Does consciousness make the quantum state collapse?

I actually said to take away the conscious issue for a while because I was just discussing a technical, though fundamental point, on which I disagree with your vision. If the two molecules are in the box
they cannot be non-interacting. Only we (and the rest of the universe) do not interact with the molecules because we are outside this hypothetical box that forbids any passing of information (in practice such a box does not exist but OK. We dealing with a gedanken experiment). For QM perspective there are no two molecules. There is just one wavefunction that describes everything
inside the box. No collapse will occur until we open the box

Originally posted by TitusvE
For QM perspective there are no two molecules. There is just one wavefunction that describes everything
inside the box. No collapse will occur until we open the box

What you are not understanding is that QM is about nested boxes. A collapse is all about the observer. So when you say "There is just" or "No collapse will occur" you are talking about from our perspective as observers. Within the box, there may also be subjects and observers. That is what I described.

Do you know why photons behave as a wave in almost all circumstances, but most other particles like electrons are much more particle like? Its because of gravity. Because photons have no mass, they are able to cross the whole universe without interacting with something else. But when they do interact - with anything whatsoever, be it an electron or a conscious human being, their wave function collapses and they become particles.

Very interesting thread!

Just three en passant side notes:

In fact light behaves as particle and as a wave at the same time, as it is demonstrated with the double slit experiment. And photons do have mass although for our convenience it is suggested that their rest mass is zero -otherwise the polarization would be out of order;

The “box” is a metaphor. In fact the wavefunction is not a “nested box”, it is merely a mathematical formulism that entails non-manifested to us physical effectiveness. Schroedinger died unable to declare the physical significance of the quantum waves although he was trying hard to offer a real physical interpretation. Quantum entities lack of intrinsic characteristics in the way we are used to attribute to the classical objects, for they can take on differ aspects in order to maintain specific behavioral patterns as it is demonstrated in the Bell type experiments -and these experiments involve the phenomenon of quantum entangled states.

And how the quantum probabilities are transformed into actuality? This hapens by means of the position wavefunction that indicates the probabilities of the location of a particle, and by means of the momentum wavefunction that contains the probabilities of the momentum of the particle. The position wavefunction can be transformed into the momentum wavefunction and vice-versa by means of a Fourier Transform, therefore the more precisely we determine the momentum wavefunction the less precision we have regarding the position of the particle and vice-versa. So, keeping in mind that the momentum and the position of a particle lack of actual physical reality before our determination (collapse the wavefunction), it becomes obvious that a conscious decision is definately required in order to establish greater precision to the momentum-position pair
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
So, keeping in mind that the momentum and the position of a particle lack of actual physical reality before our determination (collapse the wavefunction), it becomes obvious that a conscious decision is definately required in order to establish greater precision to the momentum-position pair
😵

Now you've lost me. Is that a joke? If not, please explain further.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now you've lost me. Is that a joke? If not, please explain further.

I ‘m not joking.

According to the relativity a photon has momentum and zero mass but, if this is the case, then what exactly is spinning? Why an electron orbiting a proton in the hydrogen atom does not spiral into the proton emitting electromagnetic radiation? Obviously the classical approach does not correspond to our observation -so I am forced to adhere to our observation and thus dismiss the classical view and to accept the implications.
So I argue that the performance of the quantum measurement does require a consciousness for its effectiveness, as Bosse de Nage tries to show you from another perspective. This is the reason why I have to claim that consciousness has a creative effect at the quantum level. I clarify I don’t suggest that a human being can determine an exact and specific probability that will become actuality out of the wavefunction according merely to the intentions of that person, however in my opinion the agency of consciousness prompts the actualisation of a single probability without determining consciously which probability will be actualised.

This kind of involvement of the agency of consciousness is demonstrated clearly by the double slit experiment and the Heinsenberg uncertainty principle. The momentum wavefunction contains the pool of probabilities of the momentum of the particle, and we both know that momentum is mass multiplied with velocity. When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called rest mass, and the rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. As the photon is accelerated to higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit. In classical electromagnetic theory light is considered to have energy E and momentum p, thus we consider E = pc. But according to QM we accept that light can be viewed as a collection of photons, and although the photons cannot be brought to a rest we consider for our convenience that they have no rest mass.

Therefore, regarding the Fourier Transform per se, I argue that the wavefunction refers to an isolated but not closed system, therefore a spread out position wavefunction produces solely a localised momentum wavefunction and vice-versa. The position wavefunction can be transformed into the momentum wavefunction solely by applying a Fourier Transform, and this is the reason why the agency of consciousness is required. The implication is that, without the implementation of consciousness, there is no such a thing as the collapse of the wavefunction because it is impossible to spot an event out of its pool of probabilities
😵

As the photon is accelerated to higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit. In classical electromagnetic theory light is considered to have energy E and momentum p, thus we consider E = pc.

