Claiming that an apparatus constitutes an observer is the only ‘sophistry’ in play here. — Wayfarer

Right, because your inability to get past how words were used in primary school means that science is other than it is. As if your failure of intellect meant anything other than that.

As I said yesterday, you resort to condescension because you can’t actually come up with an argument. It is a plain fact that in normal usage ‘an observer’ is taken to mean exactly that. Here you’re asserting that it’s not. And then resorting to schoolyard insults when you’re challenged.

Sure, and that normal usage is irrelevant when it comes to the issues at stake, so trying to leverage that normal usage to try and address those issues is a sign of either total incomprehension or vicious dishonesty.

I'm not so sure that what you are calling "normal" usage is irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, I'm no "cardboard cutout" of the later Wittgenstein - i.e. I don't believe that you can do metaphysics just by pointing out how we use words in ordinary language, but pointing out how those words are used is very definitely a useful metaphysical technique. Scientists can and do take terms from ordinary language and give them technical meanings, and there are no laws of grammar or metaphysics that forbid them from doing so. When this is done, however, either something is added to the original meaning, or something is taken away, or both. The issue is that it can become difficult (for scientists and philosophers alike) to keep track of which meaning is being used in which context, and all the more so when the issues are to do with interpretation of scientific results. If all a quantum scientist means by "observation" is simply "interaction" he or she would do much better to stick with the latter term than the former.

Not at all. The whole argument is about what constitutes 'an observer'. This is where you came into the argument:

Whether or not 'someone' is around to record what happens has nothing to do with the phenomenon under consideration. — StreetlightX

But this is the whole nub of 'the observer problem' which remains an outstanding problem in philosophy of physics. Whether the registration of some phenomenon by an apparatus in the absence of an observer is even 'a measurement' is a philosophical question, not a scientific problem at all. So, as far as physics is concerned, it makes no difference if it's an observer or an instrument. But I say, nevertheless, there is a real difference.

Note the following:

All that is required is two physical systems that interact to produce information. Those physical systems need not have been constructed by anyone. — Andrew M

What 'physical measurement systems' are not 'constructed by anyone'? Where do such devices exist, outside the imagination?

So, such an argument relies on a intrinsically realist view - that 'the instruments' and 'the measurements' are 'observation-independent' - that they go on their merry way, 'observing' and therefore being, to all intents, an outsourced service! One of those little satellites that has gone wizzing past Jupiter and lost contact with humans - is that still measuring anything, in the absence of anyone to read the dials?

It's an interesting question - but it's not a question for physics, as such.

So to my mind the assertion that 'the apparatus is an observer' is, from a philosophical point of view, an exercise in question-begging. After all, the whole point at issue is indeed the sense in which the act of observation actually causes something of quite momentous significance to happen, in the context of quantum mechanics. (And I notice nobody has corrected my description of the actual problem at hand, the 'wave-function collapse', above.)

And do try and maintain a civil attitude.

There are some theorists working in the world of QM who do believe that experimentation can help decide which interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. Then again there are some theorists in the world of QM who believe that theorists should just get on with making calculations and predictions using QM and not bothering with the metaphysics.

Interestingly, later Wittgenstein was all about being attuned to the contexts of useage, and he too would have demanded that we pay strict attention to the language-game in which 'observation' is being used. If anything, the attempt to equivocate between meanings would be an exemplary instance of language-on-holiday, which he relentlessly and rightly criticized. Again, yeah, it may be better not to use the word 'observation', but this is a trifling point, and anyone with a mediocum of intelligence ought to be able to sort one usage from the other.

So up until that moment, there is no 'actual particle' - it's not as if it's somewhere in some definite place that hasn't been determined yet. Up until the measurement is taken, it's not in any place - literally all there is, is a field of possibilities (which is what the so-called 'super-position' describes). Then at the instant the measurement is taken, one possibility becomes 100% and all the others become 0. That is what 'the collapse of the wave-function' describes...Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. — Wayfarer

You are not wrong, but you are just giving one of a number of interpretations of what is going on. There are some interpretations of QM that explain the so-called wave function collapse whilst actually allowing for a real particle to exist all the time (it is supposed to be 'riding the wave').

it may be better not to use the word 'observation', but this is a trifling point — StreetlightX

That is a world-class dodge, even if there were nobody around to comment on it :smile:

There’s pilot-wave theory, and many-worlds. To which my question would be, if you can explain the ‘observation’ problem by simply outsourcing it to a machine, why bother with these extravagant speculations?

The main motivation for coming up with alternative interpretations of the measurement problem is to avoid idealism and retain realism. Whether they are any more or less extravagant that idealistic interpretations, well that might be just a matter of taste.

But I take your point that you cannot avoid the issue just by claiming that "observation" means "interaction".

Sorry, but this entire post is hogwash. First, you literally put words into the mouth of Andrew, who nowhere speaks of physical measurement systems, but of physical systems tout court. The upshot being that 'measurement' systems are a subclass of physical systems that are designed to capture what happens out there 'in the wild' anyway. So your question about 'physical measurement systems' being 'constructed' has no force at all. This of course, is part and parcel of the your usual intellectual dishonesty, which, no, deserves no civility at all, and ought to be treated like the intellectual poison that it is.

