Beyond Space and Time: Quantum Superposition as a Real-Mental State About Choices

Abstract

This contribution aims to honour Guido Barbiellini’s profound interest in the interpretation and impact of quantum mechanics by examining the implications of the so-called before–before Experiment on quantum entanglement. This experiment was inspired by talks and discussions with John Bell at CERN. This was during the years when John and Guido co-worked, promoting the mission of the laboratory: “to advance the boundaries of human knowledge”. As the experiment uses measuring devices in motion, it can be considered a complement to entanglement experiments using stationary measuring devices, which have meanwhile been awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. The before–before Experiment supports the idea that the quantum realm exists beyond space and time and that the quantum state is a real mental entity concerning choices. As it also leads us to a better understanding of the ‘quantum collapse’ and the measurement process, we pay homage to Guido’s work on detectors, such as his collaborations on the DELPHI experiment at CERN, on cosmic ray detection at the International Space Station, and gamma-ray astrophysics during a large NASA space mission.

1. Introduction

This contribution to the Special Issue is intended as a tribute to Guido Barbiellini’s passion for physics and his profound interest on the interpretation and implications of quantum mechanics. This will be achieved by discussing two fundamental quantum paradoxes: entanglement and measurement.

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John F. Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger for experiments with entangled photons and violations of Bell’s inequalities. This prize recognizes a century of work on quantum entanglement involving many scientists, and is now leading to powerful technologies. As the official prize announcement acknowledges, the keystone of this work is the inequality discovered by John Bell in 1964–1965, which states that quantum mechanics implies violations of such inequalities [1].

A significant part of Guido’s scientific endeavor focused on detection and was thus related to another major quantum paradox: the collapse of the wavefunction involved in measurement. He collaborated on the DELPHI project at CERN, on the detection of cosmic rays at the International Space Station, and on a major NASA space mission focused on gamma-ray astrophysics [2].

Thus, John Bell and Guido Barbiellini shared several years at CERN, contributing in different ways “to advance the boundaries of human knowledge”, the main mission of this renowned laboratory [3].

2. Quantum Entanglement and Nonlocality

In the years 1988–1990, I came to meet John Bell at CERN, and together, we organized several talks on the foundations of quantum physics. This collaboration led to the before–before experiment on entanglement, which has a number of interesting implications that I will present in this article.

In a recent essay, I have seemingly succeeded (the reactions show) in explaining the fascinating feature of quantum entanglement in a generally understandable way [4], so I borrow the following from this essay.

We all have daily experience of remote control using radio signals: If I enter in my iPhone the number of your mobile hundreds or thousands of kilometers away, your mobile will ring, though not immediately, but some milliseconds later. Communication using radio signals takes time: several seconds to reach the Moon and several minutes to reach Mars. I cannot guide the Perseverance Rover on Mars faster than light!

In a typical entanglement experiment, a laser source S emits pairs of photons: one of the photons is guided by a glass fiber to Alice’s lab, and the other photon is guided by a glass fiber in the opposite direction to Bob’s lab.

In Alice’s lab, the photon crosses a choice device (let us call it ACD), usually a beam-splitter or a polarizer, with two output ports, one watched by Detector A(1) and the other by Detector A(0). By leaving ACD, a choice happens: The photon is counted either by A(1), and we register the outcome as result ‘1’, or by A(0), and we register the outcome as ‘0’. Similarly, on the side of Bob, we have a BCD, with detectors B(1) and B(0) and corresponding outcomes ‘1’ and ‘0’. Things happen as if Alice and Bob were tossing corresponding fair coins in their labs, noting ‘1’ when they get ‘Tails’ and ‘0’ when they get ‘Heads’.

The distance between S and ACD is set equal to the distance between S and BCD, to a precision of some micrometers, so that we can be sure that there is no coordination through radio signals between ACD and BCD at the moment the detectors count the photons and the results become registered: it is as if Alice was observing the result on Earth, and Bob on Mars.

