4. Feynman and quantum electrodynamics American physicist Richard Feynman (1918–1988) received the Nobel Prize for developing the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the science of the interaction of light with atoms and their electrons. He contributed to future development

Question about nature and characteristic features consciousness has become important nowadays. They try to solve the problem of consciousness in various ways, but in important aspects there is no great success with this problem. The most obvious way to clarify the nature of consciousness is to examine the brain, which appears to be the source of consciousness. However, now that the tools for studying the brain have become very effective, it is becoming increasingly clear that this line of research will not reveal the actual nature of consciousness.

Unexpectedly for many, an attempt was made to solve the problem of consciousness from the side of quantum mechanics, and this was associated with the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics itself. The study revealed that this direction is not new at all. Such attempts were made back in the first quarter of the 20th century by the founding fathers of quantum mechanics - Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Wolfgang Pauli and others. However, these brilliant thinkers did not have adequate tools at their disposal.

Such tools appeared later in the work of Albert Einstein (the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox), John Bell (Bell's theorem), and especially Hugh Everett (Everett's or "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics).

Everett's proposal is especially important because it provides adequate language for the mysterious concept of quantum reality, counterintuitive and yet, as it turns out, to have a place in our world. Following Everett, one can say that actual (quantum) reality can be expressed in terms of many coexisting (parallel) classical worlds. This extremely simple (though not easily understood due to classical bias) representation of quantum reality allows us to include it in a natural way.

Most attempts to provide a quantum explanation of consciousness come down to searching for material structures in the brain that could operate in a quantum coherent mode. This is difficult (and probably impossible) to do because quantum coherence is quickly destroyed by inevitable decoherence.

The approach proposed by the author and substantiated in this book is radically different. No definite assumptions are made about the nature of consciousness; in particular, it is not assumed that consciousness is produced by the brain. Instead, we begin with an analysis of the logical structure of quantum mechanics and use the fact that the concept of “observer consciousness” necessarily arises in quantum mechanics (in the analysis of the concept of quantum reality) and is adequately formulated in Everett’s “many-worlds” interpretation. Then, based on the logical structure found, we make an additional assumption that allows us to formulate the phenomenon of consciousness in terms typical of quantum mechanics, and at the same time simplifies the logical structure of quantum mechanics itself.

Only after this can the question of the nature of consciousness be raised and resolved. It turns out that the brain does not create consciousness, but rather is itself an instrument of consciousness. Important processes (primarily superintuition), which begin and end in consciousness, are carried out, however, in a state of unconsciousness (non-consciousness). Quantum coherence in these processes is preserved, since they occur with a special quantum system, which represents the whole world. Decoherence does not occur in this case, because the quantum world as a whole has no environment that could cause decoherence.

Therefore, starting with functions, rather than with their material carriers, turns out to be the only effective approach. One of the surprising conclusions is that some functions do not have any specific material carriers at all or, in other words, their carrier is the whole world as a whole. This actually leads to the unification of the material sphere with the spiritual sphere.

The idea that this approach could be fruitful arose while preparing a review for Ginzburg's famous seminar in Moscow. The purpose of the review was new applications of quantum mechanics, called quantum information science. However, this direction is closely related to the foundations of quantum mechanics. While working on the report, it suddenly became clear to me that the main features of consciousness, including its mystical abilities, can be explained if a simple logical construct is added to ordinary quantum mechanics. What was especially exciting was that this additional assumption actually simplified the logical structure of quantum mechanics.

This was surprising and led to further research that showed a deep connection between the concepts of quantum mechanics and phenomena characteristic of life. It turned out that mystical property life explains the counterintuitive features of quantum mechanics, and vice versa. The most profound theory of inanimate matter, expressed in the form of quantum mechanics, provides exactly the concepts and capabilities needed to understand the mysterious phenomena of consciousness and life.

Miracles of Consciousness - from Quantum Reality

Fryazino: Century 2. 2011. - 320 p., illus.

ISBN 978-5-85099-187-6

Mensky Mikhail Borisovich - Consciousness and quantum mechanics - Life in parallel worlds - Contents

Preface to the Russian edition

Preface

Acknowledgments

1. Introduction. From quantum mechanics to the mystery of consciousness

MIRACLES GENERATED BY CONSCIOUSNESS (spiritual experience)

2. Miracles and mysticism in spiritual experience humanity

PARALLEL WORLDS AND CONSCIOUSNESS

3. Quantum reality as parallel classical worlds (for physicists)

4. Consciousness in parallel worlds

5. Consciousness and life in parallel worlds (details for physicists)

6. “Three great problems of physics” according to the terminology of V. L. Ginzburg

