• Jan
    10
    C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists. What I do not see, or what I am not aware of, therefore does not exist.
    Schrödinger had ideas along similar lines.
    
“A cat is locked in a steel chamber, together with the following infernal device that must be shielded from direct interference by the cat: in a small vial is a tiny amount of a radioactive substance, so little that within an hour one atom may decay—but equally likely, none will. If an atom decays, a Geiger counter detects it and triggers a relay that releases a hammer, which shatters a flask of hydrocyanic acid. If this system has been left to itself for an hour, one would say the cat is still alive if no atom has decayed. The first atom to decay would have poisoned the cat. The wave function of the entire system would express this by showing the living and dead cat as coexisting in a mixed state. The striking feature of such cases is that an indeterminacy originally confined to the atomic level becomes translated into a macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation.” (Translation of Schrödinger’s original text. Source: Wikipedia)

    But the idea that direct observation “decides” the outcome seems incorrect to me. 
Direct observation determines the result, yes—but observation itself does not decide. It merely perceives. Consciousness then forms an opinion and makes decisions based on what is perceived, but in this case, it lags behind the facts (dead or alive).
    The double slit experiment shows that light (and even matter) behaves both as a wave and as a particle. 
When you send light or electrons through two slits, an interference pattern appears on the screen behind—as if they pass through both slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. This reveals their wave-like nature.
But as soon as you observe which slit they pass through, the interference pattern disappears—and they behave like particles. This suggests that observation influences behavior, which is one of the strangest insights of quantum mechanics.
    According to quantum mechanics, everything exists in a superposition until it is observed. 
Superposition means that different physical quantities (such as waves, forces, or electrical signals) can exist simultaneously and influence each other without losing their individual properties.
So, in my view, this means that what I do not see or am not aware of exists in a superposition—a vast range of possibilities. It only truly exists the moment I see it and become aware of it.
    It seems, then, that before something is observed, everything exists—but only as possibility (superposition). 
We live in a vast field of potential outcomes that only become definite once we observe them.

    And this puzzles me....
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    You're not the only one it puzzles. Esteemed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose adamantly declares that quantum physics must be wrong, deficient or incomplete for exactly that reason. He says that the Universe must be a certain way, and it's the job of science to discern the way it is, independently of any act on our part. But others, for example QBists, say that each act of measurement is unique to a particular observation and therefore that it is inherenently subjective in some sense.

    By the way, I don't know if it was C G Jung who said that. Bishop Berkeley, who is often discussed on this forum, certainly said esse est percipe (to be is to be perceived) but he was a long time before Jung. But you're right in saying that quantum physics has opened these cans of worms again, of that there is no question,
  • Astorre
    119


    I just discussed the same topic in another thread. I think you'll find it interesting, so I'll just copy my answer

    My fascination with the processual approach to ontology is a kind of response to speculative ontology (object-oriented ontology and so on). I believe that the "subject" today needs philosophical defense more than ever before. If you're familiar with the works of us contemporaries, I think you'll understand what I'm talking about.
    Harman, for instance, argues that the "hammerness" of a hammer is always withdrawn. "Hammerness" is the real being of the hammer as a unified object, which can't be reduced to its relationships with other things (e.g., a hand, a nail, or our thinking). We can't know it completely because:
    Objects have "real qualities" that aren't exhausted by their "sensual" manifestations.
    Any kind of knowledge is a relation that only reveals aspects of the object, but not its holistic essence.
    This withdrawal occurs in three dimensions: the object transcends any attempts to grasp it; it retreats into the background during use; and as a tool, it's always on the verge of breaking, yet remains partially inaccessible.
    Harman emphasizes that this isn't skepticism (objects are real) but rather realism: objects exist independently, but their depth is infinite and inaccessible. This distinguishes OOO from relational ontologies, where everything is reduced to connections.


    What I Propose:
    The modality (or the name can be changed to your liking) of a hammer is its "shadowy depth" (like Harman's), objective and inaccessible in isolation. But when the hammer is used, "hammerness" as a property emerges as an event—dynamic and contextual. This explains why we can't know hammerness statically: it doesn't exist "in the hammer" as a substance, but is born at the boundary of interaction, much like how for Harman, an object is only partially revealed in relationships.

    For Harman, the hammer is revealed in its use—we see only one aspect. I propose to refine this: "hammerness" as a property is revealed in an act of participation, an act of encounter, and depends on the participants in the interaction (the hand, the nail, the task, the lighting). For another participant (e.g., a child playing with the hammer) or context (the hammer as a weapon), a different property is revealed, but the hammer's modality remains the same. This helps explain why complete knowledge is impossible: properties infinitely vary in processes, but they never exhaust the modality.

    For Harman, the subject is a passive object, equal to others and withdrawn from access. The subject is unremarkable and unnecessary (why do we need it if everything is an object, and the method is objective). In my opinion, on the contrary, the subject (the observer or the "I") is a fully existent being with its own modalities (objective structures, such as the visual system or consciousness). It doesn't disappear or become fully flattened: the subject actively participates in the act of Participation, where properties are revealed. For example, in the case of a red apple, the subject (observer) is one of the participants in the interaction (along with the apple and light), and their modalities (cognitive structures) determine how the event of the property emerges. This overcomes Harman's radicalism, returning a role to the subject in reality, but without idealism: the subject doesn't create properties; it co-participates in their actualization
  • Banno
    28.5k
    Some folk would have you believe that consciousness is what collapses the wave function. It isn't. The function is collapsed when measured.
  • Banno
    28.5k


    Examples of measurements without consciousness:
    • A photon hitting a photographic plate and causing a chemical reaction
    • Cosmic rays interacting with particles in space
    • Radioactive decay triggering a Geiger counter in an empty room
    • DNA mutations caused by radiation

    Each collapses the wave function. None involve consciousness.

