Hylomorphic Functions: Is consciousness quantized?
What is the relationship between the world of ideas and the world of matter?
We know that matter is quantized. Are ideas quantized too?
The relationship between ideas and the physical world is a question that goes back to the ancient Greeks. Plato’s Doctrine of the Forms postulated that the world of concepts (or Forms) had an independent existence from the world of physical things. Aristotle’s book Metaphysics analyzed the different modes of being: the formal term for this is Ontology. He comes to the conclusion that the Forms do not exist apart from the substances of physical matter. That is to say, ideas don’t appear out of nothing — they must arise from their relationship to real things. Aristotle’s concept of metaphysics was termed Hylomorphism by nineteenth-century Catholic philosophers. ‘Hyle’ means wood and ‘morphe’ means form. So the term captures the pairing of physical things and non-physical ideas. Plato’s and Aristotle’s viewpoints are both forms of what is known as Metaphysical Realism.
There are other views of metaphysics.
During the Middle Ages, philosophers such as Abelard and William of Ockham introduced the concept of Nominalism, where ideas are mere words. A modern version of Nominalism is Trope Theory. Tropes are properties of objects. Each object has its own tropes that are instantiated uniquely for each object. Two objects are similar if their tropes are similar.
In the early twentieth century, Alfred North Whitehead presented the concept of Process Metaphysics in his 1929 book “Process and Reality.” Up till then, abstract ideas were considered to be some sort of object — a thing, even though we can’t touch it or hold it. Put another way, ontology is made up of different types of being. Process philosophy, on the other hand, considers metaphysics as process: the process of forming an idea is more fundamental than being an idea, Being is contingent on Process.
The Measurement Problem
This debate has extended into modern physics, especially Quantum Mechanics. The Schrödinger wave equation expresses the state of a quantum-mechanical system. Although the Schrödinger wave equation can model reality, we do not see the world as a wave function. We see physical objects: the Sun, Earth, and Moon, and the things on the Earth — rocks, trees, water, and air.
The perception of Quantum Mechanical systems comes about through the process of wave function collapse. A QM system is a superposition of a number of eigenstates. But we only experience the system after it has collapsed to a single eigenstate.
The process of wave function collapse has been the subject of debate from the time that Quantum Mechanics was first formulated. One interpretation came from Heisenberg, von Neumann, and Wigner. Heisenberg, in his 1927 paper “The Physical Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics,” describes wave function collapse as an act of observation or measurement.
The nature of wave function collapse is known as The Measurement Problem.
This concept was further described in the formulation of Quantum Mechanics by John von Neumann, in his 1932 work “The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.” von Neumann incorporated the consciousness of the observer into the Quantum Mechanical system as the cause of the wave function collapse.
Von Neumann described a Quantum Mechanical system as having two different types of processes. Process 1 is the collapse of the wave function due to measurement. Process 2 is the wave function as described by Schrödinger’s wave equation. According to von Neumann, the shift from Process 2 to Process 1 takes place only in the presence of the observer’s consciousness.
He separates the observer from the observed system as follows, using the example of a person reading a temperature using a mercury thermometer:
[W]e are obliged always to divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer. In the former we can follow all physical processes (in principle at least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter, this is meaningless. The boundary between the two is arbitrary to a very large extent. In particular, we saw … four different possibilities considered in the preceding example that the “observer” — in this sense — need not be identified with the body of the actual observer: in one instance we included even the thermometer in it, while in another instance even the eyes and optic nerve were not included. That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily far into the interior of the body of the actual observer is the content of the principle of psycho-physical parallelism. But this does not change the fact that in every account the boundary must be put somewhere if the principle is not to be rendered vacuous; i.e., if a comparison with experience is to be possible. Indeed, experience only makes statements of this type: “An observer has made a certain (subjective) observation,” and never any like this: “A physical quantity has a certain value.”
So, according to von Neumann, a subjective observation (consciousness) plays a part in Quantum Mechanics, because it is necessary for measurement.
Measurements and Facts
In Quantum Mechanics all of the physical world is quantized. But what if consciousness is quantized also?
I claim that the process of measurement is the instantiation of a conceptual quantum — some Universal property. Call this instantiation a Fact.
- A Fact occurs at some discrete point in space. It is not continuous, but localized.
- A Fact comes into being relatively quickly. It is localized in time.
- A Fact is universal for all space and time.
- A Fact is universal for all observers.
- A Fact captures only one aspect of a state of affairs. It is conceptually localized.
