Having multiple interpretations of things does not create inconsistencies. — boethius

Sigh. Read the whole comment please. I show why one of the interpretations (the one we happen to be discussing) is inconsistent with that.

However, for those curious, the block universe interpretation is as easy in quantum mechanics as classical mechanics. There are just many more paths through the block associated with any particle — boethius

This is MWI. Which we were not talking about.

If we want to add "wave function collapse" (which the point of contemplating the "cosmic wave function" is that we don't need to ever add a wave function collapse, if we remove the hypothesis of conscious observers that see definite things) then the many potential world lines associated with a particle collapse in the block to the, if not one location, then "smaller region" anytime the wave function collapses in this block universe. — boethius

Great. Now the question becomes, do we need a conscious observer for this to happen, or can it happen on its own. If given you experiments that show it happens on its own. In addition to the simple thought experiment, that if you want to admit that minds/consciousness require brains, and brains require definite (collapsed) electrons and atoms to make, then it’s not possible to get consciousness unless you already have some collapsed stuff. So consciousness can’t be necessary for collapsing wave functions.

Again, the only reason to postulate "time" as some sort of changing singular experience in our quantum block universe is if we want to contemplate the idea that some of the "particle world lines" represent a conscious being that experiences "time" as some changing singular experience. However, if we had no observers in our quantum block universe there is nothing in the math that would tell us time is some special thing as we understand time to be in our experience. — boethius

Back to MWI. “Multiple world lines” is MWI. Collapse (what we’re talking about) is a single world line.

An egregious version of this to show the point is that a Nazi or white supremacist who disagreed with me, is making a bad assessment. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and that would be arguing in bad faith too. The Nazi is wasting his time talking to you, he won't change your mind ever. And likely not you his.

However, it is harder to understand how any neuro-typical (if that's a thing?) person constantly misevaluates due to strong genetic, environmental, and social pressures. — schopenhauer1

I could name for example: A desire to seem unique as a reason ANs are "misevaluating" life. And that would be just as valid as your argument.

Whether or not it's a misevaluation is precisely the problem in question. You think you can objectively show it is. I don't see that. Because again, everyone here sees the same limits as you, and simply doesn't think they're that bad.

But I am pointing to what the other side of that coin is, which is that it is really a bounded set of options within the limits of the conditions of life. — schopenhauer1

Let me ask you this: What boundaries of life would you find acceptable to have children in? If you respond to nothing else respond to this.

If you can't answer that, then yours is a type argument rejecting all unconsented impositions. In which case it fails because you don't apply it to general day to day life (surprise parties are ok for example, generally)

Further, this is pretty much equivalent to a game that one must do- the game of life itself.. It has a set of systemic rules to "master" to some extent, and a series of challenges, many of which are not known beforehand to overcome. One can roll all of these aspects into the "challenge/overcoming challenge game". — schopenhauer1

Stop with the type arguments. This also applies to surprise parties. You're wasting typing by repeatedly pointing out that "life is an unconsented game". So are many things you find ok. We are now arguing about whether it is bad enough.

You can say "these are acceptable", but then I will point to the fact that people throughout history have made wrong evaluations. A lack of perspective in how life is bad is possibly part of the problem for these bad judgements. Our bias to see the options and not the limitations, is one big part I think. In other words, "You have options!" is thus refuted, because it is "bounded in limits", and the limits have been pointed out X, Y, Z.. As I have been doing in many of my posts. — schopenhauer1

None of this makes me wrong btw. People in history have been wrong before. You can't generalize from that that I'm wrong now. I could just as validly argue that some people have been pessimistic throughout history before (Like thinking moving pictures will be impossible, or that science will only advance this far or or or) and you're one of those people. So let's not play the "People have been wrong before therefore you're wrong now" game.

But also, if "You have options!" is always refuted by "You are limited", then yours is just a type argument. This amounts to rejecting all forms of unconsented impositions. Which you clearly don't do. So yours would be an inconsistent position.

This would be violating the threshold of dignity. — schopenhauer1

For you. Maybe. But so far you've presented so many limitations of life and most people that have read them have continued to think it's not above the threshold. You've been sharing your perspective, and people have been listening and seeing its truth, and still they think life is under the threshold. And they can do this consistently.

and its options within limits, sufficiently so that is indeed similar to the lifeguard situation on second look. — schopenhauer1

Do you recognize that most people here see all the same limits and don't think they're sufficient?

Where do you get your objectivity from? What makes you think that if everyone saw the same limitations that you do they would come to the same conclusion? And what makes you think your conclusion is the "right" one that needs to be shared?