Hey Beetle, I assume you know the photon cannot change it's velocity, right? Don't you mean as a photon is given greater and greater energy, that is to say, gets smaller?
Its relativistic mass increase doesn't make sense in this context.

Or maybe you are referring to protons, just a typo?

Originally posted by sonhouse
As the photon is accelerated to higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit. In classical electromagnetic theory light is considered to have energy E and momentum p, thus we consider E = pc.

Hey Beetle, I assume you know the photon cannot change it's velocity, right? Don't you mean as a photon is given greater and greater energy, that i ...[text shortened]... e doesn't make sense in this context.

Or maybe you are referring to protons, just a typo?

Yes you sharp sonny boy, just another typo from the usual suspect😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I ‘m not joking.

According to the relativity a photon has momentum and zero mass but, if this is the case, then what exactly is spinning? Why an electron orbiting a proton in the hydrogen atom does not spiral into the proton emitting electromagnetic radiation?

I am struggling to make any sense of your post.
At this point are you talking about photos or electrons having mass?

Therefore, regarding the Fourier Transform per se, I argue that the wavefunction refers to an isolated but not closed system, therefore a spread out position wavefunction produces solely a localised momentum wavefunction and vice-versa. The position wavefunction can be transformed into the momentum wavefunction solely by applying a Fourier Transform, and this is the reason why the agency of consciousness is required. The implication is that, without the implementation of consciousness, there is no such a thing as the collapse of the wavefunction because it is impossible to spot an event out of its pool of probabilities
😵
I have been struggling to understand what you are saying and having no success. Where exactly is consciousness involved? Are you saying an atom would not work, unless a consciousness was observing it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am struggling to make any sense of your post.
At this point are you talking about photos or electrons having mass?

[b]Therefore, regarding the Fourier Transform per se, I argue that the wavefunction refers to an isolated but not closed system, therefore a spread out position wavefunction produces solely a localised momentum wavefunction and vice-ver ...[text shortened]... usness involved? Are you saying an atom would not work, unless a consciousness was observing it?

The unobserved quantum world is merely a spread out wavefunction that describes the probabilities of locating a particle at the time we perform our measurement, therefore wavefunctions describe just probability waves that they interact in order to produce an interference pattern of particles. We rely to the wavefunction because there is no other way available to describe reality, and at the same time the wavefunction is merely our mapping of the behavior of the atom during our measurement and not the atom itself. This means that all we are doing is to deal with our view regarding whatever the wavefunction appears to look like at any given spacetime of our measurement and, based on this ground, to bring up prediction regarding the chance of the atom being there. Then we attribute certain properties to the atom and we conduct our calculations, therefore we calculate solely how a particle arrived at a certain point without knowing what exactly a real particle is.
So to me it is clear that we don’t know what is really going on, and this happens because actually we don’t deal with a factual wave but with a set of numbers. In fact we have nothing but the known incoherent view that is employed as a thought model in order to let us conduct our mathematical imaginations on the case. This fact forces me to accept the conclusion that it is impossible to monitor an event (a particle at a certain location in a given spacetime) without the involvement of a mind-only agent, and this mind-only agent is the agency of consciousness.

Furthermore, taking into consideration the fact that the physical entities do not behave like the particles we are observing during the double slit experiment, it is obvious we cannot apply our classical approach regarding the matter within the quantum realm of existence. The implication is that, in the quantum world, matter does not exist the way we think it does -and this simply means that we don’t know what exactly a particle is.
This is the reason why, following amongst else Rosenblum and Kuttner (check http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/QuantumPhysics/?view=usa&ci=9780195175592) I am forced to accept that “our happening to find the particle at a certain location caused it to be there”
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
This fact forces me to accept the conclusion that it is impossible to monitor an event (a particle at a certain location in a given spacetime) without the involvement of a mind-only agent, and this mind-only agent is the agency of consciousness.

I dispute that, and do not see how it follows from anything you have said.
A computer controlled robot is no more or less capable of carrying out a quantum dynamics experiment than we are.

It appears that you are saying that since we don't really know what causes gravity and how it works, gravity requires our imagination to exist. I would rather say, gravity as we see it does not exist.

This is the reason why, following amongst else Rosenblum and Kuttner (check http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/QuantumPhysics/?view=usa&ci=9780195175592) I am forced to accept that “our happening to find the particle at a certain location caused it to be there”
😵
I would disagree that that follows from what you have said, and don't believe it is true anyway. But more importantly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness. If a robot finds a particle, it will be there just as much as if we find it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dispute that, and do not see how it follows from anything you have said.
A computer controlled robot is no more or less capable of carrying out a quantum dynamics experiment than we are.

