Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

I found Rosenblum and Kuttner to be sincere in their intentions, honest in their presentation, reasonable in their interpretations, and commendable for their obvious efforts to present this challenging subject to a general audience. In short, I like the authors and what they tried to do. As a result, I'm saddened to report that I finished this book feeling disappointed. The problem is that this book is unbalanced and incomplete. More specifically:

1. Simpler topics are sometimes overexplained to the point of tedium, whereas many of the more difficult and pivotal topics are brushed over much too quickly and therefore inadequately explained.

2. There's a great deal of repetition in the book, and it's not always clear that the authors are repeating themselves rather than making a new point. This causes considerable confusion, not to mention wasting the reader's time.

3. Too much time is spent on tangential topics, some of which could have been omitted entirely. For example, much of the discussion of classical physics is superfluous.

4. The discussion of alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics is surprisingly skimpy, even though that's supposed to be a major focus of the book.

5. The discussion of the relationship between consciousness and quantum mechanics is also surprisingly skimpy and shallow, even though that's advertised as THE central topic of the book. In this regard, I found the book to be a teaser.

The other reviews of this book are mostly quite positive, and that's a main reason why I read this book (combined with my interest in the consciousness angle). Since my review is among the minority which are relatively negative, it's legitimate to ask whether the fault lies with me. So let me note that I've taken two university courses in the philosophy of physics during the past two decades, both of which emphasized quantum mechanics and were significantly more advanced than this book (our texts were Particles and Paradoxes: The Limits of Quantum Logic and Quantum Mechanics and Experience, plus we read journal papers). I did well in those courses, and even found a fundamental conceptual error in a final exam question which was missed by both my fellow students and the professor until I pointed it out. So I do think that I'm qualified to evaluate this book and render an unfavorable judgment, and I fear that the reviewers who liked this book didn't have the background to realize where this book is lacking.

Needless to say, I unfortunately can't recommend this book, either for beginners or for review, especially since there are plenty of better books out there.

The book postulates a link between the quantum world and our alleged ability as sentient beings to create our own reality. It's actually a pretty good book for someone that doesn't know everything and actively seeks to further their ignorance.

This is by far the best non-mathematical book explaining the excitement of quantum discoveries available today. It is clearly (and cleverly) written in an enjoyable style but it is also clear that these guys know their stuff, and have (somewhat amazingly) gotten precisely what is going on today in the quantum physics community down in a readable form for the non-specialist. There are plenty of books involving some wild speculations about quantum physics, but if you are a non-specialist and want to know what physicists themselves are really thinking, this is the book for you. I, frankly, have to give it seven stars.

The book is written for the average person, who has some knowledge of physics. It is readable, logical flow, and excellent examples used to make a point. The sentences are short, crisp, and to the point. A minimal amount of background material is presented and is presented in a logical sequence. The authors explain who is speaking at certain points, which is extremely helpful and gives the reader the impression of being in a seminar, rather than a passive reader! This is the best book I have read on the issue.

Quantum Enigma is another in depth scientific explanation of the experiments involved in reaching the knowledge they have gained. This too was well written, and it is understood the need to include such in depth scientific findings to verify what they are trying to get across, and I fully respect this. However, maybe I got a little carried away in buying too many of the same sort of books in an effort to find that "something extra". As before, the Biocentrism books came closest to imparting thought provoking information which I would like to read much more of.

It is fascinating to have obvious truths shown to be incorrect -- to have to confront the fact that our whole common sense view of the world and the nature of matter is mistaken. It's also fascinating to observe the physics community's reaction to these discoveries...sort of like Gallileo and the Church all over again. One ends up having, for the first time, a little understanding of the Church's discomfort. I'm reading it a second time.

Good read for layman. While there is much comprehensible explanation of the Enigma, there could be more treatment, even grounded speculation, on what the role of human consciousness is or might be in the ultimate understanding of the Enigma.

A great and very entertaining read, which points to the issue that New Agers love and something the book addresses: How to avoid Silly Solipsism?

