Physics of The Mind 8594 - Chap01

February 28, 2013 10:13 World Scientic Book - 9in x 6in bk
Chapter 1
A Birds Eye View of our Quest
This is an overview of the ideas covered in the book, parading many
topics and their authors. This overview is not a direct summary, but
serves to set the stage. Part I of the book looks at the hierarchical
structure of science and physical systems arising from the existence
of different energy scales and length scales. Scientic revolutions oc-
cur when different energy and length scales are exposed by new tools.
The themes unifying physical law at different length scales and at the
most fundamental level are discussed. Part II looks at the emergence of
collective phenomena, self-organizing processes, persistent structures,
membranes, living cells, vision, memory, and consciousness as we con-
sider increasingly complex systems at human length scales.
1.1 Duality, plurality, and reality
The idea of duality is often used in many traditions to imply that the world that
we live in has a dual character mind and matter, soul and soma, yin and yan,
Adam (Om) and Eve (Jeeva), etc. The denial or defence of this duality constitutes
the stuff of most philosophies and religions. Even the methodologies of analy-
sis are categorized as reductionist or constructionist, bottom-up or top-down, and
echo ones attitude to this duality. The Jyana tradition of Buddhism, renamed as
Zen in the hands of Japanese masters, claims to reject duality and embraces a
transcendent holistic unity. Willard Quine, espousing an utterly different secular
philosophical tradition would also end up in demanding a holistic approach [177].
Modern physics, equipped with mathematics, a language innitely more sub-
tle and yet more limited than the language of human transactions, includes not
only opposing dualities, but also commuting and non-commuting realities. How-
ever, in the physics approach, we need to isolate the part of nature that is to be
studied, thus setting up a boundary. These boundary conditions are usually
3
4 A Physicists View of Matter and Mind
imposed to dene a simpler system. This process involves working within a larger
system and reducing a part of it for study. Many problems (see Sec. 2.2) associ-
ated with holism, inductive knowledge, or the theory-laden nature of informa-
tion and such matters can be resolved if the boundary conditions of the reduced
system could be clearly stated. Sometimes the selected boundary conditions may
have unintended symmetries that allow for dualities (Fig. 1.1) or pluralities in the
perceived reality. In practice these symmetries cannot be exactly imposed and a
selection is made by the observer (see Sec. 12.3.1). For instance, perception via
our senses (vision or other), involves an interpretation of the input data where our
brains supply the necessary information for framing it, or breaking the symme-
try. This view plays a prominent role in Gestalt psychology [147].
If we isolate bits of matter from each other by setting up suitable boundaries,
then we can study atoms and even smaller constituents contained in them. This is
the reductionist approach of the experimental physicist. The basic building blocks
of physical reality at this scale are excitations of an under-lying energy eld.
These excitations may be waves (Fig. 1.2) or particles (Fig. 1.3), depending on
whether you set up experiments designed to chase them along (i.e., determine
the momentum) or catch them in one spot (i.e., determine the position).
Localized excitations of nature at the lowest level of reduction available to
us are known as elementary particles. Frequently mentioned elementary parti-
cles are electrons, photons, gluons, neutrinos and quarks. These and other known
building blocks of nature can be cataloged in a sensible, comprehensible way
using what is known as the standard model of particle physics.
1.1.1 Contextuality, non-locality and de-coherence
The existence of a wave-particle duality and its reconciliation are the essen-
tial features of the quantum nature of reality which underlies our experience.
In the quantum world, actions are called operations, which themselves have
Fig. 1.1 Duality the
Greek vase which ips
into two staring faces or
reverts to a vase, as one
keeps on looking at it.
The frame, boundary con-
ditions, or gestalt struc-
tures needed to interpret
the visual images are pro-
vided by the brain itself.
A Birds Eye View of our Quest 5
Fig. 1.2 An excitation of a sheet-like surface (an energy eld) which is wave-like. The wave is
not specically localized at any spot but pervades the whole space dened by the boundary.
mathematical analogues known as operators. Their compatibility or incompatibil-
ity is described by mathematical rules (known as commutation rules) somewhat
similar to the rules of protocol and precedence that we are familiar with, from
actions in everyday life. For instance, in everyday life the operation of crossing
the road and then closing our eyes, could be very different from closing our eyes
and then crossing the road. So the order of operations, and the context matters.
Similarly, sometimes philosophers of science [178] talk of contextuality to mean
a similar property analogous to those of the quantum theory.
Another property of quantum systems is their extreme inter-connectedness.
If there are a thousand particles in the system, the behaviour as observed at
one end depends on every part of the system, somewhat as in a hologram. The
system is described by a wavefunction which samples every bit of phase space
available to it. A type of correlations found in quantum systems, i.e., quantum
entanglement, is found to involve correlations far exceeding anything that can be
Fig. 1.3 A highly localized excitation of an energy eld. This is a particle-like excitation. This is
built up by suitably adding (i.e., superposing) a lot of simple waves. An anti-particle can be thought
of as made up of waves which form a depression. Then the vacuum state is the state where the
underlying energy eld is at, in an average sense (i.e., there can be spontaneous uctuations known
as vacuum uctuations made up of an equal number of particles and anti-particles). The particle can
be made as sharply localized as we please by using suitable combinations of waves. However, such
wavepackets may not hold together, i.e., stay in coherence, for very long.
produced using classical inter-connectedness, e.g., as found in a jigsaw-puzzle or
a rubber netting. This brings to ones mind some spooky action connecting any
part of the system to some part not local to it. This non-local property, or non-
locality of quantum systems, is hard to maintain for long, or over long distances,
as the boundaries set up to dene the system have to be maintained against all
external disturbances. Otherwise, quantum correlations undergo decoherence due
to perturbations from outside the boundaries of the system.
The larger the system, the more difcult it is to protect it from decoherence.
If such decoherence effects are ignored, all sorts of paradoxical conclusions can be
drawn. Thus, we do not expect spooky action at a distance within our everyday
concepts of localized reality. Macroscopic quantum phenomena would indeed
display spooky action at a distance; but decoherence destroys any such possi-
bility. Furthermore, when we consider many-particle systems. the inter-particle
distance begins to set a length-scale for quantum processes and electrons begin
to form localized chemical bonds (see Sec. 7.3.1). Then normal chemistry takes
over from basic quantum phenomena. Loosely speaking, the resulting decrease
in long-range quantum correlations leads to the property of near-sightedness pro-
posed by Walter Kohn. Furthermore, when everyday objects (quantum systems of
many particles) are considered at room temperature rather than at absolute zero,
additional considerations (that we discuss in chapter 8) contribute to restore the
reality that is familiar to us. Nevertheless, behind that familiar world, there is an
enriched quantum reality revealed by physics.
In this enriched quantumreality, we have moved froma duality to a multi-scale
plurality in a higher-level unied view of the world, harmonizing the reduction-
ist, holistic and non-commutative content of our knowledge. This does not really
mean that we knowthe answers to many questions. However, the rise of molecular
biology and neuroscience has presented a clear method of dealing with some of
these complex questions. Furthermore, the universe is believed to be made up of
dark energy (DE, 73%) and dark matter (DM, 23%). At present we have no idea
of the nature of DE and DM. It is the few per cent of visible matter that is directly
relevant to the human scale of things! This book deals only with those.
1.2 The standard model of matter according to physics
Ancient thinkers distrusted the senses and resorted to introspection and usually
had an idealist view of the world, although there were some materialist thinkers
who were more close to the practical technologies that were known as natural
philosophy. This tradition, combined with the interrogation of nature via
experiments evolved into the disciplines of modern science. This was driven on
the one hand by pure curiosity and theorizing about the world, and on the other by
the activities of conquest, commerce, and social organization. Later in the book
we discuss the nature of scientic knowledge and how successive theories have
arrived at the contemporary views of our world. The most successful view of the
world is the one codied by scientists who have investigated the external world
as a system made up of matter and its interacting elds. Here we use the word
scientist loosely to include chemists, biologists, geologists, physicians, engi-
neers and others even in the social sciences who use the methods of natural
philosophy.
The standard model of physics attempts to describe all phenomena with a
few dozen fundamental particles, and energy elds that mediate the interactions
among these particles. If we include elds, particles as well as their anti-particles,
we need some ve dozen fundamental objects in the standard model. Obviously
this is too many for the economical mindset of the theoretical physicist, or that
of the mystic who wants every thing to come out of a single sacred word like Om.
These fundamental objects may well be the varied manifestations of some
other, even more fundamental eld. However, the laws associated with these ele-
mentary objects, viz., the laws of physics, are amazingly simple and fascinating.
