”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." — khaled

And if that was all there was to it, then would be no point in writing the article or any point in the so-called ‘delayed choice’ experiment, if the only point was to prove the obvious reality of naive realism.

Because theories that have it collapse are infinitely more complicated. — khaled

Nothing could be more ‘complicated’ that the idea that everything that happens, happens an infinite number of times in an infinite number of parallel worlds. And it does this, just to avoid the implications of the measurement problem.

In all cases the universal wave function is "objectively real" as in it exists. — khaled

Not so. The wave function is an equation. The ontological status of the wave function - whether or in what sense it is real - is precisely the point at issue. I am not inventing that, and it’s not ‘my view’. Pick up a copy of eitherManjit Kumar Quantum: Bohr, and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality, or David Lindley, Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science (the first is better). You will find that the idea that the observing subject is part of the result is not at all ‘fringe’, it’s the central philosophical issue. Look at the subtitle of those books! What do you think the arguments were about? Skittles?

Neils Bohr gave a lecture to the members of the Vienna Circle in the 1950’s about quantum physics. At the finish, they all applauded politely and hardly asked any questions. Bohr said to them ‘if you’re not shocked by quantum physics, then you haven’t understood it’.

And for good measure, a couple of unreservedly idealist OP’s by actual physicists The Mental Universe Richard Conn Henry, and Bernard D’Espagnat’s acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize. That doesn’t mean they’re right. But it does mean that it’s the view of at least some physicists.

Not an experiment. But you manage to do it. I manage to do it in the same way. So does everyone I think. — khaled

It's not an experiment, it's not science. It's pseudoscience with all the same trappings of other pseudosiences: plausible sounding reasoning, anecdotes, unfalsefiable claims.

I'm just not in denial about it. Maybe other pseudoscientific things are reasonable to believe as well.

Ok cool. So anyway do you think it's reasonable to believe that consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse?

As reasonable as believing there's some people that have a consciousness made of "expertise" in some way.

As reasonable as believing there's some people that have a consciousness made of "expertise" in some way. — boethius

So no then. Great! We're agreed.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what we've agreed to, but maybe you're feeling lucky.

You think this is unreasonable yes?

believing there's some people that have a consciousness made of "expertise" in some way. — boethius

And if this:

consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse? — khaled

is as reasonable as that then you think it's unreasonable. Great. We're agreed.

I'm not really following you anymore.

Ok let's take it bit by bit:

I ask:

do you think it's reasonable to believe that consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse? — khaled

You respond:

As reasonable as believing there's some people that have a consciousness made of "expertise" in some way. — boethius

If the belief that consciousness is required for wave function collapse, for you, is as reasonable as believing that some people have a consciousness made of "expertise" (which is not what I was saying but ok) and the belief that some people have a consciousness made of "expertise" is unreasonable, the the belief that consciousness is required for wave function collapse is unreasonable. Which is all I was saying.

If A is as reasonable as B
And B is not reasonable
Then A is not reasonable.

I said as reasonable. Both are claims about consciousness we are unable to verify by experiment. They seem equally reasonable to me in this regard.

I said as reasonable — boethius

As a belief you clearly find unreasonable since you call having it being "In denial"

It's not an experiment, it's not science. It's pseudoscience with all the same trappings of other pseudosiences: plausible sounding reasoning, anecdotes, unfalsefiable claims.

I'm just not in denial about it. — boethius

As a belief you clearly find unreasonable since you call having it being "In denial" — khaled

I said you're in denial it is a pseudoscientific belief, whereas I am not. Two beliefs being "as reasonable to believe" do not make them true. I trust people, even some experts; I think it's reasonable, but I do not think it is therefore true. Some people turn out to be untrustworthy, even if I thought it reasonable to trust them before.

Two beliefs being "as reasonable to believe" do not make them true. — boethius

Sure. But if one of them is unreasonable it makes the other unreasonable.

Do you think

some people that have a consciousness made of "expertise" in some way. — boethius

Is reasonable?