The human mind is a systems property of all the component parts. We know that what goes on in the mind-brain is a series of quantum events in the brain, seeThe Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey Schwartz. (Read both books.)

It's good that the authors keep reinforcing just how shocking quantum theory is, in spite of driving one third of the economy. As the authors explain very clearly, in quantum theory, the photon doesn't have a +ve or -ve spin until we decide to measure it, thus collapsing the wavefunction. The term 'particle' and 'wavefunction of the particle' are synonymous, so collapsing the wavefunction solidifies its properties. More than that, it doesn't have the property of 'spin' until we decide to measure it. We are making up reality as we go along, with one qualification. Once you measure the spin, that's it, objective reality has been formed. I can't come along a split second later and 'create my reality'.

David Bohm resolved the issue of information being transmitted faster than the speed of light by saying that the photons, the measuring devices, and the observer were all part of the same holographic system, and that the information was everywhere, simultaneously. In any external example, you can picture yourself, the laboratory, the photons flying away, some measuring equipment and the observer as all there but somewhat distinct from each other. You can't do that with a quantum event in your own head, because observing must also be a series of quantum events.

When, as a result of all the quantum events, a picture or a thought arises in the mind, what collapses the wavefunction? Where or what is the observer who decides to collapse the wave function?

Benjamin Libet, also referenced in Quantum Enigma, made the problem even worse by showing that even when 'I' decide to observe the photon's spin, my neurology will gear up to do that half a second before I become conscious of my intention. Presumably that subconscious activity is also a series of quantum events. Would it even make sense to say that the subconscious does the collapsing? Not to John von Neumann it wouldn't.

If we can't find an internal 'collapser' on both counts, then what collapses the wavefunction when it comes to observing the spin properties of a photon? You can't say 'nothing' when the wavefunction obviously has collapsed. Is there a language problem in that 'collapse' presupposes 'collapser'?

If we were to suggest that any form of omnidimensional beingness, infinite informational field, divine being, does the collapsing 'for us', that's tantamount to saying that we are merely the smallest flickers of shadows: Not only is conscious individuality an illusion, but conscious choice (half a second later) is also illusory. That's hard to take - or is 'reality' quite that illusory?

The holism of the implicate/explicate order may be so deeply intertwined that it just doesn't makes sense to consider 'myself' as having any kind of independent, subjective existence distinct from not only the objective reality, but also from every process on all levels in all subjective and objective events.

Can we then resolve the quantum enigma by saying that there is continuous and spontaneous collapsing of the wavefunction, or as one would say in Buddhism, phenomena continuously arising from emptiness and returning to emptiness? No events, no things, only process?

In which case, you might also like to consider Blackfoot Physics: A Journey Into The Native American Universe because we might then need to reconsider our whole paradigm of science.

P.S. This review, the book under review, and the whole question of subjectivity in quantum physics - the Copenhagen Interpretation - may have been rendered obsolete by John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.

I could not put this book down. The author clearly explains a complex topic such as quantum theory so that anyone can understand the basics. I have a whole new way of thinking about everything after reading this book.

For those people interested in consciousness and the mysteries of the quantum world, this is an amazing book and I encourage everyone to read it, even if you do not agree with everything it postulates.

It was a good presentation. They may have overused the Schrodinger box concept a bit. It is very important but not appropriate in all example explanations. Not enough emphasis was given at the end that some of the consciousness theories are barely hypothesis. Actually, the whole discussion of consciousness was very brief and ineffectual. However, that doesn't take away from the overall value of this book.

I'm really into quantum physics for non-scientists. This book brings up the very interesting problem of consciousness. Where does it fit in, and why do physicists prefer to ignore it? Is it biologically based, or is there something else? I love this stuff and Rosenblum knows of which he speaks. A number of other writers on the subject do not.

The book spends more time setting up what's confusing about quantum theory than exploring what is implied by consciousness interaction with the theory. A problem that the authors note is that we do not know how consciousness is derived, and that presents a self-referential challenge in understanding the quantum scale as well. To that end, if you already have a grasp on what the theory entails - skip this one. If you are looking for a baseline on quantum theory though, this book is for you. The authors stick to the facts, tightly scope the implications, and let former physicists do the speculating for them. Very conservative, and thankfully non-mystical.