It appears that you are saying that since we don't really know what causes gravity and how it works, gravity requires our imagination to exist. I would rather say, ...[text shortened]... th consciousness. If a robot finds a particle, it will be there just as much as if we find it.

No!

Kindly please keep in mind that each particle at a given spacetime is nothing but an event. Event is understood and defined by you as “event” solely thanks to your own measurement/ perception. Before your measurement there is no such a thing as an observed by you “event” but merely a spacetime continuum (which in turn it has no inherent being too because it is merely an invention of your own mind, created by you for your convenience), and therefore the event cannot be confirmed as such prior to your measurement. Your mind is the sole agent that conducts this dualist separation (“this time”, “that time&rdquo😉, and your happening to register an “event” at a specific point within your “empty” (lacking of inherent being) spacetime is the sole agent that makes you able to register it as such.
And of course this is exactly the case regarding the robot too, for the robot entails the agency of a specific kind of factual cognizance due to the fact that it is an apparatus programmed by us according to our consiousness aiming to a specific purpose in the context of our evaluation of the mind
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No!

Kindly please keep in mind that each particle at a given spacetime is nothing but an event. Event is understood and defined by you as “event” solely thanks to your own measurement/ perception. Before your measurement there is no such a thing as an observed by you “event” but merely a spacetime continuum (which in turn it has no inherent being too ...[text shortened]... cking of inherent being) spacetime is the sole agent that makes you able to register it as such.

Now you are disappearing into mumbo jumbo and pretending that it has something to do with science.

If your claim from the begging was that the universe is imaginary and you are the only reality then why not say so? Why all the reference to quantum mechanics which has little or nothing to do with what you are saying? Further, since I am imaginary to you, your ideas do not apply to me, and thus my consciousness is not subject to your views. From my point of view, an event is real and happens regardless of whether or not some consciousness is observing it.

And of course this is exactly the case regarding the robot too, for the robot entails the agency of a specific kind of factual cognizance due to the fact that it is an apparatus programmed by us according to our consiousness aiming to a specific purpose in the context of our evaluation of the mind
😵
Not true at all. I never specified that the robot need be programmed by us, nor is it necessary. The 'robot' or 'observer' could just as well be an inanimate lump of rock. Even a rock can detect and record an event and measure momentum etc. No consciousness required.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What you are not understanding is that QM is about nested boxes. A collapse is all about the observer. So when you say "There is just" or "No collapse will occur" you are talking about from our perspective as observers. Within the box, there may also be subjects and observers. That is what I described.

Do you know why photons behave as a wave in almost ...[text shortened]... lectron or a conscious human being, their wave function collapses and they become particles.

There is no such thing as "non-interacting" within the box. Wavefunctions of the two molecules are always overlapping. In fact, one can not speak about separate wavefunctions. In practical calculations we might use such descriptions based on DFT or Hartree-Fock approximations. But we should keep in mind that these are approximations. These approximations are needed to do the calculations and, in addition, seem to give a more intuitive picture. It is easier to treat the system as two molecules having their own wavefunctions. But in principle, one can not make this separation.

Therefore, the view of two initially non-interacting molecules, that collide and then cause a collapse, is wrong.

Originally posted by TitusvE
There is no such thing as "non-interacting" within the box. Wavefunctions of the two molecules are always overlapping. In fact, one can not speak about separate wavefunctions. In practical calculations we might use such descriptions based on DFT or Hartree-Fock approximations. But we should keep in mind that these are approximations. These approximations are ...[text shortened]... molecules having their own wavefunctions. But in principle, one can not make this separation.

Then no such 'box' can exist either. If constant interaction is a requirement of all particles in the entire universe, then quantum mechanics looses all value, as it relies on the fact that the observer and observed do not interact for a period of time.

Therefore, the view of two initially non-interacting molecules, that collide and then cause a collapse, is wrong.
Not nearly as wrong as your view that only consciousness can cause a collapse. I am not sure where you get that from at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then no such 'box' can exist either. If constant interaction is a requirement of all particles in the entire universe, then quantum mechanics looses all value, as it relies on the fact that the observer and observed do not interact for a period of time.

[b]Therefore, the view of two initially non-interacting molecules, that collide and then cause a col ...[text shortened]... ew that only consciousness can cause a collapse. I am not sure where you get that from at all.

Then no such 'box' can exist either. If constant interaction is a requirement of all particles in the entire universe, then quantum mechanics looses all value, as it relies on the fact that the observer and observed do not interact for a period of time. [/b]
Indeed! You get the point. Though QM does not lose its value as it just works very well for all practical purposes. But it is true that there are philosophical problems that the observer is not described itself by the same QM equations. This is the whole paradox.

Not nearly as wrong as your view that only consciousness can cause a collapse. I am not sure where you get that from at all.

Read back previous posts. It is NOT my theory. It is from Neumann, Wigner and others. In my first post you can find the link.