It can be the case people have the wrong assessment. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but to know that anyone who disagrees with you has a bad assessment is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

You pretend to:

entertain the possibility that someone can think life doesn’t meet the threshold without being wrong and biased — khaled

But really you don't. Nothing can ever change your mind, and you just know you're right. This is text book argument from bad faith.

Your caught up on the idea that something that seems pervasive must make it thus true or insulated from being in the category of bad judement, possibly due to lack of perspective in this case. — schopenhauer1

No not at all. I'm putting forward the possibility that someone can be aware of all the limitations of life, have the exact same perspective as you, and still conclude that it doesn't meet the threshold. I'm sure there are countless people who have suffered much more than you and seen all the same limitations and still had kids in good conscience.

You disagree with this idea. You think "If only these people had my perspective, if only they knew how bad it can get" they would all think like you. And so by definition, anyone who disagrees with you is simply lacking in perspective. Yet you pretend to entertain their perspectives while knowing us unenlightened peasants simply don't understand the limits of their situation as well as you do.

That's called arguing in bad faith. Again:

Reminds of “feminists” going on about how terrible the patriarchy is, and whenever someone challenges their views it’s “oh you’re just a man you wouldn’t know” or “oh you’re just a patriarchy slave you wouldn’t know (in case of women)” — khaled

There can be no argument with you if you automatically think that the interlocutor is wrong (or lacking perspective) for disagreeing with you.

Maybe I will.

And to you I'd suggest you pay more attention to when someone is saying "Conscious attention is the only thing that can cause wave function collapse" vs that "Conscious attention causes wave function collapse" or even just "The wave collapses when we consciously measure where it goes". Because so far you've mostly given quotes and articles saying the last 2, claiming they say the first.

Cheers. Thanks for the discussion but I don't think we'll get anywhere anymore.

If one describes the whole universe this way, there is nothing logically inconsistent within the math of saying the whole 4 dimensions (or however many dimensions you have in your system) physically exist (in some substance intuition sense) as one 4 dimensional block. — boethius

Within the math of classical mechanics.

In Quantum mechanics it is very much inconsistent. Because there are 2 alternatives in quantum mechanics:

1- The wave function collapses, in which case, different behavior will be seen as a result of the collapse to if the wave function didn't collapse (this is the whole point of the double slit experiment). Thus, assuming that the wave function will collapse will not yield the same results as assuming it will not collapse (the former means a striped pattern, the latter means an interference pattern)

2- The wave function "doesn't collapse". Instead, it collapses, in every possible way, each in its own universe. So "overall it didn't collapse". That's MWI.

And a bunch more but those are really the only two being discussed right now.

Also the 4 dimensional analog of a cube is called a tesseract.

It just makes sense to you because you haven't read enough and you have a mind-world, at the back of your mind at all times that is assumed and unchallengable.

Anyways cheers.

this is why there is no interference pattern even if you do not "look" at your experiment until the end. — boethius

If you already know this then how can consciousness be what collapses the wave function? When clearly, even without it the interference pattern would not emerge.

Interference patterns disappear, not because of wave collapse, but because of running a different experiment, where phase is not preserved through both slits; and without the same phase going through both slits, the interference pattern does not emerge — boethius

????

I don't think you understand what phase is. The interference pattern occurs, even if you send in ONE electron at a time. The electron would act as a wave and interfere with itself. It would go through "both slits" at the same time and produce an interference pattern after enough have been sent. That is, if no measuring apparatus is there.

Nothing in the experiment I described suggested sending in electrons in different phases. It is literally just the classic double slit experiment, using a single electron at a time (which has already been done btw) but instead of a person looking at the results, an AI looks at the results and either dispenses or doesn't dispense a cookie.

Start from 1:51.



What I'm proposing is the exact same setup at 2:46 / 3:43 except that an AI recognizes the pattern produced, and no one is actually watching which slit the electron went through. In that case, there is a very clear consequence that is testable, whether or not the wave makes an interference or striped pattern, makes the difference between me getting and not getting a cookie.

What will happen is I won't get a cookie. Because the wave will collapse, aka, will produced a striped pattern, not an interference pattern. Due to the measuring device alone. Or, maybe the measuring device and AI. Point is, not due to anything conscious.

However, if you put your experiment in the box with Schrödinger's cat, how is it described quantum mechanically? The particles, the detectors, the AI are all in superpositions of the different possibilities of when you open the box. — boethius

?

When I get a cookie, I know for a fact the cat is dead. As long as I don't get a cookie, I know for a fact it is alive. The cat is either alive or dead, not in a superposition by this setup. We know this. And we know it without observing the cat. Because we can observe the consequences of it being alive or dead in this case no cookie vs cookie.