I'm moving on to Alexander Wendt's exploration of what quantum theory could mean for social science, since for all practical purposes, quantum theory currently has little more to offer.

The book is fantastic. I do recommend it, however, in certain things I felt it needed more info and details,to go more deeply in the idea, and in others, they were too specific where it wasn't needed, or for my taste... in overall i did enjoy very much the book... certain times couldn't stop reading, but others just wondering when all those details where going to be over..

As a science educated non-physicist, I have become somewhat obsessed with understanding (trying to) quantum mechanics and theory(ies). I've been on this path for about 8 years and this book really makes the core concepts accessible. I would recommend this book to a non-science person who has an interest in trying to understand the answers and questions quantum physics provides.
My one tiny grouch of the book is the black holes chapter at the very end of the book. The authors only referred to Stephen Hawking's work and completely ignored the work Leonard Susskind did to resolve the loss of information paradox. I read Black Hole Wars several years ago and clearly Hawking's is not the sole contributor to black hole theory; you'd never have an idea that is the case by how this chapter is written.
Overall 5 stars. Great job making hard concepts more accessible.

When I first encountered quantum physics, I thought I would be somewhat of a geek for reading about physics and its `encounter with consciousness' on my spare time. I opened the book, not really know what to expect. I am decent at physics, psychology, and philosophy, so I figured I would be able to get the basic idea of the book.
Soon, I was intrigued. The book presented one of the most mind boggling question in physics and our acceptance of reality. Physicist have shown that atoms are capable of duel properties. For a example - scientists have shown in `inference experiments' that light can be both a wave and a particle.
A similar experiment was done with 4 pairs of boxes, a mirror, and `wavefunctions' (which we'll call marbles). Under one of the boxes in each pair , was a marble. The results of the experiment indicate that before one of the boxes was lifted, the marble was in both boxes at the same time. It's baffling, `controversial', but true! This also helps to present the idea that our own consciousness creates the reality we are given. It's strange to consider that our own consciousness assigned every atom's property, place, and structure. Hopefully one day, our technology will help us understand this mystery more and solve the unknown questions of the Universe.
Overall, it's a great book! I hope to learn more about quantum physics in the future.

The authors do a great job of presenting the issue. Some of the basic quantum concepts seem a bit dumbed-down, but their focus on the subject of quantum physics vs. consciousness is precise and well-thought-out. Refreshingly free of all the wooly-headedness that plagues other discussions of this type ("The Holographic Universe" comes to mind as a particularly bad example), which hijack science, broadly and clumsily applied, to justify belief in everything from ESP to reincarnation. They stick to the science, and properly so. Quantum mechanics is already so weird, it doesn't need to be conflated into anything else.

The attempt to correlate consciousness with quantum physics is an interesting thesis. The author carried off quite well, with care and intellectual abstraction. He defined his terms quite carefully and built a thorough case. Since I am not an expert in quantum physics, I can say I enjoyed his thinking but I cannot say I understood why he thought it. Further enlightenment from a good peer review would strongly enhance the thesis presented. Each comment which illuminate more of the issues in quantum physics and how they would relate to consciousness.

Again, I did enjoy the presentation of the concepts presented.

This is a fascinating exploration of the inherent weirdness of quantum physics, but also of the institutional barriers that have been erected by the physics community against exploring some of the potential consequences of this theory.

It is an excellent presentation of the cuurent quantum mechanics status. The relationship with consciuosness is amazing. As no solution is there , a lot of hypothesis are shown with the pros and cons , without taking any side.
It is easy to slide to phylosophical questions like dualism (mind & body) or theology.
The authors succeeded to avoid this without loosing reader's attention. A good bok to understand what are the big problems science have to research , without the scaring math.

A very abstract and difficult to comprehend & describe subject has been handled in all its multiple facets. Could have had lesser of scientific terms so as to be easier to understand & comprehend the subject.

