Finding Spirit in the Fabric of Space & Time - Quantum ...
Finding Spirit in the Fabric of Space & Time - Quantum ...
Finding Spirit in the Fabric of Space & Time - Quantum ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Spirit</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Fabric</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Space</strong> & <strong>Time</strong><br />
Paola Zizzi, PhD, is an Italian<br />
astrophysicist at <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong><br />
Padova near Venice.<br />
Penrose and Hamer<strong>of</strong>f’s <strong>the</strong>ory about <strong>the</strong><br />
quantum orig<strong>in</strong>s <strong>of</strong> consciousness has<br />
created ripples <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> worlds <strong>of</strong> quantum<br />
physics and consciousness studies alike<br />
and has sparked o<strong>the</strong>r physicists to explore<br />
<strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> Penrose and Hamer<strong>of</strong>f’s<br />
work with <strong>the</strong>ories <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own. One<br />
particularly wild example comes from an<br />
Italian physicist named Paola Zizzi. In a<br />
paper titled “Emergent Consciousness:<br />
From <strong>the</strong> Early Universe to Our M<strong>in</strong>d,”<br />
Zizzi builds upon Penrose and Hamer<strong>of</strong>f’s<br />
objective-reduction <strong>the</strong>ory to propose that<br />
<strong>the</strong> universe was born with a s<strong>in</strong>gle cosmic<br />
moment <strong>of</strong> consciousness. Here is her idea<br />
as described by Hamer<strong>of</strong>f:<br />
The Big Wow<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> generally accepted<br />
cosmological model, <strong>the</strong>re was a period<br />
<strong>of</strong> rapid <strong>in</strong>flation dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> split<br />
second that directly followed <strong>the</strong> big<br />
bang—someth<strong>in</strong>g like 10 -33 seconds—<strong>in</strong><br />
which <strong>the</strong> universe expanded very, very<br />
quickly. After this <strong>in</strong>itial burst, it slowed<br />
down and has been expand<strong>in</strong>g much<br />
more gradually ever s<strong>in</strong>ce. An Italian<br />
physicist named Paola Zizzi came up<br />
with a <strong>the</strong>ory that dur<strong>in</strong>g this rapid<br />
expansion, <strong>the</strong> entire universe may<br />
have been <strong>in</strong> a k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> cosmic state<br />
<strong>of</strong> quantum superposition <strong>in</strong> which<br />
multiple universes were possible. She<br />
made some calculations and found<br />
that by <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> rapid expansion<br />
period, <strong>the</strong> universe had reached <strong>the</strong><br />
same critical threshold<br />
for quantum collapse that Roger<br />
Penrose had found to occur <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
human bra<strong>in</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g each moment<br />
<strong>of</strong> consciousness. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> split second after <strong>the</strong> big bang,<br />
<strong>the</strong> universe had a cosmic moment <strong>of</strong><br />
consciousness. This was later named<br />
“<strong>the</strong> Big Wow <strong>the</strong>ory.” Zizzi went on<br />
to suggest that our human consciousness<br />
may be a literal microcosm <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
cosmic-consciousness moment that<br />
occurred dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> big bang. This<br />
means that we’re all subcomponents<br />
<strong>of</strong> that <strong>in</strong>itial conscious awareness<br />
that still pervades <strong>the</strong> entire universe.<br />
that each neuron was itself <strong>in</strong>credibly complicated and had,<br />
if not some degree <strong>of</strong> consciousness <strong>of</strong> its own, at least some<br />
<strong>in</strong>ternal <strong>in</strong>telligence or process<strong>in</strong>g related to consciousness.<br />
So I started work<strong>in</strong>g with some eng<strong>in</strong>eers and physicists<br />
do<strong>in</strong>g model<strong>in</strong>g and simulations <strong>of</strong> microtubules, and we<br />
showed that microtubules could <strong>in</strong>deed be very efficient<br />
computational devices. Instead <strong>of</strong> each neuron register<strong>in</strong>g<br />
as a s<strong>in</strong>gle bit <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> computer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong>—a one or a zero,<br />
fir<strong>in</strong>g or not fir<strong>in</strong>g—<strong>the</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ed microtubule activity<br />
with<strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle neuron equaled potentially one thousand<br />
trillion operations per second <strong>in</strong> comput<strong>in</strong>g power. And that<br />
model raised <strong>the</strong> complexity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong> tremendously.<br />
This was mostly <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1980s, and I was go<strong>in</strong>g to a lot <strong>of</strong><br />
artificial <strong>in</strong>telligence conferences where <strong>the</strong>y were try<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
model and simulate <strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong> as a network <strong>of</strong> simple neuronal<br />
switches, and I was say<strong>in</strong>g, “No. Each <strong>of</strong> your simple<br />
switches is <strong>in</strong>credibly complicated. You have to take <strong>in</strong>to<br />
account this added computational complexity.” And<br />
<strong>the</strong>y didn’t like that very much because it pushed <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
goal <strong>of</strong> simulat<strong>in</strong>g a human bra<strong>in</strong> way, way down <strong>the</strong> road.<br />
So I became k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>of</strong> unpopular among that crowd.<br />
