A lot of the confusion comes from us applying our everyday concepts like 'particle' or 'wave' and giving them an absolute, real meaning.

A good (though imperfect) way to think about it is a water surface: Is it a wave or individual droplets? The question isn't really answerable until you measure it. The moment you put an object into it, a droplet sticks to it—you've made a measurement. The previous superposition of possibilities (wave/droplet) has 'collapsed' into a single, concrete result (one droplet).

The crucial point that goes beyond the water analogy is that the mathematics describing this 'fuzziness' (the Schrödinger equation) is ultimately a probability calculation. It's a tool for our knowledge about the system (epistemic), not necessarily an exact description of a physical vibrating process. What happens 'in reality' before we measure is the subject of various interpretations of quantum mechanics. The most common one (the Copenhagen Interpretation) indeed says that the measurement itself brings about a definite state.

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

What you're saying perchance isn't just that pseudo idealists (those with idealist tendencies) confuse the mental as the only real, but it's that's true idealists are confused because they think the mental is the only real.

In other words, true idealists are being true to their worldview. It's not as if they're realists but have illogically assessed the consequences of representationalism to mean there is no ontological truth (as a pseudo idealist might).

As in, Berkeley is logically consistent and Kant allows a distinction between the unknowable noumena (the ontologically real) and the phenomena (the mentally known). Those folks aren't muddling epistemology with ontology.

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. — Banno

I didn't misread the reference, I just focused on the parts that were pertinent to my post :
Mensura = to measure ; Mens- = mind*1*2
A yardstick can provide a comparison, but only a Mind can measure the meaning : to interpret.

Hence, In the quantum context, I infer that "to measure" is to extract information (meaning) into a Mind (observer). Which sheds light on the Quantum Measurement Problem, regarding the cause of the "collapse" of holistic entanglement into particular particles. A machine can obtain mathematical (probability) information about an experiment. But only the conscious experimenter can interpret its Meaning. Collapse (disintegration) happens when energy is extracted by the machine. like a cue ball hitting the neatly-stacked billiard balls. But the Event is only known when the bits of energy/information are interpreted into meaning.

Since scientists are now equating Information with Energy*3, I imagine (philosophical conjecture) that what is extracted from an entangled (interactive) system is a quantum of potential Energy (photon or gluon), which may serve as a keystone, holding the system together. By contrast, Entropy pulls the plug on a system to break it down into isolated parts. Shannon noted that Information is negatively measured in terms of meaningless Entropy*4.

Probability & Potential are not a real things ; they are ideas that are meaningful only to conscious minds. Only when they become Actual does a meaningful Event happen. Consciousness & Events go together like things that are similar. :smile:


*1. The English phrase "to measure" ultimately derives from the Latin verb metiri ("to measure"), which comes from the Proto-Indo-European root me- ("to measure"). The word entered English via the Old French verb mesurer, which was derived from the Latin noun mensura ("a measurement"), the past participle of metiri.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22to+measure%22+etymology

*2. In Latin, "mens" refers to "mind," "intellect," or "plan," as seen in the legal term mens rea (guilty mind) and the English words "mental" or "dementia". It is a feminine noun belonging to the third declension, with the genitive form mentis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22

*3. Is information matter or energy? :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are. Operationally--just as energy is defined in terms of its capacity to perform work--so is information defined in terms of its capacity to organize a system.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*4.In information theory, entropy (H) is a measure of the average uncertainty or randomness associated with a random variable or process. It quantifies the expected amount of information needed to describe the outcome of a random event, with higher entropy indicating greater uncertainty and more information required to specify the outcome. The unit of entropy is the bit, and it is calculated as the weighted average of the information content of each possible outcome, where the information content of an outcome is inversely related to its probability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+entropy

As in, Berkeley is logically consistent and Kant allows a distinction between the unknowable noumena (the ontologically real) and the phenomena (the mentally known). Those folks aren't muddling epistemology with ontology. — Hanover

:up:

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 — Jan

Philosophical Metaphors & Analogies :
Berkeley solved the observer problem by reference to an omniscient onlooker, who sees everything everywhere all the time. Hence, from the omnipotential superposition of all possible states (infinite Possibilities) --- the statistical state of Potential --- God selects what is Actual & Real, . But that is not an empirical scientific space-time model of reality. It's magic!

For us non-omnipotent observers, everything appears to be Real & Definite on the macro scale. But when scientists intrude on the micro-scale of quantum phenomena, everything turns to mush. The observers expect to see material Particles, but instead they see a fog of Superposition. And yet, the Act of observation seems to condense the fog into discrete drops*1. The mental Act seems to have physical impact.