PARALLEL SCENARIOS AND SPHERE OF LIFE

8. Life in terms of alternative scenarios (chains of alternatives)

REFLECTIONS OR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT

9. How to avoid a global crisis and life after death

9.1. Global crisis and how to avoid it (hell and heaven)

9.1.1. Global crisis: technical aspect

9.1.2. Distorted consciousness as a source of crisis

9.1.3. Changing consciousness to prevent disaster

9.1.4. Resolving the crisis: heaven and hell on earth

9.1.5. Sphere of life: clarification of the concept

9.1.6. The Fall and the Tree of Knowledge

9.2. Soul and life after the death of the body

9.2.1. Soul before and after the death of the body

9.2.1.1. The soul after death: an assessment of life

9.2.2. Assessments of life criteria and judgments about life lived

9.2.3. Assessments of life criteria - more details

9.3. Karma and reincarnation

SUMMING UP

10. Main points of the Quantum Concept of Life (QCL)

10.1.Logical diagram of the Quantum concept of life

10.2.1.Superintuition

10.2.2.Miracles

11. Conclusion: Science, philosophy and religion come together in the theory of consciousness

Bibliography

Glossary of terms

Mensky Mikhail Borisovich - Consciousness and quantum mechanics - Life in parallel worlds - 1.3.2. Parallel alternatives (parallel worlds): what does it mean?

Very briefly, consciousness and superconsciousness (the use of superintuition) can be explained by the parallel worlds that quantum mechanics predicts. This is reflected in the title of this book.

Once they asked me: “Life in parallel worlds... Who lives there - in these parallel worlds?”

Many people are now writing about “parallel worlds,” meaning by this term completely different concepts, but mainly - various modifications of Eastern beliefs. One psychic talks about four “worlds,” describing in detail what they look like, how they work, who lives there, and what these worlds are for. He even says what each of these worlds is called. I asked how he knew about it, especially about the names. He replied that one of his students (every year he teaches young people practical course psychics) regularly travels to these worlds and tells him about them.

Of course, that's not what I mean. The logic of quantum mechanics leads to conclusions that are difficult to believe but impossible to ignore. The most important of these conclusions is that the quantum world, with its “quantum reality,” can be adequately represented as a set of many classical worlds, parallel worlds. These classical worlds are actually different “projections” of the only objectively existing quantum world. They differ from each other in some details, but they are all images of the same quantum world. These parallel classical worlds coexist, and we all (and each of us) live in parallel in all these worlds.

What does it mean to “live in parallel?” different worlds"? This is not my invention, but one of the formulations of quantum mechanics, the so-called Everett interpretation, or the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Later we will see another formulation that will be more important. But to clarify the formulation of “Everett’s worlds,” we can say the following. It is more correct to imagine each “observer” who lives in our world and observes it as a set of completely identical observers (as if they were twins or clones), differing only in that different twins(clones) live in different options of this world - in different Everett worlds (a clone of each of us - in each of these parallel worlds). The quantum world is adequately represented by a whole family of classical worlds existing in parallel, and “clones” of all people in each of them.

The concept of the coexistence of many classical worlds, formulated in this way, contradicts our intuition. And this concept is indeed counterintuitive, but only from the point of view of classical intuition. In quantum mechanics it cannot be any other way. The reason is that for any given classical state of a quantum system1 its future state is represented as a set of coexisting (superposition) classical states. In the next step, each of these new classical states in turn turns into a set (superposition) of classical states, and so on. The result is a huge number of parallel existing classical states. But this set of classical states represents one single quantum state.

This point applies to the entire quantum world, which is also an (infinite) quantum system. Therefore, an adequate representation of the quantum world is superposition (coexistence) huge amount parallel classical worlds.

To reconcile this strange picture (which is in fact confirmed by many experiments) with our everyday experience, in the formulation of quantum mechanics, physicists first proposed that, of all the possible alternative classical worlds that constantly arise, one is randomly selected at each moment, so that there is always a single classical world (this assumption is called the reduction postulate, or wave function collapse). However, this assumption, although convenient and allows one to correctly calculate the probabilities of various events, is actually incompatible with the strict logic of quantum mechanics. As a result, the acceptance of this simple picture of a single classical world leads to internal contradictions quantum mechanics, which are known as quantum paradoxes.

It was only in 1957 (that is, three decades after the formalism of quantum mechanics was created) that the young American physicist Hugh Everett III was bold enough to consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which there is no choice of a single world, but all parallel worlds really coexist.

An interpretation of quantum mechanics that accepts the objective coexistence of many different classical worlds has been called the Everett interpretation, or the many-worlds interpretation. Not all physicists believe in this interpretation, but the number of its supporters is growing rapidly.

Everett's worlds, which must coexist due to the nature of quantum mechanics (according to the "quantum concept of reality"), are the "parallel worlds" discussed in this book. We see the only world around us, but this is only an illusion of our consciousness. In fact, all possible options (alternative states) of this world coexist as Everett worlds. Our consciousness perceives them all, but separately from each other: subjective feeling that one of the alternative worlds is perceived excludes any evidence of the existence of the others. But objectively they exist.2

Mensky Mikhail Borisovich

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the Physical Institute named after. Lebedev RAS.

Area of ​​scientific interests: quantum field theory, group theory, quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, quantum measurement theory.

"WITH Christian point vision." 10/11/2007

Presenter Yakov Krotov

Yakov Krotov: Our program is dedicated to the relationship between science and religion. Our guest is Professor Mikhail Borisovich Mensky, one of the leading experts in quantum mechanics, with whom we will talk about what the emergence of quantum physics has changed in the relationship between science and religion.

I know that I understand nothing about quantum physics, and I will use the presence of Mikhail Borisovich here to demonstrate this.