After many runs, Alice has a long sequence of results like this:

1,0,0,1,0,1,11,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,1,1, …

She analyzes the sequence and observes 50% ‘1’ and 50% ‘0’, with no particular pattern. She concludes that her apparatus behaves like a good random number generator: randomness occurs in Alice’s lab.

Same thing for Bob. Randomness occurs in Bob’s lab.

Since there is no communication by radio signals between the two labs at the moment the results happen, one should expect that 50% of the time Alice and Bob get the same result, and 50% of the time, they get different results.

Suppose now that Alice and Bob come together and compare their results, and to their great surprise, they realize that in each run, they get the same result: If Alice registered ‘1’, Bob registered ‘1’; if Alice registered ‘0’, Bob registered ‘0’.

Is such a thing possible?

YES! This is quantum entanglement, and it has been demonstrated in hundreds of experiments.

Einstein considered “quantum entanglement” as a sort of “spooky action at a distance” that “cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space”, specifically the idea that the signals causing such correlated events should not propagate faster than light. Together with Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, Einstein wrote the famous EPR paper in 1935, arguing that quantum mechanics is incomplete and proposing the explanation that the entangled particles behave the same way because they are emitted from the source like genetic twins who carry “genetic programs” (“hidden variables”): These hidden programs cause the particles to react the same way when they meet similar environments far away of each other [4].

3. Experiments with Measuring Devices at Rest

The EPR paper of 1935 did provoke a big controversy that lasted for decades as a rather philosophical discussion that was unable to be experimentally settled. In 1964, John Stewart Bell discovered a mathematical property, the so-called “Bell’s inequalities” mentioned in the Nobel Prize announcement, that allows us to decide by means of an experiment between Einstein’s explanation and quantum mechanics. The discovery was published in 1964 and establishes that Einstein’s assumption of hidden variables leads to a quantity S such that the following inequality is fulfilled:

$$-2\le S\le 2, \mathrm{o}\mathrm{r} \left|S\right|\le 2$$

By contrast, quantum mechanics predicts in some cases that

$$S=2\sqrt{2}>2$$

This violates Bell’s inequality.

Since then, many experiments have been carried out, ruling out Einstein’s explanation by “hidden variables” or programs and confirming that quantum entanglement is a real thing. This means that there are correlated events at a distance such that any coordination through radio signals (upper bound by the velocity of light) is excluded. Among these experiments are those awarded the Nobel Prize in 2022.

4. The before–before Experiment with Moving Measurement Devices

However, these experiments use choice devices at rest and did not rule out the explanation that one of the results, say Alice’s, can be considered the cause (before in time) and the other the effect (after in time). To rule this possibility out, it is necessary to set the devices ACD and BCD in motion to create a relativistic configuration where the choice of the result in Alice’s lab happens before the choice of the result in Bob’s lab and the choice in Bob’s lab happens before the choice in Alice’s lab.

With such a relativistic time order, Alice’s result cannot take Bob’s result into account, and Bob’s result cannot take Alice’s result into account: consequently, the correlation between Alice’s and Bob’s results should disappear.

As the theory involves two different simultaneity lines, it was referred to as Multisimultaneity. And the experiment was called the before–before Experiment. Since it uses moving measurement devices, it can be considered a completion of the conventional experiments with devices at rest.

The inspiration for this experiment came to me during a colloquium I organized with John Bell on 22nd January 1990, at the CERN in Geneva, to discuss the philosophical implications of his discovery [5]. Some months later, a similar colloquium could be repeated in Cologne (Germany), and this time among the speakers was not only John Bell but also Anton Zeilinger, one of the three winners of the Nobel Prize 2022 [6]. The discussions with both John and Anton strengthened my interest in the experiment.

In the following years, I became friends with Marcel Odier, a private banker of Geneva, who was enthusiastic about the experiment and ready to sponsor it. Sadly, John Bell died on 1 October 1990. So Marcel and I travelled several times to Innsbruck to visit Anton Zeilinger and had helpful discussions with him. In an email of 26 July 1995, Anton wrote to me: “Many thanks for your e-mail. It shows me once more that it is really important to arrange the experiment such that all possible time sequences are being tested. Actually, I like the fact that your idea is the first nonlocal proposal of which I know which would violate quantum mechanics.”

