Does consciousness make the quantum state collapse?

Originally posted by TitusvE
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.

There is no such paradox. You simply don't understand quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does work because particles in the universe frequently do not interact, or interact in such a way as to not betray all their information to the interacting party. Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes sure of it.

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.
If that is truly their view, then they are wrong too. I don't know where they get it from either.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no such paradox. You simply don't understand quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does work because particles in the universe frequently do not interact, or interact in such a way as to not betray all their information to the interacting party. Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes sure of it.

[b]Read back previous posts. It is NOT my theo ...[text shortened]... that is truly their view, then they are wrong too. I don't know where they get it from either.

[/b]Well, not understanding quantum mechanics is the first step to understanding it, isn't it - if I may paraphrase Niels Bohr.

"All the information" doesn't really make any sense because there is no such thing as a "real" position or "real" momentum of a particle any more than a rope which is being shaken has a well-defined position or wavelength - although you could see the wavefunction as merely a convenient mathematical construct and they are not "real". But I'm not sure the latter view is compatible with Bell's inequality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... n a rock can detect and record an event and measure momentum etc. No consciousness required.

Your interpretation is false -and you get no mambo jumbo from me. This is the science forum afterall and I can well backk you up with the bibliography required. (A parenthesis: a rock can neither detect nor measure an event and measure momentum etc. For this kind of process (detection, measurement and such) a consciousness is required always -but in the past we had this conversation and I don't want to restart it right now).


Back in track: there are no entities in the quantum world; all there is, is the possibilities of experiencing of a condition that is corresponding, according to our consciousness, to the entities that are existent in our Floating World (our everyday world). And an entity is experienced strictly when an aspect of reality such as a subjective agency of consciousness meets a field of potentialities that can be experienced by that specific consciousness. This is the reason why Heisenberg pointed out that the atoms are not actual objects; and this is the reason why Henry Stapp states that Heisenberg argued that the physical state of the atom/s just represents a set of objective tendencies for certain kinds of actual events to occur.
Since objective reality is nothing more than a set of objective tendencies for possible experience Instead of a definite pre-existent external realm of materiality, the unexperienced reality is entrapped in the realm of potentiality (wavefunction), thus a wavefunction (the unexperienced reality) is not an actuality. Now: the specific experience that will emerge/ actualize out of the wavefunction (solely after the implementation/ interaction of a subjective agency of consciousness), depends on the nature of the interaction. It is the interaction that brings up a specific reinforcing resonance, and this resonance constitutes a specific experience that is manifested in the realms of the Floating World strictly within the field of the individual awareness of the sentient being that collapsed the wavefunction.
I argue that this resonance is empty/ illusionary/ lacking of inherent being, because, each time a consciousness interacts with the wavefunction, the wavefunction collapses into one specific value whilst the individual consciousness that interacts has a specific corresponding experience. Just after the experience the wavefunction once more spreads out over a vast pool of potentialities and thus it is dematerialized until it is collapsed again. Therefore between the experiences the wavefunction spreads out and it is dematerialized, and this process takes place at a specific level beneath our self-aware intentional consciousness -this is claimed by Penrose and Al Khalili amongst else.
So in fact, at first we are in front of the propagation of the probabilities of the possibilities for experience that are enclosed in the wavefunction; and then we are in front of the phase that occurs when an observation collapses the wavefunction and thus the specific agency of cognizance in the said interaction gets a fully experienced event/ reality of one of the possibilities that are enclosed in the said wavefunction. This principle applies for whatever, therefore whatever is not observed is dematerialized!

Now I am waiting for the next question of yours -the same that was asked once upon a time by Einstein, who smiling wanted to know why the Moon is always there and it is not dematerialized when it stays unobserved
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Your interpretation is false -and you get no mambo jumbo from me.

Well it sure sounds to me like an attempt to sound profound while providing no real content. What I am sure, is that what you are saying is along the lines of Buddhism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with science and quantum mechanics.
Go ahead, see if you can back it up with a bibliography - preferably not a Buddhist one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well it sure sounds to me like an attempt to sound profound while providing no real content. What I am sure, is that what you are saying is along the lines of Buddhism, and has nothing whatsoever to do with science and quantum mechanics.
Go ahead, see if you can back it up with a bibliography - preferably not a Buddhist one.