The cookie dispenser is, as a matter of fact, not in a superposition of dispensing and not dispensing a cookie (what would that even look like). I can positively know that it has either dispensed, or has not dispensed a cookie. Which allows me to infer the status of the cat without looking at the cat. An example of collapse without conscious attention.

If we look at the math of quantum physics, there is no logical inconsistency in just letting the wave function propagate indefinitely without any "collapses". — boethius

False. If a wave function is collapsed in the double slit experiment, you get 2 stripes. If it isn't, you get an interference pattern. If an AI can dispense a cookie based on which occurs then there is a very real consequence if the wave function collapses or otherwise. It is simply not the case that if the wave function doesn't collapse, everything would be the same as if it hasn't. No, there is a cookie on the line here! Only when the wave function doesn't collapse, do you get a cookie. If it collapses, no cookie.

There is very much a logical inconsistency in claiming that a world where I eat a cookie is no different than a world where I don't eat a cookie.

But you (not you in particular) have an object-world, a real-world, in the back of your mind all the time. It’s assumed, inviolable, unchallengeable. You’re not engaging with philosophy until you challenge this innate realism — Wayfarer

I have challenged it on the metaethics and moral relativism thread and on other threads.

And came up empty. It just doesn't make sense. If the object world doesn't exist, then what are the lenses that we observe the world through made of? It is an inescapable fact that you can't have a mind without a certain configuration of matter. And if that configuration is disturbed (say, by a concussion to the back of the head) the mind goes away.

If one of the two goes away when the other is disturbed then that other is more fundamental. Obviously.

Presumptuous of you to say I haven't. I haven't accused you of being dogmatic and am trying to discuss in good faith. I wish you would do the same.

Objects and subjects arise together, you don’t have one without the other. — Wayfarer

I think this is conflating two things by saying "objects". It is conflating the intersubjective and objective worlds. The intersubjective world doesn't arise without subjects. But the objective world couldn't care less about them.

I can easily conceive of a world empty of life or consciousness. Objects without a subject are no problem. All a subject does is interpret the "things in themselves", the objects, into intersubjective "objects". But the objects can exist without an interpreter. Or at least, the interpreter can not be conscious.

In other words, "planet earth" doesn't exist without a subject because there is no one to distinguish a planet from whatever surrounds it and to dub it "earth". But that doesn't mean that the planet literally, objectively, doesn't exist. There was a floating rock in space with a lot of water on it before any conscious beings evolved. Or else, the conscious beings wouldn't have evolved!!! Yes "water" and "rock" wouldn't have existed either without a subject for the same reason but you know what I mean. The "base material" had to be there already.

We wanted to find a Democritean atom - something that was utterly real, a literal atom, a fundamentally real object. Instead, we get an equation which describes a range of possibilities, and it takes a measurement to pull the real rabbit out of the statistical hat. Seems suspiciously like magic. Nobody really knows if the equation is objectively real and the ‘collapse’ literally occurs. That’s part of the problem!

Sure. But you seem incredibly sure that the collapse literally occurs, moreover as a result of our conscious awareness.

And the measurement, again, doesn't have to be done by a conscious agent. I've given countless possible experiments now. It simply is not the case that without a conscious agent seeing the results, that the collapse doesn't occur. I'll repeat what I said to boethius:
— Wayfarer

We can know whether or not a quantum wave is collapsed or not without observing it, by observing its consequences in each case (collapsed or uncollapsed). — khaled

That’s why those arguments among the pioneers of this subject were so intense and vehement. Heisenberg recalled being literally reduced to tears. Seriously, do some more reading. That’s all for now. — Wayfarer

Again, presumptuous of you to assume I haven't done enough reading. I don't doubt that you have done reading, but I think you've taken what you're reading too far. Considering you already linked me an article you thought supports your point when it explicitly refuted it. And a quote you thought supports your point when it was talking about intelligent design. Etc

1- Minds require brains
2- Brains require resolved quantum states
3- Therefore minds require resolved quantum states — khaled

Which part of this do you disagree with?

You're saying the MWI solves the problem we're talking about, but somehow the problem doesn't even exist for the proposed solution you are arguing about that "consciousness collapses wave functions". — boethius

? I legit don't understand what this sentence means.

which, before we look, is entirely coherent to believe the measuring apparatus is in the superimposition of the different measurement outcomes — boethius

False. That's precisely the point. There are CONSEQUENCES to the wave not being resolved while we're not looking at it. Attach a measuring apparatus to a double slit experiment. Then have an AI recognize whether or not an interference or striped pattern is produced, and connect the AI to a cookie dispenser. If a striped pattern is produced, no cookie, if an interference pattern is produced, dispense a cookie. Start the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser. You will find no cookie.

You can't say that observing the cookie dispenser is the same as measuring which slit the electron went through. The whole series of events, the measurement, and the interpretation of the results, was done by completely unconscious agents. You did nothing, just checked if a cookie comes out or not.