Second, to say that an apparatus is an observer is not question begging because it is a scientific result. I realize that your understanding of the science is tenuous at best and nonexistant at worst, but the basic point is that if you set the apparatus up in one manner, you will get one result, and if you set the apparatus up in another manner (with or without a which-path detector) you will get another result (wave or particle). The observer is the apparatus because it can be shown that the set-up of the apparatus exerts a causal influence on the measurement outcomes of a quantum system. This is not a 'speculative point', despite your attempt to muddy the waters and flat-out misrepresent the debate.

To put it quite shortly: there is no debate about what constitutes an observer, expect in the minds of the ignorant. Every elementary text of physics will quite clearly specify that an observer is an apparatus (or a physical system) and that this follows as a matter of fact, and not interpretation. Again, none of this is to say that QM does not raise interesting philosophical questions, but they are not of the kind that you try and foist on it with your bad faith misrepresentations and ignorant fabulations.

you literally put words into the mouth of Andrew — StreetlightX

Who, nevertheless, agreed with my analysis here.

who nowhere speaks of physical measurement systems — StreetlightX

The whole issue is about 'the measurement problem'. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a debate. Of course, if you set the equipment up one way, you get one result, and so on - not at all relevant to my point.

your understanding of the science is tenuous at best and nonexistant at worst, — StreetlightX

Better than your spelling, I expect.

Every elementary text of physics will quite clearly specify that an observer is an apparatus — StreetlightX

I did study elementary physics, but that particular phrase eluded me.

This of course, is part and parcel of the your usual intellectual dishonesty, which, no, deserves no civility at all, and ought to be treated like the intellectual poison that it is. — StreetlightX

I don't personally think you understand what it is about my posts that continues to elicit this response from you, but nevertheless I will report it as flaming.

I don't think Wafarer is misrepresenting the debate, but perhaps I'm being naive. The debate as far as Wayfarer is concerned is about explaining the collapse of the wave function, which sometimes goes by the name "the measurement problem". Also, "the observer is the apparatus" is not a scientific result, although it might be a scientific definition - the results are just data.

Of course, if you set the equipment up one way, you get one result, and so on - not at all relevant to my point. — Wayfarer

This is the only relevant point in the debate, and if you can't see that, then you don't understand the debate.

I don't think Wayfarer is misrepresenting the debate, but perhaps I'm being naive. — ProcastinationTomorrow

No, you're not being naive. StreetlightX, for some reason, has an intense dislike of my posts, and often goes off like this. Apparently I spread 'intellectual poison'. I really have to bow out of this debate, as when it gets to actual rock fights, it upsets my equanimity.

I have an intense dislike of charlatans.

Unfair, and I think it says more about you. You have an intense, emotional commitment to a philosophical outlook that I regularly challenge, and whenever I do, it produces vitriol. That’s all there is to it.

The debate as far as Wayfarer is concerned is about explaining the collapse of the wave function, which sometimes goes by the name "the measurement problem". — ProcastinationTomorrow

The question is largely over the exact status of the states in superpositon: is it epistemic or ontological? And if it is either, what would it imply for our understanding of reality? These are real, interesting, and productive questions. But they do not turn, except in the most banal formulations, upon understanding 'measurement' as an act of consciousness. The quote from Rovelli makes this quite clear. John Wheeler, whose 'participatory universe' idea is often taken up by quantum mystifiers, is even more explicit: "'Consciousness' has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process'". One can of course wheel out physicist after physicist who will say the same thing, and you will still have sophists like Wayfarer who think the QM problem is located somewhere where it is not.

I was actually going to refer to an article about Wheeler called Does the Universe Exist if we're Not Looking?

Any idea why that article might be called that?

Anyway, the salient paragraphs are these:

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

Sure sounds like he says consciousness plays a role there to me.

It goes on:

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

At every moment, in Wheeler's view, the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.

Regarding 'the participatory universe' - the latter point is about the very fact that the conscious observer has a role to play in the nature of reality - hence the name of the article.

So, this is actually an embarrassment for scientific realism, so I get why one would be piqued about it. After all physics was supposed to show that everything was ultimately dumb stuff - but it hasn't worked out that way. It seems that the mind of the observer does have a real foundational role in the scheme of things.

he entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos.

So, I find this philosophically meaningful, myself. I think it has some resemblance with the idea of 'the Unmanifest' which the human mind plays a role in 'making manifest'. That too ties in with the Ruth Kastner article on 'potentia' that I linked to before.

Yes, I've seen you link to that article before, and I scoured it to see if it actually sourced that headline quote from Wheeler himself, given that I knew before hand his stance on the role of consciousness. And lo and behold it does not. It, like you, puts words into people's mouths, words which impute the exact opposite of the views held by those to whom it attributes. Wheeler's own words, the words of his I actually quoted, couldn't be more explicit about repudiating the role of consciousness in the quantum process, and you can find them here, which is from an actual paper of his, and not some after-market, hand-me-down source.