Mikhail Borisovich, let’s start from scratch, because you know everything except how deep human ignorance is. Quantum physics (I made inquiries) is what makes it so that in a computer, when the coffee stand is pulled out and a CD is placed there and then the information is read from it with a laser, this is all quantum physics. Without quantum physics, nothing would be read. It is clear that there cannot be a laser without quantum physics; even dentists use lasers. This is where the concept of quantum physics ends for most people, but as soon as we delve deeper into the origins, we see something that vividly reminds us of religious themes, issues of life and death. On the cover of your book “Man and the Quantum World” is drawn dead cat, a famous image of one of the physicists of the early 20th century. But where there is life and death, there, of course, a believer appears, at least a Christian. They could draw a tomb from which the stone has been rolled away and there is nothing there. Also a vivid example of what quantum physics is talking about.

So what is she talking about, from my simple point of view? She says, as you interpret it, that I look into a cave, for example, where a dead person is buried, and it is not known whether there is a dead person there or there is no dead person there, or there is a living person there. It depends, first of all, on whether I look there or not. Before I looked there, there was what you call the strange word “superposition” or, you call it the quantum world. And we live in a classic one. And this point, could you explain a little, how is it possible that before observation there is no life or death?

Mikhail Mensky: You see, yes, the image that Schrödinger came up with, “Schrodinger’s cat”, this image is called standardly, it is very bright and here the difference between the two alternatives, consisting in whether the cat is alive or dead, it, in fact, goes to the essence of the issue, the quantum aspect of the situation not relevant. But it simply evokes emotions, it makes vivid the very statement that quantum mechanics allows for the simultaneous existence, the coexistence of alternatives that seem incompatible to us in our ordinary lives, from the point of view of our usual intuition. For example, a cat can be either alive or dead, but in no case can it be both at the same time. But quantum mechanics proves that in certain circumstances, of course, not always, in a situation where the death or life of this cat depends on a quantum device, on whether the atom decays or not, in these circumstances quantum mechanics seems to prove that until we looked into the closed box where all this is happening, we really don’t know whether the cat remained alive, since the atom did not decay, or the cat was already dead, since the atom decayed, some kind of device worked there, a poison was released that killed him . So what's the main point here? Two alternatives. From the point of view of a person who does not know quantum mechanics, they cannot coexist: either one or the other. And quantum mechanics leads us to the conclusion that these alternatives must necessarily coexist until we look, that is, until we evaluate with our consciousness which of these alternatives is actually being realized. I’ll talk about this in more detail later.

Yakov Krotov: If I give you this opportunity, because I have accumulated a lot of very simple questions. You are not the only one who understands quantum mechanics. The preface to your book was written by Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, he wrote the preface to one article, which was included in the basis of the book, he wrote, calling himself a materialist, and calling you an idealist and solipsist, that is, a person who does not believe in the objectivity of matter. So here, as I understand it, Ginzburg will not deny Schrödinger’s cat, he is a cat for him too, but he denies the attempts that you are making to explain this paradox. True, as I understand it, Vitaly Lazarevich, strictly speaking, does not offer an alternative. But my simple question then boils down to this. Still, if an observer, or if two observers, look into this box where you have made the cat’s life dependent on one single atom, could it be that one observer’s cat will be alive, but the other’s will not?

Mikhail Mensky: No, this cannot be. The coordination will definitely be perfect. Coordination of what different observers see. This can be proven purely mathematically. I would like to correct you on two points. Firstly, this is not my concept, what you are talking about, I am simply stating it, some part belongs to me, but, generally speaking, this is what Hugh Everett proposed in 1957, an American physicist who was not then received recognition. This concept of his was enthusiastically accepted by some, and outstanding people, such as Willyar and Devitt, but the scientific community did not recognize it. And he was so disappointed (this is an interesting everyday fact) in this reaction of the public of quantum scientists, physicists, that he quit studying physics and simply became an entrepreneur and after a while became a millionaire. Such is the fate of the inventor.

As for those who actively support him, Villar and Devitt, after some time they first published an article that explains this interpretation of Everett, that is, the coexistence of alternatives. I should probably say more about this, but that’s it for now. They wrote a detailed article, where they gave more visual images than in Everett's article, but then, after a few years, they stopped, generally speaking, writing and lecturing on this matter. Why? Because it did not resonate with the audience, the scientific community did not want to recognize this concept, they believed that it was too complex logically or philosophically, and, in fact, did not provide any advantages. And only in the last, maybe two decades, there has been a return to this concept, it is becoming more and more popular, more and more physicists are recognizing it, and this is not accidental. This is due to the fact that quantum mechanics, which, generally speaking, has huge number applications, there are a lot of quantum devices around us, quantum mechanics in the last decade, it turned out that it provides a very unexpected class of new applications, which is called quantum information. Here we can name quantum cryptography, that is, encryption with absolute reliability, we can name quantum computers, which are probably also well-known by many, which, if built, will work a huge number of times faster than ordinary classical computers. So, quantum information, quantum information science, quantum information devices, it has been proven that they exist, moreover, some of them are simply being mass-produced, and they give fantastic results. Such results would have been very difficult to expect until this principle was found. They are based precisely on those strange qualities that quantum devices have. The fact that alternatives coexist is one of those strange qualities that, as we see, provides a practical solution.