In 1997, I could publish the experiment together with Valerio Scarani [7] and could eventually realize it in 2001 together with Nicolas Gisin, André Stefanov, and Hugo Zbinden at the Lab of Quantum Optics of the University of Geneva [8,9].

The condition for before–before timing is given by the following equation:

$$∆t\le {\displaystyle \frac{vL}{c^2}}$$

where $∆t$ is the time difference in the laboratory frame between the choice at ACD on Alice’s part and the choice at BCD on Bob’s part;$v$ is the velocity of the choice devices ACD and BCD; $L$ is the distance between ACD and BCD; c is the speed of light [6].

As the choice devices are in motion, we used acoustic waves generated in acous-to-optic modulators. These waves act as beam splitters moving at a velocity of 2500 m/s [10]. The optic fibers leading the photons from the source to ACD and BCD can be aligned to ensure $∆t=1.5 \mathrm{p}\mathrm{s}$. Thus, we could ensure a before–before condition with a distance between the two choice devices of $L=55 \mathrm{m}$ [7,8].

On 2 July 2001, the definitive experimental results demonstrated that the quantum correlations do not disappear [7,8] and therefore ruled out an explanation by “causality in time”, i.e., the view that there is a cause–effect relationship between the correlated events.

5. Beyond Space and Time

This has important implications for our understanding of space and time.

On Monday, 2 July 2001, after receiving information from André Stefanov that the before–before experiment upheld quantum mechanics, I wrote to Nicolas Gisin and Marcel Odier at 11:28 AM:

“Multisimultaneity was, without my being aware of it until last Tuesday [26 June 2001], yet another attempt to link causality to time. Well, our experience seems to indicate that this will be the last attempt, and I can only rejoice. The merit of Multisimultaneity will have been to show that there is a quantum causality that is non-local and independent of time. The scientific revolution [the falsification of quantum mechanics] we were hoping for will not take place, but I have the impression that we have just completed the philosophical revolution initiated by John Bell.”

Indeed, the correlated distant events build a single nonlocal effect that pops up (materializing) in space–time, but without a causal chain propagating in the space–time: The cause is beyond space and time. In other words, not all that matters for physical phenomena is contained in space and time: “Quantum correlations seem to come from outside the space-time” (Nicolas Gisin, 2012) [11]; “Space and Time are secondary constructions” (Anton Zeilinger, 2024) [12] (time 11:32).

The visible world where we live and move cannot be explained alone through visible, material, and causal chains in space–time. We cannot help acknowledging invisible causes acting from outside space–time. “Correlations cry out for explanation!”, John Bell claimed. The entanglement experiments are undoubtedly stimulating our imagination and creativity in the search for explaining what kind of beings these invisible causes are.

6. Quantum Superposition: A Real-Mental State About Choices

In the following, we advocate the view that quantum superposition represents a real-mental state, that is, the state of some mind other than our minds, and in this sense, it can be considered real, i.e., it is more than a mere lack of knowledge on our part about physical reality:

In a quantum experiment, one can distinguish the following main ingredients:

-

The agent who can freely choose the settings of the apparatus defining the particular experiment to perform. In entanglement experiments, the number of agents can be two or more.

-

The outcomes or results: In the simplest case with two detectors (Hilbert space of dimension 2), there are two possible alternative outcomes, say either 1 or 0, depending on which of the two detectors clicks. In entanglement experiments with two agents/parties, such as Alice and Bob and two pairs of detectors A(1), A(0) and B(1), B(0), one has four possible outcomes (11, 10, 01, 00) (Hilbert Space of dimension 4). And in entanglement experiments with n agents/parties, there are $2^n$. possible outcomes (Hilbert space of dimension $2^n$).

-

The observer who perceives the result, who can be the agent or another.

