---
# System prepended metadata

title: Quantum Woo

---

# Quantum Woo


## Quantum

First, let's do a brief recap of the basics of QM. If you're already well-acquainted, you can skip this whole section.

A particle can be in a **superposition** (e.g., of spin-up and spin-down). Crucially, this is different from saying that it is in one _or_ the other state or in _both_ states (called **classical** uncertainty). In particular, there is a kind of experiment (called an **interference experiment**) that can test for superposition as distinct from classical uncertainty.

If this particle interacts with another one, then the two of them will be in a _joint_ superposition--which an appropriate interference experiment would dutifully reveal. For example, "*both* particles are spin-up or *both* are spin-down." This is called *entanglement*. This can extend to a third, a fourth, etc. We have done experiments into the trillions and have no reason to believe there is an upper limit.

If you want to demonstrate that a group of particles is in such a joint superposition, you need control over *all* of them. If you were to inspect any *subset* of the particles, they would appear to behave *classically*, even though the overall system is indeed in superposition. If that's unclear, don't worry. There are only two things you need to understand:

- Outside of very precise lab conditions, ridiculous numbers of air molecules and photons will almost immediately interact with your experiment, making it practically impossible to wrangle them all to demonstrate any interference. This is called *decoherence*. Crucially, it says that it is very hard to *exploit* the huge superposition -- not that there *isn't* one.
- In the two-slit experiment, the particle becomes entangled with the detector. Because the particle (a *subset* of the joint system) is then measured *alone* at the screen, it behaves classically (i.e., shows no interference). This has nothing to do with consciousness. The apparatus as a *whole* is still in a superposition (of "particle went left and detector recorded left and screen shows left" and "particle went *right* ..."). 

If the superposition can only spread, then why do you and I only see *one* outcome in any such experiment? Where did the other possibility go? This is called the *measurement problem*, and there is no agreed-upon answer.

One natural explanation is that *you* become entangled with the experiment, after which there are two "copies" of you, each on one "branch" seeing one result. This is effectively the *Many-Worlds Interpretation*. As distasteful as some may find this, the main competing hypothesis[^interpretations] is that the superposition "collapses" into one definite outcome somewhere along the line. Not only is there no empirical evidence for such a process, but it would lay waste to perhaps the deepest principle of all of physics: namely, *reversibility*[^reversibility]. In short, stuff should never magically disappear (because if you ran time in reverse, stuff would magically *appear*). *Collapse* would be the biggest kind of "woo-woo" *ever*.

[^interpretations]: Of course, there are many other interpretations of QM. But the collapse vs no-collapse distinction is sufficient for our purposes here.

[^reversibility]: [Leonard Susskind](https://youtu.be/iNgIl-qIklU?t=3m3s), father of string theory, relating how he and Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft disproved an idea of Stephen Hawking:

    > In fact, I think of it as more basic than any of the other principles of physics. The most basic principle of physics is that distinctions never disappear.

As long as *you* remain separated from this ever-growing superposition -- by being sufficiently distant or otherwise well-isolated -- all existing evidence suggests that you are free (indeed, compelled) to treat the whole collection _as_ a superposition. In particular, from your perspective, you cannot say that there *is* a definite (if unknown) result yet -- and the right interference experiment ought to confirm this. Such an experiment may be devilishly difficult to conduct, but is still theoretically permitted.

On the other hand, when you *observe* a dead cat, there is a clear sense in which you may say that there *is* a definite outcome. In other words, the first moment when Schrodinger's Cat *has* a fate in your world is when *you observe* it. Now note that "your world" is just the place you normally call "*the* world," and so can be safely removed from the sentence: the cat gets a fate ~~in the world~~ precisely when you observe it.

The tricky part is pinning down precisely what "you observe it" means. Observation need not be visual, of course. But what could "you" possibly mean here other than "your consciousness"? Your toenail is no more "you" than the air in the room for these purposes -- so why should the unconscious parts of your brain be special?

Despite modern attempts to make this seem less strange by invoking decoherence or many worlds, you do appear to occupy a unique position in the place you call "the world" (even if it is only one of uncountably many). The world does not become "real" or "definite" until it contacts **you**, in some hard-to-define but unavoidable sense.

---

## Woo!

Now let us turn to *woo*.

In particular, let us suppose that God put the following constraint on reality: nothing miraculous can ever be proven to happen. Then how much room is there in reality for *seemingly-miraculous* things to occur without outright breaking any rules?

Suppose you had the ability to *choose* which outcome of the Schrodinger Cat experiment you would see. If you "killed" the cat once, nothing would appear strange. Anyone looking at the experiment afterward would only have physical phenomena to inspect -- and all of it would appear completely normal. It was the vial of poison (by way of the radioactive atom decaying) that was the cause, not you. No magic anywhere to be found!

Of course, if you were able to do this with any kind of consistency, it would quickly become suspicious[^suspicious]: QM seems to dictate the *probabilities* of each outcome, which shouldn't be violated in the long term. If you were to repeatedly affect any experiment whose probabilities were well-understood, you might invoke God's wrath.

[^suspicious]: On the other hand, *who* should they be suspicious of? Remember, *you* are the ultimate observer in your world. If an experiment was done in even a far-away lab, and you could magically choose its outcome, why would anyone have reason to suspect *you*, specifically? All eyes would be on whoever conducted the experiment. But this is a question for another day.

