mathematics.

In this view, then, the relation between the three realities is not cyclic, and mathematical reality is the least 'primitive', since it depends first on conscious processes, then on these construing experience as physical reality, and then on these reconstruing physical reality as mathematical reality.

Physical Reality As A Reflection Of Purely Mathematical Laws Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1028-9):

It will be seen that modern physicists invariably describe things in terms of mathematical models. This is irrespective of which particular family of proposals they may happen to hold to. It is as though they seek to find ‘reality’ within the Platonic world of mathematical ideals. Such a view would seem to be a consequence of any proposed ‘theory of everything’, for then physical reality would appear merely as a reflection of purely mathematical laws. As I have been arguing in this chapter, we are certainly a long way from any such theory, and it is a matter of contention whether anything resembling a ‘theory of everything’ will ever be found. Be that as it may, it is undoubtedly the case that the more deeply we probe Nature’s secrets, the more profoundly we are driven into Plato’s world of mathematical ideals as we seek our understanding. Why is this so? At present, we can only see that as a mystery. It is the first of the three deep mysteries referred to in §1.4, and illustrated in Fig. 1.3, here redrawn and embellished somewhat as Fig. 34.1.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is a distinction between first-order 'reality' (meaning construed of experience) and second-order 'reality' (meaning construed of meaning). The data modelled by physics constitute first-order 'reality' and the physical theories that model the data constitute second-order 'reality'. Mathematical models constitute second-order quantifications of first-order 'reality'. The notion of physical reality as a reflection of purely mathematical laws equates first-order 'reality' with its second-order quantifications.

Potentially Embarrassing ‘What?’ And ‘Why?’ Questions Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1028):

Modern science would be cautious in attempting answers to ‘why?’ questions as well as ‘what?’. Yet, questions as to ‘what?’ and ‘why?’ are frequently supplied with answers. It is considered acceptable to do so provided that the questions are not asking about reality at its deepest levels. One may expect an answer to such a question as the following. ‘What is a cholesterol molecule made of?’; ‘why does a match burst into flame when dragged rapidly across a suitable rough surface?’; ‘what is an aurora?’; ‘why does the sun shine?’; ‘what are the forces which hold a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule together?’; and ‘why is a uranium nucleus unstable?’. Yet, some other questions that one might pose could cause more embarrassment, such as ‘what is an electron?’ or ‘why does space have just three dimensions?’. These questions can, however, find meaning within some more fundamental picture of physical reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, an electron is just what physics says it is. For example:

The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge. Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron's mass is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton. Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ.

From this perspective, there are three dimensions of space because this number proved functional in the construal of experience as first-order meaning, and has since proved functional in reconstruals of first-order meaning as the second-order meaning of theory. String theorists are trying to demonstrate that what they think are additional spatial dimensions would be more functional in the second-order meaning of theory.

'What Is Physical Reality?' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1028):

Indeed, we may well ask: what is physical reality? This is a question that has been posed for thousands of years, and philosophers throughout the ages have attempted various kinds of answer. Today we look back, from our vantage point of modern science, and claim to take a more sober position. Rather than attempting to answer the ‘what’ question, most modern scientists would try to evade it. They would try argue that the question has been wrongly posed: we should not try to ask what reality is; merely, how does it behave. ‘How?’ is, indeed, a fundamental question that we may consider to have been one of the main concerns of this book: how do we describe the laws that govern our universe and its contents? 

Yet, many readers will no doubt feel that this is a somewhat disappointing answer — a ‘cop-out’, no less. To know how the contents of the universe behave does not seem to tell us very much about what it is that is doing the behaving. This ‘what?’ question is intimately connected with another deep and ancient question, namely ‘why?’. Why do things in our universe behave in the particular ways that they do? But without knowing what these things are, it is hard to see why they should do one thing rather than another.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, physical reality is the construal of experience as first-order meaning: material phenomena, which include things, processes ("behaviours") and their circumstances. This is distinct from physics, which is the reconstrual of first-order meaning as the second-order meaning (metaphenomena) that realise theory. As such, the laws of physics (metaphenomena) do not "govern" the contents of the universe (phenomena) any more than a map (metaphenomenon) "governs" a territory (phenomenon).

From this perspective, 'why?' is the interrogative form of two distinct types of cause: 'reason-result' and 'purpose'. Physics does model the 'reason-result' type of cause, with earlier processes being the reasons for the resultant later processes. The 'whats' are the participants in those processes. The 'purpose' type of cause, however, only applies to beings with intentions, within the universe. The purpose of the universe is the purposes of its intentional beings.

The True ‘Road To Reality’ Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1027-8):

As the reader will gather from all this, I do not believe that we have yet found the true ‘road to reality’, despite the extraordinary progress that has been made over three and one half millennia, particularly in the last few centuries. Some fundamentally new insights are certainly needed. Yet, some readers may well still take the view that the road itself may be a mirage. True — so they might argue — we have been fortunate enough to stumble upon mathematical schemes that accord with Nature in remarkable ways, but the unity of Nature as a whole with some mathematical scheme can be no more than a ‘pipe dream’. Others might take the view that the very notion of a ‘physical reality’ with a truly objective nature, independent of how we might choose to look at it, is itself a pipe dream.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no true road to reality, but there are construals of experience as reality that may be valid or invalid with regard to theory and the assumptions on which a theory is founded.

The notion of a true road to reality assumes that reality transcends construals of experience rather than that reality is the construal of experience as meaning. The 'transcendent' assumption has been invalidated by the experiments of quantum mechanics. Reality is intersubjective, rather than objective.