But <strong>the</strong>n one day someone said to me, “Okay, let’s say<br />
you’re right. Let’s say each neuron has all this enormous<br />
added computation go<strong>in</strong>g on. How would that expla<strong>in</strong><br />
conscious experience? How would that expla<strong>in</strong> why we<br />
have feel<strong>in</strong>gs, why we see red, why we feel pa<strong>in</strong>? How does<br />
that expla<strong>in</strong> consciousness?” And I realized I didn’t have<br />
an answer to that, which br<strong>in</strong>gs us to what <strong>the</strong> Australian<br />
philosopher David Chalmers famously dubbed <strong>the</strong> “hard<br />
problem” <strong>of</strong> consciousness research.<br />
EN: The question <strong>of</strong> how we get m<strong>in</strong>d out <strong>of</strong> matter.<br />
SH: Exactly.<br />
ROGER PENROSE &<br />
SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT<br />
SH: Fortunately, someone suggested that I read a book by<br />
<strong>the</strong> English ma<strong>the</strong>matical physicist Sir Roger Penrose called<br />
The Emperor’s New M<strong>in</strong>d. So I did, and it was really amaz<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
The book’s title was <strong>in</strong>tended as a slap <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> face to<br />
artificial <strong>in</strong>telligence <strong>the</strong>orists, because <strong>the</strong>y ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that<br />
if you had sufficiently complex computation <strong>in</strong> a computer,<br />
it would be conscious. But Roger argued, <strong>in</strong> a somewhat<br />
obscure ma<strong>the</strong>matical direction—someth<strong>in</strong>g called Gödel’s<br />
<strong>the</strong>orem—that consciousness <strong>in</strong>volves someth<strong>in</strong>g noncomputable.<br />
Understand<strong>in</strong>g, or awareness, <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r words, is not<br />
a computation. But after rul<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>the</strong> idea that consciousness<br />
was strictly a computation, he <strong>the</strong>n <strong>of</strong>fered a mechanism<br />
for consciousness that <strong>in</strong>volved someth<strong>in</strong>g so far out <strong>of</strong> left<br />
field that most people considered it—and still consider it—<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r bizarre. And that has to do with quantum physics.<br />
Read<strong>in</strong>g The Emperor’s New M<strong>in</strong>d, I was floored with <strong>the</strong><br />
breadth and subtlety <strong>of</strong> Penrose’s knowledge, much <strong>of</strong> which<br />
I didn’t understand. I did know that anes<strong>the</strong>tic gases exert<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir effects by quantum forces, so consciousness hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g to do with quantum physics made sense to me.<br />
And I had this gut feel<strong>in</strong>g that he was onto someth<strong>in</strong>g; he<br />
had a mechanism for consciousness based on neurons <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a state <strong>of</strong> what physicists call “quantum<br />
superposition,” which I’ll expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> a m<strong>in</strong>ute. I read that<br />
and thought <strong>the</strong>re was someth<strong>in</strong>g to it, but his model didn’t<br />
seem to have <strong>the</strong> right biological structure. I said to myself,<br />
well, maybe microtubules are <strong>the</strong> quantum computers that<br />
Penrose is look<strong>in</strong>g for. So I wrote to him and we eventually<br />
arranged a meet<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his <strong>of</strong>fice at Oxford.<br />
Roger is a gentle, unassum<strong>in</strong>g man, despite be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>credibly brilliant and well regarded. And he had me<br />
do almost all <strong>the</strong> talk<strong>in</strong>g. So I just started talk<strong>in</strong>g about<br />
microtubules and showed him <strong>the</strong> 1987 book I’d written<br />
on <strong>the</strong> subject. He listened <strong>in</strong>tently, ask<strong>in</strong>g questions, and<br />
was particularly taken by <strong>the</strong> Fibonacci geometry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
microtubule lattice, because he’s basically a geometry expert<br />
at heart. After several hours, he f<strong>in</strong>ally said, “Well, that’s<br />
very <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g.” I said goodbye and didn’t th<strong>in</strong>k anyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
was go<strong>in</strong>g to come <strong>of</strong> it. But about two weeks later, I was<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g d<strong>in</strong>ner with some friends <strong>in</strong> London and <strong>the</strong>y said,<br />
“Guess what? We were at this conference at Cambridge and<br />
Roger Penrose was talk<strong>in</strong>g about you and your microtubule<br />
stuff.” Soon after that, I received an <strong>in</strong>vitation to a conference<br />
<strong>in</strong> Sweden that Roger was attend<strong>in</strong>g, and we struck up<br />
a friendship and decided to start develop<strong>in</strong>g a formal model<br />
<strong>of</strong> consciousness based on his <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> quantum gravity<br />
and <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> quantum superposition among microtubules<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bra<strong>in</strong>.<br />
EN: Pretend I don’t know anyth<strong>in</strong>g about quantum physics.<br />
Could you expla<strong>in</strong> what a quantum superposition is? And how<br />
it relates to consciousness or microtubules?<br />
SH: <strong>Quantum</strong> means, literally, <strong>the</strong> smallest fundamental<br />
unit <strong>of</strong> energy, like a photon—an <strong>in</strong>divisible unit <strong>of</strong> light.<br />
But behavior at <strong>the</strong> quantum level is bizarre. It’s so bizarre,<br />
50 EnlightenNext magaz<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Spr<strong>in</strong>g/Summer 2010 51