Chemistry, biology, and the more complex stuff of the world are all regarded as
consequences of the laws of physics. A popular, easily readable presentation of
this point of view (which is also largely shared by this book), has been given by
Murray Gell-Mann in The Quark and the Jaguar [83].
For our purposes, the standard model is a sufciently fundamental starting
point. Hence in this section we give a brief account of the standard model of
matter, as formulated in the latter half of the 20th century. Many physicists con-
tributed to this model [4] which eventually took formal shape in the hands of
Abdus Salam, Steven Weinberg, and Sheldon Glashow.
Physics reveals that matter is made up of atoms which are mostly empty
even more empty than the solar system where there are asteroids and debris in the
vast spaces between planets. Everything that matters to humans depends mainly
on what goes on at the very edge of these atoms. Chemistry happens at such edges.
Biology happens at an even larger length scale, at the edges of molecules. Never-
theless, the inner structure of matter, as seen in the very core of atoms, and in the
sub-nuclear world, turns out to be directly connected with questions of cosmology
and the large-scale structure of the world in regard to space and time. Hence, the
nature of the world at very general length scales, from the smallest to the largest,
is of great interest. We examine selected aspects of physical theory in detail in
later chapters of the book. Hence, the following section may be skipped or merely
skimmed by the readers whose interests reside in larger length scales.
1.2.1 Atoms, nuclei, quarks and quantum elds
Matter appears to exist in various phases, i.e., solids, liquids, gases etc. Many
idealist philosophies of the East and the West have attacked this, by claiming
that all reality is mental, or that it is an illusion a Maya. The ordinary per-
sons reaction to such philosophical doubt is typied by that of Dr. Samuel John-
son to Bishop Berkeleys public statements. Bishop Berkeley (16851753) was a
philosopher whose public claims irked Dr. Samuel Johnson, a literary luminary
of the period and compiler of the rst English dictionary. Johnson is supposed
to have refuted such views by proving the existence of matter by kicking a
stone. We mention this because the physicists approach to understanding matter
is indeed based on kicking matter in various ways. The physicist probes matter
with projectiles, heat, intense light, or chemicals that are just other forms of mat-
ter. One approach would be to use increasingly energetic probes to penetrate or
bombard matter, and then examine the debris of the collision to understand the
composition of the targeted matter. Today such experiments are done using par-
ticle accelerators, e.g., at CERN, that provide well controlled particles of known
energy, for use as missiles, to be directed at atoms, nuclei or other objects under
study.
Initially, natural fast particles were used as the energetic probes. Radioactive
atoms emit energetic o-particles, later identied to be Helium nuclei. Ruther-
ford, Geiger and Marsden (1909) studied how o-particles are scattered from
atoms, and showed that atoms are not hard diminutive marbles. They are mostly
empty space containing a positively charged, heavy, point-like central core (nu-
cleus) and very light negative charges (electrons) distributed sparsely around it.
Similar scattering experiments targeting nuclei revealed that nuclei are also
not point particles, but are made up of even smaller particles named protons and
neutrons. The nucleus appeared point-like only for the rough probes (less en-
ergetic particles) that could only resolve the larger length scales of atoms and
molecules. Protons and neutrons are collectively called nucleons. They are also
called baryons as they are heavy compared to electrons which are classied as lep-
tons. Leptons have a spin angular momentum of (1/2) in units of h, the quantum-
unit of angular momentum. The photon is a zero-mass particle but not included
with leptons as it has an angular momentum of unity. Subsequently, intermediate-
mass particles were identied, especially in Cosmic ray showers. They are known
as mesons. Mesons decay into electrons, positrons, neutrinos and photons. They
are particles with integral values of spin (in units of h). Baryons and mesons are
collectively called hadrons as they display short-ranged, hard interactions.
Thus, taking the proton mass as the unit, an Aluminum nucleus with a mass
of 27 consist 13 protons and 14 neutrons interacting among them and holding
together. The Al atom is mostly empty space, containing a nucleus of 27 nucle-
ons at the tiny core, and 13 electrons distributed at length scales which are many
thousands of times larger than the size of the nucleus. The radius of a nucleon is
of the order of a femtometer (10
15
m), while the radius of an atom (10
10
m) is
some 10
5
times larger. A human hair is some ten million times thicker.
The strong repulsion among positively charged protons is balanced by the at-
tractive forces among the nucleons. The proton, p, and the neutron, n, have almost
the same mass, and since mass and energy are equivalent (E = mc
2
), Heisenberg
in 1932 suggested that the p and n were a manifestation of the same particle in
two nearly identical energy states. This basic particle is assigned a property called
isospin dening two states (which may be termed up, down, or p, n). If you
are in space where up and down do not matter, there should be no distinction
between these two particles. This deep symmetry is mathematically denoted by
the symbol SU(2). That there is such a distinction between p and n shows that the
isospin symmetry is broken. The isospin concept, which involves a non-Abelian
gauge symmetry (see Sec. 3.5), enabled nuclear physicists to classify the internal
energy states of nuclei, and propose that there is a weak interaction that splits the
exact degeneracy between the proton and the neutron, thus making their ground-
state energies (i.e., rest masses) slightly different in energy. The isospin concept
explained the existence of other heavier relatives of the proton and the neutron,
like the A (Lambda), Z (Sigma), and the E (Xi) particle. Meanwhile, Diracs the-
ory (Sec. 6.10.2) of electrons and their anti-particles led naturally to the concept
of anti-particles being associated with every type of particle.
The establishment that quantumparticles have wave properties, and vice versa,
meant that particles have elds associated with them, and elds have particles
associated with them. The photon is the eld-particle of the electromagnetic eld.
Nucleons were postulated to interact via pions (r). However, although r
, r
0
, r
+
particles were
discovered, we see below that nucleons and pions are themselves composite structures whose interac-
tions occur at a deeper level involving quarks and gluons.
Are p, n and other baryons point-like particles? In a sense, the question is meaningless as size
is not an attribute of a particle. A particle can have mass, charge, spin, isospin, helicity and so on,
but its size only appears in terms of the scattering cross-section when probed with other projectiles.
When composite particles are probed, they can split into smaller fragments. Free neutrons, and indeed
all baryons are unstable. The neutron decays into a proton emitting an electron, and an anti-neutrino
denoted by the symbol v
e
. The latter is a particle with nearly zero mass and postulated theoretically
by Wolfgang Pauli in 1930. It was observed only in 1956. Hence neutrons were already suspected to
be composite particles. Protons seemed to be stable elementary particles but today we know better.
Scattering experiments on nucleons, and results from cosmic ray studies where unknown inter-
mediate mass particles, i.e., mesons () were found, suggested a deeper set of particles at yet higher
Table 1.1 The elementary particles, i.e., the building blocks of Nature used in the Standard Model.
Particles Fields
quarks charge leptons elds interactions particle
up 2/3 e Electro-
magnetic
e.g.,
electrons-
positron
photons
down 1/3 v
e
QED
charm 2/3 Chromo-
dynamics
e.g.,
inter-quark
gluons
strange 1/3 v
QCD
top 2/3 t Electro-
weak
muon decay W and Z
bosons
bottom 1/3 v
t
Higgs eld sets masses Higgs
particle
gravitation interacting
masses
gravitons
energy scales and controlled by even deeper symmetries. In 1964 Murray Gell-Mann and George
Zweig proposed that baryons were made up of quarks, i.e., unusual particles of fractional charge.
The quark concept was proposed by Gell-Mann and Neemann in 1961 harnessing the symmetry
known mathematically as SU(3), i.e., a generalization of the two-fold symmetry contained in Heisen-
bergs SU(2), to present a fascinating eight-fold symmetry based on three fractionally charged particles
known as quarks. This was a non-Abelian gauge symmetry (see Sec. 3.5) hidden deep inside the sub-
nuclear structure of matter. This theory had revolutionary features, like proposing fractional charges
for the quarks, a name borrowed by Gell-Mann from James Joyces Finnegans Wake. Additional
features of the theory meant that the quarks could not exist freely, but could only be found enslaved
as components of nuclei. Thus, according to the quark theory, the eight baryons (neutron, proton, Z
,
Z
0
, E
0
, E
, and A) all form an Octet made up of various combinations of the u, d and s quarks.