Check these ones for starters:

Erich Joos, 2006, "The Re-Emergence of Emergence", Oxford University Press
Henry Stapp, 1995, “Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness But Quantum Mechanics Can”, / 2004, “Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechancs”, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg/ 2007, “Mindful Universe”, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
Alastair Rae, “Quantum Physics – Illusion or Reality”
Lee Smolin, 2006, “The trouble with Physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of a science and what comes next”, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Jim Al-Khalili, 200, “Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed”, Weidenfield & Nicolson, NY
Roger Penrose, 1999, “Emperors New Mind”, Oxford University Press/ 2005, “The road to Reality: A complete guide to the laws of the universe”, Vintage

Of course there is too much more available😵

Oh Al-Khalili's book was published in 2003, and Rae's in 2006 by Oneworld Publications😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Check these ones for starters:

Is there anything that you have links to?

The reviews of the first two I looked at indicate they are not mainstream science. They seem to be more philosophy and religion.

There are many renowned scientists who have published mumbo-jumbo about QM. Josephson is a good example.

The review of "Mindful Universe" here:
http://brneurosci.org/reviews/stapp2.html

Quite clearly shows that it falls into the category of mumbo jumbo.

It apparently starts with the use of the word 'observer' to describe an interaction, then since the word if taken out of context, implies a conscious observer they suggest that possibly an conscious observer is required, then since they realize this is really a ridiculous proposition, they suggest that the universe itself must be conscious.
Absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The review of "Mindful Universe" here:
http://brneurosci.org/reviews/stapp2.html

Quite clearly shows that it falls into the category of mumbo jumbo.

It apparently starts with the use of the word 'observer' to describe an interaction, then since the word if taken out of context, implies a conscious observer they suggest that possibly an conscious ob ...[text shortened]... roposition, they suggest that the universe itself must be conscious.
Absolutely ridiculous.

How funny!
This is nothing but a review, and this is its last sentence:
"Whether you agree with Stapp's ideas or not, Stapp's background as a serious physicist means that they must be taken seriously."

Now I will tell you what exactly looks ridiculus to me; ridiculus is to bring up a false belief and, when I show you that your thought is false to try to sidestep the issue. Once more, methinks it's time for you to clarify whether or not you finally accept that:
1. 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. This means that your belief that “One of the many effects of quantum mechanics is the fact that light behaves as a wave” is false, as it is false to claim that photons have no mass;

2. 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. Therefore this is another point that you misunderstand;
3. Since 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 anyway required in order to establish greater precision to the momentum-position pair. Our using of Fourier Transform per se proves that the involvement of consciousness is necessary for the collapsing of the wavefunction, and it proves that another belief of yours is false -and I am talking about your belief that consciousness is not necessary in order to have the wavefunction collapsed;

If you still don’t accept all the above, kindly please back me up with your QM bibliography and your rest respectful sources
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no such paradox. You simply don't understand quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does work because particles in the universe frequently do not interact, or interact in such a way as to not betray all their information to the interacting party. Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes sure of it.

[b]Read back previous posts. It is NOT my theo ...[text shortened]... that is truly their view, then they are wrong too. I don't know where they get it from either.

Twitehead. It must be great to live with so much self-confidence. Every respected scientist knows there is this paradox. You're standing alone with your self-made view on QM.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is there anything that you have links to?

The reviews of the first two I looked at indicate they are not mainstream science. They seem to be more philosophy and religion.

This is another: http://www.theassc.org/files/assc/2345.pdf

Kindly please think a bit more after checking particularly 3.10 and F.9
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is there anything that you have links to?

The reviews of the first two I looked at indicate they are not mainstream science. They seem to be more philosophy and religion.

Also, regarding Joos, check this review at http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/14_11_books.pdf, from which I copy paste the following:
“In the physics section, Eric Joos has a wonderful piece entitled,‘The Emergence of Classicality fromQuantum Mechanics’. Though it really does not concern the traditional historical emergentist debate in any normal sense, it does an excellent job of summarizing the stateof- the-art regarding how quantum mechanics might ‘emerge’ in our so-called classical world of mid-sized objects. This is not an article for the faint of heart, but should prove highly rewarding for anyone
willing to work on it."


That's all for the moment my friend, I will try to provide you with some links more
😵

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There are many renowned scientists who have published mumbo-jumbo about QM. Josephson is a good example.

Hey KazetNagorra, kindly please comment my friend and share with us your opinions regarding this topic
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
The review of "Mindful Universe" here:
http://brneurosci.org/reviews/stapp2.html

Quite clearly shows that it falls into the category of mumbo jumbo.

It apparently starts with the use of the word 'observer' to describe an interaction, then since the word if taken out of context, implies a conscious observer they suggest that possibly an conscious ob ...[text shortened]... roposition, they suggest that the universe itself must be conscious.
Absolutely ridiculous.

You seem to know an awful lot about a subject were leading physicists have profound doubts and disagreements.

Why don't you publish some articles or write a book about this very interesting and difficult topic?