There are a number of interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation, Bohm’s Pilot Wave theory, Everett’s Many Worlds, Decoherence, Consistent Histories, Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber Collapse Theory, the Transactional Interpretation, the Relational Interpretation, Quantum Bayesianism, and so on. They all have differing explanations for the measurement problem. But what all interpretations have in common is that measurements happen. That is, wave function collapse occurs in some form or other. I claim that considering a measurement as instantiating a Universal as a Fact is compatible with all QM interpretations.
Measurements record some property of the system — they generate information that has meaning.
- A measurement is made of a system localized in time and space.
- A measurement is an event that yields a Fact as its outcome.
- A measurement captures only one aspect of a Quantum Mechanical state.
- A measurement is universally true, eventually.
So what is the meaning of measurement in terms of the Universals of metaphysics? Qualitatively, measurement is the process of abstracting some idea — some Property — from an object.
Rephrased in terms of Process Metaphysics, a measurement is a process of instantiating a Universal concept. This process I call a Hylomorphic Function. Each measured property can be considered as the output of a hylomorphic function.
This means that a measurement can only capture one particular aspect of a physical system. This is why wave function collapse destroys superposition. Superposition is all possible ways of knowing a physical system. The measurement collapses this into one Fact, and the other aspects (the other possible Facts) are lost.
An example of this is the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which applies a magnetic field to a stream of electrons. This divides the stream into two parts: electrons with spin “up” and electrons with spin “down.” This can only be determined for one dimension of a three-dimensional property. The spin in one direction can be determined but only by losing the information about the spin in the other directions. This spin is known until the measurement of the spin in another direction is taken. Then the spin in the new direction is known, but the information in the previous direction is lost.
Using the paradigm of Hylomorphic Functions, there is no need to split the universe into a system and observer as von Neumann did, or into the tripartite relationship of system, observer, and environment as in Decoherence. Instead, there is the physical world with an added characteristic: processes that generate Facts.
This leads to a dichotomy of substance and process metaphysics. Substance is physics; process is ideas. Substance metaphysics is captured in Schrödinger’s equation. Process metaphysics is the process of measurement. This takes the place of the system and the observer in many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Instead of an observed physical entity and an observing physical entity, there is a single physical entity — the System — and an abstract, ideal entity — a Fact — about the System. The Fact exists even without an observer being present.
In von Neumann’s terms, Process 1 is process (and abstract), Process 2 is substance (and physical).
So, instead of the consciousness of the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is the generation of an abstract ideal Fact, existing at some point in space and time.
Therefore, Ideas are quantized.
Implications of Hylomorphic Functions
Consider the basic units of ideas as Atomic Universals. These are fundamental physical observables, such as position, momentum, velocity, or spin instantiated as Atomic Facts. An Atomic Universal is a Property that is fundamental in the sense that it cannot be reduced to another Property or combination of Properties.
This brings up the question of more complex Universals. How universal are Universals such as Redness, Truth, or the Number One? It could be argued that the Universals we recognize are what they are because we are human, and these are what humans recognize — they are just brute facts. This is implied in Nominalism. Instead, I claim that concepts such as these can be considered to be composed of Atomic Universals, similar to the way physical objects are composed of atoms. The Atomic Universals are not contingent on human thought — they are part of the fabric of reality. But the concepts we recognize are formed from our existence as human beings.
This means that at a fundamental level, Metaphysical Realism is true. But as the process of inferring more complex concepts from the Atomic Facts occurs, we move into Nominalism and Tropes.
Some ideas are causally active. An Atomic Fact is more than an abstraction of a QM system. Its value, such as position or velocity, has repercussions that extend throughout space and time.
Some ideas are part of the mind, but they do not directly operate on the rest of the universe. Actually, some ideas can be misinterpretations of reality. True or not, they do not alter the world just because they exist.
Whether or not a Universal is causally active is a binary property: a Universal is either causally active or it is not. Certain causal chains are easy to determine: Fact A causes Fact B, such as a photodetector converting a photon into a current which is sent to a display which converts that Fact into a photon again that reaches an observer’s retina. Inferences, such as those composed of relational operators (A is moving faster than B) may have causally active Facts as their components, but are not themselves causally active. A case in point is Schrödinger’s cat. Although it is possible to express the cat as a superposition of quantum states, this is an Inference that is subject to a measurement: looking in and observing the cat. The idea of the cat being alive or dead is not causally active: the observation of the cat is.
This also gives meaning to information. A Fact generated as a Process of measurement has meaning in and of itself. This gives meaning to the information transmitted from one observer to another. Information is more than just the entropy of the signals transmitted through a medium, as defined by Claude Shannon’s Information Theory.
The transmission of information is necessary for us to actually know things. Information is not transferred if no Universals are instantiated. It is probably safe to say that a measurement is unknowable unless there is some sort of interaction with the outside world. If a measurement occurred and that Fact is not conveyed, then this information is lost to the rest of the universe.