    See https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02342-y
  • 180 Proof
    16k
    :100:

    Suppose each thing is always a 'superposition of possibilities' but that measuring a thing tracks, or records, only one possibility at a time when the measurement apparatus – also a thing – is classical (i.e. local, decoherent). :chin:
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    But can only be validated by observation a posteriori.
  • Banno
    28.5k
    , - to be sure, the account is not settled. There is room for discussion and compromise, and the answer may only be decided by experimentation.

    However there are those here who, for their own reasons, will pretend that the issue is settled, and in favour of consciousness being needed to collapse the wave form.

    In the Nature survey cited above, only 9% of physicists will agree with them.

    Now will come a series of arguments aimed at discounting the view of collapse as measurement, beginning with
    ↪Banno But are can only be validated by observation a posteriori.Wayfarer
    Note that this is a seperate point - the simple truism that we can only know how things are by looking at how things are. It ignores the difference between somethings being true and being known to be true. A common bit of antirealist rhetoric.
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    Nevertheless the observer problem can’t be wished away by realist rhetoric.
  • Banno
    28.5k
    Sure. Nor is it answered by Indian mysticism.
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    But maybe quantum mechanics really is magic. Not metaphorical magic, but actual sorcery. We build lasers, computers, and superconductors out of it, but the act of “observation” still works by means unknown — changing the outcome simply by measuring. Engineers can harness it, like magicians who know the words of power, but nobody can finally say why the spell works. It produces miracles daily, on a basis that remains mysterious. If that isn’t sorcery, what is?
  • Banno
    28.5k
    Calling it magic is not explaining it. But calling it magic might lead one not to look for a better answer.

    Why make the leap to calling it magic? Why not just say: "I don't know, but I will try to find out..."
  • wonderer1
    2.3k
    Engineers can harness it, like magicians who know the words of power, but nobody can finally say why the spell works.Wayfarer

    :roll:
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    'I think i can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics' ~ Richard Feynman (who ought to have some credibility, as he won the Nobel Priize in the subject.)
  • RogueAI
    3.3k
    Have another one. :up:
  • T Clark
    15.2k
    C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists. What I do not see, or what I am not aware of, therefore does not exist.Jan

    Welcome to the forum. Given my obsession with metaphysics, I will point out that Jung’s formulation is metaphysics and not science. On the other hand, it is my understanding that Schrodinger‘s cat was a thought experiment intended to show the absurdity of some interpretations of quantum mechanics, not as a serious explanation for an actual phenomenon.

    In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges, or to use a word I recently learned, the explanations you described are incommensurable.
  • wonderer1
    2.3k
    'I think i can safely say that nobody understands quantum physics' ~ Richard FeynmanWayfarer

    You interpret that as Feynman saying that engineering is like casting magic spells?
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    I’m saying there’s a sense in which quantum physics seems like magic. Have a read of Spooky Action in Action
  • 180 Proof
    16k
    :up:

    :up: :up:

    You [@Wayfarer] interpret that as Feynman saying that engineering is like casting magic spells?wonderer1
    :smirk:
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    Yes, with the very large difference being that they work :100:
  • Banno
    28.5k
    nobody understands quantum physics'Wayfarer

    If you stopped there, we would have little disagreement.

    But in a few posts you will be leaping beyond the obvious truth that we only know stuff with our mind, to the mind created world; to mind not just being an outcome of the way things are, but the reason that things are this way.

    Now you may be right; but the evidence available does not support your certainty. And there are conceptual difficulties you have yet to overcome.

    It's you who goes past Feynman's aphorism.
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    But then, this is a philosophy forum, not physicsforum, where this discussion wouldn’t even be tolerated.
  • Banno
    28.5k
    ...this is a philosophy forum...Wayfarer

    That doesn't validate a leap into proclaiming what is mere speculation.
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    I’m not ‘proclaiming’ anything. I’m saying that quantum physics is like magic: it produces astonishing results but nobody can really say how. Hence the most embarrassing graph in modern physics. No wonder the staunch realists say it there must be something wrong with it.
  • Banno
    28.5k
    I’m not ‘proclaiming’ anything.Wayfarer

    Sure.

    The graph isn't embarrassing, as indeed is pointed out repeatedly in the comments. The results from this small survey are not too far form the results in the bigger Nature survey I cited above. (thirty odd compared to 1,100). The Copenhagen interpretation hold steady in both.

    To be fair, neither survey included your option, "It's magic".
  • Banno
    28.5k
    C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it.Jan

    Back to this. Was he right?

    Did the world cease to exist last night while you slept?

    What would happen if you were to pretend that it had? If you insisted that events that others claim occurred while you slept did not occur, becasue nothing existed while you were asleep?

    How would others treat you?

    Would any advantage accrue to you from this exercise? Any at all?
  • I like sushi
    5.2k
    Back to this. Was he right?Banno

    It depends on how you interpret what he was saying alongside what it appears he actually meant.
  • Banno
    28.5k
    It depends on how you interpret what he was saying alongside what it appears he actually meant.I like sushi

    Obviously.

    So, did the clock on your wall keep moving while you slept, or was there a leap from when you closed your eyes to when you opened them again, no time passing - nothing exists, just things leaping ahead as if time had passed?

    Indeed, there would be no period of unconsciousness, since time is a part of the world that supposedly ceases to exist "while you are unconscious"...

    There could never be a period in which you are not conscious.
  • Wayfarer
    25.2k
    To be fair, neither survey included your option, "It's magic".Banno

    ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’ ~ Arthur C Clarke. If you don’t think modern information technology is magic, you have a very limited imagination.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.