The book explains interpretations of quantum mechanics starting with the Copenhagen view (move on ... nothing to see here ... at the macro level everything behaves classically). Always sticking close to the science, it acknowledges and focuses on the strangeness, which is more and more difficult to ignore given experiments that illustrate quantum behavior at increasingly large scales.

In part, the book seems intended to debunk speculation "based on" quantum mechanics that goes well beyond the science (e.g. What The Bleep). On the other hand, I would have found it interesting if the authors had reached a little further and engaged in some well-informed speculation of their own.

It is an excellent presentation of the cuurent quantum mechanics status. The relationship with consciuosness is amazing. As no solution is there , a lot of hypothesis are shown with the pros and cons , without taking any side.
It is easy to slide to phylosophical questions like dualism (mind & body) or theology.
The authors succeeded to avoid this without loosing reader's attention. A good bok to understand what are the big problems science have to research , without the scaring math.

A very abstract and difficult to comprehend & describe subject has been handled in all its multiple facets. Could have had lesser of scientific terms so as to be easier to understand & comprehend the subject.

The book explains interpretations of quantum mechanics starting with the Copenhagen view (move on ... nothing to see here ... at the macro level everything behaves classically). Always sticking close to the science, it acknowledges and focuses on the strangeness, which is more and more difficult to ignore given experiments that illustrate quantum behavior at increasingly large scales.

In part, the book seems intended to debunk speculation "based on" quantum mechanics that goes well beyond the science (e.g. What The Bleep). On the other hand, I would have found it interesting if the authors had reached a little further and engaged in some well-informed speculation of their own.

I stumbled upon this book while reading reviews of Brian Cox's "Quantum Universe" - several people recommended this book instead. I'm glad I listened because Enigma is truly a fascinating book. Enigma begins with a brief history of physics and explains why quantum theory was literally forced upon science. In a nutshell, the enigma is that it's possible to experimentally demonstrate that sub-atomic objects (and increasingly larger objects) are simultaneously in two places (e.g. two boxes) by producing an interference pattern, which suggests wave-like behavior. It's also possible to demonstrate with a different experiment that such objects are discrete particles that exist entirely in one place (e.g. one box only). It's impossible to demonstrate both cases simultaneously or with the same objects so technically there's no contradiction. The authors emphasize the quantum enigma stems from real experiments, NOT quantum theory itself.

The authors discuss what the enigma implies about reality itself; and its relation to human consciousness. Einstein figures prominently in this book because he was an ardent critic of quantum theory despite being one of its founders. Contrary to popular belief, his objection wasn't that "god doesn't play dice"- but the idea that an objective reality doesn't exist. He's quoted as saying, "I'd like to believe the moon exists when no one's looking at it". To his dying day, Einstein thought his EPR paper (1935) had shown that quantum theory was "incomplete".

The quantum enigma has been a fundamental mystery for over 80 years. There are numerous speculations on what it means, but it remains unresolved because none of the theories are experimentally testable. If you've ever wondered what the fuss over "Schrodinger's cat" is all about; or you're curious about Bell's theorem, then this is the book for you. Highly recommended.

Well, it IS a curious thing- try as physicists might to come up with purely "objective" quantum mechanics without need of an "observation"- that a subjective element seems to creep its way back into the standard interpretations of QM. This bothers many working physicists no end, who naturally want a "clean" theory, and the attempts to exorcise the ghost of consciousness have been mighty. Even the great Murray Gell-Mann has done his best to get rid of the ghost, albeit unsuccessfully. For, you see, even if you could successfully remove conscious interaction (aka "the observer") out of the direct subatomic realm, you still have to somehow account for the selective process the environment does when a quantum event interacts with the macroscopic world around it. Gell-Mann, for instance, proposed his "information gathering utilization systems" (IGUS), organisms which recognize and process information and patterns in the environment. Does this look to you, dear reader, like a satisfactory resolution of the subjective element in physics? Okay, me neither...