The Needed New Perspective On Quantum Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1025):

It is certainly possible that there are many clues to Nature’s ways hidden in such data, even if we do not properly read them yet. Recall that Einstein’s general relativity was crucially based on his insight (the principle of equivalence) which had been implicit in observational data that had been around since (and before) the time of Galileo, but not fully appreciated. There may well be other clues hidden in the immeasurably more extensive modern observations. Perhaps there are even ‘obvious’ ones, before our very eyes, that need to be twisted round and viewed from a different angle, so that a fundamentally new perspective may be obtained concerning the nature of physical reality. 

I believe, indeed, that a new perspective is certainly needed, and that this change in viewpoint will have to address the profound issues raised by the measurement paradox of quantum mechanics and the related non-locality that is inherent in EPR effects and in the issue of ‘quanglement’. I have argued that the measurement paradox must be deeply interconnected with the principles of general relativity. Perhaps new experiments may lead the way to the needed improved understandings of quantum theory. Perhaps there will be other types of experiment shedding light on the nature of quantum gravity. Perhaps, on the other hand, it will be theoretical considerations that will take us forward.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the clues to a new perspective lie, not in the data, but in what the data invalidates: the epistemological assumption that meaning transcends semiotic systems, including the language that realises theory.

The epistemological assumption that all meaning is within semiotic systems is consistent with the dependence of experimental findings on the observations of conscious meaning-makers, and the distinction between potential and instance clarifies such construals of experience as meaning as instances of a range of 'entangled' potential construals of meaning.

A Quantum Theory That Encompasses Gravity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1013-4):

A general consensus seems indeed to have grown up that, in order for real progress to be made in our moving beyond the standard models of particle physics (and cosmology), and thereby obtaining a deeper understanding of the basic ingredients of the universe, it will be necessary to have a quantum theory that encompasses gravity in addition to the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the General Theory of Relativity construes gravity, not as a force, but as a mutual relation between mass and spacetime, whereas particle physics construes the three forces as types of particle exchange.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not necessary for quantum theory to encompass gravity because quantum theory is concerned with the instantiation of potential as particles, and general relativity is concerned with the mutual relation of particles and spacetime.

The Incompleteness Of Quantum Theory Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Penrose (2004: 1011):

Einstein’s general relativity stands out, in my opinion, as that century’s greatest single achievement. Quantum theory (and QFT) might well be regarded by most physicists as an even greater achievement. From my own particular perspective on the matter, I do not feel able to share that view. While it is undoubtedly the case that quantum theory has explained incomparably more than general relativity, over a vastly greater range of different phenomena, I do not regard the theory as having yet achieved the necessary coherence as a theory. The problem, of course, is the measurement paradox. In my opinion, quantum theory is incomplete. When it is completed — which I would anticipate happening some time in the 21st century — it will, no doubt, represent an even greater achievement than Einstein’s general relativity.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Quantum theory has already achieved 'the necessary coherence as a theory', since the measurement paradox is made coherent by understanding the collapse of the wave function as the probabilistic instantiation of one of a range of potential construals of experience as meaning.

A Final True ‘Theory Of Everything’ Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 1010, 1011):

It has been a not uncommon view among confident theoreticians that we may be ‘almost there’, and that a ‘theory of everything’ may lie not far beyond the subsequent developments of the late 20th century. … 

From my own perspective, we are much farther from a ‘final theory’ even than this. … 

It would be unwise to predict with any great confidence that even these theories are close to making the further necessary leaps that would guide us to the true road to the understanding of physical reality.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, there is no final 'theory of everything' because this assumes the 'transcendent' view of meaning that Quantum experiments invalidate: that there is meaning outside semiotic systems which the meaning of physics will eventually match.

Instead, physical theories are open-ended evolving semiotic systems, that adapt to the material and semiotic environments in which they function, and 'truth' in this context, means the validity of the theorising and of the assumptions on which the theorising is founded, or founders.

Physicists' Ideas Of Space And Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 958):

Yet, some physicists would strongly argue that a far more radical overhaul of the ideas of space and time is needed, if the appropriately deeper insights are to be gained as to the nature of a ‘quantum spacetime’.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, in the General Theory of Relativity, the three dimensions of space measure the relative location and extent of phenomena, and the dimension of time measures the relative unfolding of processes.

As this blog demonstrates, in physics, phenomena in space, such as geodesic trajectories, are mistaken for space, the dimensions in which they are located and extend, and processes, such as the ticking of a clock, are mistaken for time, the dimension in which the unfolding of processes is located and extends.

The 'Correct' Quantum–Gravity Union Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 954):

As the reader will have gathered by now, I regard as a necessary feature of the correct quantum–gravity union that it must depart from standard quantum mechanics in some essential way, so that R becomes a realistic physical process (OR).

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, R stands for 'reduction', which is the collapse of the wave function, and OR stands for 'objective reduction'. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the notion of objective reduction dissolves the distinction between potential and instance, which is essential for providing a coherent ontology for Quantum Theory.

The State Reduction To A Classical Configuration Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 904):

This raises the issue of the classical limit of a quantum system for large quantum numbers, and the related matter of the state reduction R to such a classical configuration. We have seen that the R issue cannot really be fully resolved within the framework of present-day quantum theory.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, 'the state reduction R to a classical configuration' is the collapse of the wave function, and from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this can be fully resolved within the framework of present-day quantum theory by understanding this as the instantiation of potential when an observation is made. The wave function constitutes the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, and its "collapse" is one instance of this potential when experience is actually construed as meaning in an observation.

Higher-Dimensional Spacetime Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Penrose (2004: 881):

Before we dismiss this idea as a total fantasy we must recall the ingenious scheme, put forward in 1919 by the (at that time) little-known Polish mathematician Theodor Kaluza, and then further taken up by that same Swedish mathematical physicist Oskar Klein. Provided that the extra dimensions (in excess of 4, that is) are taken as small dimensions, in some appropriate sense, then we might not be directly aware of them. What does ‘small’ mean in this context? 