The experiment is defined by the choices of the apparatus’ settings that the agent(s) make.

The outcomes of a particular experiment are always classically defined: they refer to marks we can perceive, counts we can register, clicks we can hear, or traces we can observe.

The quantum state refers to the superposition of the possible alternative outcomes of a particular experiment. In the simplest case, it is represented as follows:

$$|\psi \rangle =a|1\rangle +b|0\rangle$$

where 1 and 0 refer to the alternative possible results, and ${\left|a\right|}^2$ and ${\left|b\right|}^2$ are the probabilities for each of these results, according to Born’s rule.

Consider now the multiple occasions where we humans decide something: the choice of a pizza or a gelato at a restaurant, the election of the President of the US, or the Pope in the Catholic Church:

Before the decision, the mind of each elector is in a state of superposition of the different types of pizza or gelato the restaurant offers, the candidates running for the presidency, or the eligible cardinals. By deciding, the mind of the elector jumps to realize one of the possible outcomes.

Once the decisions happen, it can take a moment until it is certified and generally published. During this time, the minds of those awaiting to know the result of the decision are also in a state of superposition deriving from a lack of knowledge. This is particularly clear in the case of the crowd awaiting in St. Peter’s Square to hear the name of the new Pope.

My position is that the quantum state of superposition before the experiment yields a result is rather like the state of mind of an elector before making a decision and not merely like the state of mind of a spectator awaiting to know the result of the election. That is, quantum superposition refers to an election some mind partakes in beyond space and time, between different classical possibilities in space and time; the wave function does not reflect merely lack of knowledge, it is something real, although not in space and time. At the moment of measurement t, a visible result appears and becomes indelibly registered, materializing in space and time, so that it is the same for any possible observer. At the moment of measurement, a single act of creation happens, and an event embedded in space and time appears [13].

In the following, we provide references that support this interpretation.

6.1. The “Free-Will Theorem” and the “Relational Interpretation”

The “Free-Will Theorem” was established by John Conway and Simon Kochen in 2006 and states that, in an entanglement experiment, the “particles” produce their responses (e.g., 1 and 0) as freely as the experimenters Alice and Bob choose their settings (e.g., a and b) [14].

The theorem essentially states that quantum superposition is a state similar to the state of the minds of Alice and Bob before they decide on the settings of their apparatuses: that is, the experiment they intend to conduct.

The “Relational Interpretation” leads us to a similar conclusion. Carlo Rovelli claims the following:

“The QBism version of the [relational] interpretation restricts its attention to observing systems that are rational agents: they can use observations and make probabilistic predictions about the future. […] The relational interpretation proper does not accept this restriction: it considers the information that any system can have about any other system.” [15].

There is another way to avoid “restricting the attention to observing systems that are rational agents”: to assume that all systems in the quantum description are “rational agents”, with some being visible while others are not. The very idea of relation as “exchange of information between systems” suggests that the systems involved are “rational agents”, and “the relational interpretation” is an “intersubjectivity interpretation”.

The space–time reality consists of the exchange of decisions between visible and invisible agents in the different experimental contexts. Without decisions, there is no time!

6.2. Quantum Contextuality and All Possible Experiments

Bell’s theorem highlights nonlocality as a main quantum feature. Similarly, Kochen & Specker’s theorem highlights the feature of contextuality. The theorem was proven by Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker in 1967 and rules out the assumption that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum mechanical observables have definite values at any given time and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them [16].

In other words, for any possible experiment the agent or agents decide to perform, the values of the hidden variables determining the outcomes depend on the settings. Consequently, the quantum realm consists of a huge catalogue of probabilities for the outcomes of all possible experiments humans can perform; this huge catalogue is contained in supercomputing minds beyond space and time. One can also say that the outcomes of any experiment we may decide to carry out exist in these minds as potential results and become actualized or realized in space and time at the moment we perform a particular experiment.

