But verifiable experiments have been born from this sort of work. For example, tests of Bell's Inequalities came out of work in foundations and are important. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came out of Wheeler and Feynman's work in foundations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One thing that Becker wrote and that I endorse is that, even if different interpretations can not be distinguished empirically, they have epistemological value if they can help suggest new ways to test quantum mechanical principles. If I remember correctly, Becker's statement was kind of arm waving and he didn't really provide any examples.

The spontaneous collapse versions do make slightly different predictions and have been tested in some forms. I posted a link to those above. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you repost the link. I couldn't find it.

This has been an interesting discussion.

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.

Moreover, In the anthology by a variety of scientists & philosophers : Information and the Nature of Reality, physicist Paul Davies said, "if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". Then, theoretical physicist Henry Stapp noted : "Thus the replacement of classical mechanics by quantum mechanics opens the door to religious possibilities that formerly were rationally excluded".

What Stapp called "religious" possibilities was also an open door to philosophical interpretations of such metaphysical phenomena as Consciousness. Yet, Physicalists typically equate mind-probing philosophy with the supernatural nonsense of religion*2. Hence, they see no realistic understanding in such exegesis, beyond the obvious fact that basic Consciousness is an entry-level requirement for both pragmatic Science and impractical Philosophy. :smile:

*1. Observer Effect :
The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

*2. Quantum Philosophy :
Frustrated by the re-introduction of flighty philosophy into practical Physics, some experimental scientists decided to avoid dealing with the mental/emotional aspects of fundamental physics, in favor of abstract mathematical/logical factors, hence to just "shut up and calculate". But the book referenced above reveals a variety of important roles for consciousness (and information) in the real physical world. Several of the authors are physicists & biologists, who do more with their minds than just calculate.

Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness

Yes. That's the part of the Consciousness Causes Collapse metaphor that sounds like mind-over-matter magic. But, if we remember that Properties (attributes) are attributed*1 to a particle by the mind of the observer, the focus turns back onto the Attributor. So, the sudden change may be in the mind, not the matter, as different attributes*2 come to mind when possible properties are actualized by the experiment. That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. So, the quantum Magic may actually be a case of Mind over Mind insight (e.g. pattern recognition). :smile:



*1. Attribute (verb) : to regard as resulting from a specified cause
Note --- Qualities (e.g. redness) are mental, not physical. To Regard is to imagine as an opinion. Causation is an inference from material change, not an observation.

*2. Attribute (noun) : a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
Note --- to attribute is to pass a mental quality or value onto an object of attention. Tribute goes from payer to payee.

Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1. — Gnomon

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect.

"if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". — Gnomon

That's exactly what I meant when I said

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. It describes aspects of our world. Our world includes consciousness. That doesn't mean there is a specific, direct connection between QM and consciousness.

The article reviews a few of them.

Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. It describes aspects of our world. Our world includes consciousness. That doesn't mean there is a specific, direct connection between QM and consciousness.

True. Although given the ways we've already found that life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects, I figure it will probably come to play some sort of role. Obviously life uses quantum phenomena in that all chemistry is quantum phenomena, but it seems likely that adaptations for molecule level cellular machinery taking advantage of non-classical effects will be something we continue to find. After all, live evolved in our real world, not the abstraction we call the "classical scale world," and if optimal solutions involve quantum effects then life could easily have chanced upon them over 4 billion years.

You already have neat little experiments like this: https://www.sciencealert.com/study-suggests-spins-of-brain-water-could-mean-our-minds-use-quantum-computation

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be

There has been a decent trickle of these, some related to how microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light, etc.

My guess is that, if these are verified, we will see some big headlines about "the quantum brain discovered," but that's about it. It's not going to answer any big questions. It won't mean much of anything. It'll just
be more evidence that the idea of a "classical world," is just a useful abstraction. If anything, it will mean it's going to be even harder to unpack how the brain works, not that we'll get some sort of "quantum leap," if you will, in understanding.

That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon

We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true!