The theory had to face a decade of skepticism. However, the theory systematized the known
facts, predicted new particles and their experimental masses. The year 1974 was very eventful for
particle physics as experimental evidence tumbled in from the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC)
and Brookhaven, conrming the new theories. These experimental groups discovered, independently,
states of a type of quark (known as the charm quark q
c
) bound to its anti-particle q
c
. Such bound states
are analogous to the electron-positron bound-pair, and are known as charmonium. The lowest energy
state of charmonium is known as the J/ particle. Other predictions of the theory were also veried
in the heady years following 1974.
We briey summarize the quark model of elementary particles (see Table 1.1). The earliest known
family consisted of two quarks, called the up-quark (q
u
) and the down-quark (q
d
), and two leptons,
called the electron (e
) and electron-neutrino (v
e
). The names up, down are simple labels and
nothing more (i.e., names, like Paul and Peter). The neutrino was a name given by Fermi, for a neutral
particle which probably has nearly zero mass and postulated by Pauli.
Experiments, as well as theory using symmetry and conservation laws revealed two other quark
families. Thus we have the muon family which contains the strange quark and the charmed quark
(q
s
, q
c
), and the associated leptons called the muon and the -neutrino denoted by (
, v
). Finally,
the tau-family, contains the top quark and the bottom quark (q
t
, q
b
), and the leptons (t
, v
t
).
The Higgs particle, proposed by Peter Higgs and others in 1964 is included in
Table 1.1, and had eluded conrmation up to the rst decade of the 21st century.
The standard model does not explain why the particles have their observed rest
masses, but assigns them in terms of interactions with the Higgs eld. To sim-
plify matters drastically, the Higgs eld may be conceived as providing resistance
to longitudinal excitations (thus providing mass to them). This does not affect
photons and other transverse excitations. The Fermi Lab physicists had dubbed
it the god-damn particle because of its elusiveness. However, Leon Lederman,
the director of the Lab had to change the nickname to the God particle in writ-
ing a popular book about the Higgs, and other particles. Experiments at the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in July 2012 have revealed signals in the 125
GeV region, providing strong support for the Higgs mechanism.
We have included gravitons in the Table, being the bosons that mediate gravity
in a quantumeld. The relevant theory of quantum gravity is not yet known.
Quantum chromdynamics (QCD) is a quantum led theory elaborating on
quantum electrodynamics (QED) where the excitations are called quarks and glu-
ons. Quarks can have three varieties of charge, known as color. The colors
must always neutralize each other to give no color (color singlets). Thus we have
the three colors red, green and blue. The antiquarks carry the anti-colors,
just as a positron carries the charge opposite to an electron. Unlike QED which
obeys Abelian Gauge symmetry (Sec. 3.5), QCD involves a non-Abelian gauge
symmetry. The color here is just a label; the spelling of color is that used by
Gell-Mann, a founding father of quark theory and an accomplished linguist.
What is the nature of a quark? Why is the electron charge exactly equal to that
of a proton? If quarks cannot be seen in a free state, but only as bound states of
one another, can all of them be excitations of something even more fundamental?
Would such a theory bring in the graviton also as one of the excitations that arise
naturally from the theory, thus doing away with General Relativity as a separate
theory for gravitation which stands outside the quantum theory? String theory is
one such attempt to provide a more compact grand unied theory (GUT), a name
introduced by Schr odinger already in the 1940s. In string theory, the elementary
particles and elds are conceived as excitations of one-dimensional objects called
strings. This theory is at present only a research program without new predictions
in the energy and length scales currently accessible to experimentalists. The LHC
may provide the experimental results at higher-energy scales and shorter length
scales where the Standard Model needs modication. However, only a small sub
set of the standard model is needed for understanding matters at the human scale
of things. Hence new experiments from CERN etc., are not expected to change
biochemistry and physiology that work at very low energy scales.
1.3 Scales of energy and length
Consider the nascent universe or at least, the part accessible to us. It begins
in some highly energized metastable initial state sometimes called a false vac-
uum state. We dont know much about this state but attempt to deduce whatever
we can about it. Unlike ancient philosophers, theoretical physicists are guided by
mathematics as well as the laws they have uncovered. By vacuum we mean an
initial state with no excitations in it. We know that there are uctuations in any
vacuum, i.e., zero (or emptiness) is after all made up of 1 and +1, or 2 and
+2, as they add to zero when averaged. Thus we may think of vacuumuctuations
in terms of lots of 1s and +1s distributed randomly. That is, the vacuumis empty
on the average, and yet it is full of uctuations. These uctuations or excitations
of the vacuum are what physicists call elementary particles, like electrons and
positrons, gluons, quarks etc. One could think of a very large energy uctuation
putting the system into a metastable false vacuum.
As we move from the very high energy scales of elementary particles towards
smaller energy scales, interactions (among the particles known as gluons and
quarks) give rise to more complex particles like protons and neutrons. These are
made up of quarks, where the inter-quark interactions are more or less balanced.
The forces between nuclei are the weak remnants of the inter-quark forces left over
after the formation of nucleons. The lightest nucleus is the proton. The proton is
the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. If it were a sphere, its radius would be about
1 10
15
m, i.e., a femtometer. Nuclei and electrons interact via the exchange
of photons (they are the elves of the electromagnetic eld). Electrons and nuclei
formatoms that are many orders of magnitude bigger than nuclei. A proton and an
electron bind to become a hydrogen atom. The radius of the hydrogen atom (the
Bohr radius) is about 510
11
m. It sets the length scale of atoms and molecules
and is known as an atomic unit of length which is about a million times bigger than
the scale of nuclei. Thus at each stage, the parameters, or factors which determine
the reality at the lower scale, get replaced by new, more extended or coarser types
of parameters or collective variables. However, as the length scales get bigger and
bigger, the energy scales get smaller and smaller. That is, energies associated with
nuclear forces are enormous, compared to the energies associated with electronic
states of atoms which are counted in electron-Volts (eV). Molecular-formation en-
ergies are even more ne grained, and are counted in milli-electron-volts (meV),
i.e., a thousandth part of an eV, or even in calories.
Molecular Energies, e.g., body heat at 37
C is in the 25 meV. range. This

corresponds to infrared light.
Energy levels in atoms are in the eV range; e.g., the hydrogen atom has an
ionization energy of 13 eV, similar to the thermal energy of an object heated
to 151,000 K. The visible, ultra-violet and X-Ray range are reached with heavier
atoms. Atoms and small molecules are nanoscale (10
9
meters = 1 nm) objects.
Nuclear energies are given in MeV (10
6
eV). The temperatures inside the sun are
in this, -ray regime. Nuclei are many orders of magnitude smaller than atoms.
The rest mass m
0
of an elementary particle corresponds to an energy m
0
c
2
,
where c is the velocity of light. These energies range from MeV to hundreds of
GeV and up. The CERN laboratory attempts to reach such high energies.
The primary patch of spacetime that underwent exponential expansion (ination)
during the big-bang is about 10
36
meters in size (i.e., at least a hundred-billion-
billion times smaller than a proton). The Planck energy scale that prevailed in
the earliest universe is believed to be 10
19
GeV.
This sequence is also dictated by the four fundamental forces of nature that emerge
as the universe cools down from its initial intense heat (See Fig. 1.4).
Strong interactions prevail between quarks, which are the components of heavy
nuclear particles (e.g., protons, neutrons), known as baryons. The gluons are
the excitations that mediate the interaction among the quarks. The quarks have
avors and colors these are just descriptive name tags. The excitations of
this force eld, known as the chromodynamic eld, are quarks and gluons. The
strong interactions have a short range comparable to the size of a nucleus, i.e.,
about a femtometer (10
15
m).
Weak interactions (WI) are a million times weaker than the strong interactions.
These are very short-ranged interactions, dying off within a billion-billionth of a
meter (10
18
m). WI are capable of changing the avors of quarks. This force is
mediated by two particles known as the W-boson and the Z-boson. The W-boson
is charged, while the Z-boson is not. These two particles are similar to the photon,
except that the photon has no mass. Also, the energy of these particles is associ-
ated with a shoving backwards and forwards motion (longitudinal oscillations),
unlike the photon which carries its energy with an up-down motion (transverse
oscillation) relative to the direction of propagation. The WI can change a pro-
ton to a neutron and vice versa. The weak interaction and the electromagnetic
interaction, mediated by the three bosons (the photon, W boson and Z boson) are
grouped together under the name the electro-weak interaction.