Most of the laws of physics are time-symmetric. This is expressed by the concept of the Block World, that is, a Universe that is a four-dimensional block of objects and events frozen in space and time.
An instantiation of an Atomic Universal is a Fact that describes an actual event, located in the space-time continuum. This process of instantiation actually defines the arrow of time.
The arrow of time is due to this loss of usable information when a Fact is generated. The instantiation of a Fact through a hylomorphic function gives us some knowledge through the instantiation of the Universal but not the complete knowledge of the system. Given any single measurement, the Property instantiated by a Universal is transmitted as the measurement. But there are other characteristics that are part of the system that are lost to the measuring apparatus, since they are not part of the measurement. Therefore, you cannot go backwards anymore.
What about the Schrödinger wave equation itself? All information is preserved in it from the start of time. Theoretically, this means that the universe is symmetric in time if no measurements occur.
Consciousness
So what about consciousness?
I claim that consciousness is made up of Atomic concepts, like a table is made up of molecules which are made up of atoms.
Ideas are combined in a hierarchical manner, similar to the way physical objects are. Here on Earth, atoms combine to form molecules, which then combine to form larger things: rocks, trees, water, and air. The intermediate step between Atomic Facts and consciousness are conceptual “molecules”, units which philosophers of mind call Qualia. They form the basis of our sensory perceptions.
The instantiation of Atomic Universals are the basic units that make up the functional mental processes. A consequence of Aristotelian hylomorphism is that the hylomorphic functions operate in tandem with the physical processes of the mind, but the hylomorphic functions and their instantiations of the Universals are a process that is distinctly different from the substances of physical interactions.
There is some underlying conceptual hierarchy that defines the structure of what we know. The formation of qualia is not arbitrary. The nature of Atomic Universals are such that they will only admit to a limited combination of concepts that are expressed as qualia. So even though Nominalism is true when it comes to the mind, it is not arbitrary. The tropes that describe an object are based on the Atomic Facts that make up the qualia that we perceive about that object.
Qualia seem to have a dual existence. Just as information is separate from the medium that carries it, so qualia are separate from the physical substances that lead to the qualia. Qualia are formed from the processes of hylomorphic functions. The mind, as substance, can represent the objective reality of what thoughts, feelings and perceptions come from, but it cannot be the subjective reality of these experiences.
Atomic Facts are causally active. Concepts that are made up of qualia are not.
Hylomorphic functions can be considered to be a form of panprotopsychism — a term coined by David Chalmers — but only in the simplest sense. This comes out of having processes as a fundamental part of ontology. The operations of the mind are inherent in the hylomorphic functions that give rise to the Atomic Universals. But the universe does not consist of atomic consciousness, no more than a single machine instruction in a computer is a computer program. This attitude is similar to that expressed by Chalmers in that the world can be considered as having some elementary proto-consciousness, but this does not have any larger implications, except when it comes to beings with more complex decision-making processes.
This view stands in contrast to the wooly mysticism with which some people tend to describe the von-Neuman-Wigner interpretation. Consciousness is not some amorphous thing that plays a part in measurement, any more than a table is some amorphous thing. They both have an internal structure, formed by their constituent parts (molecules or qualia) which are made up of physical or conceptual Atoms (or Atomic Facts).
So consciousness is composed of quanta of Atomic Facts in a manner similar to the objects that we perceive are made up of atoms.
Notes
For more information, I have written a paper further discussing these ideas: “Hylomorphic Functions” that can be found here: https://researchers.one/articles/hylomorphic-functions/5f52699b36a3e45f17ae7d94. The initial part of this paper was excerpted and published as “Causally Active Metaphysical Realism” in a supplement to the International Journal of Quantum Foundations. The supplement is called Quantum Speculations and can be found here: https://ijqf.org/archives/5704.
There have been a variety of theories of “Quantum Mind” around, but most of them consider the idea that Quantum Mechanical processes play a fundamental part in the way the mind operates. Note that my theory actually does not do that. The mind works as a biological/neurological system, built upon QM and physics, but mostly operating in the realm of chemistry and biology. In my theory, Quantum Mechanics is where the ideas that the mind operates on come from, but not the process of thought itself.
Note that all references are to Wikipedia. There are also similar pages in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which can be found at https://plato.stanford.edu/.
Cited Works
- Heisenberg, Walter, 1927 The Physical Content of Quantum Kinematics and Mechanics, in Wheeler, J.A. and W.H. Zurek (eds), 1983, Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
- von Neumann, John, 1932, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955
- Chalmers, David, 2002, Consciousness and its Place in Nature in D. Chalmers (ed), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings (Oxford, 2002)
