Slide 1

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 2

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 3

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 4

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 5

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 6

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 7

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 8

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 9

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 10

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 11

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 12

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 13

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 14

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15


Slide 15

Mind and Matter XI

Quantum Physics IX

Topic for today
• Quantum Physics IX
– Interpretations of quantum mechanics (II)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is an enduring source of
entertainingly intractable philosophical puzzles. After
nearly a hundred years of pondering, the reality of QM
seems more and more like a magic trick that stubbornly
resists all attempts at common-sense explanation.
Ron Garret (2001/08:1)

2

The Henry Interpretation (I)
• “Do you find any of these
interpretations
satisfactory? I certainly
do not. And [Rosenblum
& Kuttner] clearly do not.
So, let me offer the Henry
interpretation: There is
no actually existing
universe at all. The
universe is purely mental.
from Henry’s review of
Rosenblum & Kutttner

Richard Conn Henry (1940-)
Professor of Physics and Astronomy,
Johns Hopkins University

3

The Henry Interpretation (II)
• “If you prefer to do so, you may call this the
Eddington-Jeans interpretation.”
• Eddington’s view:
The external world of physics has thus become a
world of shadows. In removing our illusions we
have removed the substance, for indeed we have
seen that substance is one of the greatest of our
illusions.
—Sir Arthur Eddington
(The Nature of the Physical World, 1928)

4

The Henry Interpretation (III)
• “The only reason that it is difficult to accept the
Henry interpretation is that few except Henry
believe it. We are social creatures, with a herd
mentality. But, Malcolm Gladwell has educated
me that there can come a “tipping point,” and I
take it on myself to push toward broad acceptance
of my simple thesis.”

5

Signs of increasing attention to quantum phenomena

Quantum entanglement

Schrödinger’s
cat
6

The Henry Interpretation (IV)
• “Let me ask my readers, does your own mind actually
exist? Note that I am not talking about your brain, I am
talking about your mind. Well, of course it does! Cogito
ergo sum. After all our convoluted and ultimately
entirely unsuccessful attempts to tease something,
anything, REAL out of quantum mechanics and out of
the observations (the so-called “universe”), here, first
crack out of the box, we have…a solid and irrefutable
success! Something that is real. And, it is a success that
you cannot arrive at from physics, because physics does
not treat of consciousness at all!”

7

The Henry Interpretation (V)
• Summarizing the next points of Henry’s argument . .
• Having accepted that your mind exists,
• You must now decide whether other minds also exist
– This requires a leap of faith
– If you don’t accept other minds, you are left with
solipsism
– If you do accept the existence of other minds, then
you are accepting the existence of a whole lot of
Mind
• For more, see Henry’s review of Rosenblum & Kuttner,
Quantum Enigma (2007). The whole review can be
accessed from the course website, under Readings.
8

The Information Theoretic Interpretation
Ron Garrett’s version
• Garrett proposes an Information Theory Interpretation
– Related to the Ithaca interpretation of David Mermin (Cornell U)

• Garret: “… the structure of the theory describes a world
where (apparently) physical entities literally do not have
physical properties until those properties are measured.”
• Garret observes that the mathematics of the quantum
wave function looks a lot like that of Shannon’s
Information Theory
• After the mathematical argument, he concludes:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
– 53:20 – 55:20
9

More Ron Garret: Quantum Information Theory (QIT)
• “Spooky action at a distance” ought to be no more (and no
less) mysterious than the “spooky action across time” which
makes the universe consistent with itself from one moment to
the next.
• Nonetheless, this story extracts a certain toll on our intuition
because it insists that we abandon our usual notions of
physical reality. The mathematics of quantum information
theory tell us unambiguously that particles are not real.
• So Mermin was on the right track, but he didn’t get it quite
right: not only is the moon is not really there when nobody
looks, but it isn't really there even when you do look!
"Physical reality" is not "real", but information-theoretical
reality is. We are not physical entities, but informational ones.
10

Max Planck’s opinion
“I regard consciousness as
fundamental. I regard
matter as derivative from
consciousness. We cannot
get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk
about, everything that we
regard as existing,
postulates consciousness.”

11

A view from theoretical biology

No attempt to discover the reality behind the world of
appearance, i.e. by neglecting the subject, has ever
come to anything, because the subject plays the decisive
role in constructing the world of appearance, and on the
far side of that world there is no world at all.
—Jakob von Üxkull
Theoretical Biology (1926) p. xv

12

John Wheeler’s View
• “No phenomenon is a real phenomenon
until it is an observed phenomenon”
• “We are participators in bringing into
being not only the near and here but the
far away and long ago. We are in this
sense, participators in bringing about
something of the universe in the distant
past and if we have one explanation for
what's happening in the distant past why
John Archibald Wheeler 1911-2008
should we need more?”

13

Roger Penrose’s opinion
In my view the conscious
brain does not act
according to classical
physics. It doesn’t even
act according to
conventional quantum
mechanics. It acts
according to a theory we
don’t yet have.

Roger Penrose (1931- )

14

That‘s it for today !

15