The electro-magnetic interaction. This interaction governs our entire everyday
world of physics, chemistry, cyberspace, life and neural activity. The ratio of the
strength of the electro-magnetic interaction to the strength of the strong interac-
tion is called the ne-structure constant. It is equal to 1/137. When you sit on
a chair, it is the electrostatic repulsion between the electrons in your body, and
the electrons in your chair, which you feel as a hard surface. Samuel Johnson
is said (by Boswell, the biographer of Johnson) to have used the hardness of a
kick in refuting Bishop Berkeleys idealism, i.e., just the Coulomb repulsion of
like charges! It is also the energy in thunder, lightening and laughter. The photon
carries the energy of this interaction. Unlike the strong and weak interactions, it
has an innite range of action. That is, electrostatic forces decrease as 1/r
2
(the
Coulomb law), and the electrostatic potential decreases as 1/r.
Finally, there is the weakest of all forces, namely, gravity. Since gravity also
obeys Newtons inverse square law of force, 1/r
2
, gravity has an innite range.
It becomes weaker and weaker, but ever so slowly.
Just as the six sides of a dice are found to be manifestations of the same single
object (i.e., the dice), one would like to understand how to obtain a unied view
of all these fundamental forces.
In Fig. 1.4 the universe is assumed to begin in some unknown manner, from a
very hot, dense, initial state (metastable vacuum). This leads to an exponentially
expanding ination phase. The inationary theory of the early universe (i.e., the
rst 10
35
sec) is driven by ideas from the quantum Theory (QT). This theory
then partly hands over the discussion to the theory of General Relativity (GT)
which also predicts the existence of space-time singularities (i.e., mathematically,
situations where the solutions seem to require dividing by zero, or lead to some
such mathematically uncontrolled situation). Examples of such singularities are
black holes where spacetime collapses, or big bangs where spacetime blows up.
We are concerned with The big bang (BB) explosion associated with a sin-
gularity in the eld equations describing our part of the world, restricted by our
event horizon. Of course, there can be many such BBs going on in the multi-
verse, just as there can be many bubbles in a boiling kettle. But we are trapped
in our BB bubble, so our knowledge is restricted to our BB. General Relativity
becomes increasingly inapplicable at the short lengths associated with the singu-
larity. In fact, here we are thinking of lengths perhaps as small as what is known
as the Planck length which is about 10
35
meters. Thus the initial universe must
be discussed using some theory other than GR. However, the cosmology that de-
veloped in the middle of the 20th century, in the hands of Gamow and others [14],
predicts the big bang using the physics of general relativity. In the 1948 paper by
George Gamowet al., where the author names (Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe, George
Gamow) are arranged to sound like the rst letters of the Greek alphabet (o, , ),
they showed how the relative abundances of elements found in stars, as deter-
mined by spectroscopy, could be used to deduce the physical conditions which
existed in the early universe. Thus the inputs to the Big Bang theory included
well-established spectroscopic information, nuclear physics and relativity.
Ination theory discusses an even earlier period of the universe, before the for-
mation of nuclei or elementary particles. The rise of string theory in the 1980s, and
the more recent m-brane theory (see Sec. 5.9.1) inspired the ideas [134] behind the
inationary model of the universe. Ination involves the exponential stretching
of the original patch of instability to an enormous extent in an incredibly short
time. The simple symmetries that existed in the early universe evolved into new
UNKNOWN BEGINNIGS
Inflation, Big Bang
E=10
19
GeV; T=10
32
K
Plank
Scale
Unkown
quantum
fluctuations
Quantum gravity
10
-50
s
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
-
w
e
a
k
Inflation
G
r
a
v
i
t
y
S
t
r
o
n
g

I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
m
a
g
e
n
t
i
c
W
e
a
k

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
10
-35
s
Elector-Weak
splits at
~100 GeV
Quarks form
nucleons,
ions combine
Space becomes
transparent
to Light,
10
5
years,
Galaxies etc.
formed
Hubble expansion Now= 14 billion years
GUT
10
27
K
10
15
K
Cosmic
Micro
-wave
background
2.7 K
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
Fig. 1.4 As the early universe cools, the high-symmetry of the grand-unied theory (GUT) spawns
the lower symmetries of the Standard model in 10
10
s. Four types of interactions, viz., gravity,
electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions emerge. The high energy scales and short length scales
get replaced by smaller energy scales and bigger length scales. These allow many energy states to exist
in a narrow range of energies, allowing the emergence of complex systems typical of biology.
symmetries, and the four fundamental interactions shown in Fig. 1.4 emerged. As
the universe cooled, elementary particles combined to form complex composites.
Large scale structures like galaxies formed i.e., the very short Planck scale of
length (see Secs. 5.9, 5.8) has now got replaced by much bigger length scales.
It is this ne-graining of the energy, associated with the coarse-graining of the
length scale that brings about complexity from the simplicity of the elementary
interactions. At the molecular level, the energy scales are much smaller than at the
atomic-scale. Thousands of molecular energy congurations are possible within
an energy range where only one or two atomic states are possible. Atoms and
molecules give rise to more fragile biological structures (cells, plants and animals)
having more coarse-grained (i.e., bigger) length-scales pertaining to the biological
world. As we move from the atomic world to the biological world, the boundary
conditions dening the way we isolate the system for study become different to
those in the quantumworld. The higher-level variables usually contain collective
effects as well as damping effects or decoherence factors which determine the
lifetime of the new, higher-level variables.
In technical jargon one would say that the propagators (Greens functions) describing the exci-
tations no longer have sharp, discrete poles instead the poles have become complex, with branch-
cuts. These new modes represent new physics appropriate to the new characteristic energy scales.
Herbert Simon [197] argued in 1962, in an essay entitled The architecture of
Complexity, that complex systems are organized in a hierarchical fashion. Thus
sub-atomic particles build atoms, atoms make molecules, cells, organisms, organ-
isms make tribes, societies and nations. Here Simon too was discussing energy
scales and length scales. On the other hand, Landau and Ginzburg had formu-
lated a very beautiful and comprehensive quantitative theory of order mainly for
physical systems, but equally applicable to any complex system. When dealing
with physical systems, the energy scales and length scales are globally useful,
convenient measures of hierarchical position. The history of science itself can be
understood (Sec. 2.4.1) as an unraveling of new energy and length scales as our
tools gets sharper and more powerful. New theories are needed to encompass these
new energy scales and length scales.
In this book we argue that the appearance of collective modes, moderated
by damping and decoherence, and involving complex systems with many nearly
equivalent energy minima introduces irreversibility and indeterminism into our
physical theory, paving the way for a theory of the mind where consciousness and
free will, deductive reason and intuitive insight, become comprehensible within a
relatively standard interpretation of physics and chemistry.
1.3.1 Hierarchical structure in logic, language and life
This hierarchical structure that emerges as we move from elementary particles
(e.g., electrons, photons, quarks etc.) to more complex objects, as well as the in-
determinism arising from the damping effects at each stage is also seen in other
systems as we go from simplicity to complexity. Very simple formal-language
systems, e.g., those containing a few symbols and a few strings (sentences) de-
rived using a basic set of rules, are such that all statements in such a language
are logically related to each other. Such a language, or a propositional calculus,
may be said to be complete, or closed. Russell and Whitehead, in their Principia
Mathematica, attempted to show that mathematics is such a complete, consistent
system derivable from the axioms of logic. Such sentences would be called ana-
lytic sentences by the Logical Empiricists who were very inuential in the early
half of the 20th century. Russell and Whitehead hoped to reduce all arithmetic to a
system of logical relations among sets or groups. A set is simply a collection
of elements that obey specied rules of transformation, e.g., addition, associa-
tion, commutation etc. However, this effort unearthed various logical paradoxes,
e.g., Russells paradox of sets, which suggested that self-referential statements in
a language have to be made using a higher-level meta language.
The set of tables is itself not a table. Thus we have sets which are not members of themselves. The
set of ideas is itself an idea, and hence should be a member of itself. Now, is the set of all sets which
are not members of themselves, contained in itself or not?
The meta-language will have its own meta-paradoxes. A landmark result
from the foundations of mathematics is the now famous G odels theorem, which
showed that formal systems, if they are sufciently complex, contain valid state-
ments not deducible within the formal system. A similar result in computer sci-
ence is known as Turings halting theorem, and asks if a computer can decide by
itself that it has solved a given problem, and come to a halt on its own.
In this book we examine the hierarchical structure moving from elementary
particles to atoms, molecules, cells and other complex adaptive systems includ-
ing human beings. A human is both a biological organism and a person. Is s/he a
conscious machine? On your table you have a computer, an able robot executing
many complex algorithmic operations for you. It may even use algorithms based
on neural-network models (see Sec. 2.2.5). It will do this as long as the computer
is maintained at the voltages and power levels specied by the manufacturer, and
as long as the conditions of humidity and temperature remain within factory spec-
ications. You can open several windows and the computer behaves as several
virtual computers doing several tasks, as long as you obey rules about creating
such windows. The computer is a system that inputs energy, outputs wasted en-
ergy (entropy), and performs tasks. It interacts with you in a predictable way.