According to you, we should expect that there will be a striped pattern, UNTIL we go and check which slit the particle went through ourselves. In other words, there will be a cookie dispensed, but the second we go and check the measurement device to see which slit the electrons are going through, no cookie.

This simply doesn't happen.

Adding a "measuring apparatus" in the box with Schrödinger's cat, doesn't change the thought experiment. — boethius

Add a cookie dispenser that dispenses a cookie when the cat dies. You will either get a cookie or you won't get a cookie at any one time. You won't be "in a superposition state of having and not having a cookie". And you can tell precisely by doing this whether or not the cat is dead or alive. Even without observing the cat, just the consequences of it being dead or alive.

The question is what state these measuring devices are in before we look at them? — boethius

Again, this has testable consequences. Let me take another though experiment, Einstein's does the moon exist when no one is looking at it. But let's make it the sun this time. If no one looks at the sun, does the world suddenly go dark? We can test that. And no it won't. Because the sun stays there even when no one is looking at it. Same can be said of the moon and the behavior of waves (in the ocean).

We can know whether or not a quantum wave is collapsed or not without observing it, by observing its consequences in each case (collapsed or uncollapsed).

This is the problem! That's exactly the point! Is its real nature particle-like or wave-like. Well, it depends on which experiment you conduct. Some will give you wave, some particle. 'But what is it really?'

Silence. — Wayfarer

By "Objective world" I didn't mean a well defined one. I didn't mean that in the "objective world" everything is a resolved quantum wave, that's it's all made of small and big things bumping into each other. That is not needed for what I said to be true. All that is needed is that there is some objective world that is the source of the stimuli. IN that objective world it is totally possible for a particle to exist as a particle sometimes and as a wave sometimes, I don't care about that. Point is there IS an objective world.

AND that that objective world is REQUIRED for minds to exist at all.

Let's take it slowly:

1- Minds require brains
2- Brains require resolved quantum states
3- Therefore minds require resolved quantum states (which implies that it's not the other way around)

What's the problem here?

‘ What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning,’ said Heisenberg. See the connection with Kant? That we know phenomena, what appears to us. What is it really, though? — Wayfarer

An unresolved quantum wave until something measures it. Not silence. Again, I don't need the objective world to be well defined for what I said to be true.

All I need is that we agree that our "mind" cannot be produced without the existence of well resolved, particles and atoms. Do we agree there?

What Kant said is that we don't observe things as they are. They pass through the filters of the senses. It is not consistent or sensical to then claim that the filters are what create the things as they are. Because then, what creates the filters?

So please stop saying I'm 'peddling conspiracy theories', it's just insulting. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry if I was being confrontational. I don't mean to be, I'm just used to much less civil discussions with the likes of Bartricks. I didn't notice that what I was saying could be construed as an insult. I don't mean it to be.

what happens is that we receive stimuli through the sense-gates and we interpret these stimuli to 'create' a world — Wayfarer

Yes but there is still a "world" underneath our perception of the world. The source of the stimuli. An objective world, is what I'll call it. That's what physics tries to capture. Can we agree there?

You're saying that our interpretation of the world precedes the objective world in some sense. That's the problematic view. Because "we" are a product of the objective world, which we then interpret to create our "own world" or "intersubjective world" if you would. Physics is the study of this bottom layer, the objective world, not the intersubjective one. Physics proposes things we can't see or feel all the time. Like electrons. Or fields. These aren't created in our picture of the world due to us receiving stimuli from the sense gates. They're theories about what the "objective world" could look like. The objective world that brought us about and created the "glasses" we see the world through.

To simply say that the intersubjective world is created by our mind is no new finding at all. We don't see magnetic fields for example, yet we have pretty good reason to think they're there. As part of the objective world. How did we come to that conclusion? By proposing an objective world that could feasibly produce our intersubjective one. So we see a rock attracting metals, and we try to figure out why. Maybe the rock, objectively, has some "essence" which attracts metals. Well, not exactly, because if you rub certain cloths together they also don't attract metals. So that model is bad.... and on and on we go coming up with better and better models.

Physics attempts to get at the world "without our glasses" that we see the world through. Obviously, it would be impossible to know for sure that we got what the "objective world" looks like without any reference to our sense gates, since its our sense gates doing all the work. All we can come up with is a feasible theory to explain what our sense gates perceive, but there could be a lot more complexity than that. Even amidst this uncertainty some theories are definitely better than others. The idea that the sense gates are needed for the world to stabilize just seems confused. The sense gates wouldn't have been created without a stable world in the first place. I think it comes from thinking that the domain of physics is the intersubjective world.