Recall the ‘hosepipe’ analogy of Fig. 15.1. When looked at from a great distance, the hosepipe appears to be 1-dimensional, but if we examine it more closely, we find a 2-dimensional surface. 

The idea is that some being, inhabiting the hosepipe universe, would not ‘know’ that the extra dimension wrapping around the pipe is actually ‘there’, provided that the physical dimensions of that being are much larger than the circumference of the hosepipe. Similar remarks would apply to a higher-dimensional ‘hosepipe universe’ of 4 + d dimensions, where d of the dimensions are ‘small’ and not directly perceived by a much larger being inhabiting this universe, who perceives only the 4 ‘large’ dimensions; see Fig. 31.3.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the hosepipe analogy confuses phenomena in spacetime with the spacetime in which phenomena are located. A 2-dimensional surface is a thing which extends in two spatial dimensions. A 3-dimensional hosepipe is a thing which extends in three spatial dimensions. The trajectory around the circumference of the hosepipe is here misconstrued as a spatial dimension.

Higher-Dimensional Spacetime Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Penrose (2004: 880-1, 882):

How is it that physicists could take seriously the possibility that the dimensionality of spacetime might be other than the four that we directly experience (one time and three space)? As mathematical exercises, such higher-dimensional things seem fine, but this is supposed to be a physical theory where ‘spacetime’ really means the combination of actual space with time. Indeed, as we shall be seeing, string theory (as it is currently understood) requires that spacetime must indeed have more than four dimensions. In the early theory the dimension number was taken to be 26, but later innovations (which involved the ideas of supersymmetry) led to this spacetime dimensionality being reduced to 10. … 

Whatever the status of these newer ideas, this suggestion of a higher-dimensionality for spacetime has, at this stage in our deliberations, a status no more compelling than that of a ‘cute idea’ — which the original Kaluza–Klein suggestion certainly was. Whatever may be the mathematical attractiveness of this idea, we have to address the question of whether there are good physical reasons for believing in such a scheme.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, physical theories that propose higher-dimensional spacetime, such as the variants of String Theory, mistake geodesic trajectories in space over time for the spatiotemporal dimensions in which these are located.

A Viable Ontology For Quantum Mechanics Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 865):

It is clear that we are far from a theory which can reliably address all these issues. But I hope, at least, that I have been able to persuade the reader of the fundamental importance of having a quantum mechanics with a viable ontology. The issues that are addressed in Chapters 29 and 30 of this book are not just matters of philosophical interest. The importance of having an ontologically coherent (improved) quantum mechanics cannot, in my view, be over-estimated. In this section, I have touched upon just one of the foundational issues that could be deeply affected by knowledge of such a theory. There are many more, including situations in biology, where as with the early universe, the present-day ‘Copenhagen’ viewpoint cannot really be applied — there being no clear division into a quantum system and a classical measuring device.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is a viable epistemology that quantum mechanics requires. Quantum mechanics has invalidated the epistemological assumption that meaning transcends semiotic systems. The ontology that follows from the epistemological assumption that meaning is immanent, and does not transcend semiotic systems, merely requires the additional distinction between potential and instance to make it coherent and viable. This makes the distinction between 'a quantum system' (potential and instance) and 'a classical measuring device' (instance of potential) perfectly clear.

Perspectives On The Very Early Universe Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 863, 868n):

We should bear in mind that we are here concerned with the very early universe, where the temperature would have been perhaps some 10³²K. There were no experimenters around at that time performing ‘measurements’, so it is hard to see how the standard ‘Copenhagen’ perspective can be applied. 

What about the many-worlds view? In that picture, there is no actual R, and the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker-symmetric state of the universe would be maintained until the present day, this state being representable as a grand superposition of many constituent spacetime geometries. Only when conscious observers try to make sense of the world, according to this view, would the resolution into alternative spacetime geometries be deemed appropriate — there now being a superposition of conscious observers, each one perceiving a single ‘world’.⁴⁶

On the ‘For All Practical Purposes’ view, the presence of (sufficient) environmental decoherence is regarded as the signal, whereby our quantum superposition of different geometries is permitted to be regarded as a probability mixture of different geometries.

⁴⁶ On Wheeler’s own variant, the ‘participatory universe’, see Wheeler (1983), it would be the ultimate presence of conscious observers who somehow (teleologically) determine the particular selection of spacetime geometry that occurred in the early universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Copenhagen interpretation is concerned with the construal of experience as first-order meaning, through perception, whereas (a model of) the very early universe is a reconstrual of first-order meaning as second-order meaning that realises theory, through cognition.

From the same perspective, the notion of 'a grand superposition of many constituent spacetime geometries' confuses potential construals of experience as meaning (superpositions) with instances of that potential (actual construals), and confuses spacetime with states of phenomena in spacetime. The notion of 'a superposition of conscious observers' misapplies the notion of alternative potential construals of meaning to the observer who construes experience as meaning. 

In this view, it is not that conscious observers '(teleologically) determine the particular selection of spacetime geometry that occurred in the early universe' but that this is second-order meaning construed by conscious processing.

The Quantum Description Of Spacetime Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 862):

Similarly, in standard quantum mechanics, all the variables defining a spacetime state cannot be determined together. The quantum description of spacetime should nevertheless be perfectly well defined. But the Heisenberg principle tells us that this description cannot resemble a classical (pseudo-)Riemannian manifold, as different spacetime geometric quantities do not commute with one another. Instead, according to Wheeler’s picture, the state would consist of a vast superposition of different geometries, most of which would deviate wildly from flatness and so have the ‘foamlike’ character that he envisages.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this confuses what is located in spacetime with the spacetime in which phenomena are located. For example, 'all the variables defining a spacetime state' are the variables of phenomena at a specified location in spacetime.