Yakov Krotov: Thank you. I remember Alexander the Great, his wonderful saying “save me, Lord, from my friends, I myself will somehow get rid of my enemies.” What do I mean? From enemies - materialists, vulgar materialists, from enemies, that is, from people who deny the existence of God, because they are convinced that everything is done because of money and profit - a believer can cope with these enemies himself. This is cynicism, this is ignorance, this is primitivism, and so on. And it is precisely in the last, I would say, decade that religion often has many friends who say: look, there are paranormal phenomena, which means this confirms loyalty, including yours Christian religion. Here are the hypnotists, here is a spoon clanking, and this was heard a thousand kilometers away, this and that, and that. And here I, as a believer, with an iron voice reject the outstretched hand of friendship and say, I don’t need such support. Because my faith is not at all about the possibility of any supernatural phenomena. My faith, excuse me, is about something else, it is about the fact that God is a person who created the world. And if Einstein says that God exists, but God is not a person, Einstein in this sense is not my friend at all. At Soviet power some Orthodox apologists said, but Einstein was a believer, but, in general, it didn’t work well, because he’s not exactly a believer, he believes in some kind of cloud, and even without pants. And our God, he is not a cloud, and without pants, but he is a living person. And in this regard, your book ends with a huge excursion into Buddhism, into transcendental meditation, into various altered states of consciousness, because for you consciousness is, first of all, what makes the choice of alternatives. And the world, from your point of view, is far from being as simple as classical physics imagines, a non-classical world, and around it there is a quantum world and only consciousness and life - this is the link that makes the classical world possible within the indefinite world. But for you, then, a supernatural event is this invasion of consciousness, the choice of an alternative. But then for you nature remains a concept of the classical world, classical physics. And for me, after studying what you wrote, I will say this, you have discovered a quantum superstructure around the classical world, it turns out to be a huge boundless quantum world, completely unimaginable and complex. But it's not religious world, this is not a deity. It's still the same natural world. It's more complex, it's not as predictable, but it's still natural. And religion in this sense, I would say, does not need quantum physics, because those miracles that are possible, like a laser, like quantum cryptography, are miracles from the point of view of everyday consciousness. Suddenly I put some glass into the computer, and a movie appears. What is it? Miracle. But this is a miracle only from a technical point of view, not from a religious one. How do you like this claim?

Mikhail Mensky: What you said at the end is, of course, correct. Of course, these technical miracles are not religious miracles. But what you said at the beginning is special properties consciousness. There may be different points of view here, but, from my point of view, this is precisely the scientific explanation of what is accepted simply as dogma in different religions or in some forms of mysticism and so on. Here, however, we need to make a reservation. Of course, so to speak, I, as a scientist, and probably many scientists, you mentioned Einstein, understand religion differently. I was once an atheist and it was very difficult and long to come, so to speak, to an understanding of what faith is, and by no means came when it became fashionable. I am perhaps proud that I guessed why God is personified in religions. This is strange for a scientist. Einstein, still, let me read this quote from Einstein for sure. Einstein said this: “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. She will have to overcome the concept of God as a person, and also avoid dogmas and theologies. Embracing both nature and spirit, it will be based on religious feeling, arising from the experience of the meaningful unity of all things - both natural and spiritual. Buddhism fits this description. If there is a religion that can meet modern scientific needs, it is Buddhism.” That's what Einstein said.

It so happened that I also came to the conclusion that I distinguished Buddhism from other religions, independently; I saw this quote from Einstein later, when I had already come to this conviction. But I want to say something else now. For a scientist who is trying not to explain with scientific point vision, but to build some bridges between science and religion, for him religion should inevitably be understood in a very in a general sense. Not a specific religion - Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Islam and so on, but something common that is common to all these types of religions, and also to Eastern philosophies, say, and something else.

But why is God personified in specific religions, such as Orthodoxy or Catholicism? Yes, simply in order to strengthen the emotions of believers when they think about God, when they come into contact with something like that, when they experience religious experience. To heighten their emotions and thereby increase the likelihood that they will penetrate somewhere. It is difficult for me to talk about this now, I must say a few more words to be more specific at this point.

Yakov Krotov: Let's take a break for now and let the listener speak. From Moscow Sergey, good afternoon, please.

Listener: Hello. If something depends on the measurement procedure, the choice of these two alternatives, can the world be considered objective? If we open the cage differently, then perhaps the result will be different? Thank you.

Mikhail Mensky: Yes, you are absolutely right, the world in fact, in this concept, in Everett’s concept, the world is not purely objective, it has a subjective element. Namely, the quantum world is objective, but the state of the quantum world can be described as a superposition or coexistence of some classical alternatives. That is, as it were, the state of the quantum world, one might say, the state of the quantum world can be imagined as several or very many classical worlds that simultaneously coexist. The consciousness of the observer sees these worlds separately. That is, subjectively a person has the feeling that he sees the classical world, but in fact this is only one of the alternatives. Therefore, this subjectivity in Everett’s concept is necessarily present; the world is not purely objective.

