No, you misunderstand. The 'observer' in QM has a causal role: the physical set-up of the apparatus will determine, in a double-slit experiment, light to appear as either a wave or a particle. Whether or not 'someone' is around to record what happens has nothing to do with the phenomenon under consideration. There are, perhaps, metaphysical questions regarding the role of knowledge after-the-fact or whatever, but this would have nothing to do with the science, and would be a more general question regarding the role of any phenomenon whatsoever, and would not be QM-specific in the least.

Buzz off, sophist.

I'll concede that I'm not well-versed in quantum theory. So please elucidate: how does QM explain the process by which a table lamp is observing? I can see how a thermostat reacts to a change in temperature, so is that too an act of observance?

Everytime you see the word 'observation', replace it with 'interaction'. The specific physical set-up of a (quantum) measurement device will interact with the quantum phenomenon in a specific way, with one set-up leading to one (measurement) outcome, and another set-up leading to a different (measurement) outcome. This is what is meant - what has always been meant - when it is said that the measurement of a quantum system is observer-dependant. This would remain the case if every single living and conscious thing died in the next five minutes.

At the risk of being accused of sophism:

The 'observer' in QM has a causal role: the physical set-up of the apparatus will cause, in a double-slit experiment, light to appear as either a wave or a particle

If the event caused is an appearance (or a disjunction of appearances) then we still seem to have "observation" in a more psychological sense imported into QM don't we?

It's curious that you describe him as an excellent scientist, while his science was dismissed earlier by apokrisis as being 'crank.' In any case, that some of his claims and opinions may be in dispute and controversial is hardly surprising, given the challenge of attempting to reconcile Idealism with current scientific models, and the profound implications that entails. Indeed, I should think it almost inevitable.

Observations are carried out by observers, who use apparatus to make their observations.

In 1958, Schrödinger, inspired by Schopenhauer from youth, published his lectures Mind and Matter. Here he argued that there is a difference between measuring instruments and human observation: a thermometer’s registration cannot be considered an act of observation, as it contains no meaning in itself. Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-mysticism-forgotten.html#jCp

If the event caused is an appearance (or a disjunction of appearances) then we still seem to have "observation" in a more psychological sense imported into QM don't we? — jkg20

Only if you understand 'appearance' in a non-causal way, which of course, you shouldn't. One could say: 'will cause interference effects (wave) or non-interference effects (particle)' and you'll have the same thing. The alternative is of course to substitute primary-school grammar lessons in place of understanding the implications of the science, but no one with the slightest grain of integrity and intellectual honesty would, one hopes, do that.

Some further reading: http://steve-patterson.com/quantum-physics-abuse-reason/

But what exactly is a measurement absent a conscious agent to calculate a measurement from the reactive apparatus, if that apparatus itself is observer-dependent, without which isn't it all just in potentia?

Perhaps that's a good question, but it is one that has nothing to do with quantum physics.

Perhaps that's a good question, but it is one that has nothing to do with quantum physics. — StreetlightX

Ok, you've totally lost me now. Lucky QM physicists who are exempt from answering good questions.

It's pretty simple dude. Measurement means something very specific in the context of QM, and that specificity has nothing to do with 'consciousness'. If you want to ask a question about a different sense of the term measurement, that's your prerogative, but don't pretend that you're talking about the same thing.

Still not seeing how 'measurement' means anything different at all in QM, unless one arbitrarily decides that it does. But that is also one's prerogative.

Still not seeing how 'measurement' means anything different at all in QM — snowleopard

That much is clear.

That much is clear. — StreetlightX

Well at least something is clear.

That Patterson article SLX linked says: ‘In a nutshell: in order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work.‘

In Fabric of the Cosmos, Brian Greene specifically dismisses this argument. He says something like: it’s not the effect of clumsy experimenters actually influencing how particles behave. There’s a genuine issue about the fact that ‘the act of observation’ determines the outcome. Like Bohr said, if you don’t find QM shocking, then you don’t understand it. Trying to explain that away by appeals to common sense isn’t going to cut it.

It’s big on umbrage, that piece, but not much else, as far as I can determine.

Greene is correct: it isn't the effect of clumsy experimenters, it is the nature of quantum effects to be determined by the physical appartus in that manner. Greene is rightly inveighing against those who think such effects are incidental and not a necessary aspect of QM. Patterson of course, also doesn't say anything about 'clumsy exprimenters', so one can only wonder here about clumsy readers. Or, more likely, dishonest and deliberate bastardizations by peddlers of ignorance.

Greene is correct: it isn't the effect of clumsy experimenters, it is the nature of quantum effects to be determined by the physical appartus in that manner — StreetlightX

That’s not it. Darn, now I’ll have to go and dig it out.

Patterson of course, also doesn't say anything about 'clumsy exprimenters — StreetlightX

It’s exactly what he says:

In a nutshell: in order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work.

= clumsy experimenters.

