I think you have just shown how the terminology can spiral out of control very, very quickly when talking about the phenomenon of consciousness.

I have no answers. I am generally some breed of physicalist when it comes to some questions of consciousness and not so much for others. It depends on the framing.

If you are asking form a physicalistic perspective then the room exists when I leave. If you are asking from a phenomenological perspective the question is far more complicated.

I think you have just shown how the terminology can spiral out of control very, very quickly when talking about the phenomenon of consciousness. — I like sushi

Thank you. That's what I'd hoped. To my eye this shows the incoherence of such talk. So mucht he worse for phenomenology.

C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it — Jan

The actual quote was:

Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected and considered by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being. — Source

It absolutely can, people can just be either unfairly dismissive or ignorant.

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.... — Jan

Physicist and philosopher Karen Barad favors Niels Bohr’s explanation of the double slit experiment over Einstein or Heisenberg. Bohr does not see scientific knowledge as describing pre-existing objects with independent properties. Instead, the outcome of the double-slit experiment shows that what is observed depends on the experimental arrangement. The electron (or photon) does not have an inherent “wave” or “particle” nature independent of how we measure it. Whether we see an interference pattern (wave-like) or two distinct bands (particle-like) is a function of the measurement setup, not a revelation of some hidden essence of the electron.

Barad takes Bohr’s explanation further, claiming that reality is not made of independent objects with inherent attributes.Instead, reality consists of phenomena produced through intra-actions.The double-slit experiment demonstrates this. There is no independent electron “with” a wave-or-particle nature, only the phenomenon of electron plus apparatus. For Barad, the very concepts of “wave” and “particle” are not properties of nature-in-itself, but arise only within specific experimental arrangements. The experiment demonstrates the inseparability of observer, apparatus, and observed.

You could be right

C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists — Jan

Jung seems to be saying that I personally create the reality I see. But I don't consciously or intentionally create my environment, I just passively (instinctively) accept it as a given, and interpret the incoming bits of energy as information signals from a non-self Reality. So, Epistemological Idealism doesn't make sense to me. The other varieties of Idealism : Subjective ; Objective ; Absolute ; Constitutive ; and Transcendental ; appear to be grasping at straws.

Only the Transcendental makes some Ontological sense --- in view of the Big Bang theory --- but then we have the problem of postulating an imaginary out-of-this-world Source of the incoming Information (Ideas) we interpret as Real. I don't flatly reject the God hypothesis, even though I have no personal experience to confirm it. Therefore, as an amateur philosopher, while I entertain the hypothetical notion of Idealism, for practical purposes I assume that there is a real material world out there, which is not a creation of my feeble imagination. :smile:

Perhaps we ought to distinguish between meaning or signification with existence and then the puzzle is weakened.

Unless one wants to throw away all the evidence we have of non-conscious activity prior to our existence, which helps explain (in part) why we are here at all.

“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?“

That’s interesting
I am busy creating a kind of an imaginary model. I hope I can fit this in
I hope to show it some day.

It's a problem for solipsism generally. And Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. If to be is to be perceived then things cease to exist when unperceived; including, it seems, other people.

Hence solipsism.

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? — Banno

To examine the measurements involved in clock time, (Henri) Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state – the current time – is what we call ‘now’. Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time.

Bergson appreciated that we need the exactitude of clock time for natural science. For example, to measure the path that an object in motion follows in space over a specific time interval, we need to be able measure time precisely. What he objected to was the surreptitious substitution of clock time for duration in our metaphysics of time. His crucial point in Time and Free Will was that measurement presupposes duration, but duration ultimately eludes measurement. — Clock time contra lived time

Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. — Banno

At least your version of it does.

You've always seem to me to avoid it only by an appeal to mysticism or changing the subject.

Even accepting Bergson's distinction between time and duration - and I don't see that we need do so - the problem remains that things cease to exist when we are "unconscious". That problem is not resolved.

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

Substitute "the world" with "your world."

Actual quote from Jung is:

“Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.”

Schrödinger had ideas along similar lines. — Jan

I can't agree with this assessment.

Jung was a psychologist, not a physicist. He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness.

This is not a statement about reality generally. It is a statement about what constitutes our personal reality. The "practically speaking" qualification makes it all the more difficult to suggest he was making any claim about the world generally.

This topic is very interesting from a sociological perspective because multiverse theories have become very popular as a solution to the Fine Tuning Problem, and yet "Consciousness Causes Collapse" (the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) solves the problem just as well.

Why do we exist in a universe fine tuned for conscious life? Because only such life collapses potentiality into actuality. All possibilities exist, but only those with life become actual. Problem solved. If the degree of collapse corresponds to the degree of consciousness, perhaps there is even something like an iron law leading towards de Chardin's Omega Point. Makes as much sense as the multiverse.