Yakov Krotov: One small linguistic remark. If not purely objective, then biased. After all, what is the word “lens”? This is an apparatus, a measuring apparatus, built on the properties of light. What we introduce into consciousness - you, excuse me, introduce into consciousness - makes the world subjective. But what you just described is very reminiscent of the story about the creation of the world. I apologize, this is probably a superficial similarity, because the story of the creation of the world from chaos is contained in many pagan myths; in the Bible, the world is created from nothing. But here is chaos, which is divided and then created from this chaos; the quantum world, as you describe it, resembles chaos, from which consciousness distinguishes some structures. Or is this an inaccurate metaphor?

Mikhail Mensky: In a sense, this metaphor is correct. But what the quantum world represents appears to be chaos only from a classical point of view. The quantum world itself is the opposite, it is very ordered, it is, for example, better than the classical projection of the quantum world, here is the purely quantum world before projection onto the classics, it is better in the sense that it is completely deterministic. If we know the initial conditions, then we know exactly what will happen at all times. Initial conditions in in this case for the quantum world it is the wave function. Knowing the wave function, we can calculate it for all times in the future.

What is classical projection? For example, when a quantum system develops according to the laws of quantum mechanics and, therefore, its state is absolutely predictable, determined in all future times, and then at some point we... But it is inaccessible to us, it is isolated, the quantum system is isolated. Suppose we want to know what condition it is in. We must then make a measurement. And it turns out that probabilities arise here, that is, stochasticity, that is, we cannot unambiguously predict, even if we know exactly the state of the system, its wave function, we cannot accurately predict what the measurement will give. And when we saw what exactly the measurement gave, it was projection onto one of the alternatives, that is, onto one of the alternative classical worlds.

Yakov Krotov: Thank you. The program “From a Christian Point of View” is cracking my brain, I’m trying to understand something, Mikhail Borisovich, but so far with difficulty. The only thing I understood was that Einstein had about the same idea about Buddhism as the average Lubyanka employee had about Orthodoxy. Because Buddhism is not at all what he wrote. Buddhism, sorry, is primarily a question of suffering. Where is the question of suffering here in physics? In the same way, it seems to me, you are reducing religion, reducing it, speaking in quantum language, to the question of a miracle. But even John Chrysostom said a millennium and a half ago: “There are no miracles and there is no need, because a miracle is needed for a child.” And in this sense, religion is not at all about the supernatural, it is about life and its meaning. And here, too, quantum mechanics and quantum physics probably have nothing to do with it. But, when you write that this consciousness is an intermediate link between the quantum world and the classical world, consciousness and life, as something that makes a choice from alternatives, and you give an example there that evoked Dostoevsky in my memory “The Brothers Karamazov”, where Alyosha, standing at the elder’s tomb, prayed for him to be resurrected. Because, if I understand correctly, you mean that in a certain turn, the bearer of consciousness can not just make it so that he opens the box and there will be exactly a living cat, a living old man... Oh, something is doubtful to me. What do you say?

Mikhail Mensky: Yes, I agree that in this case quantum mechanics has no relation to some aspects of religion, they remain completely outside of all these discussions, and she is not even trying to explain, but I just want to say, there are some fundamental aspects within quantum mechanics, which hint to us that there is something outside of quantum mechanics itself. And this is something outside - these are special properties of consciousness, from here there arises some possibility for choosing alternatives, which means, in a sense, the possibility for the existence of miracles. But I always make a reservation here: these are what are called probabilistic miracles. That is, consciousness can choose one of the alternatives, but this alternative must necessarily be possible in the course of a natural process.

Regarding this choice and the miracle, can the elder be resurrected? You see, in fact, you see, the statement being made here is very strong, that a miracle can be performed not only by some person with special abilities, but, in essence, by any person. If you look closely at life, you can see that this is so. Moreover, you know, now there is a popular statement that any child is born a genius, then only adults extinguish his genius abilities in most cases. So this is how it is, including in this aspect. Any child can produce such miracles.

Let me give you two examples that, in my opinion, are very striking. This is from a television program that recently aired on September 23, about the famous animator director Alexander Mikhailovich Tatarsky. As an animator, it is clear that any talented animator, in some sense, remains a child. But this also means that he was a brilliant child in his time and did not lose this genius. So, when he was still a child, the following two events happened to him. Look, see if there is a choice of reality here, that is, a miracle.

The first example is this; you can title it “Your favorite toy never gets lost.” Little Sasha had a favorite toy, a glass car, and one day, against his mother’s wishes, he went with her and took this toy with him. And on a trolleybus I accidentally dropped it between the back of the seat and the seat itself and couldn’t get it out. It was already time to go out, his mother led him by the hand from the trolleybus, he got out of the trolleybus and simply could not say anything, he just cried and until the evening he could not explain anything to anyone why he was crying, but there was the greatest grief, he lost this toy It happened like this. In the evening his sister came and told about an extraordinary incident, an extraordinary event that happened to her. She says: “I was riding on a trolleybus and accidentally felt with my hand between the back and seat of the trolleybus a glass car, exactly the same as Sasha’s. Now you, Sasha, will have two such cars.” Look, see if this is a miracle or not. I can tell you the second episode that happened to the same Tatarsky in childhood, which is even more amazing.

