Do Ideas Move Atoms?
Clarifying causality across physical and semantic levels
Introduction:
In a recent thought-provoking tweet, Carlos De la Guardia asked:
"In our brains, do our ideas push around atoms, or do the atoms push the ideas?"1
The insight here is intriguing: our brains have evolved so that atomic-level causation aligns remarkably closely with semantic-level causation (ideas causing ideas). But to understand this fully, we need to rigorously clarify what causality means.
A Rigorous Definition of Causality:
In the Quantum Branching Universe (QBU) framework, causality is explicitly defined as:
Event A causes Event B if and only if:
Ancestor-Descendant Relationship: All timelines containing Event B share a common ancestor timeline containing Event A.
Counterfactual Dependence: Removing Event A from the ancestor timeline removes Event B from all descendant timelines branching from it.
Events are identified using Strong Pattern Identifiers (SPIs)—precise, reproducible quantum, atomic, or neural states.
Applying This Definition to Ideas and Atoms:
Consider two "events" as ideas—call them Idea A and Idea B. Within our brains:
Ideas correspond to neural activation patterns.
Neural activation patterns correspond precisely to atomic configurations and quantum states.
Thus, applying the QBU causality definition:
Ancestor-Descendant Relationship:
The atomic patterns corresponding to Idea B cannot arise unless the ancestor atomic and neural patterns of Idea A are present.Counterfactual Dependence:
If we remove the neural (and thus atomic) pattern corresponding to Idea A, the subsequent atomic patterns representing Idea B fail to occur.
Therefore, it is perfectly coherent—even necessary—to state that:
Ideas (as neural patterns) cause atomic events.
An Informative Analogy—Software and Hardware:
Consider the analogy of software and hardware. It is entirely coherent to say software controls hardware by explicitly controlling the movement of electrons and atoms within electronic circuits. Just as software provides a higher-level description of physical processes, ideas similarly represent higher-level semantic processes implemented physically in neural states.
If we comfortably assert that software can move electrons and atoms, we should be equally comfortable asserting that ideas move atoms within the brain.
Why is This Important?
This insight clarifies a common confusion regarding causality across levels of description:
Physically, atoms push atoms.
Semantically, ideas push ideas.
Brains are special precisely because evolution has aligned these two causal descriptions. When we talk about ideas causing atomic patterns, we are rigorously justified in doing so.
This alignment is not just metaphorical; it is explicitly causal, formally rigorous, and deeply consequential for understanding consciousness, decision-making, and agency.
Conclusion:
Carlos De la Guardia identified an unusual property of brains, and our Quantum Branching Universe framework provides clarity:
Ideas indeed push around atoms, as rigorously as atoms push around each other. Recognizing this alignment enriches our understanding of how meaning and physics intertwine.