While modern theories of decoherence partly explain the environmental interaction process, they don't completely solve the mystery of why one particular outcome occurs vs. another...(known as the "superselection" problem in physics). Why this and not that? The mystery, alas, remains. Quantum mechanics by itself currently doesn't seem to have the answer within it's own scope without appealing to higher levels of complexity, although recent attempts within QM itself may be promising, such as decoherence theorist Wojciech Zurek's "quantum darwinism".

Even allowing for the difficulties in producing a "clean" theory without need of an observer, simple logic should caution us to be skeptical of the idea that what is responsible for the "collapse" of a wavefunction is human consciousness itself. There are too many good reasons (some are just common sense) why human interaction is irrelevant in the evolution of quantum processes. Difficulties in proving this is so (currently) shouldn't override the observation that "conscious-collapse" is a questionable premise. *Something* occurs to bring an abrupt singular outcome to a linear superposition of quantum potentialities, but what? And just as importantly, *when* does it happen along the chain of a wavefunction evolution? I don't know, sorry. the store readers will doubtless be disappointed I can't solve the measurement problem :-). I take solace knowing that the real experts- i.e., actual physicists - can't agree amongst themselves either. Probably each theorist seems to have his/her own favorite interpretation of the formalism which seems obvious and everyone who disagrees just can't think very clearly :-). As a university physicist once complained to me, "modern physics is a real mess". Hence the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, which can't all be true. Very likely, maybe none of them are true...at least in present form. But, were I a betting man, I'd wager the most likely NOT to be true would be this idea that human consciousness is needed to produce a "collapse". Simple common sense should here say "not likely".

But since consciousness seems to be such a theme in this particular book, let's run with it for a moment. Those who want to insert human consciousness into QM have a problem explaining why Nature is so anthropomorphic, as Abner Shimony observed long ago. Why just human consciousness? How about an ant's observation? How about a single cell? And so on. A. Shimony (and others) have pointed out that anyone who wants to stick with "consciousness" as a factor in subatomic processes is logically compelled to the conclusion that we cannot limit conscious interaction to merely humans, and one needs to adopt a quasi-Whiteheadian view of nature, which even a few physicists have found compelling. If one buys this chain of reasoning, one comes to the realization the standard "conscious collapse" mechanism (London and Bauer, Wigner, Henry Stapp and so on) should extend far broader than merely human mental actions on physical systems; the logic leads to some type of proto-consciousness (aka panpsychism or less boldly, Whiteheadian panexperientialism) which might be sufficient to induce "collapses", even by primitive biological organisms (or in some versions, even within seemingly non-sentient matter). Along this line, as philosopher David Chalmers speculates, mind (or "experience") might be an irreducible, fundamental property of nature. (However, let me say here one can appreciate the issues that Chalmer's "hard problem" brings up without necessarily viewing consciousness as a direct agent in wavefunction collapses).
But the end result is, if one buys the idea that consciousness is somehow directly involved in subatomic processes (which seems to be hinted at by the authors of the present book), one logically must extrapolate into a quasi-Whiteheadian view of the world, if not some type of panpsychism itself... The latter would be some form of a modern "animism", when said and done- not necessarily the same as primitive versions found throughout various pre-modern cultures, but a type of animism nonetheless. Which, oddly enough, doesn't seem to be necessarily "disallowed" by modern physics...but although some type of sophisticated animism seems like an interesting conjecture, is it plausible? The same can be asked regarding Whitehead's "panexperientalism". The beauty of inserting any mode of "consciousness" into any current picture is that it is a buzzword that sells books, and nobody knows enough about it to say if one's theory is "wrong" or not... So speculations on panpsychism or Whiteheadian experientialism can be made freely with little fear of empirical rebuttal.