How the probing mind could have physical effects is the Observation Problem. Schrodinger's equation (wavefunction) calculates the statistical probabilities of quantum particle paths. During superposition, the probability is near infinite (indefinite). After probing particles*2 are shot into the fog though, the probability collapses (condenses) from undefined to 100% (definite). But was it the energetic impact of the probing particle, or the extracted knowledge of position & velocity that "shocks the fog" into raindrops of reality?

Before & After states are not physical things, but mathematical concepts. In any case, the curiosity (desire) to know that "fog veiled" information seems be the proximate Cause of the transformation from Potential to Actual. No curiosity, no probe, no collapse. So, which is it : mind or matter that dispelled the statistical fog? I doubt that Idealists & Realists will ever agree on the relation between Ideal Consciousness and Real Events. :smile:


*1. "Fog shock condensation" refers to the formation of visible fog or a condensation cloud resulting from rapid pressure and temperature changes in a gas or liquid, often caused by a shock wave, and is a phenomenon seen in high-speed flight and other extreme conditions where super-saturated vapor cools and condenses into liquid droplets.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fog+shock+condensation

*2. A "quantum observation probe"is a specialized tool or technique used to gather information about a quantum system. Unlike classical probes, which can measure a system without affecting its properties, a quantum probe must contend with the fundamental quantum observer effect, where the act of measurement inevitably disturbs the system being observed. Researchers are developing methods to minimize this disturbance and enable new applications in quantum technology.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+observation+probe

I didn't misread the reference, I just focused on the parts that were pertinent to my post :
Mensura = to measure ; Mens- = mind*1*2 — Gnomon

The root is mete, not mens.

Measurement, not mind.

And again, your own sources say this.

Nor does science equate information with energy. Bits are not joules.

Nor does science equate information with energy. Bits are not joules. — Banno

My equation of Information with Energy was philosophical, not physical. Of course, meaningful Information is not measured in abstract joules. But energy is manifested in various ways : thermal, nuclear, chemical, sound, electricity, gravitation, kinetic, and potential. What they all have in common is ratios & inter-relationships*1.

Besides, Shannon defined Information in terms of Entropy, which is the inverse of Energy. But Energy is just one of many forms of what I call Generic (causal) Information : the power to Transform. Form = structure ; configuration. To Enform = bring together parts or combine to create (something). Hence, causal. Bits of Energy = quanta. Bits of Information = 1 or 0. Per OP, Most notable Events are physical transformations that are informational to conscious observers.

The intrinsic relationship between Energy and Information is not commonly known. But that emerging knowledge is on the leading edge of Physical science and Information science. And the latter is typically of more interest to Philosophy. A 2023 German science textbook*2 makes the relationship explicit. So, cutting edge Science does equate Information with Energy. Yet again, my interest in the Information/Energy relationship is not scientific (joules), but philosophical (intention)*3. :smile:


*1. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*2. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*3. Active Information, Meaning & Form :
Information is Physical and Metaphysical
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

So your post was just made-up stuff. Ok.

So your post was just made-up stuff. Ok. — Banno

Yes. Made-up by professional scientists, per the (obviously un-read) links in previous post. The technical details equating Information & Energy are over my head. But the general concept makes philosophical sense, in view of the Hard Problem of Consciousness : the otherwise unexplained emergence of Animation & Awareness. Perhaps, in a cosmos full of causal events, some natural force somehow transformed Energy & Matter into Life & Mind. Do you have a better theory for the advent of homo sapiens from eons of Thermodynamics? :joke:


Information as a basic property of the universe :
The second reason is that physicists invented accounting devices such as potential energy and entropy to explain the apparent disappearance of energy yet maintain the law of the conservation of energy. The proposed theory would consider that what is conserved is the sum of information and energy. The mathematical relationship between information and entropy is provided by the equation: I = (Io)e-S/k while the conversion of energy into information involves the relationship: 1 J/degree K = 10(23) bits (approximately) Acceptance of the theory would require paradigm shifts in a number of interrelated areas.
____T. Stonier, biotechnology, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Stonier-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/
Note --- Physicists typically don't concern themselves with Life & Mind. Exception : Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life?

Yes. Made-up by professional scientists, per the (obviously mis-read) links in previous post. — Gnomon

Fixed that for you.

Shanon's equations and the work following do not equate energy and information. Wishful thinking on your part. The grain of truth is that processing information has thermodynamic consequences.

Your footnotes are veneer.

There exists more than one interpretation where you have point particles in definite configurations that reproduce all the predictions. — Apustimelogist

Point particles with intrinsic properties is itself an incoherent idea. Therefore you wrongly classify your interpretation as coherent. "Point particles" is just a mathematical facilitation, which physicists know does not represent anything real, due to that incoherency. Therefore it does not avoid the so-called measurement problem, it's just a fiction which simplifies some calculations.