Yakov Krotov: Let's first give the floor to a listener from Moscow. Ivan, good afternoon, please.

Listener: Good afternoon. It seems to me that the world that exists, the objective world, is, naturally, strictly determined, but this determination is completely inaccessible to us, only the way we see this world through instruments is accessible to us, and the instruments are made by us. What we see through this lens is by no means an objective picture, but this is what our lens shows, and not what actually exists. In fact, the cat, of course, is alive or dead, but the way we measure it, in the world of these measurements, in this world... The quantum world is a model world. In this world there really is a certain alternative, where at the same time there is a probability of this, a probability of that. The wave function, Einstein’s equations and so on are not deterministic, but probabilistic theories, since they reflect not the objective world, but the world as seen by our instruments. And religion is, in my opinion, a slightly different model idea of ​​the world. Thank you.

Yakov Krotov: Thank you, Ivan. Truly, as the holy fathers said, truly Einstein himself speaks through your lips. But, nevertheless, my heart in this case is on the side of Mikhail Borisovich, because... no, the devices, of course, are objective, but it is the devices that show the reality of the quantum world. This is the specificity of the concept for which we gathered. Otherwise the laser would not be possible. Practice is the criterion of truth.

As for the miracle, Mikhail Borisovich, then, of course, I, as former child, I understand that acquiring a car meant more to Tatarsky than acquiring the Cross of the Lord for medieval Christians. However, I somehow don’t see a miracle here. And even the resurrection of the elder, why didn’t it happen? Alyosha wanted to resurrect him. See, where is the shift between your concept and the traditional religious one? You talk about consciousness and assume that consciousness can make a choice through volition. I don't deny it. I just want to say that for a believer there is a resurrection, here the Apostle Peter prays for the resurrection of a girl, and he prays to God, that is, he says, “my consciousness cannot make a choice of an alternative, only God can do this,” not because God is this is part of some quantum world within which we are all, but because God is a person. In our projection, in our imagination, he is, of course, a person. But He is at the same time something undoubtedly more enormous. And it is God who resurrects her; in this case, it is not me who makes the choice of an alternative. In this sense, you and religion, rather, still find yourself at a perpendicular.

Mikhail Mensky: This is a more difficult question. We could talk about this topic, but now, of course, there is no time for this. That is, I can say this, every person can perform such probabilistic miracles. By the way, about the resurrection of the elder, this would probably be impossible from the point of view of this concept. Why? Because the choice of an alternative is possible only when this alternative can be realized in a natural way, that is, consciousness can only increase the probability.

But in the case of a toy, this is just an adequate example. That is, the toy could have been found by chance, and it was found by chance, but the probability of such a random coincidence is unusually small, you can count it, it will be an extremely small number. And the child extremely wanted this to come true, and he increased the likelihood that this particular alternative would come true.

Maybe I'll tell you the second episode.

Yakov Krotov: Let's.

Mikhail Mensky: The second episode was like this. Sasha Tatarsky's father used to lie on the balcony in the morning after coffee (they lived in a southern city) and read the newspaper, and Sasha, as a rule, pestered him. One day he was reading a newspaper, Sasha pestered him and dad, in order to get rid of him for a while, said, “This is probably interesting to you,” and read him some article from the newspaper. This note was the first report about helicopters in the USSR; before that, nothing was known about helicopters; this was the first note to appear in the newspaper. So he read it to Sasha and said: “If you now look carefully at the sky for 10 minutes, you will see what a helicopter is. I can’t show you a picture, it’s not here, there’s only a description, but if you look at the sky, you’ll see a helicopter.” Sasha calmed down, left dad alone, and dad was able to calmly finish reading the newspaper, while he intensely looked at the blue sky. And then, after about 8-10 minutes, suddenly eight helicopters flew right over their balcony, one after another.

Yakov Krotov: Mikhail Borisovich, if there were seven of them, it would be a miracle. This is not a miracle at all, this is a completely natural event and the reason is simple: the inventor of the helicopter, Sikorsky, was a deeply religious Orthodox Christian, the author of many books, interpretations of the Lord’s Prayer, and the Beatitudes, so he simply, apparently, decided to show the child the power of faith .

Let's give the floor to Vladimir Nikolaevich from Moscow. Good afternoon, please.

Listener: Good afternoon, Yakov Gavrilovich. Yakov Gavrilovich, as a Christian, you understand quantum mechanics much better than you think. The fact is that the beginning of quantum mechanics was laid not in the 20th century and not by Buddhism, but in October 451 on the outskirts of Constantinople, Chalcedon, on the fourth Ecumenical Council, where, discussing the problem of the existence of Jesus, in two natures unmerged, invariably, inseparably, inseparably cognizable, so that by combining several inviolable differences of natures, but the peculiarity of each is preserved, and they are united into one person and one hypostasis. Attention, not divided or divided into two persons, but one and the same son and God of the Word of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the 20th century, at the Copenhagen congresses and so on, all this took shape as the wave-particle dualism of quantum microobjects, in particular that very electron, where these words, if only the name of the gentleman is replaced with a quantum microobject, repeat exactly the same thing - unmerged and inseparable. Therefore, in science, generally speaking, there is much more religious than in religion there is scientific. It’s just that in religion they are called dogmas, and in science they are called axioms.