Moreover, the superposition of variables is the superposition of potential variables, not the superposition of actual variables that instantiate that potential, and the 'foamlike' character is concerned with instantiations of this potential, not with the spatiotemporal dimensions in which such instantiations are located.

The Unmeasured State Of A Particle Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 861-2):

To clarify this picture, we must recall carefully what Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations actually state. They do not tell us that there is something inherently ‘fuzzy’ or ‘incoherent’ in the way that nature behaves at the tiniest scales. Instead, Heisenberg uncertainty restricts the precision whereby two non-commuting measurements can be carried out. We recall that, for a single particle, both its position and momentum in some direction, being non-commuting, cannot be determined precisely at the same time, the product of their respective errors being not less than ½ħ. There is a perfectly well-defined quantum state, however, and if no actual measurement is performed, the state of the particle will evolve precisely, according to Schrödinger’s equation.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, if no actual measurement is performed, then no construal of experience as a particle occurs. It is the potential state of the particle that evolves precisely according to Schrödinger’s equation.

Quantum Fluctuations Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 861):

But what are quantum fluctuations? It is a feature of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations, as applied to field quantities, that, if one tries to measure the value of a quantum field in some very small region to great accuracy, this will lead to a very large uncertainty in other (canonically) related field quantities, and hence to a very rapidly changing expected value of the quantity being measured. Thus, the very act of ascertaining the precise value of some field quantity will result in that quantity fluctuating wildly. This quantity could be some component of the spacetime metric, so we see that any attempt at measuring the metric precisely will result in enormous changes in that metric. It was considerations such as these that led John Wheeler, in the 1950s, to argue that the nature of spacetime at the Planck scale of 10⁻¹³ cm would be a wildly fluctuating ‘foam’.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, this confuses instantiations of potential (field quantities) with spatiotemporal locations in which such instantiations occur. That is, it is the instantiations of field quantities that constitute a 'fluctuating foam', not the spacetime in which they are located.

The Claim That Quantum Mechanics Has No Credible Ontology Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 860):

My own bewilderment would arise primarily from a conviction that present-day quantum mechanics has no credible ontology, so that it must be seriously modified in order for the physics of the world to make sense.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, ontology follows from epistemology. The reason for bewilderment is the fact that quantum theory successfully invalidates the 'transcendence' epistemology assumed by physicists, namely: that there are meanings outside semiotic systems that physicists will eventually discover in a final theory of everything. Quantum Theory supports the opposite view, the 'immanence' epistemology, whereby all meaning is within semiotic systems, and so supports the view that 'reality' is the meaning that is construed of experience which, in the case of experiments, happens when an observation is made.

And from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Quantum Theory makes the important — but insufficiently understood — distinction between potential construals of experience as meaning and actual construals of experience as meaning that instantiate that potential.

In short it is not the ontology of Quantum mechanics that must be seriously modified, but the epistemology that the physics community inherited from Galileo, and continues to assume without question, despite its disconfirmation.

Gravitational Objective Reduction Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 853, 854-5):

The upshot of the above argument seems to be that a quantum superposition of two states ought indeed to decay into one or the other of its constituents in a time scale of the order ħ/EG. …

We now have what appears to be a plausible proposal for an objective state reduction which applies, at least, in situations when a quantum state is a superposition of two other states, each of which is stationary (in the aforementioned Schrödinger–Newton sense). According to this proposal, such a superposed state will spontaneously reduce into one or the other of its stationary constituents in an average timescale of about ħ/EG, where EG is the gravitational self-energy of the difference between the two mass distributions. I refer to this proposal as gravitational OR (where OR stands for the ‘objective reduction’ of the quantum state). …

It is my own standpoint, with regard to quantum state reduction, that it is indeed an objective process, and that it is always a gravitational phenomenon. …

A full theory is certainly lacking, and I have provided no actual dynamics for the reduction of the state, according to this OR process, even in the case of the particular superpositions that I have been considering.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the process here is not one of decay or reduction, and the two states are not constituents. The 'constituents' of a quantum superposition are alternative potentials, and the 'decay' of a quantum superposition of two states into one of the two states is the instantiation of potential construals of experience as meaning as one actual construal of experience as meaning.

In this view, the problem here lies in treating potential as actual, and in excluding the construal of experience as meaning from the explanation.

Schrödinger’s Lump Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 846, 847):

Let us return to the kind of situation referred to as ‘Schrödinger’s cat’. I illustrated how one might set up a quantum superposition of a live cat and a dead cat by using a beam splitter to put a photon’s state into a superposition, where the transmitted part of the photon’s state triggers a device to kill the cat, while the reflected part leaves the cat alive. Use of an actual cat would, of course, be not only inhumane, but taking an unnecessarily complicated physical system. So let us, instead, consider that the transmitted photon state simply activates a device which moves a lump of material horizontally by a small amount, whereas the reflected part leaves the lump alone; see Fig. 30.20. 

The superposed lump now plays the role of the Schrödinger’s cat — though not so dramatically as before! The question that I now want to raise is the following: is the quantum superposition of the two lump locations a stationary state? In conventional quantum mechanics, this would certainly be the case if we consider that each lump location separately represents a stationary state and that the energy in each case is the same (so the resting place of the displaced lump is neither raised nor lowered in relation to its original location). …

Now let us start to bring in the lessons that Einstein has taught us with his superb and now excellently confirmed general theory of relativity. In the first place, we might consider it important to bring in the gravitational field expressed in the background spacetime geometry. We can imagine that the experiment is being performed on the Earth, with the two instances of the lump sitting on a horizontal platform.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the superposition of the two lumps is the superposition of two potential construals of experience of meaning, not two instances of potential. Observation will instantiate the potential as one of the two lumps in one location, but not both lumps in both locations.

