Why did famous people think consciousness causes collapse?

[low inhibition]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

also schrodinger believed it, and maybe bohr too?

this is such a stupid concept, it's obviously false. but clearly i must be missing out on something, people like them aren't going to believe in things that's "obviously false".

has anyone sat down in a dark room with the electron double slit set up, and concentrated his consciousness on the electron beam and see if it did anything?

also i was reading this

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it

can someone explain what the quote means? i personally realism is obviously correct, the universe works just fine when we aren't looking at it. why is this consciousness thing even a topic? what made people believe?

 

[Joseph P Cannavo]

On a somewhat broader note. My late father - A theoretical physicist (graduate studies at advanced institute Princeton) who later switched fields to the philosophy of science (google his last book published just before his death at age 89: "quantum theory: a philosophers overview") - always used to decry physicists who sorely lacked philosophical depth. And a real pet peeve of his was ignorance around the very real problem of qualia, consciousness, and first person phenomenology. So even if your a Denette or Churchland aligned Materialist, there's no denying the lack of triviality of the current debate in the philosophy of mind around the place - or non place - of consciousness in the fabric of reality. Anyone interested should get hold of a book like "The concisous mind" or "the character of consciousness" by David Chalmers and give their intellect a useful workout

 

[forcefield]

and maybe bohr too?

I like this quote from Bohr:

"In view of the influence of the mechanical conception of nature on philosophical thinking, it is understandable that one has sometimes seen in the notion of complementarity a reference to the subjective observer, incompatible with the objectivity of scientific description. Of course, in every field of experience we must retain a sharp distinction between the observer and the content of the observations, but we must realize that the discovery of the quantum of action has thrown new light on the very foundation of the description of nature and revealed hitherto unnoticed presuppositions to the rational use of the concepts on which the communication of experience rests." *

* Niels Bohr: Atomic Physics And Human Knowledge, pg. 90-91

 

[low inhibition]

On a somewhat broader note. My late father - A theoretical physicist (graduate studies at advanced institute Princeton) who later switched fields to the philosophy of science (google his last book published just before his death at age 89: "quantum theory: a philosophers overview") - always used to decry physicists who sorely lacked philosophical depth. And a real pet peeve of his was ignorance around the very real problem of qualia, consciousness, and first person phenomenology. So even if your a Denette or Churchland aligned Materialist, there's no denying the lack of triviality of the current debate in the philosophy of mind around the place - or non place - of consciousness in the fabric of reality. Anyone interested should get hold of a book like "The concisous mind" or "the character of consciousness" by David Chalmers and give their intellect a useful workout

Joseph, why do u think I am siding with Denett? I'm converting to property dualism recently. But even so many years ago when I was a substance dualist and read about consciousness cause collapse, i thought it was completely nonsense. The universe gets along just fine when we aren't looking at it, a tree falling in the woods does make a noise.

I hold that everything excluding consciousness can be explained in reductionist/materialist terms, believed this even when I was a substance dualist.

I do not in any way deny the existence of consciousness/qualia, but i think its nonsense to think that consciousness can influence reality (other than controlling our own limbs).

I will take a look at the books u recommended. Thanks.

 

[bhobba]

It dates back to Von-Neumann - Mathematical Foundations of QM - a very famous early book on QM for many reasons.

He did the analysis that showed the quantum classical cut can be placed anywhere - you will find the proof in the above book.

Now he argued as follows - you can trace an observation back to the person that observes it without finding any place different - except the consciousness of the observer. So that's where he placed it.

It was excusable at the time, and we have no less a personage than one of the greatest mathematicians and polymaths of all time saying it, all with impeccable math. Even so it only ever caught on with a few people because it really is weird. One of those people was the great mathematical physicist Wigner. Bohr, Heisenberg etc never adhered to it. Dirac as usual believed the math was the story - of all the early pioneers from the modern vantage he comes of the best - pretty faultless really (close but not completely, without going into details). Even Einstein admired him keeping a copy of his beautiful text with him at all times. That's another myth BTW that Einstein didn't understand QM - he understood it VERY well even putting forth his own interpretation - the Ensemble interpretation.