And evolutionary theory, being a form of naturalism, takes the reality of nature for granted. Whereas 'the nature of reality' is being called into question by the discoveries of physics. — Wayfarer

Your theory, which is presumably scientifically realist neo-Darwinian evolution, can't accomodate the radical implications of physics. — Wayfarer

This seems very handwavy for me. No interpretation of qunatum mechanics will touch evolutionary theory. Quantum mechanics deals with small things. Evolutionary theory deals with one of the biggest things we can deal in (animals and plants). No interpretation of quantum mechanics will have it come out that the moon doesn't exist when we're not looking at it (because if it didn't, we would expect waves to behave differently, yet if everyone looked away from the moon for a second, waves won't behave any differently)

Which radical implication, specifically does it contradict. Again, I don't think bringing Kant into this does anything. I'm pretty sure anyone would agree with the above. That physics is not merely a product of our intersubjective world, but it is also our best attempt at capturing the objective world underneath. Note: best attempt, it's still a work in progress. But some theories are definitely closer than others. And to say that our interpretation precedes the world itself is one of the theories that are very far.

what I'm saying is not fringe conspiracy theory, but it is deeply challenging for the taken-for-granted realism that a lot of people hold. — Wayfarer

No, that's not what I was calling a conspiracy theory. What I was calling a conspiracy theory is that the Von Neumann interpretation was discarded because it's challenging for realism. My point was precisely that:

a lot of physicists don't bother with any of this, nor do they need to. They can do physics, even wildly advanced speculative physics, without engaging with this philosophical question — Wayfarer

And it is THESE PHYSICISTS, that don't bother with this, that have found problems with the Von Neumann interpretation. I'm saying the physicists didn't reject the idea because of any philosophical implications they didn't like, but because the idea itself is problematic. You think it's not problematic, but even without the whole evolution argument how do you explain this:

Now you think, that what’s collapsing the wave is us seeing the results of the measurement. Ok. Attach a measuring device on the slits. Next, make a simple AI that can distinguish between the 2 stripe pattern and an interference pattern. If the interference pattern is seen, make the machine dispense a cookie. If a 2 stripe pattern is seen, no cookie. Now run the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser without looking at anything. You will find that there are no cookies waiting for you :sad:. In other words, the measuring device was enough to collapse the wave function so a 2 stripe pattern is detected, and no cookies are dispensed. — khaled

in terms of consciousness causing wave function collapse?

The Von Neumann interpretation isn't just philosophically challenging, it's also physically problematic. That's my point.

Then again, every interpretation of quantum mechanics has its issues, I'm not denying that, (though I definitely think that the Von Neumann interpretation has more than usual), what I'm denying is that the view is physically unproblematic, but was rejected on the basis of an ideological bias by the scientific community. That's what you seem to be saying to me. That's what I kept calling a conspiracy theory.

at least respond to how consciousness could have evolved in the first place without collapse.

Or any of the other objections. If a dog uses the measuring device will the wave function have collapsed? What about a mantis? What about a bacteria? Which of these is “conscious enough” for collapse?

Never-mind the fact that we can test this and find that it will collapse without any animal or human being there at all. Because the wave not collapsing has consequences. Which we can test.

I think that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in physics is precisely due to the fact that 'the act of observation' has a material effect on the outcome of experiments in quantum physics. — Wayfarer

Yup. But again, “observation” doesn’t have to be conscious. If it were then consciousness would’ve never evolved in the first place! You need collapse to happen to get macro objects, such as humans or animals. So unless you’re a panpsychist, it can’t be that observation requires consciousness.

It can be argued that this act of observation can be made by an apparatus, not a person, but that begs the question of why the apparatus existed in the first place — Wayfarer

No? How does it beg the question? The apparatus doesn’t need to be made by us. For reference: Eyes.

and also whether anything it measures or registers constitutes information until it is interpreted by those who made the apparatus. — Wayfarer

Idk what “registers as information” means. But what does in fact happen is that the wave function collapses before anyone has looked at the results of the measuring machine. If it didn’t, consciousness wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. There would be no electrons or atoms, just quantum soup. You need electrons and atoms to make planets, and water, and humans.

and whether it exists uninterpreted can only ever be an assumption. — Wayfarer

False. Whether or not the wave function is collapsed has testable consequences. If a wave is collapsed or does something. If it’s uncollapsed it does another thing. Look at the classic double slit experiment. If we measure which slit the electron goes through, IE, if we collapse the wave, you get 2 stripes. If you don’t collapse the wave, you get an interference pattern.