The Destruction Of Material In A Black Hole Singularity Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 840-1):

… the collapsing physical material simply falls across the horizon, taking all its ‘information’ with it, to be finally destroyed at the singularity. Nothing particular, of local physical importance, should happen at the horizon. The matter does not even ‘know’ when it crosses the horizon. We should bear in mind that we could be considering an initially very large black hole, perhaps like the holes that are believed to inhabit galactic centres, which could be of a million solar masses or more. As the horizon is crossed, nothing particular happens. The spacetime curvature and density of material is not large: only of the kind that we find in our own solar system. Even the location of the horizon is not determined by local considerations, since that location depends upon how much material later falls into the hole. If more material falls in later, then the horizon would actually been crossed earlier! 

I find it inconceivable that somehow ‘at the moment just before the horizon is crossed’ some sort of signal is emitted to the outside world conveying outwards the full details of all information contained in the collapsing material. In fact, simply a signal would by itself not be enough, since the material itself is, in a sense, really the ‘information’ that one is concerned with. Once it has fallen through the horizon, the material is trapped, and is inevitably destroyed in the singularity itself. … According to this picture, the material in the collapse is destroyed (and its ‘information’ is destroyed) only when it enters the singularity, not when it crosses the horizon.

Blogger Comments:

The event horizon of a black hole, according to the General Theory of Relativity, is circumference around a singularity at which the curvature of spacetime is such that light cannot escape. As physical material falls with the event horizon, therefore, it ceases to be observable.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is the geodesic that is curved, not spacetime. This curved trajectory results from the relative contraction of space intervals in the direction of the singularity.

In this view, just as gravity is the relative contraction of space intervals, it is also the relative expansion of time intervals. This means that processes take longer and longer to unfold in the direction of the singularity. If the time intervals near the singularity approach infinity, then, relative to observers outside the event horizon, physical material falling towards a singularity, as space intervals contract towards zero, never actually reaches it.

The ‘Pilot-Wave’ Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 811):

… the de Broglie–Bohm ‘pilot-wave’ viewpoint (e) appears to have the clearest ontology among all those which do not actually alter the predictions of quantum theory. Yet, it does not, in my opinion, really address the measurement paradox in a clearly more satisfactory way than the others do. As I see it, (e) may indeed gain conceptual benefit from its two levels of reality — having a firmer ‘particle’ level of the reality of the configuration of the system, as well as a secondary ‘wave’ level of reality, defined by the wavefunction ψ, whose role is to guide the behaviour of the firmer level. But it is not clear to me how we can be sure, in any situation of actual experiment, which level we should be appealing to.

My difficulty is that there is no parameter defining which systems are, in an appropriate sense, ‘big’, so that they accord with a more classical ‘particle-like’ or ‘configuration-like’ pictures, and which systems are ‘small’, so that the ‘wavefunction-like’ behaviour becomes important (and this criticism applies also to (d) ). We know that quantum behaviour can stretch over distances of tens of kilometres at least, so that it is not just physical distance that tells us when a system ceases to look quantum mechanical and begins to behave like a classical entity. But nevertheless there is a sense in which a large object (like a cat) seems not to accord with the small-scale unitary quantum laws. …

But whether or not one believes that any particular such measure is appropriate, it seems to me that some measure of scale is indeed needed, for defining when classical-like behaviour begins to take over from small-scale quantum activity. In common with the other quantum ontologies in which no measurable deviations from standard quantum mechanics is expected, the point of view (e) does not possess such a scale measure, so I do not see that it can adequately address the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the two levels of reality in the de Broglie–Bohm ‘pilot-wave’ viewpoint are the two poles of instantiation: potential and instance. The secondary 'wave' level of reality constitutes the range of potential construals of experience as meaning, and the firmer 'particle' constitutes an instance of that potential: an actual construal of experience as meaning. So, since an actual experiment involves an actual construal of potential, 'we should be appealing to' both levels, instance and potential.

In this view, 'classical' phenomena, such as large-scale objects like cats, do accord with small-scale quantum laws, because an observation of a cat is an actual construal of experience of meaning: the most probable instance of potential construals. The improbability of other potential construals accounts for their non-instantiation at scales within the range of immediate human perception.

The thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat ceases to be a paradox when it is understood that 'classical-like' behaviour is an actual construal of experience as meaning, and that the notion of 'small-scale quantum activity' fails to distinguish between such a construal and the probabilistic potential construals of which it is an instance.

The Consistent-Histories Approach Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 810-1):

If the ‘extravagant’ ontology for the consistent-histories approach (d) is adopted, in which reality is represented as a totality of maximally refined consistent-history sets, then a criticism can be raised which is somewhat similar to that of the many-worlds case (b). As with (b), a detailed and precise theory of conscious perceivers seems to be needed in order that (d) can conjure up a picture that is consistent with the physical world that we know. … Alternatively, one might prefer something like the more economical ontology in which a single maximally refined consistent history set might be considered as a plausible candidate for a ‘real-world’ ontology. …

In my own view, a major drawback with (d) is that … it does not seem to get us any closer to an understanding of what a physical measurement actually is than do the more conventional ontologies of (a) or (b). … 

Why, according to (d), do we not actually witness things like Schrödinger cats, in superposed limbo between life and death? The theory does not seem to give any improvement on the standard Copenhagen position (a) in explaining which systems (such as pieces of physical apparatus or cats) should behave classically, whereas neutrons or photons do not. 