But who knows...these types of books may be on the right track emphasizing consciousness and the skeptics may be flat out wrong. The fact that the subjective aspects of consciousness remain a mystery even to this day leads me to suspect the usual "reductive" methodology may be inadequate on this level, but I can only speculate. Many scientists feel, of course, consciousness will eventually be well understood and a complete "physicalist" description will be forthcoming that is agreeable to an orthodox reductive methodology...but judging by the frustrating inability of current physicalist descriptions to account for even the simplist features of human subjectivity, one should reasonably be allowed to explore other perspectives looking at consciousness, perhaps such as a strongly "informational" perspective. And let's not forget, as Whitehead reminds us, there is an "experiential" aspect of reality that present physical science seems poorly equipped to account for. Modern physics research seems to function well enough by endeavoring to eliminate the "consciousness" aspect as much as possible (which seems to be a carry-over tradition from classical physics, for better or worse), and this certainly seems successful as far as it goes, but when we weigh what this approach brings to the table for a "worldview" or a comprehensive "ontology", it simply is too limited. You and I both know something important is missing. Since physical science enjoys such an authoritative role in our postmodern cultural mentality (at least among the educated), the limitations of a particular area of focus (i.e., a particular methodological bias) should also be kept in mind, yes? If so, please remind some of our popular science writers, some of whom seem oblivious that anything exists other than the latest buzz in the physical sciences...

Of course, the "objective" physicists will continue to search for a "pure" interpretation of their discipline and stay committed to an "objective" interpretation of QM. Is this a misguided enterprise? Not necessarily. It seems reasonable to suspect the subatomic realm has no direct dependence on conscious human interventions, perhaps suggesting that environmental decoherence factors may play a more important role. The fact that modern interpretations have trouble accounting for a "clean" measurement solution perhaps suggests the entire topic needs to be moved up to sciences working at a level of more complexity. Or perhaps QM is poorly formed at present and the future will find such objective purity within QM itself, who knows. But current offerings (spontaneous collapse, consistent-histories, transactional interpretation, etc etc) all have their problems, including the selection outcome I mentioned earlier- why one result and not another?
Good luck on the "objective" objective, physicists- even if you're on the right track you seem to have your hands full... But at any rate, back to book reviews. Three and 1/2 stars. Some experts have criticized the authors for sloppy use of ordinary language, especially centered around that nebulous term "observation"; or that the authors have misled readers by deliberately stacking the deck to make descriptions look like consciousness is a likely feature...I see the critics' points. The language in the book DOES tend to be misleading.
With an emphasis in the book on consciousness as a conjectured player in physics, of course not all physicists will be pleased. And NOT just because they're trying to "hide" something in the closet, which I think is a silly statement. Nobody is trying to "hide" an embarrassing secret here... It's just that the mainstream of physicists perhaps do NOT see consciousness as a determining factor in quantum measurements.

Anyway, at least the book has decent descriptions of some of the startling implications of modern physics, far above the ridiculous new-agey, consciousness-creates-reality crap that seems to abound on this theme. And it serves to get Joe-Blow-Public interested in reading about science, so I as a layman am more forgiving of poorly-framed arguments than picky Mr. Rigorous (Rigormortis?) Physicist...heck, I'm often guilty of sloppy language myself :-)

This is a great book about the implications of the accepted reality of quantum mechanics and the experiments that show a direct link to consciousness. Materialistic science cannot answer the enigma – nor do the authors attempt to. A must read for those who want to know both sides of the debate and who lean towards a non-materialistic worldview.

I enjoyed this book very much, although some of the terminology was not familiar to me , it is still written in a manner that I got the gist of it. Passed it along to the next curious person in my circle .

What do you expect with a title like Quantum Enigma! Most people don't read books that require them to check the dictionary before they open the cover of the book. But if you do, this semi-laymen's view of quantum mechanics will literally open dimensions of a NEW WORLD for you. Existence as a result of observation, parrallel universes, objects being in two places at the same time and the impact of God on our world are a few of the ideas discussed. Not for the 'faint of heart' but truly an experience in a New World.

Plenty of useful information on quantum mechanics here and it makes an easy read. Thus us challenging stuff, sure, and you will find yourself stopping to think from time to time. I did feel, however, a little miffed that the authors didn't seem too inclined to jump more than ankle-deep into the who enigma aspect, just hinting that there is something weird going on at the quantum level. If you're already a student of this subject, there is really nothing new here. It'd make for a good intro if you're just becoming curious about the truly strange implications of the most successful scientific theory.