Well Von-Neumann died early, but Wigner was around when the flaw in Von-Neumann's reasoning was found. There is a place that's different - just after decoherence. When reading some early papers about it by Zeth he did 180% about face and realized you simply place the cut after decoherence - no consciousness required. He then believed in real collapse type interpretations such as GRW but that's a whole new story. That's the error Von-Neumann made - there is a place that's different and the logical place to put it. Its now a very backward (though still valid) interpretation. The reason is the same as most people rejecting solipsism - intuitively its just too silly - you can't disprove it - but why bother?

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

It dates back to Von-Neumann - Mathematical Foundations of QM - a very famous early book on QM for many reasons.

He did the analysis that showed the quantum classical cut can be placed anywhere - you will find the proof in the above book.

Now he argued as follows - you can trace an observation back to the person that observes it without finding any place different - except the consciousness of the observer. So that's where he placed it.

It was excusable at the time, and we have no less a personage than one of the greatest mathematicians and polymaths of all time saying it, all with impeccable math. Even so it only ever caught on with a few people because it really is weird. One of those people was the great mathematical physicist Wigner. Bohr, Heisenberg etc never adhered to it. Dirac as usual believed the math was the story - of all the early pioneers from the modern vantage he comes of the best - pretty faultless really (close but not completely, without going into details). Even Einstein admired him keeping a copy of his beautiful text with him at all times. Thats another myth BTW that Einstein didn't understand QM - he understood it VERY well even puttying forth his own interpretation - the Ensemble interpretation.

Well Von-Neumann died early, but Wigner was around when the flaw in Von-Neumann's reasoning was found. There is a place that's different - just after decoherence. When reading some early papers about it by Zeth he did 180% about face and realized you simply place the cut after decoherence - no consciousness required. He then believed in real collapse type interpretations such as GRW but that's a whole new story. That's the error Von-Neumann made - there is a place that's different and the logical place to put it. Its now a very backward (though still valid) interpretation. The reason is the same as most people rejecting solipsism - intuitively its just too silly - you can't disprove it - but why bother?

Thanks
Bill

Interesting. So did Wigner corrected the error or did he promote Von-Neumann incorrect assumptions?

But then since Von-Neumann cut can be place anyway. Is there a more solid refutation of his idea (or implication of his idea) that consciousness collapses the wave function?

 

[bhobba]

Interesting. So did Wigner corrected the error or did he promote Von-Neumann incorrect assumptions?

Yes - he wrote about it - but of course was not the only one to notice it.

But then since Von-Neumann cut can be place anyway. Is there a more solid refutation of his idea (or implication of his idea) that consciousness collapses the wave function?

Of course not. It didn't disprove it. Consciousness causes collapse is still a perfectly valid interpretation and no interpretation is better or worse than any other. Its just one most people find overly weird and unnecessarily complicated.

The issue on this forum is the people that believe it must be true without understanding its background and its not necessary at all.

The OP is to be congratulated - he asked the question rather than saying - its true, obviously wrong etc etc. What he did is the correct way to approach physics. There is even a very good textbook on how our current view of QFT came about that analyses just what was needed for progress:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521634202/?tag=pfamazon01-20

His conclusion is the same as mine - progress happens when you ask the right questions. Learning as well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[rootone]

IThe reason is the same as most people rejecting solipsism - intuitively its just too silly - you can't disprove it - but why bother

Yes, though 'you can't disprove it'. seems to be an acceptable standard for a lot of people.

 

[bhobba]

always used to decry physicists who sorely lacked philosophical depth

Feynman would turn in his grave.

While we don't discuss philosophy here, there are all sorts of views about its usefulness.

I think Wienberg presents most physicists modern view:
http://www.pitt.edu/~mem208/courses/phph_s15/documents/weinberg_against_philosophy.pdf

It's mine as well

But there is no right or wrong here - its just something this forum doesn't discuss.