… the criteria that have so far been put forward do not do enough to narrow down the model’s behaviour so that an unambiguous picture of something resembling the world we know can arise. This seems to be true both at the macroscopic ‘classical-like’ level … and also at the ‘quantum level’ at which one would hope to see undisturbed unitary evolution. Since the measurement paradox is concerned with the seeming conflict between physical behaviour at these two different levels, it is hard to see how the consistent-history viewpoint (d) is yet in a position to shed much light on this paradox.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the consistent histories approach mistakes potential (a consistent set of histories) for actual instances of that potential. Conscious perceivers are needed because it is a conscious act of perception that instantiates one of the potential construals of experience as meaning (pieces of physical apparatus and a dead cat or a live cat).

The Need For A Theory Of Perception Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 809):

Since the mathematics alone will not single out the ‘|live cat⟩’ and ‘|dead cat⟩’ states as being in any way ‘preferred’, we still need a theory of perception before we can make sense of (b) [the 'many worlds' interpretation], and such a theory is lacking. Moreover, the onus on such a theory would be not only to explain why superpositions of dead and live cats (or of anything else macroscopic) do not occur in the perceived world, but also why the wondrous and extraordinarily precise squared-modulus rule actually gives the right answers for probabilities in quantum mechanics! A theory of perception that could do this would itself need to be as precise as quantum theory. Supporters of (b) have come nowhere close to suggesting such a scheme.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, it is not a theory of perception that is required but merely an understanding of the distinction between potential and instance. This distinction explains that superpositions of dead and live cats are not perceived because they are each potential construals of experience as meaning, only one of which is instantiated as an actual perception. It also explains the squared-modulus rule as modelling the potential of a quantum system, with probabilities as the quantification of that potential.

Superposed Perception States Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 807, 808):

I wish to make clear that, as it stands, this [the 'many worlds' interpretation] is far from a resolution of the cat paradox. For there is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that demands that a state of consciousness cannot involve the simultaneous perception of a live and a dead cat. … 

Why do we not permit these superposed perception states? Until we know exactly what it is about a quantum state that allows it to be considered as a ‘perception’, and consequently see that such superpositions are ‘not allowed’, we have really got nowhere in explaining why the real world of our experiences cannot involve superpositions of live and dead cats.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the superposition of live cat and dead cat is not a superposition of perception states, but a superposition of potential "perception states" (construals of experience as meaning). Perception involves the instantiation of one of these two potential meanings.

The Many-Worlds Standpoint On Schrödinger's Cat Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 806-7):

What about the many-worlds standpoint (b), then? Here the ‘reality’ of the quantum superposition of a dead and a live cat is simply accepted (as would the quantum-superposed weather patterns of the previous paragraph); but this does not tell us what an observer, looking at the cat (or the weather), actually ‘perceives’. The state of the observer’s perception is considered to be entangled with the state of the cat. The perception state ‘I perceive a live cat’ accompanies the ‘live-cat’ state and the perception state ‘I perceive a dead cat’ accompanies the ‘dead-cat’ state. … It is then assumed that a perceiving being always finds his/her perception state to be in one of these two; accordingly, the cat is, in the perceived world, either alive or dead. These two possibilities coexist in ‘reality’ in the entangled superposition …

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the quantum-superposition of a dead cat and a live cat is the superposition of potential construals of experience as meaning, and so the 'many worlds' interpretation mistakes potential construals for actual construals. What an observer looking at the cat actually perceives is an instance of potential: either a dead cat or a live cat.

The state of the observer's perception is entangled with the state of the cat in the sense that the state of the cat is a construal of experience as meaning by the observer. Importantly, the assumption that the meaning 'the state of the cat' transcends the meaning of semiotic systems is precisely what this experiment, and Quantum Theory generally, invalidates.

'Wigner Reality' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 806):

It seems to me, however, that any theory that demands the presence of a conscious observer, in order that R be effected, leads to a very lop-sided (and, I would argue, highly implausible) picture of the universe. Imagine some distant Earth-like planet without conscious life, and for which there is no consciousness for many many light years in all directions. What is the weather like on that planet? 

Weather patterns have the property that they are ‘chaotic systems’, in the sense that any particular pattern which develops will depend critically on the tiniest details of what happened before. Indeed, it is probable that, in a month, say, tiny quantum effects will become so magnified that the entire pattern of weather on the planet would depend upon them. 

The absence of consciousness, according to the particular version of (f) (or perhaps (a)) under discussion, would imply that R never occurs on such a planet, so that the weather is, in reality, just some quantum superposed mess that does not resemble an actual weather in the sense that we know it. 

Yet if a spacecraft containing conscious travellers, or a probe with the capacity to transmit a signal to a conscious being, is able to train its sensors on that planet, then immediately — and only at that point — its weather suddenly becomes an ordinary weather, just as though it had been ordinary weather all the time! There is no actual contradiction with experience here, but is this ‘Wigner reality’ a believable picture for the behaviour of an actual physical universe? It is not, to me; but I can (just about) understand others giving it more credence.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the observation of weather is the construal of experience as meaning. If the weather on some distant Earth-like planet is not observed, then there is no construal of experience as meaning. If the weather on some distant Earth-like planet is observed, as by conscious travellers on a spacecraft or through the use of a sensor beam, then there is a construal of experience as meaning. Any superposition of weather patterns is a superposition of potential observations: of potential construals of experience as meaning.