Sure. But if one of them is unreasonable it makes the other unreasonable. — khaled

Yeah, I say both are reasonable.

Is reasonable? — khaled

Yes.

What I don't believe is that it is resolvable by experiment, just as whether anyone else is conscious to begin with is not resolvable by experiment (which solves the relativity problems of wave collapse if I'm the only conscious observer, by the by). Again, my belief other people are conscious is pseudoscience.

Fair enough I misunderstood.

What I don't believe is that it is resolvable by experiment — boethius

If we did an experiment that showed that even without any conscious observers the wave would collapse anyways, would it be reasonable to believe consciousness is not required then?

Nothing could be more ‘complicated’ that the idea that everything that happens, happens an infinite number of times in an infinite number of parallel worlds. And it does this, just to avoid the implications of the measurement problem. — Wayfarer

No plenty of things are more complicated than "It all happens". If it all happens there is no more need to calculate why it all happens. No need to calculate what the pilot wave looks like for example.

You will find that the idea that the observing subject is part of the result is not at all ‘fringe’, it’s the central philosophical issue. — Wayfarer

No, that's not the idea I find fringe. The fringe idea is that the observing thing has to be a conscious subject and if it's not a conscious subject the wave will never collapse.

Every single interpretation of quantum mechanics has it so that the wave function collapses when observed by us. That's not fringe. But the one you're putting forward has it collapse ONLY when observed by us. That's the problematic view.

As for the articles:

The Mental Universe — Wayfarer

"the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental."

Renninger experiments are though experiments where, when you observe nothing going through slit B that has the same wave-collapsing effect as observing something going through slit A, since the particle can ONLY go through A or B. It was covered in the video you sent me.

But it's not clear that the interpretation of that is that "Our mind seeing nothing" is what's causing the collapse. Maybe it's simply "Our eyes seeing nothing". The guy is begging the question here. He hasn't proven it's the mind doing anything, he just declared that the physical environment is not enough because.... it's our mind doing it!

Bernard D’Espagnat’s acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize. — Wayfarer

The title is clickbait. The article is about entanglement. Nowhere does he say that "consciousness" or "mind" is required for wave function collapse. All he says is that quantum entaglement has been proven and that it challenges a lot of our assumptions.

In fact it explicitly says:

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality"

This far, we can all agree (except for MWI people). Every quantum mechanics interpretation where the wave function collapses means that the particles don't "exist" proper until observed.

"This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either."

This amounts to "Reality is formed by our measurements".

This is hardly new. It's true in every interpretation. What you're trying to put forward is that reality is formed ONLY by our measurements. That's not what he's saying. He never said that our measurement is required for reality, only that it is sufficient.

But it does mean that it’s the view of at least some physicists. — Wayfarer

Sure no one is denying that. But it's very few and getting fewer. There was a time when the "consciousness style" copenhagen interpretation (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) was vogue but not anymore.

If we did an experiment that showed that even without any conscious observers the wave would collapse anyways, — khaled

There is no such experiment proposed, even in principle.

But yes, if there was, it would no longer be pseudoscience but science.

The pseudoscientific beliefs that are unreasonable are the one's contradicted by actual experiments that you can repeat.

By-the-by, no apparatus can count to infinity and so infinite worlds is pseudoscience, not real science. The "popular" physicists that talk about infinite worlds are complete morons. (And before you say it's not infinite, just near infinite there's so many: any finite number is totally miniscule compared to infinity; the largest number that can possibly be represented in the entire accessible universe using all available energy and material and building up the most compact way to represent the largest numbers in the axiomatic system of your choice; is a minuscule number incredibly close to zero when compared to infinity).

There is no such experiment proposed, even in principle. — boethius

Yes there is:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0509/0509042.pdf

Basically: If we can prove that the eyes cause wave function collapse fully, then it's not consciousness doing it is it (assuming you're a dualist)? Unless you want to then propose that eyes are conscious.

