Abstract
Building up on Chapter 2’s mainly physical analysis, this chapter chooses an interdisciplinary perspective and aims at re-interpreting the famous Libet results showing that physiological processes are preceding conscious decisions – normally taken to imply an impossibility of free will. Closely related, it looks at experimental findings on anticipatory physiological responses that might be seen as inconsistent with (classical) physics. The chapter also contains a detailed discussion of different concepts of time in physics. The chapter will then suggest that different times are parallel and that this might solve the Libet puzzle and might offer a framework for anticipatory physiological responses. Furthermore, the joint framework for anticipatory physiological responses and the existence of an actual free will turn out to be the multiverse. This chapter is intended to be an interdisciplinary ‘proof’ of the multiverse. The chapter also contains two boxes. One box addresses some objections against the notion of parallel times that might possibly arise from the second law of thermodynamics and offers a new view of the problem. The other box deals with criticism that others have raised with respect to seeing consciousness at the core of the measurement problem. Their objections will be countered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This chapter partially builds up upon Schade (2015), but largely modifies and extends this early approach, especially with respect to time.
- 2.
It is probably less surprising than in the macro sphere that such phenomena are observed on the quantum level. ‘Time-backwards’ effects are one explanation that has been put forward for the results of so-called quantum-eraser experiments (see, e.g., Herzog et al. 1995). But other interpretations for those findings have also been proposed.
- 3.
A detailed discussion of all these approaches is beyond the scope of this book. Regarding the famous but also problematic approach by Aharanov et al. (1964), the following discussion of this single-universe interpretation of quantum mechanics in Vaidman (2012, 583) might suffice: “There is a certain difference between the single world described by quantum mechanics with collapses at each measurement, and the single world which emerges with the backwards evolving quantum state of Aharonov. While the former, at each moment in time, is defined by the results of measurements in the past, the latter is defined in addition by the results of a complete set of measurements in the future.” And at a later point in the paper, Vaidman states: “I find Aharonov’s proposal very problematic. It does remove action at a distance and randomness from basic physical interactions, two of the main difficulties with the collapse postulate. But it still has the third: it is not well defined. The backwards evolving quantum state needs to be tailored in such a way that all measurements will have a definite result, but what is the definition of a measurement?” (2012, 587).
- 4.
Silberstein et al. (2018) discriminate between two types of so-called retrocausal theories: “So looking at retrocausal accounts more generally, it seems that there are two basic ways to go, one we call “time-evolved” or “retro-time-evolved” and the other we call global (4D). The former focuses on positing (relatively) new dynamical mechanisms to underwrite retrocausation and the latter takes a more global, adynamical approach” (195).
- 5.
I am presenting this problem here in a slightly less violent version than usual.
- 6.
The wording assumes some kind of consistent histories, and this actually helps discussing the situation. In fact, not even this assumption has to be made.
- 7.
- 8.
The last footnote fully applies here, too.
- 9.
Note that whenever I use the term ‘snapshot,’ I am aware of the fact that these are ‘interesting snapshots.’ Unlike the pictures taken by a camera in a singular, classical reality, the kinds of snapshots consciousness is taking in the quantum multiverse are not objective.
- 10.
This book also contains an extensive review of the literature in this and related field(s).
- 11.
Just a small example is the relational-blockworld analysis of the double-slit experiment (Silberstein et al. 2018, 209–213).
- 12.
The most important proponents of a hidden-variables theory, de Broglie and Bohm, are mentioned once in the introduction of the Silberstein et al. (2018) book (“overture for ants”) and they are not referenced once in that book. Entries such as ‘hidden variable’ or ‘third variable’ are also missing in their index. However, hidden variable approaches are nevertheless touched in some parts of their book, e.g. on page 149.
- 13.
These can be seen as the constraints that have been used when ‘constructing’ the ‘frozen’ universe. This concept is at the core of their theory and appears in several parts of their book (see, e.g., the discussion in Silberstein et al. 2018, 149).
- 14.
This idea was first developed by Aharanov et al. (1964).
- 15.
Such an interpretation is indirectly suggested when the authors, using Feynman path integrals for their analysis, state: “(…) the probability that the Feynman path integral assigns to a particular experimental arrangement to include a specific experimental outcome refers to the frequency of occurrence of these ‘experimental regions in spacetime’ per the God’s-eye view” (Silberstein et al. 2018, 153).
- 16.
This equation was first called Einstein-Schrödinger equation.
- 17.
Other approaches to quantum gravity will not be dealt with in this monograph.
- 18.
Barbour (1999) himself builds up on the ideas by Ernst Mach (1883). Consistency with the multiverse interpretation is not denied, but the relationship is not explicitly developed, perhaps for personal reasons: “Can we really believe in many worlds? The evidence for them is strong. The history of science shows that physicists have tended to be wrong when they have not believed counterintuitive results of good theories. However, despite strong intellectual acceptance of many worlds, I live my life as if it were unique. You might call me a somewhat apologetic ‘many-worlder’” (Barbour 1999, 324).
- 19.
Note that this reasoning is independent of the differentiation of decoherence into two stages that was introduced above but already applies to decoherence I or entanglement.
- 20.
More on ‘many-worlds’ versus ‘many-minds’ interpretations of quantum mechanics is to be found in Chap. 4.
- 21.
I am thankful to Tanja Schade-Strohm who suggested the Schrödinger’s coffee idea to me in a discussion.
- 22.
This example was suggested to me by an anonymous referee of the book.
- 23.
I am grateful to an anonymous referee of the book who suggested this argument to me.
- 24.
Note that these are ‘mental realities,’ or ‘perceptual’ if you will, since I am opting for a version of the many-minds rather than many-worlds perspective in this book; see Chap. 4 for those different versions of the multiverse interpretation.
- 25.
Note that no ‘bodies’ have to be moved, here, because the respective versions of the individual (and his respective coffees) are already there.
- 26.
Mensky (2010) has speculated along similar lines in different parts of his monograph. He uses this idea to understand the survival of living beings.
- 27.
For an overview of different classical concepts of time, see Grosholz (2011).
- 28.
The term has first been defined in its modern usage by Lewis (1956 [1929]). See also Schade 2015, 334–335.
- 29.
See also Schade 2015, 341, footnote 31.
- 30.
The question how consciousness might influence (material) brain activities is further analyzed by Beck and Eccles (1992).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schade, C.D. (2018). Interdisciplinary Evidence for the Multiverse, Including a Detailed Analysis of What Time Is. In: Free Will and Consciousness in the Multiverse. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03583-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03583-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03582-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03583-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)