Now you think, that what’s collapsing the wave is us seeing the results of the measurement. Ok. Attach a measuring device on the slits. Next, make a simple AI that can distinguish between the 2 stripe pattern and an interference pattern. If the interference pattern is seen, make the machine dispense a cookie. If a 2 stripe pattern is seen, no cookie. Now run the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser without looking at anything. You will find that there are no cookies waiting for you :sad:. In other words, the measuring device was enough to collapse the wave function so a 2 stripe pattern is detected, and no cookies are dispensed. Or a simpler thought experiment:

What is referred to as the wave-function collapse is simply that, prior to the act of measurement or registration, there is not a particle at a definite location with definite properties — Wayfarer

Which would result in there being no macro objects at all. If that’s the case consciousness wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. So no, collapse has to happen without consciousness in order for consciousness to even exist.

The 'Copenhagen intepretation' is thought of as 'weird' is simply because of the fact that 'the observer' has a role at all. — Wayfarer

It’s the most widely held interpretation even today. Yet at the same time most scientists say consciousness is not required. So, what does that tell you about whether or not the observer needs to be conscious?

So a lot of scientifically-inclined people can't deal with the requirement to include the observer. This is not 'a conspiracy theory', it has sound philosophical basis. — Wayfarer

There is no philosophy in “a lot of scientifically inclined people can’t deal with the requirement to include the observer”. Maybe some sociology or psychology, but it’s not a philosophical argument.

And it amounts to saying that all the scientists are getting together in a circle to fight against the evil specter of idealism.

It’s not that scientists abandoned the von Neumann interpretation because they didn’t like idealism. They (again, including its own founders) abandoned it because its problematic. The first amounts to a conspiracy theory.

So what you're arguing is that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in quantum physics actually doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

So you think the alternatives are: Either consciousness is the only thing capable of causing wave functions collapse, or the observer problem doesn’t exist?

Please explain to me why you think those are the only two alternatives. I don’t think they are, clearly. If they were, you’d expect there to be 2 interpretations of quantum mechanics, either multiple worlds, where the measurement problem doesn’t exist, or Von Neumann, where consciousness is the only thing capable of causing wave functions collapse. That’s clearly not the case.

So why do you think those are the only two options in light of this? All the other interpretations are simply wrong? Even though they make up what about 70-80% of physicists believe according to your poll?

Largely discarded, by whom? — Wayfarer

The vast majority of the scientific community.

Where is the evidence for that? — Wayfarer

Evidence it doesn’t make sense? I’ve provided plenty. And you’ve provided none supporting it by the way. Evidence it’s largely discarded? That it’s known by most scientists to be simply false. It doesn’t even show up on the poll you linked me. It’s so fringe it is considered “other”.

What are the alternatives? — Wayfarer

The bunch I linked you are a good start. Pilot wave theory. Copenhagen interpretation (which doesn’t necessarily require consciousness in any way). Many worlds. Etc. Or take your own poll as a source of alternatives.

Thinking through the implications of idealism takes philosophical acumen — Wayfarer

But that’s not why the interpretation was largely discarded. It was discarded because it doesn’t make sense.

So your argument is:

1- If you think life is not too big an imposition then it’s because you’re biased and have an unreliable assessment.

2- Therefore life is objectively too big an imposition.

3- So don’t have kids.

That’s called begging the question. You have to entertain the possibility that someone can think life doesn’t meet the threshold without calling them wrong and biased by definition. Reminds of “feminists” going on about how terrible the patriarchy is, and whenever someone challenges their views it’s “oh you’re just a man you wouldn’t know” or “oh you’re just a patriarchy slave you wouldn’t know (in case of women)”

You’re arguing in bad faith when you automatically assume the person you’re talking to is deluded if they don’t agree with you.

And what, pray tell, is poisonous or conspiratorial about philosophical idealism? — Wayfarer

Nothing. When did I say there is any conspiracy to push for philosophical idealism?

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. — Wayfarer

But you did say that the von Neumann interpretation was avoided because of “big philosophical implications”. Sounds exactly like a conspiracy theory. Scientists didn’t want the nasty idealists to win so they came up with any number of alternatives to the von Neumann interpretation.

No, it was avoided because it’s wrong, even by its own originators eventually. Wave functions collapse in the absence of anything conscious to collapse them. Or else conscious things wouldn’t have evolved in the first place to collapse wave functions.

Of course there are issues of interpretation, but many physicists since the early 20th c have evinced idealist leanings, not least Heisenberg — Wayfarer

I wouldn’t say idealist leaning more so theistic leanings.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. — Max Planck

This sounds to me like arguing for intelligent design, not idealism. Or maybe some sort of panpsychism?

But even if that was the case, I don’t have a problem with idealism itself. I have a problem with trying to imply that wave functions require consciousness to collapse when they simply.... don’t.

Thus, for you, if the slave thinks his conditions are suitable, it is suitable. — schopenhauer1

Yup.