By-the-by, no apparatus can count to infinity and so infinite worlds is pseudoscience — boethius

Why must we be able to count worlds for it to be science? It's not a real infinity anyways. It's just that every time something happens, there are worlds where it didn't, as far as I understand. We can in principle find every possible outcome. Though not practically. Where would that land it?

If you collapse a wave function of an electron there is an infinite number of points where it can end up (with there being an infinite number of points between two points and all that). Does that make wave function collapse psuedoscience too?

What about particle decay? It is completely random, and there is an infinite number of times at which it can decay. No apparatus can measure all the possible times a particle can decay.

Basically: If we can prove that the eyes cause wave function collapse fully, then it's not consciousness doing it is it? Unless you want to then propose that eyes are conscious. — khaled

This does not seem any different than just experimental apparatus causing wave function collapse, just eyes being apparatus.

The whole point of the question is that "whatever is there" before observation we don't know about until we observe it. Schrodinger's cat in the box.

The paper you cite just goes over the "apparatus" or "external entropy" causes wave collapse arguments. It does not propose an experiment that I can build, turn it on, and be convinced wave collapse has nothing to do with consciousness. An "argument" even in the reputable https://arxiv.org/ does not an experiment make.

Why must we be able to count worlds for it to be science? It's not a real infinity anyways. — khaled

Yes, I thought you would reply this and I had already edited my comment above, but unfortunately not before you already saw it, so here it is again:

(And before you say it's not infinite, just near infinite there's so many: any finite number is totally miniscule compared to infinity; the largest number that can possibly be represented in the entire accessible universe using all available energy and material and building up the most compact way to represent the largest numbers in the axiomatic system of your choice; is a minuscule number incredibly close to zero when compared to infinity). — boethius

This does seem any different than just experimental apparatus causing wave function collapse, just eyes being apparatus. — boethius

Yes. Which means it's not the consciousness doing it. If the wave was already collapsed by the time it made it through your eyes, before it got processed in any way by the brain then it's your eyes doing it. Not your mind.

The hypothesis is precisely that the apparatus does NOT cause collapse and that our mind does.

We can agree you don't become aware of a color until the corresponding wave at least makes it through your eyes right? If by then it's already collapsed, then there is not much left for your awareness to do then is there (assuming you're a dualist, a reductionist would just look at this confused).

(And before you say it's not infinite, just near infinite there's so many: any finite number is totally miniscule compared to infinity; the largest number that can possibly be represented in the entire accessible universe using all available energy and material and building up the most compact way to represent the largest numbers in the axiomatic system of your choice; is a minuscule number incredibly close to zero when compared to infinity). — boethius

Ok, all this shows is that "infinite worlds" is a misnomer. Some just call it "many worlds" anyways. So "many worlds" is scientific?

And it’s common practice in the sciences and math to call anything that increases forever “near infinite”. It doesn’t literally mean near infinite. It means it increases forever (usually very rapidly)

And again:

Why must we be able to count worlds for it to be science? — khaled

If you collapse a wave function of an electron there is an infinite number of points where it can end up (with there being an infinite number of points between two points and all that). Does that make wave function collapse psuedoscience too?

What about particle decay? It is completely random, and there is an infinite number of times at which it can decay. No apparatus can measure all the possible times a particle can decay. — khaled

There are two examples where we can't calculate every outcome yet we call it a science. Or would you say that particle decay and wave function collapse are psuedoscience?

Anyways I have to go now.

Yes. Which means it's not the consciousness doing it. If the wave was already collapsed by the time it made it through your eyes, before it got processed in any way by the brain then it's your eyes doing it. Not your mind. — khaled

I'm not sure you're getting it.

We cannot, by definition "observe" when wave collapse happens before an observation.

If you say your eyes cause wave collapse (which already isn't necessarily a coherent use of the word cause), then we'd need an apparatus that makes observations on your eyes to see this eye-wave-collapse phenomenon happening.

