The brain creates the states, ... — Garrett Travers

But the question is, what is a brain? Does a jellyfish have a brain? Does a jellyfish have mental states? Is an electronic brain a brain? Does your computer have mental states?

Nothing is explained.

When a 'particle' collides with a physical object it leaves a trace effect in physical spacetime (eg a spot on a photographic plate). — EnPassant

Also a physical object consists of particles, thus the distinction makes no sense.

I have already presented the solution. Every particle and also every group of particles sees another wave function, a section of the universal wave function.

It is comparable with mankind. Every group thinks it would be the most intelligent, but universally seen all are only part of the big stupidity. :)

But nothing collapses in real terms. Possibilities vanish, that is all. — EnPassant

The difference between classical probability and quantum mechanics is interference and this refutes the concept of a pure notion of the wave function. Back to the origin => double slit.

Detection only requires the particle to collide with a physical system. All this 'observer determines outcome' is bunkum. — EnPassant

Interference has also been demonstrated for molecules. Inside the molecule, however, the atoms interact with each other and would collapse the wave function.

Is the wave function collapsed or not?

The pattern: Every time we reduce reality to a single substance, we're faced with the problem of having to reconcile contradictory qualities, something impossible. Does it make more sense to insist that monism is true and that all contradictions are illusions or to abandon monism as nonsensical. The choice: contradiction OR no to monism. — TheMadFool

This is not an argument against monism. The fact that a circle is not a square is also no argument against geometry. Monism means that everything consists of only one substance. In the broadest sense matter is, what something weighs, applies also to light.

I've already given an example: the electric moment of ground state hydrogen. — Kenosha Kid

In Bohmian mechanics, in the ground state of hydrogen, the electron is at rest relative to the proton. However, the electric dipole is not measurable, since any approach of an electric charge immediately sets the electron in motion. The guiding equation always results in no difference to quantum mechanics.

Life without pain does not work. — Miller

What would be in heaven then? That is, by definition, a life without pain. But such a life should not be possible => You have contradicted yourself.

From the point of view of an electron, you would have a reduced wave function, which does not mean that an electron is conscious. It is only the idea of being in the place of an electron.

One speaks also of the temperature inside the sun, although nobody will ever bring a themometer there.

As I have described, the universal wave function does not collapse, the observer-specific one does.

All paradoxes dissolve, if each observer has his own wave function. Of course, all are compatible with each other.

Maybe you can just look at it this way: There is a universal wave function of the universe, where everything is only probabilities. However, every single elementary particle "knows" where it is located. Thus it sees a reduced wave function, because it has an information about itself. Also measuring instruments "know" where they are. And humans also. Each particle and each group of particles sees another wave function.

Most atoms are going to be transparent to radio waves simply because, whatever energy levels the electrons are at, jumping to the next one up will require more energy. — Kenosha Kid

It is not about atoms. Why can't a single free electron interact with radio waves or infrared radiation in the apparatus?

The particle would collapse upon scattering with the photon and the pattern that would build up would be a classical double Gaussian rather than the stripes characteristic of interference. — Kenosha Kid

One always has interactions with radio waves or neutrinos. How then can there ever be interference patterns?

One should consider the Bohmian mechanics. But after the measurement empty wave functions arise. But since one already knows where the particle is, this no longer corresponds to Born's rule.

A consciousness can "think away" the empty wave functions.

Is it possible that a star has a wave function that is distributed over the whole galaxy? I don't see any mathematical problem there.

Either it is possible, then also huge objects can be non-collapsed or the mathematics of the Schrödinger equation is wrong.

Just think classic: Wigner's friend is standing in front of the box with the cat. Its condition is only a probability for him. When he opens it, this probability collapses into certainty. For Wigner outside the room it is still only a probability.

Wigner and Wigner's friend have also classically a different view. For Wigner's friend the cat is either alive or dead, for Wigner it is in a "probability cloud".

It is irrefutable that only a consciousness brings the wave function to collapse. The consciousness connects here with the electronic eye and brings also its wave function to the collapse. With several consciousnesses, each has its own wave function (-> Wigner's friend), which are consistent with each other and correspond to the respective information state.

omnipotent: "The most powerful a being can be."
omniscient: "The most knowledgeable and aware a being can be."
omnibenevolent: "The most good a being can be."

Basically, God might be the best in what is possible, but God is limited by what is possible. — Wirius

God could fulfill all three. Imagine a sadist who takes pleasure in torturing others. God does not prevent it, because free will. Nevertheless, God could simply play him a world in which all others are only avatars.