A safer way would be to affect lots of scattered experiments -- ideally, ones that no human had intentionally set up. But where could such experiments exist in "the wild?" Such a system would need two crucial features: (1) the ability to amplify microscopic signals to a macroscopic scale, and (2) quantum indeterminacy waiting to be amplified. (For example, in the *Schrodinger's Cat* experiment, the radioactive atom satisfies (2) and the apparatus amplifies it to cat-level (1)). Does such a system exist in nature?

Surprisingly, the human brain may be one such candidate[^candidate]. Regarding amplification, we now know that humans are capable of detecting individual photons, thereby satisfying (1): a single photon is amplified to a human speaking. For criterion (2), although the research is so far inconclusive, QM pioneer Henry Stapp has pointed out that neuronal ion channels are narrow enough that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies, and so the ions' momenta are effectively indeterminate[^brain-decoherence].

[^candidate]: Another candidate might be cosmic uncertainty. There are surely quantumly-uncertain events in our universe's history whose origin we can never have precise knowledge of, and that have amplified into macroscopic (perhaps even cosmic) significance. Nobody could tell if you were to influence those. TV static is, famously, partially attributable to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), but mildly modifying TV static generally doesn't have life-changing consequences.

[^brain-decoherence]: A common (but misguided) criticism is that the warm, wet brain will surely cause decoherence, making interesting quantum effects (like interference) impossible. But we don't need the branches to *interfere* with each other here; we merely need them to be amplified up to the macro scale. This is a much easier requirement to meet.

In other words, humans may well be walking, talking, quantum randomness amplifiers. For someone skilled at influencing such devices (or wanting to practice this skill), the world is chock-full of opportunities. Doing so would cause very little suspicion, since it's effectively impossible to learn (let alone monitor) the quantum states inside a brain.

Assuming you wanted to use your powers for good and not evil, how might you do this? Perhaps you could envision that everyone around you were a flawless human being -- and really, truly, believe it at the deepest levels of your consciousness. Sure, they may have some *surface* warts (don't we all?), but at their cores they are truly innocent.

As it turns out, this is the heart of the Mahayana Buddhist path:

> [*We go against the stream of our own habits and the habit patterns of our culture in order to see everyone as a Buddha.*](https://michaelstoneteaching.com/lotus-sutra-19-the-end-is-forgiveness/)
---
> [*They will see everyone as a Buddha; they will naturally thank, respect, and love all beings; and they will help alleviate much suffering in the world.*](https://tzuchi.us/blog/the-bodhisattva-path)

Could such a crazy idea actually *work*? Remember, if God's central dictum is that such magic should never rise to the level of being *suspicious*, then it wouldn't make sense to look for evidence of it -- at least, not the kind that would pass muster in a reputable scientific journal.

Why on earth would there be such a dictum? Consider the metaphysical hypothesis of *idealism*: that all of reality is mental. In other words, that life is a dream of sorts. One of the key features of nighttime dreams is that -- in order to keep you asleep -- you should never become too suspicious that you are dreaming. If you were to become sufficiently suspicious in this waking dream, you might risk *waking up* -- which sounds terrifying to the ego, but is actually the goal of spiritual traditions.

With that caveat, let me leave you with some curious anecdotes.

---

David Godman, biographer of 20th century Indian saint Ramana Maharshi:
> One needs to keep saying ‘Thank you, God’ to oneself until one actually feels a glow of gratitude. … When this happens in your life, seemingly miraculous things start happening around you. The power of your own surrender, your own gratitude, actually changes the things around you. When I first read about this, I thought, ‘This is weird, but it just might work. Let me try it.’ At that point in my life, I had been having problems with four or five people whom I was trying to do business with. Despite daily reminders, they were not doing things they had promised to do. I sat down and started saying ‘Thank you Mr X for not doing this job. Thank you Mr Y for trying to cheat me on that last deal we did,’ and so on. I did this for a couple of hours until I finally did feel a strong sense of gratitude towards these people. When their image came up in my mind, I didn’t remember all the frustrations I had experienced in dealing with them. I just had an image of them in my mind towards which I felt gratitude and acceptance.
>
> The next morning, when I went to work, all of these people were waiting for me. Usually, I had to go hunting for them in order to listen to their latest excuse. All of them were smiling, and all of them had done the jobs I had been pestering them for days to do. It was an astonishing testimonial to the power of loving acceptance.

---

From the book *Love yourself like your life depends on it*:

> I got better. My body started healing faster. My state of mind grew lighter. But the thing I never expected or imagined, life got better. But not just better, things happened that were fantastically out of my reach, things I couldn’t have dreamt of. It was as if life said, “Finally, you idiot! And let me show you that you made the right decision.”
> …
> People came into my life, opportunities arose, I found myself using the word “magic” to describe what was happening.
> 
> And through it all, I kept repeating to myself, “I love myself, I love myself, I love myself, I love myself.”
> 
> In less than a month, I was healthy, I was fit again, I was naturally happy, I was smiling. Amazing people were coming into my life, situations were naturally resolving themselves. And through it all, whether I was at my computer again, or kissing a pretty woman, in my head, I’d be telling myself, I love myself.


<!---

- What is "probability"?

--->