The physical reality consists, at the end of the day, of all the possible experiments we humans can perform. There is a nice anecdote that illustrates this issue very well: One day, John A. Wheeler was asked by the Reverend Richard Elvee: “But if the universe only starts with our observations, is then the Big Bang here?” To this question Wheeler answered: “A lovely way to put it -‘Is the big bang here?’ I can imagine that we will someday have to answer your question with a ‘yes.’” [17] (p. 6, note 5). What happened at the Big Bang does exist in relation to the observations we decide to perform today, hic et nunc: Without “human free choices”, there is no physical reality! The quantum state is a real-mental state about choices on the part of the experimenter and choices on the part of “nature”.

6.3. Many Worlds as a Parable of “Divine Omniscience”

Many worlds is a formulation of quantum mechanics, assuming that all possible outcomes of a given experiment happen in parallel worlds.

On the other hand, Ernst Specker, in his work on quantum contextuality, was inspired by the theological problem of whether “the divine omniscience” is compatible with human free will. He explains this inspiration in his 1960 article [18].

Quantum contextuality suggests reformulating “Many worlds” the following way: All possible experiments human beings are allowed to do, and the corresponding outcomes, coexist in an “omniscient mind,” defining the realm of all possible worlds. In performing a particular experiment, a human agent freely decides which of these possible worlds he wants to realize and live in.

Andreas Albrecht summarizes this reformulation as follows: “Suarez …found a new way to fit a deity into the picture, by identifying the ‘many worlds’ proposed by US physicist Hugh Everett with thoughts in the ‘mind of God.’” [19].

The reformulation of “Many Worlds” that I propose is supported by David Deutsch when he states the following: “Certainly we find ourselves unavoidably playing a role at the deepest level of the structure of physical reality.” [20].

In the light of quantum contextuality, “Many worlds” appears as a hidden parable of “divine omniscience”.

6.4. Quantum Angels

In the closing talk of the Seminar on Nonlocality at the occasion of his 60th birthday, Nicolas Gisin stated the following: “There must be some register tracking the status of ‘who is entangled with whom’ (similar to a register who is married with whom)”. And he asked whether we have to accept “angels who keep track of the quantum register” and commented, “Despite the seriousness of this childish question, it has yet to receive almost any attention.” Gisin reproduces this comment in his 2012 book [10] (pp. 137–138).

Gisin’s comments strengthen the interpretation that the quantum state represents the state of some mind beyond space and time before deciding about which of several (potential) possibilities becomes realized (actualized) in space and time.

6.5. The Measurement Problem and Nonlocality at Detection

According to P.A.M. Dirac, “…a measurement always causes the system to jump into an eigenstate of the dynamical variable that is being measured…” [21].

Consider the “Single-photon space-like antibunching” experiment [22]: It was performed in 2012 as a complement to the before–before experiment to demonstrate nonlocality at detection in single-photon experiments. After crossing a beam splitter, a single photon is detected in either detector A or detector B. We ensure that A and B are spacelike separated, i.e., during the detection window (jitter), no signal can travel from A to B. The experiment confirms that, in each run, only one of the detectors counts, in accordance with the “collapse-postulate”.

Since each detector, A and B, is equally apt to trigger the collapse, which detector counts implies a decision coming from outside space and time: that is, there is a nonlocal coordination ensuring that only one of the detectors counts.

Once the decision is made, an irreversible process starts in the corresponding detector that leads to the observable outcome. For the outcome to appear, a physicist doesn’t need to be watching the detector. However, the process occurring in the detector fits the capabilities of human senses; something happens that any human observer can perceive at any time.

And the fact that it is irreversible means that its reversal is beyond our operational human capabilities. Upon detection, something new appears on the space–time screen and becomes part of the so-called “macroscopic world”, where things are not perceived in superposition: an electron producing a spiral trace in a detector is no longer described as being in a superposition state, very much like the Sun is not perceived in a superposition of several locations.

Accordingly, dynamics is not always unitary; there are “real quantum jumps”. Measurement is just a physical process, but it is defined in relation to the capabilities of human observers. To better understand what a superposition state and a quantum jump are, we should try to understand better how our brains function while making choices and processing perceptions.