However, if the slave had more perspective and given a chance to see the limitations, perhaps the slave would realize there was an injustice/harm done to him — schopenhauer1

I highly doubt a slave doesn’t see the limitations. They’re tied to his ankle. That’s the point here.

Everyone sees the limitations. Everyone knows that:

existence itself has injustices that we deal with being humans having to survive, find comfort, and entertainment within a contingently harmful world (disease, disaster, dealing with other people, harmful situations, negative experiences, etc.), — schopenhauer1

And that:

in any survival task, one needed to survive in a certain socioeconomic setting (the usual mode of human survival), one can evaluate it as negative — schopenhauer1

We know these limitations exist. We are aware of them. And most people STILL think that life doesn’t meet the threshold.

The problem with the extent argument that you’re going with is that it can never be objective. Where you set the bar for “too much imposition” is completely arbitrary. So long as you’re consistent in applying it (so everything above the bar is bad, everything under is good). But then again, how “bad” everything is as an imposition is also subjective. You can consistently hold that forcing someone into slavery for 30 years is worse, or better, than forcing someone to eat a spider. It depends on how bad you think eating spiders is as compared to slavery.

You can’t convince someone that thinks forcing someone to eat a spider is worse than slavery otherwise. Well, they’ll probably be convinced if they were slaves themselves for a while. But in the case of imposing life you can’t do that. You can’t say “oh you just don’t know how bad life is” because the person you’re talking to is also, well, alive.

Point is most people, despite being aware of the limitations, think that life is not too bad an imposition. And they can do this consistently, regardless of their positions on other impositions. Given that, what’s the point of trying to argue otherwise from extent? There is no argument. That can be had. It’s like trying to argue that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate.

But you want some objectivity of your argument which due to the nature of extent arguments is not achievable.

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.

it is the options and not the limitations that people gravitate to such that they don't feel that life itself has the impositions similarly to the other limiting forced events. — schopenhauer1

Again. Those are the same thing. To state all the options is to imply all the limitations and vice versa.

what you, I, or he would have wanted. — schopenhauer1

What would you have wanted before you were born? Nonsensical question.

Yes, economic realities make up a significant and pervasive portion of life. It is a condition. — schopenhauer1

Correct. I'm pointing out it's one people don't mind generally.

This meets the threshold as discussed earlier. — schopenhauer1

No it doesn't since this:

This relates back to my main point in that the limitations and conditions of surprise parties, on a subject that has self-reflection and can evaluate their own existential situation, is pervasively controlled by various necessary conditions that one must deal with. — schopenhauer1

Is true of surprise parties as well as life.

You make a "type argument" (as in, this imposition is of this or that type) when really all there is here is an "extent argument" (that this position is too imposing). But you don't want an extent argument because it's not objective.

And you keep conflating the two. You start out with "Birth has properties A, B and C which make it immoral". Then someone replies "Surprise parties have A, B and C and you don't think they're immoral generally". So you change to "Birth has too much A and too much B and too much C". Then someone replies "Most people don't think it's too much". Then you go back to "But it has A, B and C, don't you see!". And around and around we go.

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.

1.) It's near impossible to escape either work, free-riding off other's work, homelessness, or death (suicide or otherwise).

2.) It's near impossible to overcome the contingent harms that impress themselves on each and every person daily.

3.) It is near impossible to overcome the boundedness of being a particular animal living in a place, time, etc. — schopenhauer1

Oh no..... I have to work and I may occasionally get injured as an animal that lives in a certain place and time.... what a nightmare!

They only think of the range within the boundedness and not the limits themselves. — schopenhauer1

That... is the same thing. No one is seriously saddened because they’re limited by being an animal in space. No one has thought to themselves “I can’t be in 2 places at once, this is so awful”.

People are aware of the limits.

There is nothing abstract about genetic modifications, sperms and eggs, couples choosing between the life and extirpation of their child. These decisions have demonstrable effects and involve real behavior. — NOS4A2

Ok, so when a couple is deciding not to have a child because he/she would suffer a lot that’s a moral decision.

When a sense of morality extends no further than the skull, can be accomplished in the comfort of one's home and without any interaction with real beings — NOS4A2

But also this.

I don’t understand. Having a child has demonstrable consequences and involves real behavior. Why is the decision not a moral one? What’s imaginary or weird about choosing not to have a child because of the consequences that would entail?

"Sacrifice" makes it seem like it's necessary for the happiness of the majority and that I wouldn't stop it if I could.

An "acceptable consequence"? Yes. "Sacrifice"? No.

Some people are going to get heart attacks from surprise parties. Doesn't make surprise parties wrong.