Yakov Krotov: Thank you, Vladimir Nikolaevich. You know, this is what I'm talking about, Lord, deliver me from my friends. That is, I am very glad that you know so well the history of theological movements of what is called the “golden age of patristic writing.” But in this case I will say this: the Chalcedonian dogma has nothing to do with the principle of superposition, although there is a formal similarity. You simply have a very developed poetic thinking. But this is also a danger. After all, the Chalcedonian dogma, in general the doctrine of two natures, is, first of all, philosophy, it is Neoplatonic philosophy, which in its very specific language tries to describe the Lord Jesus Christ. You can describe Him in another language, but to compare the divine nature, say, with a wave, and the human nature with a particle, means not understanding that God is higher than both the wave and the particle. A connection like a superposition can be compared, but it will only be a comparison, it is only a metaphor, it is not literal. And in this sense, quantum mechanics still does, it seems to me, something different and in this sense has nothing to do with religion. Rather, Mikhail Borisovich, correct me, you write that it is Everett’s concept, which is very unfortunately called multi-world, that’s where all these fantastic things came from...

Mikhail Mensky: Many-worlds.

Yakov Krotov: Many-worlds. Well, many-worlds is probably more accurate.

Mikhail Mensky: Many-worldly, yes.

Yakov Krotov: I mean that average person, like me, a fan of science fiction, and how many of these books have been written about how a person wanders from one world to another. And this is not about that, this is a perverted understanding of the concept of quantum physics.

Mikhail Mensky: Absolutely right.

Yakov Krotov: We are talking about something else. These are classic alternatives, but you can’t jump from one to the other. However, when you write, you give a very simple example of raising your hand. Here is a person sitting at a party meeting and raising his hand and, from your point of view, he is thereby choosing an alternative. But it seems to me that this is also some kind of not very successful metaphor. You say that science cannot explain why he does this, it explains the mechanism of raising physiologically or psychologically, but there is some point, a bifurcation point, and this is inexplicable, why someone raised his hand to shoot the enemy of the people, and someone - I didn’t pick it up. But it seems to me that now you, as a physicist, are making something poetic out of quantum physics, applying it to human soul, which in this sense is free - and free will cannot be interpreted and likened to the choice of alternatives in Everett's concept. Or what?

Mikhail Mensky: There may, of course, be different points of view here. In general, I must say that most physicists still do not agree with Everett’s concept. You talked about Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, who did not agree with this, nevertheless, published my article about Everett in his journal, because he considered it very important to discuss this issue. But not only Vitaly Lazarevich, but in general the majority of physicists do not agree with this. I have already said that one can only say that the number of those who agree has increased unusually quickly in the last decade.

So, with regard to free will, of course, there may be other points of view. But I want to say that a convincing explanation, scientific explanation, physiological, let's say, free will does not exist. Although some physiologists may not agree with this, when I analyze what physiologists say about this, as a rule, it seems to me, I found a logical circle or some other error of this kind. But as for Everett’s interpretation, within the framework of this interpretation, it seems that free will can be explained as an arbitrary increase in the probability of one of the alternatives.

Yakov Krotov: We have a call from Moscow. Larisa Egorovna, good afternoon, please.

Listener: Hello. I will probably speak very poorly, because I understand nothing at all about quantum physics and mechanics. But, you know, I simply don’t have it at hand, I gave it to me to read, I just read the book of St. Luke Voino-Yasenetsky “Body, Soul and Spirit”, he talks about exactly this there, this is the end of the 50s, 60s s years, he talks about quantum physics there. And the fact that people, with their knowledge, are the ones who will see the beginning of the spirit, so to speak, like scientists. About the fact that a person will go towards this knowledge and what he will see, but until he develops his spirit, his faith with his heart, faith and love, he will not fully understand that after all, everything and this is the second consciousness, this second world that we do not see, that is, until we believe, love... That is, we will understand with our minds, but until we go deep with our hearts.

Yakov Krotov: Thank you, Larisa Egorovna. Let me remind you that Bishop Luka Voino-Yasenetsky, a famous surgeon, laureate of the Stalin Prize for a textbook on purulent surgery, died in 1961. But, you know, he, of course, as a surgeon, was also a physiologist, but his book “Spirit, Soul and Body” seems to me extremely unsuccessful. Here is an attempt by a physiologist to solve a theological question by some kind of mechanical combination of quotations from the holy fathers. I can say that this is not a question of the methodology of science, it is a question of the methodology of knowledge. Because free will is generally a term that lies outside the boundaries of science, so explaining it from the point of view of science is the same as explaining love from the point of view of science, and so on. This is not a phenomenon, it is a human interpretation, which can very easily be explained in Bazarov’s way, but maybe not. Other outstanding Orthodox man XX century academician Ukhtomsky, the creator of the Institute of Physiology (named after Ukhtomsky now) in St. Petersburg, he was also a deeply religious man, an Old Believer, the head of the Old Believer Cathedral and the creator of the doctrine of psychological dominance, which, as I understand, in general, works. However, within the framework of this teaching, free will still remains.