6.6. Schrödinger’s Cat and Wigner’s Friend

Erwin Schrödinger proposed the cat’s paradox to highlight the “inconsistency” of quantum superposition. Actually, “Wigner’s friend” is an improved version of the “Schrödinger’s cat”, so I have devised a thought experiment that presents the two paradoxes together.

Suppose that in our “Single-photon space-like antibunching” experiment [17], “detector A” is placed on a cat’s bell so that, if the photon emitted by the laser source after crossing the beam splitter reaches the bell, a mechanism is triggered that kills the cat (result ‘1’ with dead cat), as Schrödinger depicted it. Bob is a friend of Eugen Wigner, a famous physicist and the Nobel Prize winner in 1963, who conceived the thought experiment named after him. The window, the cat, and Wigner’s friend (Bob) are all in a closed laboratory. Wigner is outside the lab and can observe what is going on inside by opening a small window. The laser source, each time it is excited, emits a single photon, which will be detected either by Bob’s detector B (result ‘0’ with a live cat) or by the cat’s detector A (result ‘1’ with a dead cat). As we have already said, before detection, Bob considers that the photon is in a state of superposition of the two results ‘1’ and ‘0’. After detection, Bob observes one result, let us say ‘1’, and therefore sees the dead cat, and he concludes that the system inside the laboratory is in the state described by |1, cat dead⟩.

Let us now consider things from Wigner’s perspective outside the laboratory. Applying the superposition principle to the entire lab (including Bob and the cat), outside the lab, Wigner, before opening the window, has to conclude that the wave function of the system is a superposition of the state |Bob1, cat dead⟩ and the state |Bob0, cat alive⟩ (where Bob1 denotes “Bob observes 1”, and Bob0 denotes “Bob observes 0”).

In conclusion, Wigner’s friend (Bob) says that he observes the outcome “1 and the cat dead”, and at the same moment, Wigner, applying the superposition principle to the whole laboratory, says that his friend (Bob) has 50% probability of observing “the cat alive” and 50% probability of observing “the cat dead”. In a recent version of the “Wigner’s friend” paradox, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Zurich Polytechnic (ETHZ) construct a more complicated thought experiment in which Wigner’s friend observes “1 and the cat dead”, and at the same moment, outside the laboratory, Wigner applies quantum superposition and concludes that his friend observes “0 and the cat alive” [23].

We are thus faced with a new paradox: Intuitively, that a cat is dead seems to be a fact that, when it occurs, should be valid for any observer (and for this reason, Schrödinger uses this astute metaphor). However, if quantum superposition applies to observers, then, depending on the observer, the boundary between the observer and the observed system varies: Bob places himself outside the observed system, but for Wigner, Bob is part of the observed system. Thus, the domain of the application of “physical laws” depends on the observer, and the experiments give different results depending on the observer: Bob can see a dead cat, while Wigner, applying quantum superposition to Bob, concludes that Bob sees the cat alive.

The paradoxes of “Schrödinger’s cat” and “Wigner’s friend” highlight the central role that the observer (the human observer in the end) plays in quantum physics in defining “physical reality” (a lesson that is often ignored): If we apply quantum superposition without restriction, then the statement that “the cat is dead” does not have an absolute and universal value but depends on the observer; different “laws of nature” apply depending on the observer, and different observers may observe different physical realities in the same place and at the same time. For example, the Sun at 2 pm may be seen by one group of observers in the astronomical coordinates corresponding to its usual orbit as described by Newton’s equations, while it may be seen by another group of observers as jumping around those coordinates.

The only way to avoid this is to introduce into our theory a postulate that ordinarily prohibits the application of quantum superposition to objects of a “certain size”. We still do not know at what size this prohibition is when activated (this is “the measurement problem”), but we can safely state two things: (1) The size is related to the way our senses work, and (2) superposition does not ordinarily apply to observers and cats.