Across the table Bob is seated opposite you. In fact, there are two individu-
als, you and him two personalities. The inter-personal interaction occurs via
Fig. 1.5 Bertrand Russell, Kurt G odel, and Alan Turing (courtesy APS archives).
language, gestures, and within social conventions of protocol and precedence
commutation rules that exist between you. These are related to the variables
that are effective at this level of coarse-graining of the physical world. On the
other hand, he can be seen as a thing, i.e., an it. That is, a conglomeration of cells
held by biochemical forces, and showing a bio-chemical characteristic known as
being alive (existence). Existence depends on the input of energy and nutrients,
the presence of thousands of other living bacteria in the gut and other parts of
the body. It is really many living organisms working collectively, with no specic
part identiable as the individual named Bob. He is in many ways a biologi-
cal computer. The architecture for his/its construction is specied in Bobs DNA.
This DNA embodies the specics of Bob that encodes Bob sufciently for him to
be uniquely identied. In fact this code is used incessantly to repair and replen-
ish body components (cells) which need to be replaced due to wear and tear. The
copying process itself introduces errors, wear and tear, leading to a gradual aging
of Bob. That is, just as my desk-top computer is constantly updated and repaired
(via my on-line connection to the manufacturer who knows the basic architecture
of my computer) against wear and tear etc., Bobs system is also updated, by a
self-contained system of protein synthesis and cell repair.
Knowing Bob for many years, his behaviour is reasonably predictable. Also,
just like the computer, he has several windows or personalities. If his body tem-
perature, oxygen intake, blood-sugar level, or serotonin level in the brain were
modied by even a few per cent, he too, just like a computer which is deviating
from specications, begins to behave strangely and in unpredictable ways. Who
then is Bob? Is he a bio-chemical computer? Or is he the person that you have
known for many years? Clearly, they are two different ways of looking at the same
object. Figure 1.1 displays the dual image of a Greek Vase which also looks like
two human faces, depending on the glancing stance used by the perceiver. The re-
lationship between the image of Bob as an organism, or as a person is clearly more
subtle. Many philosophers or religious thinkers would argue that the move from
Bob the organism, to Bob the living, conscious individual who is, say, a lawyer, a
husband, a father, a colleague and a friend, involves some esoteric principle or
an elan vitale beyond analysis or reductionism. The electronic computer needs
some one to give it commands. Is it too much to envision a self-learning com-
puter which constructs its own commands and generates its own responses, based
on the inputs it receives from the outside world? Isnt that Bob?
In the 19th century, it was believed that certain chemical substances (organic
compounds, e.g., acetic acid or vinegar) found in living matter could not be made
in the laboratory. Only living matter could produce them. Similar impossibility
barriers, from sugar to chlorophyll and DNA, were suggested from time to time,
and yet they have all been surpassed. The complete analyses of the coding in the
DNA of the primitive worm Caenorhabditis Elegans and other benchmark organ-
isms, and nally the human Genome itself have been completed. The role of each
gene in the neural wiring and behaviour of C. Elegans and similar small organisms
are now well understood. Synthetic organic chemistry can use the very techniques
of nature to create novel proteins that never existed in nature. The cloning of large
animals, developments in computer science and neuroscience have generated new
optimism, especially among life scientists, that the gap between Bob the mech-
anistic organism, and Bob the person may nally be bridged, without claiming
mysticism. It is true that higher-level variables can control lower level variables
(as happens when you, a higher-level complex-adaptive system, decide to move a
knight in a chess game). However, the effect of the higher-level variables is to set
the boundary conditions that constrain the physical laws of the lower-level. They
do not change the validity of the microscopic description.
A number of physicists have invoked the quantum theory to claim that a
conscious observer is an essential feature of reality. This view, starting from
von Neumann and Wigner, is presented in, e.g., Mind, Matter and Quantum
Mechanics by Henry Stapp [201], in Hameroff and Penrose (see Ch. 13) or in
Quantum Enigma: Physics encounters consciousness by Rosenblum and Kuttner
[182]. While Eugene Wigner and others began this discussion in the context of
what is known as the measurement problem in the quantumtheory, some writers
have spun a highly metaphysical, even sensational picture of reality. Thus, the run-
ning of computers, lasers, atomic clocks and all the physical underpinnings of the
modern world depend on some almost magical act of observation giving reality
to the world. This reality, generated by the observer may be a mere momentary
selection from an innity of many worlds a la Everett [56].
We discuss the measurement problem and the quantum paradoxes in Ch. 7.
Quantum Enigmas and the role of the observer get claried when the boundary
conditions (BC) associated with the preparation of the system are included in
the discussion. This is neatly done in David Bohms approach where the effect
of the BC enters into the Bohmian quantum potentials. Specifying the boundary
conditions to sufcient accuracy brings in all the issues of sensitivity to the input
information, as well as Bayesian or other estimates of the probable validity of such
information. Not surprisingly, some writers (e.g., Caves et al. [44, 77]) have gone
back to review the meaning of probability to elucidate quantum mechanics.
When dealing with many-particle systems at human length scales, decoher-
ence and nite-temperature (nite-T) effects have to be taken into account in a sys-
tematic way, so that popular metaphysical views associated with Schr odingers
cat etc. (see Ch. 7) do not cause confusion.
Density-functional theory (DFT) states that a quantum systems can be com-
pletely described by a functional of the density distribution, Hence it dispenses
with the many-body wavefunction. This resolves many issues in understanding
quantum reality. DFT can conveniently treat nite-T systems, without heavy
formulations like thermo-eld dynamics etc., and seamlessly treat classical and
quantum hybrid systems. Thus, in our view, the quantum theory, discussed in
Part I of this book, presents a very comprehensible non-mysterious resolution of
dualities, subjectivities and paradoxes that plague many discussions.
The early part of the book will look at the nature of physical law, scientic the-
ories, and the critiques of some philosophers of science who have developed a new
genre of science studies where they claim that science is reducible to a relativism
of belief a socio-political belief system. Having dealt with such epistemologi-
cal questions, we go on to study the basic laws of physics, emphasizing how the
quantumtheory of elementary particles, relativity and the underlying laws of sym-
metry and simplicity pave the way for complexity. A remarkable epistemological
consequence of the simplicity of the laws of physics is the emergence of a form
of teleology in the principle of least action (Sec. 3.6). A few symmetry rules, least
action, and the equation of continuity seem to be the essential underpinning of the
laws of classical physics as well as modern physics.
The world of atoms, molecules and ions involves longer length scales and
smaller energy scales. However, it is still governed by the same basic laws. How-
ever, the deterministic interactions among charged particles at low-energy scales
lead to collective modes like plasmons which have acquired a degree of indeter-
minism (reected in the complex-pole structure of their propagators) by deco-
herence and by the loss of information across the boundary of the system. Other
classes of collective modes are charge-density waves, magnetic structures, and
crystalline order that self-assemble in materials systems.
In Part II of this book we examine the path of astrochemistry and pre-biotic
chemistry of the early earth. The formation of incubators of living organisms
in various type of Darwins warm little ponds, and in hydrothermal vents are
discussed. Froth bubbles, lipid bilayers, and biological structures (Sec. 10.4.2)
are also self-assembled complex molecular quasi-equilibrium systems. Quasi-
equilibrium stationary states of such material systems, formed within naturally
formed lipid bilayers may involve feed-back loops that allow for adaptive mod-
ications of the structure of such systems to conform to the requirements of the
ambient environment. Such systems can form classes of complex adaptive sys-
tems which utilize (i.e., feed on) lower-scale systems for maintaining their sta-
tionary state. Such systems which can replicate themselves are essentially living
organisms. Darwins principle of the survival of the ttest applies to such systems.
Complex systems obey the basic laws of physics, but also spawn new, derived laws
that hold among the new collective modes.
In this context, Darwinian selection (see Sec. 1.5) may be thought of as a
quasi-equilibrium complex-adaptive version of dynamical energy optimization,
i.e., efciency demanded by a higher-level principle of least action.
The pressure of evolution favours primitive cells that form multi-cellular sys-
tems, with some cells doing specialized tasks. We discuss vision, neurons, mem-
ory and the emergence of consciousness, intuition, feeling and sensation usually
associate with the mind of an intelligent, alert being. Here we have inputs from
neuroscience, articial intelligence, as well as the physics of complex systems.