Mikhail Mensky: Now we touch very much complex issues, and, of course, these are precisely those questions that not only cannot be resolved within the framework of quantum physics, but there is not even a hint of their solution. However, I want to make a remark that is purely subjective; there is no scientific evidence here. I kept saying that from a certain point of view, quantum mechanics hints that a person can choose an alternative, that is, he can perform probabilistic miracles, increase the alternative of what he likes. But the question immediately arises: should he do this? And this question is outside of science, of course. Of course, outside of quantum mechanics. This is a question of morality or ethics, or religion, perhaps, it is beyond quantum mechanics. Therefore, I can only answer it, firstly, not within the framework of science. Secondly, only subjectively, that is, I can say what my opinion is, well, you can refer to some authorities. So, in my opinion, even if a person has seen that he can choose alternatives, he should use this ability only as a last resort. As a rule, one must refrain from controlling reality. What happens if we abstain? Everything happens regardless of our will. So we, perhaps, would like to choose one alternative, but we do not choose it, we leave it, as one might say, to the will of God. Everything happens as it happens, without our participation - and that’s right. Because this is how it arises, this is mine subjective opinion, such an option, such a choice that is good not only for this person, but which is optimal for many people, maybe in some important cases for all people, maybe in some very important cases for all living things. This, I repeat, is a separate question and terribly interesting, but this, of course, is outside of quantum mechanics.

Yakov Krotov: Our last call is from Moscow. Andrey, good afternoon.

Listener: Hello. First question for Yakov. You know, there are axioms, like the Bible is an axiom for us, which does not require Christian proof. I have a question about faith. It is said: “For everyone who is born of God overcomes the world, and this is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the son of God. I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God Jesus Christ, so that you may know that by believing in the Son of God you have eternal life.”

And the second question to Mikhail. Do you think everyone is wondering how old humanity is, but there is a Jewish calendar that goes back to the foundation of the world.

Yakov Krotov: Andrey, thank you. Let me not bother Mikhail Borisovich with this trifle. I, Yakov, please, but Mikhail Borisovich, excuse me, Mikhail Borisovich, and here I will be firm.

Jewish calendar or orthodox calendar, which is a little more than a thousand, these are all human attempts to describe the indescribable. As for victory over the world, the Gospel speaks of victory over evil, because in the Hebrew language the word “peace” had a fairly wide range of meanings. The Lord says, “I brought you peace, shalom,” that is, peace, as the completeness of relationships between people, but He also speaks of victory over the world, as over those relationships that spoil existence, spoiled relationships. This is overcome by faith.

What Mikhail Borisovich said about whether it is necessary to carry out a search and influence it reminded me terribly of “Monday begins on Saturday”, where they brought out (it was easier then, there was no Inquisition yet), and there they brought out the Creator himself in the form a laboratory employee who discovered a formula of supreme perfection and therefore did not perform any miracles. Because the boundary condition was that the miracle should not harm anyone, and this is impossible. So here it is good news is that it is possible. And if you, we, accept that you can only perform miracles as a last resort, then our whole life will turn into a string of extreme cases, we will always lament: “the communists must be defeated, so let’s send in the tanks.” We saw in modern history There are such examples in Russia when a person screws himself up - they say, it’s an extreme case, it’s time to shoot. It’s not you, Mikhail Borisovich, but we can name a lot of such people. So, it seems to me that in fact miracles can and should be done daily, every minute, by making this choice of alternatives. There is no need to be afraid, the Creator will take away what is not needed; what is needed will be promoted by Himself, but you need to address it above the classical and quantum worlds.

Mikhail Borisovich Mensky - Professor, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Physical Institute named after. P.N. Lebedev RAS.

Area of ​​scientific interests - quantum field theory and gravity (group-theoretical and geometric methods). Quantum measurement theory and quantum information science. Quantum optics and quantum information devices. Conceptual problems of quantum mechanics. Currently: quantum theory of continuous measurements, decoherence and dissipation of quantum (including relativistic) systems; quantum field theory and gravity - an approach based on a group of paths and non-holonomic reference frames.

Achievements - 146 articles and 6 books (1 book translated from Russian into Japanese, 2 books published in English, one of them was then translated into Russian).

Books (1)

Consciousness and quantum mechanics. Life in parallel worlds

Miracles of consciousness - from quantum reality.

The book outlines the Quantum concept of consciousness proposed by the author in 2000, developed on the basis of Everett's many-worlds interpretation and explaining the nature of consciousness based on the specific understanding of reality that quantum mechanics brought with it. It is shown that the counterintuitive properties of quantum reality lead to the fact that consciousness has abilities that are usually interpreted as mystical.

The emerging theory of consciousness is compared with the provisions of various spiritual teachings (including religion) and psychological practices that recognize mysticism. It shows that unusual phenomena in the sphere of consciousness (superintuition and probabilistic miracles) can equally rightly be considered both generated by consciousness itself and as unlikely natural events occurring due to random coincidences. This demonstrates the relativity of objectivity and firmly connects the sphere of matter and the sphere of spirit with each other.