At least, prima facie, I am not sure why "everything possible actually happens, it is just impossible to ever observe that this is so," is considered more plausible than this. I can see why some might find both absurd, but the preference for one over the other seems hard to explain as anything other than an aesthetic preference.

“Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.” — Hanover

So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically.

Matter exists. Planets exist. If you have an atypical definition of "the world", I suppose we can just go about redefining any word vague enough if we so please. What of it?

He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness. — Hanover

I think "our idea of the world" would be best suited in place of "our world". The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, doesn't exist, or may come to exist. It should go without saying "my opinion" or "what I think to be a fact because it seems like it" are very different concepts that do not necessarily have anything to do with the physical matter and constitutional makeup of the universe, let alone how other people may view such.

I just don't see the basic elementary idea of "one's opinion" or "worldview" coming anywhere near traversing such depths of the metaphysical or anything remotely profound. Sure, most people fail to realize that. But as far as academia is concerned, this is, or at least I would hope should be, common knowledge.

So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically — Outlander

No. That suggests Jung was some sort of Berkelian idealist. He was not making any metaphysical claim at all. He was only indicating our psyche is mediated by our perceptions and so our consciousness of reality defines who we are.

The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, — Outlander

He's not suggesting otherwise. To the extent the external world is mediated and not directly knowable, that would evoke Kantian references of the noumenal, but not suggestions of reality blipping in and out of existence as we blink.

Again, in the Nature survey, the data is as follows:

Does a measurement require an observer?
Yes, and they must be conscious: 9%
Yes, but consciousness is not relevant (and an 'observer' can include
interaction with a macroscopic environment): 56%
No: 28%
Not sure: 8%

The supposition that there is a consensus amongst physicists that consciousness is an inherent feature of the physical universe is a fabrication. 84% of physicists reject the idea that consciousness is necessary for measurement.

84% of physicists reject the idea that consciousness is necessary for measurement. — Banno

Physicists are not trained in theories of consciousness. There’s probably precious little agreement amongst them about what the word even refers to. (Good article, BTW.)

Physicists are not trained in theories of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Yep. If consciousness were central to physics in the way you suppose, wouldn't physicist be the "go-to" for explaining consciousness?

And what way do you think I suppose?

I think I could say that the act of observation seems inextricably connected with an experimental result in quantum physics, and this is what has given rise to the well-known interpretive problems. As observers are conscious, some will say that it is inferred from that fact that consciousness is involved, although there is still debate about whether registration by an instrument that is not observed amounts to a measurement. But one can always say that any such registration must itself be validated by observation before it has been brought to completion.

Again, in the Nature survey, the data is as follows:

Does a measurement require an observer?
Yes, and they must be conscious: 9%
Yes, but consciousness is not relevant (and an 'observer' can include
interaction with a macroscopic environment): 56%
No: 28%
Not sure: 8%

The supposition that there is a consensus amongst physicists that consciousness is an inherent feature of the physical universe is a fabrication. 84% of physicists reject the idea that consciousness is necessary for measurement. — Banno

Consciousness isn't an inherent feature of the physical universe, but a description of the physical universe without reference to consciousness is incoherent. The measurement (meaning the measuring devices' reaction to the physical event) occurs without consciousness, but what are we even talking about when we talk about events that exist in a universe that have never been provided attributes described by the senses?

There’s probably precious little agreement amongst them about what the word even refers to. — Wayfarer

But there seems to be largely agreement that measurement does not require consciousness because there is simply nothing in quantum theory to suggest this. It only arises as something you might consider when speculating about interpretation, and if your preferred interpretation does not have a profound measurement problem, there is no longer a reason for you to want to bring consciousness into it, on top of the fact that quantum theory does not suggest consciousness is required in any way.

Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time. — Wayfarer

Someone raised the question above : "what is a measurement?" The English word "measure" comes from Latin "mensura', and mensura derives from the root "mens-" meaning Mind*1. So, one sense of measurement is "to extract information into a mind". To "take the measure of something" is to convert the perceived object into a mental representation of the object : an idea or concept. Hence, metaphorically, some physical properties of the object are replicated in meta-physical (mental) images (ideas). Therefore, a particle of matter can impact another particle, but only a Mind can measure the meaning of that collision in terms of values & properties. A yardstick cannot measure anything in the absence of an interpreting mind.