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Does witnessing an event (the role of observation) cause the event, or does the physical disturbance by experimental apparatus cause the noted change?

The Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to imply that it was the consciousness of the observer that triggered a phenomenal change in the target particle field. And it's the causal power of consciousness that the OP is using to postulate another effect on a completely different philosophical question : the cosmological Fine-Tuning Problem. In several of my posts above, I proposed a different way to interpret the phenomenon of "collapse". I doubt that human awareness has magical mind-over-matter powers. But an awareness event (perception) does seem to cause a change in how a phenomenon is conceived : statistical Potential becomes observed Actual. :smile:



Does observation cause collapse? :
In Bohm interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer introduces into the measured system some perturbation, which is inevitable when performing the measurement.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon
We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true! — universeness

You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate.

When the experts disagree*1 on the role of the observer in causing "collapse", how could a non-expert prove a forum postulation, except by pointing to an expert whose professional opinion agrees with the reasoning & conclusion. I'm not aware of any expert who has even addressed the question of "collapse" in terms of perception to conception transition. :smile:

*1. Why does observation collapse the wave function? :
This is actually an unresolved question in QM. There are many interpretations of QM. Some attempt to define what constitutes measurement and what causes collapse. In some interpretation, wavefunctions never collapse. In some others, wavefunctions are not a good enough description for quantum systems. The canonical interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, simply dodges this question.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

True. Although given the ways we've already found that life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects, I figure it will probably come to play some sort of role. Obviously life uses quantum phenomena in that all chemistry is quantum phenomena, but it seems likely that adaptations for molecule level cellular machinery taking advantage of non-classical effects will be something we continue to find. After all, live evolved in our real world, not the abstraction we call the "classical scale world," and if optimal solutions involve quantum effects then life could easily have chanced upon them over 4 billion years. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course life has adapted to take advantage of quantum effects. Natural selection operates on organism's interactions with the world. The world at a basic level includes quantum effects. The classical world emerges from the quantum world. Again, that says nothing specific or direct about consciousness.

You already have neat little experiments like this: https://www.sciencealert.com/study-suggests-spins-of-brain-water-could-mean-our-minds-use-quantum-computation

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be

There has been a decent trickle of these, some related to how microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have no doubt that much of how an organism operates uses quantum mechanical effects.

I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". — Gnomon

I'll say it again one more time and leave it at that. No... I won't say it again, I'll just copy my previous comment here:

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark

You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? — Gnomon

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence.
I cannot personally explain waveform collapse and the measurement problem. I am currently most convinced by the proposals that when we measure position or momentum, we are measuring an extension, so we get a 'localised' result, but this statement probably demonstrates my limited understanding of QM. I would however, further state that every measurement made, is notionally inaccurate. Even those we call 'constants' can only be measured to a fixed number of decimal places.
We eventually come up against the planck scale.

From Wiki:
At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate. The best-known example is represented by the conditions in the first ${10^{−43}}$ seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

The four universal constants that, by definition, have a numeric value 1 when expressed in these units are:
The speed of light in vacuum, c,
The gravitational constant, G,
The reduced Planck constant, ħ, and
The Boltzmann constant, kB.
Planck units do not incorporate an electromagnetic dimension. Some authors choose to extend the system to electromagnetism by, for example, adding either the Coulomb constant or the electric constant, to this list. Similarly, authors choose to use variants of the system that give other numeric values to one or more of the four constants above.
Any measurement smaller than the Planck scale takes us into black hole physics, as far as I understand.

Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness

I tried google and google scholar with:
Properties of an electron?
Can the properties of an electron change?
So if I choose something like the 8 properties of electrons as listed here:
Property 1: Electrons are negatively charged particles.
Property 2: The mass of the electron is 1/2000 times lesser than the mass of proton and neutron. Therefore, the electrons do not contribute to the mass of the atom.
Property 3: An electron has an electric charge of -1.602 × 10-19 coulombs) which is equal and opposite to the charge of a proton.
Property 4: Electrons are subatomic particles found outside the nucleus, unlike protons and neutrons, which are present inside the nucleus.
Property 5: According to the Bohr atom model, electrons are continuously moving around the nucleus in orbits or shells.
Property 6: The invariant mass of an electron is approximately 9.109×10−31 kilograms.
Property 7: Electrons display both particle properties and wave properties.
Property 8: According to the principle of quantum mechanics, the position and momentum of the electrons cannot be determined simultaneously.

Then I consider, which of these can change, I garnish that property 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 do not change and 5 and 8 accommodate change, in that a bound electron can become a free electron and that the position and momentum of an electron can change.
This is why I responded to @Count Timothy von Icarus with:

Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. Mass is a property and the mass of an electron is a constant, so it does not change, what am I failing to understand here? Is a snowball that gains mass as it rolls down a hill of snow, still the same snowball? I am not the same person as I was 50 years ago. Perhaps I am just not understanding, the significance in physics, of treating every electron as individual objects or treating each electron as the same 'properties' existing in many places. Would either 'treatment' significantly affect any major current theory in quantum or classical physics? The single electron theory bore no value at all, did it? — universeness

Based on some of his sentences, such as

If an object is defined by its relations, then an object is actually continually becoming a different object; I am a different person when I'm in my dining room them when I'm in my living room, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

and

The concern is generally that, if an object is nothing but its properties, and its properties change, then the object has become a different object. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate. — Gnomon

I accept that like me, you are not a 'quantum scientist' and I further accept that you engage in a lot of 'philosophical guessing,' and that such is the strength (or lack of) behind your dalliances with theism and your enformation proposals.

Addition: I also accept that a positron can be considered 'an electron whose charge property is positive,' but this is misleading, as an electron cannot become a positron by any method I have heard of explained in particle or quantum physics.

From Science Direct:
In particle accelerators, positrons are produced through the process of pair production. In this process a photon interacting with the electromagnetic field of a heavy charge creates an electron and a positron.

I'll say it again one more time and leave it at that. No... I won't say it again, I'll just copy my previous comment here:

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark — T Clark

I don't want to sound obtuse, but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? Does, or does not, experimental observation (looking + perturbing) have an empirical effect on the object of the experiment? As I said, I don't think "just looking" can cause a change in matter. But a quantum-scale scientific observation involves more than just passively seeing what happens. So here, I'll try to answer my own question.

In the science of Ethology, animal behavior, the scientist is often -- but not always -- careful not to interfere with the activities of the animals they observe & record. Yet, in observing sub-atomic particles a drastic intervention is necessary in order to split the atom into its constituent parts. In such cases, the observation always follows perturbation.

That's why I conclude that The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Hence, "looking" = no effect ; "perturbing" = observer effect. The Copenhagen controversy was apparently an over-reaction to the magical-mind-over-matter notion that "looking is causing". So, I agree with you that an atom-smasher observation (physics) is completely different from the erroneous magical "Observer Effect" (metaphysics) as imagined by critics.

However, it's possible that Bohr was making a physics assertion with metaphysical implications, as later expressed by Wheeler as "It from Bit". And we could debate that quip for decades. :smile:


*1. What is an observation in science? :
That's what it means to observe during a scientific experiment. It means to notice what's going on through your senses, but, more specifically, we can define observation as the act of knowing and recording something. This has to do with both the act of knowing what's going on, and then recording what happened.
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/observations/
Note -- In the case of subatomic observations, the human senses are augmented by artificial instruments of enormous physical power. So it's not a mere "observation" in the usual sense, but more like "looking" at a bug with a sledge hammer.

*2. Observer effect (physics) :
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Note : a metaphysical "Observer Effect" might be something like the spooky feeling of being watched by someone you can't see.
The psychic staring effect (sometimes called scopaesthesia) is a supposed phenomenon in which humans detect being stared at by extrasensory means.