Well, it actually does contradict his being good only. He just wants evil to exist for the good to be contrasted with. Good deeds will become meaningless if there are no bad deeds too. In his omnibenevolency the guy did a good job. — Verdi

Unfortunately also wrong. This mistake is made by almost everyone except me.

If the "only good" would not exist, then heaven would not exist either. And that is supposed to be good par excellence.

It does not.

But it seems to contradict the all-goodness.

Isn't the rape the will of the devil? — Verdi

The devil, if he exists, is also the will of God.

No, the rapist is not carrying out the will of God. — Bartricks

Everything is the will of God, therefore rape is also the will of God. And the rapist is logically the instrument for it.

Not everything gets harmed. The guilty get harmed. God exists and would not allow it to be any other way. — Bartricks

When we have a rape, the rapist is not only having fun, but also carrying out the will of God. He does not need to have a guilty conscience. It is the victim's own fault.

You are right. If the rapist is not found, not all will be harmed.

But there is a space between decision and action and I am sure that God - being omnibenevolent and all powerful - would intervene to protect innocent victims from a free agent's violent acts. — Bartricks

So you really believe that throughout history there has not been a single case of an innocent victim being tortured to death because God would have intervened?

Please name the planet on which you live.

God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to. — Bartricks

So it is more important for God to allow free will than to protect the victims of violent acts?

... I want to know what it is about a female mind that makes it female. — Bartricks

Melvin Udall in "As Good as It Gets":
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

Joking aside. Since I do not believe that there is a mind beyond matter, there is also no female mind (beyond matter).

What color is an invisible unicorn?

To get from the former conclusion to the latter you would have to assume that brains are minds. Yet they're not. — Bartricks

Every mind we know has a material carrier. Why should God be an exception?

And no, neurons and nonlinear circuits are features of brains, not minds. — Bartricks

Everything that thinks has nonlinear components, we know from experience. Consequently, God is not an element of experience. Thus no element for science.

Our reason - our faculty of reason - is the means by which God communicates with us. And it is manifest to the reason of most, that sexism is a vice. That's her - God - telling us not to be sexists — Bartricks

That is laudable that you try to explain the communication, but that does not explain WHAT God is. The core question is HOW God thinks. Does It have neurons or other nonlinear circuits?

She does — Bartricks

Now God is suddenly female? And where exactly does Her omnipotence intervene for women's rights?

Brains are body parts. Christ. — Bartricks

If God already has no gender, why doesn't "It" stand up for women's rights more?

Because God is a mind and minds do not have sexes. — Bartricks

But male and female brains are also (slightly) different, not only the bodies.

Let me summarize: People (men and women) see God as male because they are sexists. But they know that God has no gender. Does that sound reasonable?

Sexism. — Bartricks

Who? God or human beings?

God doesn't have a gender. — Bartricks

And why is "he" or "He" written then?

It's not decidable. It depends on how you view God or the gods. — GraveItty

So I decide which god/gods there are. Funny.

An omnipotent being can do anything and thus can divest herself of her omnipotence if she so pleases. — Bartricks

One question would also be what gender God is. Does he/she/it have characteristics, how one could decide that?

The answer is just a straightforward 'yes'. God can make some toast. And God can make a stone too heavy for him to lift. There's no problem. — Bartricks

Of course, there is a problem. There's a stone and he can't lift it. If he does lift it, then he has not created one that he cannot lift. Omnipotence is a contradictory concept that people have created.

The following rules apply to a quantum flip:

R1. quantum flip(heads) = heads + tails
R2. quantum flip(tails) = heads - tails

Applying this to the earlier experiment:
1. prepare: heads
2. quantum flip(heads) = heads + tails
3. quantum flip(heads + tails) = quantum flip(heads) + quantum flip(tails) = (heads + tails) + (heads - tails) = heads + heads
4. measure: heads — Andrew M

I don't understand. Can you please write that in the usual bra–ket notation?
Especially the minus sign in R2 is strange.

↪SolarWind
The measuring can happen in a variety of ways. It seems to be a kind of disturbance, conscious or otherwise. It's a disturbance of the wavefunction. The main point, though, is that there aren't contradictions happening, as far as I can see. — Sam26

The funny thing is that there is never a contradiction if you only look at what arrives in the consciousness. Every consciousness carries out its own private collapse of the wave function (->Wigner's friend).

If every observer has his own wave function according to his state of knowledge, then the contradictions are cancelled.

The electron is not in any state until it's measured, so there is no contradiction. — Sam26

But no one can say what a measurement is.

Whether a measuring instrument is enough, which is heavy enough, or whether only a consciousness completes the measurement nobody could answer until today.