Another Variant Of The Copenhagen Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 805-6):

Another variant of (a) would demand, in effect, that the ‘classical measuring apparatus’ is ultimately the observer’s consciousness. Accordingly (if we discount the consciousness of the cat itself), it is only when a conscious experimenter examines the cat that classicality has been achieved. It seems to me that, once we have arrived at this level, we are driven to take a position that is more in line with (b) or with (f). If we take the view that the U rules of quantum linear superposition continue to hold right up to the level of a conscious being, then we are in the realm of the many-worlds perspective (b), but if we take the stand that U fails for conscious beings, then we are driven to a version of (f) according to which some new type of behaviour, outside the ordinary predictions of quantum mechanics, comes into play with beings who possess consciousness. A suggestion along this line was actually put forward by the distinguished quantum physicist Eugene Wigner in 1961.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'classical measuring apparatus' is meaning that is the content of the observer's consciousness (and of any other linguate being who imagines or speaks or writes of it). The 'classical measuring apparatus', as such, is not the content of the cat's consciousness, because the cat cannot construe experience as linguistic meaning — though the cat can construe experience as perceptual meaning, and it is this construal that is the content of its consciousness.

The laws of quantum linear superposition continue to hold right up to when a conscious experimenter examines the cat because it is only then that the potential that the wavefunction probabilistically quantifies is construed as an actual instance of meaning. As previously argued, this does not entail a many worlds interpretation.

The Copenhagen Viewpoint On Schrödinger's Cat Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 805):

Consider the Copenhagen viewpoint (a). As far as I can make out, this interpretation would simply regard the photon detector to be a ‘classical measuring device’, to which the rules of quantum superposition are not applied. The photon state between its emission and its detection (or non-detection) by the device is described by a wavefunction (state-vector), but no ‘physical reality’ is assigned to that. The wavefunction is used merely as a mathematical expression to be used for calculating probabilities. If the beam splitter is such that the photon amplitude is divided equally into two, then the calculation tells us that there is a 50% chance for the detector to register reception of the photon and a 50% chance that it will not. Therefore there is a 50% chance that the cat will be killed and a 50% chance that it will remain alive. 

This is physically the correct answer, where ‘physically’ refers to the behaviour of the world that we actually experience. Yet this description provides us with a very unsatisfactory picture of things if we wish to pursue the physical events in greater detail. What actually goes on inside a detector? Why are we allowed to treat it as a ‘classical device’ when, after all, it is constructed from the same quantum ingredients (protons, electrons, neutrons, virtual photons, etc.) as any other piece of physical material, large or small? I can well appreciate that, in the early days of quantum mechanics, something of the nature of Niels Bohr’s perspective on the subject was almost a necessity, so that the theory could actually be used, and progress in quantum physics could be made. Yet, as far as I can see, such a perspective can only be a temporary one, and it does not resolve the question of why, and at what stage, ‘classical behaviour’ might arise for large and complicated structures like ‘detectors’. Since viewpoint (a) requires such ‘classical structures’ for its interpretation of quantum mechanics, it can only be a ‘stop-gap’ position, in which the deeper issues concerning what actually constitutes a measurement are not addressed at all.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the rules of quantum superposition do not apply to the (observed) photon detector because quantum superposition applies only to potential meaning.

The photon state when it is not observed, as described by the wavefunction, is potential 'physical reality', and probability is the quantification of that potential meaning.

What goes on inside the detector, like the detector itself, is potential meaning until it is observed, and thereby construed as an instance of meaning.

The problems of quantum physics are solved by taking an immanence view of meaning and by distinguishing potential meaning from instances of that potential.

Schrödinger’s Cat As Both Dead And Alive Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 804-5):

We suppose that there is a photon source S which emits a single photon in the direction of a beam splitter (‘half-silvered’ mirror), at which point the photon’s state is split into two parts. In one of the two emerging beams, the photon encounters a detector that is coupled to some murderous device for killing the poor cat, while in the other, the photon escapes, and the cat remains alive. See Fig. 29.7. …

Since these two alternatives for the photon must co-exist in quantum linear superposition, and since the linearity of Schrödinger’s equation demands that the two subsequent time-evolutions must persist in constant complex-number-weighted superposition, as time passes, the quantum state must ultimately involve such a complex-number superposition of a dead cat and a live cat: so the cat is both dead and alive at the same time!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the superposition of states is potential only. The cat is either alive or dead, depending on which photon state is instantiated. The absurd notion of the cat being both dead and alive at the same time simply arises from confusing potential with actual.

'Quantum Fluctuations In The Gravitational Field' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 803):

Sometimes the idea of ‘quantum fluctuations in the gravitational field’ might be appealed to, according to which the very structure of spacetime would become ‘foamlike’, rather than resembling a smooth manifold (Fig. 29.6) at the ‘Planck scale’ of some 10⁻³⁵m.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the notion of 'quantum fluctuations in the gravitational field' confuses the instantiation of quantum potential (fluctuations) with the spatiotemporal dimensions of the instances. That is, it confuses mediated processes with their circumstances.

The ‘Bohmian’ Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 789):

In the ‘Bohmian’ (pilot wave) case, the ontological position is, refreshingly, much more down to Earth, although even here there are some considerable subtleties — for there are, in a sense, two levels of reality, one of which is firmer than the other. It is simplest to put the case first for a system consisting of just a single spinless particle. Then this firmer level of reality is given by the particle’s actual position. In a two-slit experiment, since the particle’s location is ontologically real, it actually goes through one slit or it goes through the other, but its motion is ‘guided’, in effect, by ψ, so this provides a secondary, but nevertheless ontologically still ‘real’ status to the ψ also. … the picture is a very non-local one, where ψ is a highly ‘holistic’ entity (as it must be, in order to accord with the holistic nature of wavefunctions … ).