OBSERVATION MADE WITH 13 tera-electronvolts OF ATOM-SMASHING POWER
(TeV = trillions of electron volts)

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness

Do you require empirical evidence for a "philosophical thesis*1"? Most philosophical assertions are supported by argumentation, that you can accept or reject for personal reasons, but can't disprove empirically --- only by authority.

A more complete argument was given above to TClark*2. There, I referenced an anthology by several scientists & philosophers presenting their expert opinions on the role of Mind/Information in the world. They offer some empirical results into evidence, but that does not carry the same weight as the "official" philosophical position (collective opinion) of modern Science, which at this moment is Materialism or Physicalism*3. But the certainty of that pre-quantum (classical physics) position seems to be crumbling under the weight of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (waves are not material), plus the spooky implications of the Observer Effect (see OP), and the failure of Science to find a fundamental Atom of matter (12 kinds of quarks so far).

My personal philosophical position departs from mainstream science, and if you are a believer in Scientism, then that lack of authority will determine your antithesis to my thesis. That's OK for a forum post, but you can't disprove it empirically. :smile:

PS___What scientific "claim" do you think I'm making? We may be fruitlessly arguing about completely different ideas.

*1. Gnomon to Schopenhauer1 :
"My philosophical thesis suggests that human Consciousness is a high evolutionary stage of causal Energy, combined with directional Enformy*1".

*2. Gnomon to TClark :
Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.

*3. Gnomon blog :
Pinter’s book also has a chapter discussing the Mind vs Matter debate in modern philosophy. Regarding the materialistic bias of modern Science and Philosophy, He says “the most widely shared opinion today is that mental phenomena are subject to physical law, and can be fully explained by the principles of physics”. Ironically, that presumption is more of a hopeful belief than a settled science.

but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? — Gnomon

From Wikipedia:

In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of utilizing instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire, which causes some of the air to escape, thereby changing the pressure to observe it. — Wikipedia - The Observer Effect

As the definition indicates, the observer effect is not a property of quantum systems. It is often used to explain the results of psychological studies when the experimenter interferes with the experimental subjects. In his original paper on the uncertainty principle, Heisenberg identified the observer effect as the cause of uncertainty. Later, it was determined that the phenomenon is caused by properties unique to quantum systems.

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness

FWIW, here are some thoughts on the relation between Enformy (the natural tendency to create and transform material objects) and Energy. You won't find that term in any science books, because I coined it to express an underlying relationship that is more useful for philosophical reasoning than for empirical manipulation of matter. There's lots more where this came from, but it's not in the category of settled science. Again, it's not a factual "claim", but a philosophical conjecture about the role of Form in the world. Plato & Aristotle used that idea long before anyone had the modern concept of physical Energy. :smile:

From a previous forum post :
However, for me, the laws of Form are essentially the same as laws of Energy or Thermodynamics*1. By analogy : First law : EnFormAction (power of causation) is universal & permanent. Second law : the Power to Enform (to cause changes in matter) is not a material substance that could be used-up, but it can be transformed into Entropy (material substance). Third law : pure Enformy has zero Entropy.

*1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (er, Enformy) :
#1 -- Enformy : Potential (P) for Causation/Change is finite but unbounded. EnFormAction is never lost, but merely transformed into Actual (A) material forms . (P = A)
#2 -- Entropy : Inputs are proportional to Outputs (ΔE = q + w)
#3 -- Origin : Initial state & Final state balance out (qualitatively the same)
https://www.chadsprep.com/chads-general-chemistry-videos/3-laws-of-thermodynamics-definition/

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*1. The Laws of Thermodynamics (er, Enformy) :
#1 -- Enformy : Potential (P) for Causation/Change is finite but unbounded. EnFormAction is never lost, but merely transformed into Actual (A) material forms . (P = A)
#2 -- Entropy : Inputs are proportional to Outputs (ΔE = q + w)
#3 -- Origin : Initial state & Final state balance out (qualitatively — Gnomon

These are not the Laws of Thermodynamics, they're the Laws of Gnomodynamics.