If wave collapse happens before observation, we cannot, in principle, observe it. It can always be argued that the cat with the poison is in a super position of different states, and when we open and look, our eyes are in a super position too.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics itself that prevents, in principle, "pan super position" of just setting up the wave function of the whole universe and letting it evolve. If we do this for the big bang or any moment after the big bang, there is nothing in quantum mechanics that forces "observations" to collapse the universal wave function.

It's totally coherent, in principle, to just have a cosmic wave function that then evolves with time and is never "observed" to resolve uncertainties (i.e. collapse the wave function).

What is incoherent in this approach is that we do not (by we I mean my individual consciousness and any like consciousness) observe the wave function of the superposition of all possibilities since the big bang, but we observe one clear possibility.

It's only consciousness that for sure forces us to even come up with wave function collapse in the first place. If you presented the wave function to a mathematician that doesn't know what it's about, they wouldn't be able to find why and when it needs to "collapse" for the math to be coherent. It can evolve in time in it's wavy form indefinitely.

If one sets up a wave function with an "apparatus", the above mathematician would just view it as more particles in the wave function, nothing intrinsically special about the apparatus than the experiment it's connected too.

What makes "apparatus" special is psychics is that we consciously observe the apparatus and so see definite states of the apparatus and not superimposition of states.

This doesn't mean consciousness "causes wave collapse", but "we" cannot "know" about definite states of the universe until we become conscious of those states. What happens before, in principle, we cannot know about unless we look and become conscious of what's happening before (which is now no longer "before" we're conscious of it).

Given all this, it is as reasonable to believe consciousness collapses wave functions as some entropy threshold or the like.

Is "pure" mathematics, meaning, mathematics that does not apply to the world (via physics, for example), something invented or discovered? — Manuel

Since math began with numbers, that looks like a good place to start. Numbers are, whatever else they might be, patterns or abstractions. Being patterns, they need to exist out there - external to the mind - for them to be perceived. In this sense numbers (math) is a discovery (of a pattern in nature).

On the other hand, it seems we can create, from scratch, entire worlds based on nothing else but numbers - numerical universes as it were - with no corresponding real world objects/phenomena. In this sense, numbers (math) is an invention.

I wish I could've given some relevant examples but none spring to mind. My apologies.

It appears that math is both an invention and a discovery.

There was a time when the "consciousness style" copenhagen interpretation (von Neumann–Wigner interpretation) was vogue but not anymore. — khaled

That’s because it’s philosophically demanding and goes against the grain of realism, so it’s convenient to dismiss it. Besides most physicists don’t give a tinker’s cuss about the ‘meaning of quantum physics’. You can have a career in science without even thinking about it. A lot of physicists are employed in sci-tech, defence, aerospace, electronics, all kinds of things. None of this is of any interest or relevance to those occupations - (but then, this is a philosophy forum, so the philosophical implications ought to be of interest here.

Qbism is worth knowing about.

Numbers are, whatever else they might be, patterns or abstractions. — TheMadFool

Hey careful now. Patterns are regular - the Fibonacci sequence. But do the prime numbers form a pattern? I think not (although there’s this.) Anyway, that’s a philosophy of math subject, not a good (or bad) physics subject.

Hey careful now. Patterns are regular - the Fibonacci sequence. But do the prime numbers form a pattern? I think not (although there’s this.) Anyway, that’s a philosophy of math subject, not a good (or bad) physics subject. — Wayfarer

Oops! I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry!

Anyway...

Good point! However, the holy grail of number theory - understanding prime numbers - is, all said and done, the search for a pattern within a pattern. The parent pattern (natural numbers) is extracted from nature; the daughter pattern (primes) is an altogether different story.

I'll watch the video later and get back to you later if I think of anything worthwhile. G'day.

The (mathematical) equations of physics seem to pick out extra-mental aspects of the world. Why this is so is a good question.

But "by themselves", it's hard to make out what numbers amount to, much less to figure out why we can even access them at all. It does not seem to provide benefits for evolutionary purposes, outside of say counting with your hands. Beyond that it becomes bizarre.