In other words, the fact that the visible world behaves according to regularities that allow us to predict and calculate it, and thus live comfortably in it, is due to a “mysterious” suppression of the fundamental principle of quantum physics at the “macroscopic” level. This is really shocking! We are saying that science, in order to correctly describe the ordinary visible world, where the Sun and planets move according to “laws of nature” that are considered “inexorable”, has to introduce a violation of the principle of quantum superposition, that is, “a fundamental law of nature”, after all. Paraphrasing what John Bell once said, you have to have rocks in your head not to be surprised!

Wigner’s friend brings to light the following: The principle that experiments yield the same results for any observer (the foundation of experimental science) is only an assumption we induce from our daily experience; it is not an “inexorable law of nature”. And it would no longer hold if superposition was to extraordinarily apply at the macroscopic level.

6.7. ‘t Hooft’s Criticism Against Quantum Superposition

In a recent interview Gerhard ‘t Hooft has boldly criticized quantum superposition:

“Quantum mechanics is the possibility that you can consider superpositions of states. That’s really all there is to it. And I’d argue that superposition of states are not real. If you look very carefully, things never superimpose. […] We know superposition in the macroscopic world is nonsense. That’s clear. And I believe that in the microscopic world it’s clearly nonsense, too. […] Erwin Schrödinger asked the right questions here—you know, take my cat; it can be dead, it can be alive. Can it be in a superposition? That’s nonsense!” [24].

On the one hand, ‘t Hooft rightly acknowledges that “superposition” is the very core of quantum mechanics. On the other hand, his claims reveal the “mental-prejudice” that “quantum superposition states” must be considered as some sort of “tiny objects” propagating in space–time like “little bullets”. ‘t Hooft overlooks that “mental superposition” is quite common in daily life in the “macroscopic world”, and to understand quantum superposition, one should better look at the state of mind of an elector before the election. Once more, the Wittgenstein diagnosis applies: “A major cause of philosophical illness—a one-sided diet: you feed your thinking with only one type of example”.

7. Conclusions

The part that is new in this paper is the “Mental” states. We have proposed an explanation “outside of space and time”, in which quantum superposition represents a state of undecidedness in a “Mind” outside the universe. “Collapses of the wave function” correspond to decisions made by this “Mind” in response to the experimenter selecting the settings on the apparatus to perform a particular experiment. This certainly implies that invisible entities (spiritual intellects) with huge computer-like capabilities are literally engaging with us humans (neuronal intellects). The objectivity of classical physics becomes intersubjectivity.

To support my statements, I have always used quotations from many acknowledged physicists. Sometimes, their interpretations appear to contradict each other when taken separately. I believe that the explanation in this essay may help you to see that, when you put together everything they are saying, you get a magnificent contrapuntal polyphony:

-

The quantum realm does not consist of “material” particles or waves. The superposition state can be better understood by comparing it to the state of a mind before choosing between different possibilities. Therefore, dynamics is not always unitary; there are “real quantum jumps”.

-

Measurement is just a physical process, but it is defined in relation to the capabilities of the human agents/observers. The quantum–classical transition is simply the dynamical irreversible suppression of superposition that defines the macroscopic realm. To better understand this transition, we should try to understand how our brains function when we make decisions.

-

The visible (material) world in which we live and move is actually a complex calculation processed by invisible intellects that constantly project the phenomena we perceive onto the screen we call space–time. Our simulations of macroscopic trajectories of bodies (e.g., the joint movement of the Earth and the Moon around the Sun) are approximations of the calculations that these invisible entities perform to reveal what we see.

In a recent talk, Nobel laureate Anton Zeilinger stated that “mystic is an important approach on which we can build up.” [11] (time 14:40). And on another occasion, he suggested that the first verse of St. John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word”, can be considered to anticipate the quantum view that information is more fundamental than space and time [25].

Mystic refers to the ability to see, through the opaque things surrounding us, the invisible intellects who communicate with us in unfathomable words.

John Bell and Guido Barbiellini contributed significantly to fostering a mystical attitude at CERN.