These are not the Laws of Thermodynamics, they're the Laws of Gnomodynamics. — T Clark

Your defensive skepticism missed the point. It's just an analogy.

As I said, this Energy/Information equation is a novel philosophical concept, not a settled scientific fact. I am not parroting any conventional science, here. I'm postulating a new approach to old science. And it's not just Gnomodynamics, there are many credentialed scientists who are following a similar path of Information in many forms. One of which is Energy. Please note that I quote pragmatic scientists, not preachy gurus. :smile:

PS___ Are you aware that classical/mechanical Newtonian physics does not apply to the elementary fundamentals of sub-atomic physics? The building blocks of the foundation of reality now seem to be made of Potential/Information/Energy instead of Actual/Tangible/Matter. The philosophical implications of that invisible underlying Reality provide plenty of food for thought. At least, for those who are hungry for new knowledge, and can adapt their skeptical filter to accommodate the spooky stuff on the quantum floor of Ideality.

Information is Energy
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

Is information the fifth state of matter?
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/

Your defensive skepticism missed the point. — Gnomon

No need for defense. I thought I should take the offense against misinformation.

It's just an analogy. — Gnomon

You know I don't hold much truck with your theories. We've discussed it in the past and there's no need to take it up again. On the other hand, here you use terminology which has a very specific technical meaning which is universally understood by scientists - The Laws of Thermodynamics. But you use the term in a way which is not consistent with the scientific understanding. That's why I commented. You shouldn't appropriate scientific terminology in a way that misrepresents it's meaning.

That's why I commented. You shouldn't appropriate scientific terminology in a way that misrepresents it's meaning. — T Clark

I apologize for offering you novel ideas that your background didn't prepare you to understand. But the scientific terminology I used, by analogy, did represent my unconventional meaning. So, it was not intended to mislead.

It's that unorthodox post-quantum interpretation of conventional science that you misunderstand. Information = Energy is not yet mainstream science, but envelope-pushing scientists are finding Information hidden in more & more places. This cutting edge science is mostly discovered on the invisible immaterial mathematical quantum level of reality.

Note that I didn't claim to have scientific authority for my hypothetical analogical postulation on a Philosophy Forum. Besides, mainstream scientists tend to think that most philosophical conjectures are gobbledygook --- not to mention "Gnomodynamics". At the risk of more misunderstanding, here's a non-philosophical scientific equation of Information with Energy. How would you interpret that equation in philosophical terms? :smile:


Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol in which a hypothetical intelligence—dubbed Maxwell’s demon—pumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demon’s role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821


What great analogy do you know that puts a misunderstood thing into perspective?
https://www.quora.com/What-great-analogy-do-you-know-that-puts-a-misunderstood-thing-into-perspective
Caution : Quora might offer to connect you to ChatGPS.

I apologize for offering you novel ideas that your background didn't prepare you to understand. But the scientific terminology I used, by analogy, did represent my unconventional meaning. So, it was not intended to mislead. — Gnomon

Bullshit. You've appropriated language that has specific meanings to give your ideas a thin coating of false legitimacy. It's dishonest, no matter what your intentions were. There have been times on the forum when this kind of garbage would not have been tolerated. We lost a lot of our scientific voices - @Streetlight, @TimeLine, and Apokrisis. Apokrisis is still around from time to time.

Go ahead and spout your crap, but don't gift wrap it with scientific wrapping paper.

I'm all done here.

I'm all done here. — T Clark

Hi T Clark, back at your favourite pastime I see. Come in, spout some pseudoscience, then state your declaration. Care to tell me what you think you have succeeded in finishing when you say you're "done".

My apologies, where I said "the article explains some of them," above I meant to share this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/

My apologies, where I said "the article explains some of them," above I meant to share this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/ — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks. Interesting. As I mentioned previously, I find spontaneous collapse theories appealing. From what I can tell, those are not necessarily ruled out by the results described in the article, but I'm not sure of that.