I’m sure that Patterson article is a lot worse than anything written by the writer referenced in the OP. It’s this kind of indignant railing against the anti-realist implications of quantum mechanics.

In a nutshell: in order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work.

= clumsy experimenters. — Wayfarer

I've always wondered what it's like to not know how to read the English language while attempting to conduct discussion in it.

Probably not as bad as having to resort to condescension whenever argument fails.

Have a look at Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities.This is a proposal which is not ‘fringe’ or alternative but which is philosophically interesting.

Oh dear, it seems we've succumbed to the fate of discussion forums ... conflict-mode.

Still somehow I can't ignore QM's redefining of the word 'observer' and applying it to an apparatus as just a convenient way of ignoring Chalmers' inconvenient 'hard problem.' With such oblivious attempts to get around it, no wonder I find myself attracted to Idealism.

And in any case, idealism doesn't require support from the philosophically naive Kastrup, and it can be argued for entirely independently of any interpretative issues in QM.

You're of course welcome to your subjective opinion. Sure, Kastrup may be thinking outside the academic boxes, however, I would expect that if Idealism is to ever infiltrate and supplant the prevailing materialist paradigm, it may need all the philosophical and scientific support it can get.

I'm all for thinking outside academic boxes, and materialsim is very definitely one of those boxes. We have no disagreement there. I just think Kastrup does a disservice to the position he is arguing for by making "schoolboy" philosophical errors, and that he makes those errors is not a subjective opinion.

From where do you derive your certainty concerning the meaning to be given to terms like "observation" and "measurement" in QM? Heisenberg and Bohr advocated for the position that those terms invovled consciousness in some way or form. Other scientists disagreed with them (I think Einstein believed that QM could be developed without the notion of an observer at all). As far as I am aware the debate is not settled, and Carlo Rovelli cannot settle it by simply defining away the problem by equating "observation" with "interaction".

From what I've gleaned from your other contributions in this thread, and elsewhere in the forum, I feel we probably agree on more than that upon which we may disagree.

I just think Kastrup does a disservice to the position he is arguing — jkg20

It may well be perceived as a disservice to those inside the academic boxes. I can forgive some incidental errors that can eventually be ironed out if the goal of shifting the paradigm is achieved.

Kastrup's claims depend on a narrow definition of realism as counterfactual definiteness, not as mind-independence
— Andrew M

You lost me there, Andrew. Care to elucidate the distinction? — Wayfarer

Sure. Counterfactual definiteness means that if a measurement of a physical property is not in fact performed, it nonetheless has a definite value. For example, if a particle is described as being in a superposition of spin up and spin down, counterfactual definiteness means that the particle nonetheless has a single definite spin value prior to any measurement being made.

Many Worlds rejects counterfactual definiteness since it says the particle has both spin values prior to measurement. RQM also rejects it, since it says the particle can only have a definite spin value with respect to an interacting system.

it is traditional to denote this something as the observer, but it is important in the following discussion to keep in mind that the observer can be a table lamp.
— Relational Quantum Mechanics - Carlo Rovelli

↪Andrew M This would seem to be a radical redefinition of the word 'observer.' Surely any claim whatsoever can be rationalized, if you arbitrarily redefine words so that what you want to claim then ends up making linguistic sense. — snowleopard

It's a technical usage, but feel free to just substitute "quantum system". The key point in RQM is that there are two quantum systems that interact and it is that interaction that results in definite values. For example, a particle interacts with a measuring apparatus that consequently displays either "spin up" or "spin down". That process occurs independently of conscious observers being present.

This process occurs independently of conscious observers being present. — Andrew M

So says a conscious observer. Again, I repeat the question: What exactly is a measurement absent a conscious agent to calculate a measurement from the reactive apparatus, if that measurement apparatus itself is observer-dependent, without which isn't it all just in potentia?

From where do you derive your certainty concerning the meaning to be given to terms like "observation" and "measurement" in QM? — jkg20

I don't know what to tell you other than that that's just what those terms mean. Observation is measurement is interaction. And at no point in any of this is there any reference to conscious observers. Nothing in the theory implies it. Nothing in the data, or the formalisms, either. One can wrangle over semantics, but science will trump the dictionary every time. Unfortunately, there are those here who think the dictionary ought to decide the state of reality. It's understandable, of course. It's much easier to reach for the dictionary than it is to acquaint oneself with the basics of QM.

So says a conscious observer. Again, I repeat the question: What exactly is a measurement absent a conscious agent to calculate a measurement from the reactive apparatus, if that measurement apparatus itself is observer-dependent, without which isn't it all just in potentia? — snowleopard

A measurement is a physical interaction between quantum systems.

In the reference frame of the apparatus, a definite particle spin result has been recorded on its display.

In the conscious agent's reference frame, prior to interaction with the composite particle/apparatus system, there is no definite particle spin result recorded on the apparatus display (i.e., the composite system is in superposition).