The energetics of complex proteins, their essentially non-computable conforma-
tions, and the indeterminacy and decoherence arising from the ambient environ-
ment conspire to replace the seemingly rigid determinismof small dynamical sys-
tems by the very opposite of determinism (see Sec. 8.6). That is, we begin to
understand the existence of conscious machines which are largely biological au-
tomatons, but having a margin of free will and a capacity for strategy and action
based on their perceptions. However, this direct physico-chemical approach of
the hard-headed scientist is assailed from many angles, as discussed in the next
section.
1.4 The direct approach and its modern critics
If we leave the mystics and obscurantists to themselves, we have more subtle crit-
ics who question the very method and validity of the search for understanding.
In fact, science studies, or inquiries into the nature of sciences, have become a
popular component of the non-science part of academia today. When Feyerabend
[72] concludes that there is no discernible method in science, and that anything
goes, he began as a critic of the efforts of philosophers of science to describe and
dene the scientic method. But the criticism is in fact leveled against any type of
claim to understanding, be it in the sciences or the humanities.
Scholars armed with case studies from the history of science would present
multi-faceted arguments claiming that science is itself a result of social paradigms
or personal dispositions, with little or no basis in reality, and no better than the
folk lore which worked very well for the needs of a previous era. And yet, even the
very air we breath is air-conditioned by the technological fruits of science. These
same scholars would not hesitate to use airplanes, computers, or other products of
this very doubtful enterprise.
Instead of such strongly epistemological attacks, others would prefer to ac-
cept a rational approach tempered with some form of mysticism perceived as
intelligence or design in natural processes. The mysticism can be pushed to a
view of the world where everything has happened just to produce human beings.
We need to answer why we should not reuse such very comforting anthropic
world views that are claimed to have worked very well in earlier times.
1.4.1 The reductionist approach and its alternatives
The laws of physics dictate how nuclei, atoms and molecules are formed. The
rules for atoms and molecules, i.e., the laws of chemistry, follow from the laws of
quantum mechanics. Since biochemical processes are determined completely by
chemistry, biology gets assimilated into chemistry. At this point a murmur of dis-
sent against this reductionist point of view is possible, although the application
to inanimate matter, plants and perhaps animals is uncontested today. If we ex-
tend the claim to include human beings and all aspects of human activity, then the
initial rumbling of disagreement can grow into a tidal wave of opposition. Even
those who are sympathetic to this line of reasoning begin to express doubts about
excessive or simplistic reductionism and physicalism.
On the other hand, physicists of the grand tradition, fromArchimedes to Wein-
berg [220] have always accepted such a process. Biologists like Edward Wilson
(II-[104]), or Neuroscientists like Eric Kandel have found this reductionist ap-
proach to be the most fruitful (II-[51]).
A primary objective of reduction is to ultimately achieve the construc-
tion [7] or synthesis, once the parts and the whole are understood. Some
anti-reductionists may insist that there is meaning and purpose teleology
in everything. Any such subtle features are allegedly lost in the reductive process,
just as the aroma in the wine gets lost when the components are taken apart. The
mild anti-reductionist will claim that the whole is more than its parts. S/he will
tell you that the water molecule, i.e., H
2
O, is not just two atoms of hydrogen and
one atom of oxygen. Water has new properties not found in the components.
Philosophers of all ages and in all cultures have claimed that there are emer-
gent properties, which make the whole more complex than the parts. Even the
Logical Empiricists who began with a clear-cut program of analytic sentences
and synthetic sentences, within a reductionist approach to language and logic,
ended up with, e.g., the out-and-out Holism of Willard Quine [177]. He claimed
that one needs to face the tribunal of sense experience as a corporate body.
If philosophers think that elements of language or sense-experiences need to
be treated holistically, then more traditional personal entities like consciousness,
qualia etc., would be claimed to be even more beyond reductionism. The appeal
to holism is not at all new, and goes back to antiquity.
The author of the Suthra-kritange, a Sanskrit text going back to Upanishadic times, perhaps ve
or six centuries before Christ, explains consciousness as an emergent property which manifests itself
when the elements come together in the body, like the intoxicating power when the ingredients are
mixed [116].
An alternative view is that the whole is never more than its parts inclusive of
the interactions and boundary conditions dening the system! Given the parts,
the actual physical realization of the whole is the bottom-up process of building a
complex system. This is usually a selective unication of one possible combina-
tion of the parts, assuming that we even know how to enumerate the component
parts. In fact, when we study the quantum theory of entangled systems, we learn
that knowledge of a part can dictate the very nature of the whole, and vice versa. In
effect, given the interdependence of the components and the whole implied by
reductionists and anti-reductionists alike, it should not matter what picture we use
unless the specication is incomplete! In our view, the error of much past think-
ing lies in how the parts (which make up the whole) are counted and boundary
conditions are listed. Can we even list the components?
If we consider H
2
O, it obviously has H, O, and H atoms, further specied
as nuclei and electrons. We need not go beyond that level of reduction if the en-
ergy range is specied to be those of molecules. What is often forgotten is that
there are interacting elds among these particles, as well as boundary conditions
dening the extent of the system. Bohmian mechanics or density functional theory
incorporate these in the quantum potentials, Kohn-Sham potentials etc., acting
on the particles. Interactions are mediated by eld particles which are, in this
case, Coulomb interactions (mediated by longitudinal photons). It is only when
these are included with the atoms that all the parts of the initial system could be
considered to have been counted if they could even be counted! Even then the
story is not complete. The specication of the parts has to include a description
of the initial state of the component parts. The water molecules, i.e., the whole,
are a specic selection from the many possibilities that one may construct from
the initial parts (other possibilities are, e.g., an ionized plasma, a metastable H
+
,
OH
system, etc., depending on the total energy). All the properties of the water
molecule can be predicted to the precision needed in chemistry or physics, and
both the reduction process, as well as the reassembly process can be executed
within quantum chemistry, up to the required level of molecular complexity.
However, is there a non-physics approach with better predictive power? Even
if some properties of water are deemed emergent, they are fully accounted for
in every detail. What about the wetness of water? This is a property of the joint
system consisting of the sample of water and the observers tactile organs taken
together. Can we then extend this reasoning to cover the observer? What about
properties like consciousness, thought, volition and life itself? Already in 1890
Thomas Huxley [112] asked the same questions and gave the correct answers:
When hydrogen and oxygen are mixed in a certain proportion, and an electric spark is passed
through them, they disappear and a quantity of water . . . appears in their place. . . . we do not hesitate
to believe that . . . (the properties of water) result from the properties of the component elements of the
water. We do not assume that a something called aqueosity entered into . . . the oxide of hydrogen . . .
On the contrary, we live with the hope that . . . we shall by and by be able to see our way clearly from
the constituents of water to the properties of water., as we are now able to deduce the operations of a
watch from its parts and the manner . . . they are put together. Is the case in any way changed when
carbonic acid, water and ammonium disappear, and in their place, under the inuence of a pre-existing
living protoplasm, an equivalent weight of the matter of life makes its appearance? . . . What better . . .
status has vitality than aqueosity? . . .
It is precisely this determinism of all properties, vis vitalis or not, that is
thought to be implicit in this reductionist scheme that many dislike. If physics
is to govern everything, and if we can predict everything with machine preci-
sion, are we all clock-work mechanisms contained in a universe, which is it-
self dictated by the same set of unrelenting physical laws? Are we claiming that
the physics of the Big bang completely determined the actions of hijackers who
rammed a jet plane into the World Trade Center on 9/11? Is there, in effect no fun-
damental difference between an intelligent human being, a brainwashed human
being, and a properly programmed supercomputer?
The aversion to a complete laws-of-physics description (LPD) of the phys-
ical, biological and human realms arises not only in the context of human de-
terminism and free will, but already in the application of LPD to organic, living,
conscious creatures and personal pets. We hope to show that the possibilities con-
tained in the laws of physics stretch beyond our best imagination. It turns out that
the properties of any real system have indeterminacies built into them, whatever
the length scale or time scale, be it in the quantum limit or in the classical limit.
This does not essentially depend on Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, quantum
measurement theory, chaos theory and so forth, although all these contribute to
the escape from rigid physical determinism at each length scale. In our view,
rigid determinism is a special property of nite few-particle dynamical systems.
The many-body problem of the real world has just the richness and complexity we
need to resolve this issue (e.g., see Ch. 8 or Ch. 14).