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the two levels of reality in the 'Bohmian' interpretation correspond to potential (meaning) and actual (meaning), with the secondary reality of the holistic 'guiding' wavefunction corresponding to probabilistic potential of the quantum system, as a whole, and the 'firmer' level of reality corresponding to actual instances of potential, such as a particle actually passing through one slit or the other.

The 'Environmental Decoherence' Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 785, 802):

… I should mention a further possibility for interpreting conventional quantum mechanics. This, as far as I can make out, is the most prevalent of the quantum-mechanical standpoints — that of environmental decoherence (c) — although it is perhaps more of a pragmatic than an ontological stance. 

The idea of (c) is that in any measurement process, the quantum system under consideration cannot be taken in isolation from its surroundings. Thus, when a measurement is performed, each different outcome does not constitute a quantum state on its own, but must be considered as part of an entangled state, where each alternative outcome is entangled with a different state of the environment. Now, the environment will consist of a great many particles, effectively in random motion, and the complete details of their locations and motions must be taken to be totally unobservable in practice. …

Holders of viewpoint (c) tend to regard themselves as ‘positivists’ who have no truck with ‘wishy-washy’ issues of ontology in any case, claiming to believe that they have no concern with what is ‘real’ and what is ‘not real’. As Stephen Hawking has said: 

I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.

My own position, on the other hand, is that the issue of ontology is crucial to quantum mechanics, though it raises some matters that are far from being resolved at the present time.

… the environmental-decoherence viewpoint (c) … maintains that state reduction R [the collapse of the wave function] can be understood as coming about because the quantum system under consideration becomes inextricably entangled with its environment.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'Environmental Decoherence' interpretation of Quantum Theory misconstrues the interdependence of potential as an entanglement of instances (states of the environment).

The Collapse Of The Wave Function As ‘All In The Mind’ Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 784):

Despite their diametrically opposing natures, the viewpoints (a) and (b) have some significant points in common, with regard to how |ψ⟩ [the wave function] is taken to relate to our observed ‘reality’ — by which I mean to the seemingly real world that, on a macroscopic scale, we all experience. In this observed world, only one result of an experiment is taken to occur, and we may justly regard it as the job of physics to explain or to model the thing that we indeed normally refer to as ‘reality’. 

Neither according to (a) nor according to (b) is the state vector |ψ⟩ taken to describe that reality. And in each case, we must bring in the perceptions of some human experimenter to make sense of how the formalism relates to this observed real world. 

In case (a) it is the state vector |ψ⟩ itself that is taken to be an artefact of that human experimenter’s perceptions, whereas in case (b), it is ‘ordinary reality’ that is somehow delineated in terms of the perceptions of the experimenter, the state vector |ψ⟩ now representing some kind of deeper overriding reality (the omnium) that is not directly perceived. 

In both cases the ‘jumping’ of R [the collapse of the wave function] is taken to be not physically real, being, in a sense, ‘all in the mind’!

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave function specifies potential 'observed reality', where 'reality' is the meaning construed of experience in the process of making an observation. The one result of an experiment is the one observation that instantiates one of the potential meanings as actual.

The Copenhagen Interpretation (a) acknowledges that the wave function involves the meaning of an observer, and in the Many Worlds Interpretation (b), the potential construed by the wave function is misunderstood as actual: as a 'deeper, overriding reality'.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the collapse of wave function is physically real, because physical reality is meaning construed of experience, as through mental processes of perception and cognition. The mind is the process of construing experience as meaning.

Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 784):

Why, according to (b), is the omnium not perceived as actual ‘reality’ by an experimenter? The idea is that the experimenter’s states of mind also coexist in the quantum superposition, these different individual mind states being entangled with the different possible results of the measurement being performed. 

The view is that, accordingly, there is effectively a ‘different world’ for each different possible result of the measurement, there being a separate ‘copy’ of the experimenter in each of these different worlds, all these worlds co-existing in quantum superposition. Each copy of the experimenter experiences a different outcome for the experiment, but since these ‘copies’ inhabit different worlds, there is no communication between them, and each thinks that only one result has occurred. 

Proponents of (b) often maintain that it is the requirement that an experimenter have a consistent ‘awareness state’ that forces the impression that there is just ‘one world’ in which R [the collapse of the wave function] appears to take place. Such a viewpoint was first explicitly put forward by Hugh Everett III in 1957 (although I suspect that many others had, not always with conviction, privately entertained this kind of view earlier — as I had myself in the mid-1950s — without daring to be open about it!).

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the experimenter's states of mind are meanings, and the quantum superposition of mind states is the superposition of meanings that constitute the potential of the quantum system. In this formulation, potential construals of experience as meaning are mistaken for actual construals of experience as meaning.

The Multiverse Interpretation Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Penrose (2004: 783-4):

The supporters of alternative (b), on the other hand, do take |ψ⟩ [the wave function] to represent reality, but they deny that R [the collapse of the wave function] happens at all. They would argue that when a measurement takes place, all the alternative outcomes actually coexist in reality, in a grand quantum linear superposition of alternative universes. This grand superposition is described by a wavefunction |ψ⟩ for the entire universe. It is sometimes referred to as the ‘multiverse’, but I believe that a more appropriate term is the omnium. For although this viewpoint is commonly colloquially expressed as a belief in the parallel co-existence of different alternative worlds, this is misleading. The alternative worlds do not really ‘exist’ separately, in this view; only the vast particular superposition expressed by |ψ⟩ is taken as real.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the wave function construes potential, and its superpositions are the superposition of potential, not actual. It is only with the collapse of the wavefunction, when an observation is made, that the actual is instantiated. Supporters of the multiverse interpretation mistake potential universes for the actual universe that we experience as meaning.