The Quantum Measurement Problem*2 seems to be similar to Bergson's Clock. Mechanisms move one tick at a time, but humans measure Time as duration : the space between ticks. Hence, for 10 billion solar years, the expanding universe ticked along, with no one to measure that change in terms of duration (Time) or expansion (space) or importance (events). Do animals have a mental concept of Time, over & above the circadian rhythms of their bodies? Humans seem to feel time as flowing, but measure it in discrete increments : ticks of a mechanical clock or sub-atomic quanta. So, time is not a physical thing, but merely an on-going process of observed events that we experience as continuous, but measure as quantified. :smile:


*1. The measuring mind : The Latin word for "mind" is mens, not "mensura". "Mensura" is a separate Latin word meaning "measure".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+word+for+%22mind%22+mensura

*2. The quantum measurement problem is a foundational question in quantum mechanics concerning the apparent contradiction between a quantum system's deterministic evolution (as described by the Schrödinger equation) and the probabilistic "collapse" of its state into a single outcome upon measurement.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+measurement+problem

*3. Time is widely understood as a continuous flow of existence and events, progressing irreversibly from past to future, and is a fundamental aspect of reality as described by both physics and philosophy. While a continuous and divisible flow is the dominant view, particularly in how we experience it, the nature of time at the most fundamental, quantum level is still an area of debate, with some physicists suggesting a discrete model might be necessary to fully reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Is+Time+a+series+of+isolated+events%2C+or+a+continuous+flow+of+change%3F

Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. — Banno
At least your version of it does. — Wayfarer

Solipsism is self-centered. Each observer of the environment is a Self (knowing mind), and has a self-centered perspective. But, for scientific purposes, we compare our selfish worldviews in order to average-out the differences, and to discover the most common description or interpretation of the thing observed : Objective instead of Subjective*4.

In the Embarassing Graph article linked above, "The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement". Even so, the most "popular" interpretation of spooky Quantum Physics is the one that is most like Magic : Probabilistic Copenhagen (42%) : events happen that can't be explained in classical deterministic mechanical terms. Second most popular is mind-centered Information-Theoretical (24%). And farther down the list is belief-centered Quantum-Bayesianism (6%). So, most scientists seem to agree that something funny*5 (non-mechanical) is going on, that can seem magical or mundane, depending on the observer's worldview .

A scientist's sensory perceptions and machine data are empirical, but their measurements and interpretations are theory-laden. That's why we can argue in opposite directions from the same evidence. Likewise, physical events are real & empirical, but conscious ideas about those events are ideal & hypothetical (speculative). :nerd:


*4. Scientific objectivity is the principle that scientific claims, methods, and results should be free from personal biases, value judgments, community bias, and personal interests, aiming to accurately reflect the facts of the world. It involves focusing on evidence and proven facts, minimizing irrational emotions, and striving for neutrality and accuracy in research. While an ideal, achieving perfect objectivity is challenging, as scientists are influenced by their perspectives, culture, and the broader scientific community.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientific+objectivity

*5. The "magic" in the Copenhagen Interpretation refers to the seemingly inexplicable process of wave function collapse, where a quantum system's indeterminate probabilities resolve into a single, definite outcome upon measurement. Critics, including Schrödinger, found this abrupt, probabilistic change, which lacks a clear physical mechanism, to be "magical" and a weakness of the interpretation. For them, it introduces randomness and a lack of determinism that is contrary to classical physics, forcing an acceptance of an unanalyzable cause for the wave function's collapse.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+magic

, .

We differentiate between what is believed, understood, thought and so on, and what is true. We do this becasue sometimes what we take to be true is unfortunately not true. We are mistaken, or we are in error, or we are deluded.

It's common for folk with idealist tendencies to confuse what they believe, understand, think etc. with what is true. Folk who think the world is inherently mental phenomena are going to have difficulty differentiating between mental phenomena and the world.

So they might say things such as that "the act of observation seems inextricably connected with an experimental result", and in a way of course this is true - to understand an experimental result requires a mind, after all. To understand that the rock falls requires a mind.

But it would be a mistake to think that therefore the rock could not fall unless there is a mind present - that the rock's fall is inherently a mental phenomena.

That we cannot talk about the way the world is without thereby conceptualising it with our minds does not imply that there is no such world without our so conceptualising it.

There is the ontological truth, that the rock falls. There is the epistemic truth, that a mind holds it to be true that the rock falls. This distinction is what permits us to be mistaken as to how things are.

Someone raised the question above : "what is a measurement?" The English word "measure" comes from Latin "mensura', and mensura derives from the root "mens-" meaning Mind*1. — Gnomon

You've misread your own reference. sure, mēns (“mind”) is from PIE *men- (“to think”), but mensūra (“to measure”) is form from PIE *meh₁- (“to measure”).

Measure dervives from Meh, not Mens.

I appreciate the response, but I think it sidesteps the core issues rather than addressing them directly.

While there may be broad agreement that consciousness isn't necessarily special in quantum mechanics, this doesn't resolve the deeper puzzle. Even if consciousness plays no unique role, the measurement problem remains: something distinguishes measurement interactions from non-measurement interactions, and standard quantum theory doesn't specify what that 'something' is. We still need to explain why certain physical interactions produce definite outcomes while others maintain superposition.