Let us now return to the great program of reductionism initiated by the an-
cients. The Greek atomists had already understood the importance of move-
ment and reached a reductionist, if poetic, world view which may have achieved
dominance if not for the rise of Christianity wrapped in Aristotelianism. When
Galileo published his Discourse on Two NewSciences [78] in 1638, after his earlier
work on Two world systems, he returned to the study of motion within a conceptual
framework rooted in the tradition of Democritus, Aristarchus and Archimedes. In
contrast, the Aristotelian approach was to assimilate inanimate motion into those
of living things having an end purpose, a teleology. Thus the application of a re-
ductionist programfor physics, initiated by Galileo in the 17th century was indeed
the resurrection of a bold step.
William Harvey, a graduate of the University of Padua in 1602, worked in
England on the circulation of blood and cleared up much metaphysics in his work
De Motu Cordis. In this he resorted to studies on animals, snails and even sh,
implicitly granting the unity of the tree of life. A more extreme step would be
to reduce the physiology of the brain to a science which is not based on a doctrine
of the soul. In 1664 Thomas Willis [229] published his Anatomy of the Brain, and
followed it up with Cerebral Pathology and Two Discourses Concerning the Soul
of Brutes, where he discussed psychological disorders. Unlike Galileos celebrated
work, well enshrined in subsequent philosophical and scientic thought, Williss
work is not well known outside the scientic community. Nevertheless, modern-
day attempts to describe human consciousness, brain function and physiology in
chemical terms have to be viewed as a continuation of the reductionist program
of Willis, an associate of Robert Boyle who was also at Oxford.
1.5 Evolution, and human questions
In this section we glance at a number of topics that begin in biology and fall within
several humanistic disciplines. They achieve a consilience within the Darwinian
evolutionary picture. This Darwinian picture is not universally appreciated, and
hence we review it briey, noting that some of the salient topics would be taken
up again in Part-II of the book.
1.5.1 Evolution as a physical process
Darwins principle of natural selection [53] is usually viewed as an additional
non-physics principle, which is needed to describe the evolution of complex
systems (see, discussions in, e.g., Dennett [55]). It is the great unifying principle
of the life sciences. However, the usual statements of the principle of natural
selection appear subjective, creating intense debate even among Darwinists.
What is natural selection? Pittendrigh calls it Darwins demon [164]. The
critique of hard adaptationist Darwinism by Gould and Lewontin in their well
known Spandrels of St. Marco article [90], and the opposing points of view ex-
pressed by Dawkins [54], Dennett [55] and others serve to illustrate the problem
of pinning down what natural selection is about. In effect, if natural selection
is summarized by, for example, the survival of the ttest dictum, we cannot de-
ne the ttest as those animals that survive. In effect, as Ernst Mayr [140] had
noted, many adaptationist discussions can sound like glib historical narratives,
just-so stories, or Freudian accounts of dream interpretation. Sometimes it may
be written in the fancier jargon of tness landscapes and other elaborations. This
emphasizes the need for a better analytical and physical discussion. In fact, some
researchers like Stuart Kauffman have looked for ways of rephrasing Darwinian
evolution in terms of self-organization and off-equilibrium dynamics [120].
It is quite likely that the principle of natural selection can be economically
and usefully expressed in terms of other fundamental variational principles, which
apply to all physical systems. The principle that the whole system evolves towards
a state of lower free energy includes the possibility that some parts of the system
decrease their entropy while other parts increase much more. When a system is
driven, we have the principle that all processes occur so as to minimize the amount
of action consistent with the applied set of constraints and energy inputs. This is
the principle of least action. The evolutionary process may be viewed as a Monte-
Carlo type simulation of a system of movers in a landscape, and held at some
temperature and other environmental parameters that change slowly. Here the ac-
tion principle comes in via a move-selection scheme, as in Verlets algorithm or
that of Metropolis and Teller (see Sec. 2.4.7) [145]. In fact, modern quantitative
biology has already adopted many of these ideas from condensed-matter simula-
tions into the domain of soft condensed matter and biology. Within such simula-
tions of driven systems, it is possible to show that complex organisms evolve from
random initial states, as proposed in Darwinian evolution.
A crystal formation is an organized complex, but it is an equilibrium struc-
ture. Its capacity to replicate is instructive but uninteresting. The various possible
crystal phases are described by the phase diagram of the material. This phase di-
agram becomes extremely rich and complex when we consider non-equilibrium
situations and multi-component dissipative phases. Living organisms belong to
this extended, dissipative part of the non-equilibrium phase diagram. A soap
bubble is a rather simple non-equilibrium dissipative system which is in quasi-
equilibrium for the short life-time t
b
of the bubble. It forms using the energy
of the air-water interface; it lasts for t
b
seconds and then decays as the ambi-
ent parameters change to a non-equilibrium regime. Living organisms are such
dissipative systems, though more complex and also adaptive. They too obey vari-
ational principles giving a direction to the process of evolution. This gets us out
of the paradox where evolution is generally thought of as a completely unguided,
blind process, while optimizing the tness of whatever is evolving. We may
even picture the unfolding of the universe from the big bang as a Cosmic Simula-
tion guided by a weight function which does the appropriate natural selection at
each step. The weight function ensures that an effective free energy and an effec-
tive action are minimized, subject to various boundary conditions. Adaptation
is the biologists term for what the physicist calls the response of the system to
the external perturbation; this response provides the accommodation of the vari-
ational principles within the energy and time scales of the problem. Furthermore,
the stability of certain evolutionary species for certain lengths of time requires the
concurrence of a suitable set of time scales (damping times) in the characteristsics
(normal modes) of the total system, as discussed in Sec. 2.3.6.
Looking at evolution in this way helps to explain why nature seems to be
so wasteful. Why does nature have to sow millions of seed to germinate only a
few grains? Why produce millions of sperm only to hatch a few Salmon, or churn
out millions of galaxies and stars for no apparent purpose? They are all necessary
congurations required to evolve towards the answer in a giant simulation. In
fact, the bigger the number of congurations sampled, the more accurate is the
answer, in the sense of better satisfying variational principles!
1.5.2 Existential and social questions
This brings us to existentialist questions that we deal with in the last chapter of the
book. Why are we here, what is our purpose and destiny etc.? One might even dis-
miss such questions as meaningless, following the modern positivists or the early
Buddhists of the 6th century B.C. According to H. H. Price [173], we have to
reach Cambridge of the 1920s with its positivist philosophers to encounter such a
point of view. Positivists dismiss experimentally untestable questions as meaning-
less just as questions about the sex of the triangle ABC have no meaning,
even though syntactically correct. However, unlike in ancient times, many ques-
tions about our cosmological origins, consciousness and future destiny can be
examined within the laws of physics.
We mention the early Buddhists or Gnostics to emphasize that human destiny,
morality, human suffering and salvation are traditionally the terrain of religious
and philosophical thought. While many science-oriented readers may dismiss such
religious and philosophical thought as antiquated, their enormous cultural pres-
ence cannot be ignored. They are an empirical social fact. In every civilization, be
it Chinese, Indian, or European, there were thinkers who were primarily scientic,
and others who were primarily religious. A gure like Plato straddled both camps,
and owed much to the religion of Bacchus and the tradition of Orpheus. Plato was
the source of later developments that came to be embodied in Christian theology.
Hence we have not hesitated to reach into the insights and points of view that may
come from such sources.
Hellanic rationalism and Christian mysticism could be reconciled in the idea
that the world is a product of intelligent design. William Paley [153], writing in
1802, was one of the clear proponents of intelligent design (ID). Paley discussed
ordinary mechanical clocks that are utterly simple in comparison to those pro-
duced by the evolutionary process. In Paleys Natural Theology: Or Evidence of
the Existence and Attributes of the Deity he argued that the elaborate complexity
of nature is clear evidence for an intelligent creator. Darwin tacitly accepted this
point of view before he set off on the voyage of discovery on the Beagle. Paley,
in the introduction to his book brought up the analogy of the watch. Suppose one
happened to nd a watch on the ground. Would not its intricate mechanism imply
that the watch must have had a maker . . . who comprehends its construction, and
designed its use? The intricate working of the natural world was vastly more im-
pressive than any watch. Paley could not see it to be anything but the product of
a supernatural being acting with conscious intent. This is the argument based on
Intelligent Design that has been resurrected in more recent times by the religious
apologists. It has been embellished with new clothing by creationists as a counter
to the teaching of evolution in American schools [20]. However, it should be re-
marked that Intelligent Design and natural theology were a great advance over
the thinking based on purely capricious divine wrath that preceded them. Even
mountain formations were regarded as punishment dealt to earth by a creator who
was angered by the misbehavior of the humans he had created. It was Sir Charles
Lyell, the geologist who preceded Charles Darwin, who reformed such medieval
beliefs to conform to the concept of a rational creator.