Shanon's equations and the work following do not equate energy and information. — Banno

Shannon's work also does not equate Information with Meaning. He was a pragmatic engineer, not a philosopher or physicist. :smile:

More "veneer" for you to dig through.
Post-Shannon Information Theory
extends Claude Shannon's foundational work by addressing complex communication scenarios and information types that go beyond the classical framework. It focuses on goals like message identification, efficient use of shared resources such as common randomness, and the transmission of gestalt information. New theories are needed to understand information in diverse forms, including biological, social, and embodied contexts, which Shannon's theory was not designed to capture.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=post+shannon+information+theory

Point particles with intrinsic properties is itself an incoherent idea. Therefore you wrongly classify your interpretation as coherent. "Point particles" is just a mathematical facilitation, which physicists know does not represent anything real, due to that incoherency. Therefore it does not avoid the so-called measurement problem, it's just a fiction which simplifies some calculations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I don't think there is any picture or theories of any kind of physics or metaphysics where a point particle wouldn't be a kind of idealization or fiction to simplify conceptualizations of the world. The fact that fields are fundamental doesn't necessarily make particles inconsistent with them; but I do take the point that quantum field theory does seem to suggest to people that some point particle properties just cannot exist in QFT (e.g. a photon cannot be localized in space like a you would expect of a point-particle). But I believe this only conflicts with point particles if you conflate a particle with the quantum state - its the quantum state which cannot be localized. This would not be the case in stochastic mechanics or Bohmian mechanics where neither particles nor field configurations would be identical to a quantum state, so there would be no inherent contradictions even if particles are generalized by a field description.

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. — Banno

Or, presumably, in a box with a cat. So much for Schroedinger and his diabolical cat experiment - as in

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.

(Translation of Schrödinger’s original text. Source: Wikipedia) — Jan

The problem with your @Banno, claim above is that various experiments seem to have produced at least somewhat macro superpositions. I grant that it hasn't yet reached the scale of a geiger counter, let alone a cat, but it's a lot more than a single radioactive atom.

Still. I'd like to see your evidence if you are claiming what you seem to be claiming above as established fact, that would resolve the question of Schroedinger's cat into a matter of fact that we merely do not know until we open the box. I can't find any hint in your link, which seems to think it is not so resolved.

The cat, as a stand-in for Wigner's friend, is presumably aware that it is not dead.

SO is the wave function collapsed or not?

Either consciousness is not what collapses the wave function; or the wave function is already collapsed by the cat; or there are multiple wave functions for different observers.

In each of these cases, there are grave problems for those accounts that rely on consciousness. Consciousness-based interpretations don't actually solve the measurement problem - they just push it around.

Presumably, if you give Wigner's friend a gas mask and put her in the box with the cat, the situation for Schrödinger, outside the box, remains unchanged... the cat is alive and dead; yet the situation for Wigner's friend is different - they can see the cat.

And crucially, Wigner's friend and Schrödinger will agree that this is the case. The rules of physics remain the same for both observers.

I'm not keen on philosophers indulging in speculative physics, but it's worth pointing out that "Shut up and calculate!" is itself a worthy metaphysical option... — Banno

The cat, as a stand-in for Wigner's friend, is presumably aware that it is not dead. — Banno

I'm not sure. Either I have never been in such a superposition, or I have but was not aware. Either way it is not clear to me that it cannot be or that my consciousness would in that case not function to collapse the superposition from within. Obviously in such cases, only the supercats that collapse into life will live to tell the tale, and those that collapse into death will not. Which is a bit problematic for the collapse. If the superposition of the cat is real. then the cat is aware that it is alive and simultaneously not aware that it is dead. Now Wigner's friend in a gas mask might collapse the cat into one state or the other, but I am not clever enough to elucidate how that relates to Schroedinger - I assume from Schroedinger's view, Wigner's friend is still entangled with the cat, and therefore getting ready simultaneously to report the cats sad demise and it's joyous survival.

The cat, as a stand-in for Wigner's friend, is presumably aware that it is not dead. — Banno

The cat is obviously immortal.

From what I vaguely understand, the idea is that the wave-function is a universal wave-function, i.e that the universe as a whole is in a superposition, not just the cat, so there is a universe in which the cat is alive and a universe in which the cat is dead. So any physical measuring device is also in a superposition and cannot act as an "outside observer" capable of collapsing the universal wave-function; only something that is not a part of the universal wave-function can do that. The (non-physical) mind is the presumptive candidate.

The alternative view is that the universal wave-function doesn’t collapse and so both universes are real, leading to the many-worlds interpretation.

Or superposition is epistemic, not ontological, leading to de Broglie-Bohm theory.