Stupifyingly superficial pieces of yellow journalism like that one - which, like you, confuse the understanding of 'observer' at play in QM with what they were thought in school - are responsible in a large part for the very sad public understanding of QM by laypeople.

What is ‘sophistry’ about claiming that ‘an observer’ is in fact an observer? Claiming that an apparatus constitutes an observer is the only ‘sophistry’ in play here. — Wayfarer

Do you include Heisenberg and Bohr in that assessment?

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the `possible' to the `actual,' is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory. — Werner Heisenberg

Naturally, it still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus, but it is no longer possible to make predictions without reference to the observer or the means of observation. — Niels Bohr

Fair enough, I stand corrected. But I still think it’s a legitimate question as to whether any actual ‘registration’ has occurred in the absence of an observer, who in such cases, creates the very machine which records the observation.

The quote on ‘participatory universe’ is this:

’It from bit’ symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the resistering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.

"Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links" in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information (1990) ed., Wojciech H. Zurek, p. 5.

Bohr actually commented on the ambiguity of the word 'observer', and simply resolved to affirm that at the end of the day, whatever we call it, it was a matter of how our instruments are set up:

"These problems were instructively commented upon from different sides at the Solvay meeting... On that occasion an interesting discussion arose also about how to speak of the appearance of phenomena. ... The question was whether, as to the occurrence of individual effects, we should adopt a terminology
proposed by Dirac, that we were concerned with a choice on the part of ‘‘nature’’ or, as suggested by Heisenberg, we should say that we have to do with a choice on the part of the ‘‘observer’’ constructing the measuring instruments and reading their recording.

Any such terminology would, however, appear dubious since, on the one hand, it is hardly reasonable to endow nature with volition in the ordinary sense, while, on the other hand, it is certainly not possible for the observer to influence the events which may appear under the conditions he [or she] has arranged. To my mind, there is no other alternative than to admit that, in this field of experience, we are dealing with individual phenomena and that our possibilities of handling the measuring instruments allow us only to make a choice between the different complementary types of phenomena we want to study."

This being in keeping with Bohr's very specific understanding of what a 'phenomenon' is, which Wheeler glosses: 'A phenomenon is not yet a phenomenon until it has been brought to a close by an irreversible act of amplification such as the blackening of a grain of silver bromide emulsion or the triggering of a photodetector ... What answer we get depends on the question we put, the experiment we arrange, the registering device we choose'. Does this entail some really cool philosophical implications? Definitely. But consciousness? Irrelevant noise.

Does this entail some really cool philosophical implications? Definitely. But consciousness? Irrelevant noise. — StreetlightX

Anyone else here in agreement with this?

Because all of those actions - every one, which experiment, how to set it up - they are all set up by an observer. Yet apparently, the observation is itself ‘the silver bromide emulsion’. Do I have that right?

Wheeler is certainly in agreement with 'this'. It's from the same paper I quoted which states that ''Consciousness' has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process'".

Yes, consciousness just isn't interesting because it ignores the logical definition of whatever we might be talking about in concepts. The consciousness argument is akin to asking things like: "Is a tree really a tree?" when no-one is thinking about it or looking at it.

It doesn't respect how what we talk about has a definition in logic, a definition beyond the presence of our conscious experience.

So, what is the meaning of ‘participatory universe’?

Some other random Wheeler quotes that seem relevant. You can knock them all off, like a coconut shy:

I think we are beginning to suspect that man is not a tiny cog that doesn’t really make much difference to the running of the huge machine but rather that there is a much more intimate tie between man and the universe than we heretofore suspected. … [Consider if] the particles and their properties are not somehow related to making man possible. Man, the start of the analysis, man, the end of the analysis—because the physical world is, in some deep sense, tied to the human being.

— John Wheeler
In The Intellectual Digest (Jun 1973), as quoted and cited in Mark Chandos, 'Philosophical Essay: Story Theory", Kosmoautikon: Exodus From Sapiens (2015).

Is the very mechanism for the universe to come into being meaningless or unworkable or both unless the universe is guaranteed to produce life, consciousness and observership somewhere and for some little time in its history-to-be?

— John Wheeler
Quoted in P.C.W. Davies, God and the New Physics (1984), 39, from J.A. Wheeler, 'Genesis and observership', Foundational Problems in the Special Science (1977), 39.

The universe does not exist “out there,” independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.

— John Wheeler
Quoted in Denis Brian, The Voice Of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries

You have always been the most aptly-named poster here, Willow.

The main motivation for coming up with alternative interpretations of the measurement problem is to avoid idealism and retain realism. — ProcastinationTomorrow

In other words, it's a convenient way to not have to factor in the inconvenience of a coherent accounting for consciousness?

To turn the tables here, I'm more or less against humanity and its power here.

How arrogant to we have to be to be to say that the presnece of our own experiences is what makes the existence of other things, of other beings, of all the other things in the world? Far too much, that's akin to the fantasies reductionistic accounts of everything under scientism. Our consciousness does not have that much power, to be the ruler of whether things other than ourselves be or not.

The world is not just there for us.