William Paley did not know about circadian clocks that are products of evolution and well suited
to the needs of living systems. Circadian clocks are the biological time keepers of metabolic and be-
havioral activity which relate to the cycle of day and night, seasons [164] and latitude. They are tem-
perature compensated biological clocks found in mammals, ies, plants fungi and even cyano-bacterial
colonies! These clocks depend on bio-chemical feedback loops associated with cellular transcription
regulators. Every protein activity seen in the feedback loops used in the fruit y is also present in the
mammalian clocks [51], testifying to their evolutionary kinship. The daily ux of photons, made up of
visible light as well as infra-red heat provided an additional window for organisms that learned to time
their chemical activity in an advantageous manner, by evolving an internal clock.
A modern form of Intelligent Design contends that the universe exists for
producing the Human species, and that there are strong signatures of this revealed
in otherwise unexplainable coincidences in physical theory. Brandon Carter in
1974 [43] called this the Anthropic principle, a type of argument for design [15].
In essence, this is a theory without predictive power, but has a capacity to say all
this is too much of a coincidence, it must have been designed to be so. If the
electron did not have a spin, the periodic table of elements would not be as we
know it, ergo, there would not be any carbon, and carbon-based covalent bonds
are not possible, and we wouldnt be here. If carbon did not have a nuclear energy
state at about 7 MeV, then Carbon would not have been produced in the stellar nu-
clear reactions that produce solar energy. Then there would be no carbon ergo,
we wouldnt be here. All these surely indicate that the great designer thought of us
and made sure that electrons are half-spin particles, and arranged that carbon had
the right energy states! This type of argument is a modern version of Rev. William
Paleys old arguments (1802) about the marvelous mechanism of nature. The cre-
ationists [192, 76] seek to nd unexplainable, awe-inspiring mysteries in a world
where Man is the central fact. They unfortunately ignore the vast amount of Dark
Energy and Dark Matter that seem to be irrelevant to the anthropic principle.
Weinberg [218] has proposed a simple possibility where theology has been
replaced by the usual picture of the uneconomical working of Nature that sows
millions of seeds to sprout a few progeny. Our part of the universe is regarded as a
tiny speck in a super-universe containing all possible types of universes. Life as we
know it appears in some rare parts of the super-universe where the cosmological
constant and all other physical parameters are in the right range. We happen to be
in it and the anthropic principle becomes an empty statement.
Is there a concept of good and bad in the Universe? Clearly, nature stated
in physics terms is value neutral, as further discussed in Sec. 2.1.1. This point of
view is, however, not universal, even among physicists.
Christian rationalists, Buddhist or Jain epistemologists started from very dif-
ferent assumptions. Early Buddhists claimed that the external world is a sequence
of mental and physical events (Nama, Rupa) concatenated by laws of causation.
Cosmological or mind-body questions were deemed metaphysical, and such in-
quiry was discouraged (see Sec. 2.1). However, they postulated transcendental
laws that were distinct from physical law. One such transcendental law admitted
by these ancient thinkers was a moral law, based on fate, or the more complex
concept of Karma. Fate was also a fundamental tenet of Greek belief. Similarly,
the rational theologies of Judeo-Christian traditions also invoke a moral law, al-
though founded in an act of mystic faith owing from a personally addressable
God, some sacricial act or eschatological event. However, in traditional Chris-
tianity, every one, even a new-born infant, is considered wicked. Individuals are
elected to the city of God only by the grace of God not because they lead a
good and virtuous life. Anthony Burgesss novel A clockwork Orange and Stan-
ley Kubricks lm feature the errant adolescent Alex; they explore the conicting
views of Saint Augustine and Pelagus on the notion of Original Sin and the free-
dom to chose good or evil [159]. The view that living virtuously by our own moral
choice would get us to heaven is known as the Pelagian heresy. The Council of
Orange and other subsequent authorities crushed this heresy.
In modern times, the noted cosmologist George Ellis has written On the moral
nature of the Universe [151]. Similarly, various dialectical types of reasoning,
be they in the hands of Hegelians, materialists or humanist thinkers, sometimes
imply an agenda based on moral objectives. Unfortunately, there does not seem
to be any justication by way of physical law, or empirical evidence, for any such
moral laws or punitive fate permeating the processes that occur in our world.
In fact, the pain, misery and patent injustice (evil) prevalent in the world could
equally well be used as a basis for a belief in a malevolent creator. This point of
view, held by the adherents of Catharism, and persecuted by the Inquisition as a
heresy, has found a modern idiom in popular movies like the Matrix, where the
world is just a dream sequence controlled by an evil computer.
1.5.3 Exorcising the soul and inducting new notions
We noted howsome physicists, intrigued by the enormous number of steps needed
to create life from the basic particles, and the low probability of many such steps,
gave up the intellectual endeavor in favour of a quick solution. This is couched in
anthropic principles and metaphysical explanations. The soul is of course the
most famous example of giving a distinctive spiritual character to matter. The
Sanskrit word jeeva (life spirit) was probably the etymological source of Eve,
while om, or athman (soul) in Sanskrit, may have been the progenitor of the name
Adam. It has survived in modern German as atmen (breath).
During Buddhist times (6th century BCE), Indian materialists (Lokayathas) like Payasi had
actually attempted to detect the existence of a soul by weighing a man immediately before and after
his death. Confusingly, the corpse could be heavier than the living body!
While the idea of a persisting soul was fundamental to Hebrew, Hindu and
Orphic belief systems, some ancient thinkers like Confucius had no use for the
concept of a soul. The Buddhists (and some Jains) had developed detailed theo-
ries of the world as being made up of impermanent streams of mental and physical
events, or n ama and roopa. The Buddha in the 6th century BCE explicitly rejected
the doctrine of an enduring soul (aathma), and proposed the doctrine of anatta or
anathma, i.e., non existence of an enduring soul or self. Nevertheless, most In-
dian thinkers re-introduced a consciousness which goes from one life to another
in a cycle of rebirths, although ever changing, and also carrying long individual-
ized concatenations of Karma. Remarkably, most thinkers, be they of the East
or West, have ignored the dual parentage of every child, merging two identities
of mother and father in the off-spring. Interestingly, there has been no religious
teaching where the childs soul is proposed to be a hybrid of those of the two
parents.
This old battle regarding the soul could be the new frontier of contention be-
tween science and religion in the 21st century, just as geocentrism was to the
renaissance, and Darwinian evolution was to the 19th and 20th centuries. As neu-
roscience advances, comprehending human personality falls within the realm of
physics and chemistry. The ghost in the machine of Gilbert Ryle [185] is found
to be analyzable and explainable in terms of brain function. This rst became clear
in the eld of motor control of perception [118]; but today, brain processes con-
trolling personality are regarded as cardinal aspects of personhood. So then, why
do we need a ghost in the machine at all? Although such views have been very
common among scientists, it is also gaining ground among philosophers who have
begun to look at consciousness in tandem with experimental research [146].
Does that mean that there is no identity of a person? The rst property that
denes the identity of a person is the encoding of information in his/her DNA
genomics. This is complemented by a knowledge of folded protein-structure,
cells, neurons and the map of acquired traits whose physio-chemical description
is the work of current research in neuroscience. The effective length of the DNA
in terms of its binary bit length (see Secs. 2.3.5, 12.6.2) is a rough measure of
the complexity of a living organism viewed as a complex adaptive system. The
DNA determines the proteins and they in turn form the organism. However, the
detailed three-dimensional structure of a protein (the conformation) is subject to
the ambient force elds. Given that we are currently unable to even specify the full
conformational details of a single protein molecule at room temperature, we are
clearly unable to predict its time evolution at the level of detailed conformations.
We will never be able to produce two identical brains!
This inability to synthesize or predict is not a refutation of the physical model,
but an afrmation of the physics of complex systems and chaotic dynamics that
applies under suitable circumstances even to hard-sphere billiard balls (see
Sec. 8.6)! Thus new notions, coming from information science and the theory of
complex systems may provide scientically sound alternatives to old metaphysical
concepts, and also dene the limits to our knowledge.

Physics of The Mind 8594 - Chap01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physics of The Mind 8594 - Chap01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

February 28, 2013 10:13 World Scientic Book - 9in x 6in bk

C is in the 25 meV. range. This

You might also like