Oh, so I didn't post in the wrong thread?! :lol:

Numbers are abstractions of/patterns in the world at large is how I see it. I recall a video in which the speaker points to a picture of 5 fruits, was it?, and then spreads his 5 fingers and says, I'm paraphrasing, "that someone figured out there's the quantitiy 5 in common between these two common everyday objects is an amazing achievement."

That’s because it’s philosophically demanding and goes against the grain of realism, — Wayfarer

Again with the conspiracy theories. Maybe it's because it's problematic in itself? So far you haven't provided any good arguments for it. The first article explicitly says it's not the case (after you praised your sources, quite ironic). Second begs the question. And final article doesn't comment on it at all.

That's really what I'm arguing against here. Not the interpretations themselves but the conspiracy theory that scientists are all gaslighting us and hiding the enlightened truth of idealism because they're uncomfortable with it.

I'll just leave this here. I don't intend to debate the validity of the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation anymore. If all the above objections, in addition to the fact that even its founders left it for objective collapse theories, in addition that one of your own articles clearly says its false doesn't convince you, I don't think anything will.

"The evolution of conscious life on this planet is due to appropriate mutations having taken place at various times. These, presumably, are quantum events, so they would exist only in linearly superposed form until they finally led to the evolution of a conscious being—whose very existence depends on all the right mutations having 'actually' taken place!"

Perhaps the simplest argument against it by Roger Penrose, unless you're some sort of panpsychist.

There is nothing in quantum mechanics itself that prevents, in principle, "pan super position" of just setting up the wave function of the whole universe and letting it evolve. If we do this for the big bang or any moment after the big bang, there is nothing in quantum mechanics that forces "observations" to collapse the universal wave function. — boethius

Not true. Not even for MWI. MWI is the theory that ALL the possibilities happen. As in a universe where the wave function collapsed to A is created and another universe where the wave function was collapsed to B is created, and so on....

But in all cases, it must collapse in an individual universe. Or else it would make no sense to talk of evolution or big bangs, just some quantum soup. Roger Penrose puts it nicely:

"The evolution of conscious life on this planet is due to appropriate mutations having taken place at various times. These, presumably, are quantum events, so they would exist only in linearly superposed form until they finally led to the evolution of a conscious being—whose very existence depends on all the right mutations having 'actually' taken place!"

It can evolve in time in it's wavy form indefinitely. — boethius

It doesn't. Now, is the common factor across all the times where it collapses our consciousness, or something else?

Well our consciousness will always be common, no matter what, obviously. When we observe a wave function, and it collapses, obviously "we observed" will be common across all occurrences of this. But that is not enough evidence to conclude that it is what is causing the collapse.

To test this we can set up 2 different, 2 stage tests, where in order to pass an electron has to remain uncollapsed. In the first machine after the first test, put a conscious observer with an apparatus. In the second machine, after the first test, put a measuring machine.

The particle will pass the first test in both cases (just confirmation it's uncollapsed) then fail the second test in both cases. On one side you had a conscious observer, on the other you had a measuring machine. Remove the measuring machine, and all of a sudden the particle passes both tests.

So consciousness is not required. Because if it was, the particles would have passed the two stage test with the measuring machine.

Something similar was already done:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412003.pdf

What makes "apparatus" special is psychics is that we consciously observe the apparatus and so see definite states of the apparatus and not superimposition of states. — boethius

False. If you set up a measuring machine and no one looks at the results, the wave function will still collapse. That's the reason the whole consciousness requirement is ridiculous. In addition to the evolution argument above. And countless more (such as: What even is sufficiently conscious to cause wave function collapse)

Given all this, it is as reasonable to believe consciousness collapses wave functions as some entropy threshold or the like. — boethius

If consciousness was the only thing that could collapse it, the particle would pass the test when a measuring machine is used but the results aren't looked at. It doesn't.

It also just so happens that our eyes are good enough to cause this collapse on their own. If you put an eye instead of the measuring machine in the previous example, the particle would still collapse and not pass the test. So even in cases where we do observe the wave function it can't be said that our consciousness is the one doing anything.