So using the dignity threshold idea, if the magnitude of the surprise is controlling another person to a high degree, then yes. — schopenhauer1

Sure, that's a variable. I guess we just don't agree about how big an imposition life is or how terrible it is. You think it's more like springing a trap, I think it's a lot better than that.

Ok, so let's add in that the game is definitely not something of infinite pleasure. People don't just feel pleasure from these activities or just existing. There is a lot of intermediate to negative values placed on each activity in the game. So the game is not one of paradise proportions but much more mediocre. Wonka just doesn't have the ability to create "the best of all worlds" for each individual experience. — schopenhauer1

Then it depends on the world I suppose. Is the average experience good or bad?

I've been thinking about it more and I don't think the notion of forcing a situation on someone because you want to is so immoral in the end. Assuming the situation is on average enjoyed by the people that had it. Even if there is a chance they are harmed and even if there is no need to do it (as in, no greater harm is alleviated from them or anyone else).

Maybe an analogy would be: Throwing a surprise party for someone. There is a very small chance they get a heart attack and die. Or maybe they're tired and really don't want a party right now but don't want to disappoint anyone either, so end up in a lose lose position. Does that make it wrong?

The similarities with birth are: In both cases consent is not given, the "gift" would be enjoyed by most (which is why it's called a gift not a curse), there is a chance it causes harm, and the recipient would not miss it at all (the recipient would not suffer for lack of party as he wasn't expecting one, nor does anyone suffer for lack of being born, so there is no argument from prevention of suffering or negative ethics). In other words, it is imposing a situation that is potentially harmful, without consent, even though doing so is not needed.

So are surprise gifts wrong now? I wouldn't think so.

If he creates them, he is forcing nothing and morality doesn't factor into it at all. — NOS4A2

Not an AN anymore but I keep hearing this. This would imply that having children is never wrong. It would also imply that genetically modifying someone to be blind and deaf is not wrong since you're not forcing anything on anyone, therefore morality doesn't factor in (assuming you don't think a sperm or egg is a person). It would also imply that if a certain couple, upon hearing that their child would have dozens of severe genetic illnesses due to hidden genes that they have, would not be doing anything immoral by having said child.

Do you agree with each of the above 3? If not then why?

I think positions that attempt to say that having children is not a moral issue, and can never be wrong are ridiculous.

You already have my answer then. Shouldn’t start, but shouldn’t stop once started. Assuming the needs of the people that exist trumps the harm that can be expected from the infliction.

So as long as Willy can keep his contestants from feeling forced, the game itself is okay for Willy to perpetuate and continue to force? — schopenhauer1

I know you’re not addressing me but my answer to this is: definitely yes.

If everyone in Wonka’s world feels it’s worth it, then absolutely keep on enforcing. What’s the worst that can happen? Someone will exist that finds worthwhile to exist? Doesn’t seem like a bad outcome.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Be that as it may — Wayfarer

So, we can agree that none of what you've said so far offers evidence for idealism?

So ask yourself the question, why is that something to avoid — Wayfarer

Because theories that have it collapse are infinitely more complicated. I already gave you a video about them. Most of them have issues or pose new questions. The MWI is the one with the fewest scientific issues (as in, it poses no new questions) I'm pretty sure but is the hardest to swallow otherwise.

The "consciousness is required for wave function collapse" interpretation has a boatload of issues. Such as: Why? Or: What exactly counts as a conscious agent? And many many more.

You make it seem like scientists are all getting together in a circle thinking "No, we must not let idealism triumph, release the MWI!" When really it's more like: The MWI is the most straightforward simple explanation, and scientists are trying more complicated models in an effort to preserve the world being one world. Which you could argue is unscientific.

Then again, I'm not certain it's WITHOUT issues. But I know it's one of the theories with the fewest issues. And the "consciousness is required" one is one of the ones with the most.

and why does the alternative propose that the universal wavefunction is ‘objectively real’? — Wayfarer

Alternative to what? In all cases the universal wave function is "objectively real" as in it exists. You wanted to propose that consciousness is required to collapse it. That is a very fringe view without supporting evidence and a lot of problems. Some people propose it collapses due to a pilot wave or due to gravity and so on and so on. Maybe you mean in this case the wave function is not "objectively real" because not all alternatives exist and instead, only one exists in the end though which is undecided.

Some other people simply throw their hands up and say "Fuck it, wave function doesn't collapse". The latter have the simplest explanation, that's why it's even on the radar. Because it's simple though seems ridiculous.

And in this case "objectively real" seems to fit the bill. The theory proposes that all the alternatives exist. Sounds pretty "objectively real" to me. Because here you don't even need to measure anything for it to "collapse into existence", all the alternatives exist, measured or not. (Well, they're all measured, just in different worlds!)