Second, your comment that "if your preferred interpretation does not have..." is circular. You're essentially saying that if we choose an interpretation that claims to solve the measurement problem, then there's no problem! But the measurement problem is precisely why interpretations were needed in the first place. The various interpretations exist precisely because the theory leaves this fundamental question unanswered.

Third, saying that "quantum theory does not suggest consciousness is required" misses the point. The measurement problem doesn't arise because the theory positively suggests consciousness is involved - it arises because the theory is silent about what actually happens during measurement. Quantum mechanics works perfectly for making predictions, but it doesn't tell us what's really occurring when superpositions become definite outcomes, or what was really the case prior to measurement except by way of probabilities.

The hard question remains: given that quantum systems evolve unitarily according to the Schrödinger equation, why do we observe definite measurement results rather than experiencing superpositions? This puzzle can't be dissolved simply by adopting interpretations that claim it doesn't exist.

But it would be a mistake to think that therefore the rock could not fall unless there is a mind present - that the rock's fall is inherently a mental phenomena. — Banno

Would you say that grammar in Wittgenstein’s sense is the product of a mental phenomenon? If a word like truth only gets its sense from how it is used grammatically in public discourse, do we then say that such discourse is grounded in the interaction among minds? But then what do we do about the grammatical possibilities of ‘mind’?

While "grammar is a product of the mind", it is also embedded in the world. Rather than being forced to choose between realism and idealism, we might reject the framework that juxtaposes the two. The world is our successful interpretation and communication within our forms of life.

We still need to explain why certain physical interactions produce definite outcomes while others maintain superposition. — Wayfarer

Not according to the Copenhagen interpretation. We have the calculations, they work with extreme accuracy, and nothing more is needed from an explanation. The Copenhagen interpretation denies that we need to explain the mechanism of collapse, that there's some deeper level of reality beneath the quantum description and that the measurement problem requires a solution.

And again, if any interpretation is a consensus amongst physicist, it's the Copenhagen interpretation.

Quantum mechanics works perfectly for making predictions, but it doesn't tell us what's really occurring when superpositions become definite outcomes — Wayfarer

Hang on - that word, "really", ought set one's teeth on edge. The fact is that Quantum Mechanics does tell us what will occur as the result of a superposition, with extraordinary accuracy.

Your sentiment for a deeper mystical account is not an argument. Least of all is some form of idealism required.

The Copenhagen interpretation denies that we need to explain the mechanism of collapse, that there's some deeper level of reality beneath the quantum description and that the measurement problem requires a solution. — Banno

Bohr wasn't saying "don't ask deeper questions" or "physics should only describe observations." His complementarity principle was a sophisticated attempt to understand what quantum mechanics reveals about the nature of physical reality itself. Bohr argued that quantum phenomena demonstrate fundamental limits to classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" - not because we can't measure precisely enough, but because reality itself doesn't conform to these classical categories.

I have to mention the family Coat of Arms that was bestowed on Neils Bohr by the Danish Crown in recognition of his services to science. Bohr designed it himself, and it included the taoist Ying-Yang symbol, representing his discovery of complementarity, which he regarded as his most important philosophical insight.

The positivist reading - which you're advocating here - treats Bohr as an anti-realist who wanted to avoid metaphysics entirely. But Bohr was actually making a profound metaphysical claim: that the classical subject-object distinction breaks down at the quantum level, and that phenomena only exist in relation to experimental contexts. This isn't avoiding the measurement problem - it's proposing that the problem reveals something fundamental about the nature of physical reality.

Bohr's "no deeper level" claim wasn't anti-explanatory positivism but rather the view that quantum mechanics reveals the deepest level - that reality is inherently relational and contextual rather than consisting of objects with intrinsic properties.

You're conflating the copenhagen view with the later "shut up and calculate" attitude - just leave those questions aside and do the work. Bohr was deeply concerned with interpretation and meaning - he just thought quantum mechanics was telling us something revolutionary about the nature of reality itself.

John Wheeler: “The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy, It conflicts with the view that the universe exists “out there” independent of all acts of observation. In contrast Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us. In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word “phenomenon”. In today’s words, Bohr’s point — and the central point of quantum theory — can be put into a single, simple sentence. “No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon”.

Werner Heisenberg: “What we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

Neils Bohr: “Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world”.

It's common for folk with idealist tendencies to confuse what they believe, understand, think etc. with what is true. — Banno

I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflection. That the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is that which philosophers call ‘matter’ or ‘corporeal substance’. — George Berkeley

So - let's solve that problem! Demonstrate to Bishop Berkeley that matter is composed of absolute and indivisible particles that exist entirely independently of anyone's observation or say-so. Get to it!