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

Yes - he wrote about it - but of course was not the only one to notice it.
Of course not. It didn't disprove it. Consciousness causes collapse is still a perfectly valid interpretation and no interpretation is better or worse than any other. Its just one most people find overly weird and unnecessarily complicated.

I thought the decoherence formalism already refuted the idea consciousness causes collapse.. how could it still be a valid interpretation? Are they not in conflict? but then decoherence was proven by the c60 molecular experiment... so how could consciousness causes collapse still be valid??

The issue on this forum is the people that believe it must be true without understanding its background and its not necessary at all.

The OP is to be congratulated - he asked the question rather than saying - its true, obviously wrong etc etc. What he did is the correct way to approach physics. There is even a very good textbook on how our current view of QFT came about that analyses just what was needed for progress:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521634202/?tag=pfamazon01-20

His conclusion is the same as mine - progress happens when you ask the right questions. Learning as well.

Thanks
Bill

 

[StevieTNZ]

I thought the decoherence formalism already refuted the idea consciousness causes collapse.. how could it still be a valid interpretation? Are they not in conflict? but then decoherence was proven by the c60 molecular experiment... so how could consciousness causes collapse still be valid??

No, decoherence does not refute any interpretation.

 

[Nugatory]

I thought the decoherence formalism already refuted the idea consciousness causes collapse.. how could it still be a valid interpretation? Are they not in conflict? but then decoherence was proven by the c60 molecular experiment... so how could consciousness causes collapse still be valid??

Decoherence explains why we always observe macroscopically reasonable results and never weird things like Schrodinger's both-dead-and-alive cat. But that's not enough to solve the measurement problem and preclude a consciousness-causes-collapse explanation. Compare the following explanations:
1) The quantum system consisting of Schrodinger's cat, the vial of cyanide, a detector, and a radioactive atom evolves according to Schrodinger's equation into a superposition of dead cat and live cat. We observe it, and that somehow causes it to collapse into a dead cat or a live cat.
2) The quantum system consisting of Schrodinger's cat, the vial of cyanide, a detector, and a radioactive atom evolves according to Schrodinger's equation; decoherence means that this evolution will lead to the state "the cat is either alive or dead but not both at once". Then somehow this state turns into exactly one of those two possible outcomes. (Or both, if you subscribe to MWI, but that brings in a different set of problems).

Both explanations work and are consistent with any imaginable experiment, and both require this magic "somehow".

 

[fanieh]

Decoherence explains why we always observe macroscopically reasonable results and never weird things like Schrodinger's both-dead-and-alive cat. But that's not enough to solve the measurement problem and preclude a consciousness-causes-collapse explanation. Compare the following explanations:
1) The quantum system consisting of Schrodinger's cat, the vial of cyanide, a detector, and a radioactive atom evolves according to Schrodinger's equation into a superposition of dead cat and live cat. We observe it, and that somehow causes it to collapse into a dead cat or a live cat.

Can you please enumerate atomic processes (like protons or neutrons or strong force, etc.) where there is a similar decoherence into dead cat and live cat instead of dead/live cat inside the atoms or molecules? Also we are not inside atoms and observing any of them, so this proves consciousness is not involved in the collapse:) But then inside atoms.. is there a dead cat or live cat equivalent in any of the particles or systems?

2) The quantum system consisting of Schrodinger's cat, the vial of cyanide, a detector, and a radioactive atom evolves according to Schrodinger's equation; decoherence means that this evolution will lead to the state "the cat is either alive or dead but not both at once". Then somehow this state turns into exactly one of those two possible outcomes. (Or both, if you subscribe to MWI, but that brings in a different set of problems).

Both explanations work and are consistent with any imaginable experiment, and both require this magic "somehow".

 

[Demystifier]

can someone explain what the quote means? i personally realism is obviously correct, the universe works just fine when we aren't looking at it. why is this consciousness thing even a topic? what made people believe?

By Bell theorem, realism leads to non-locality. For some reason, many people don't like non-locality. That's why they consider non-realism and the role of consciousness

 

[bhobba]

Can you please enumerate atomic processes (like protons or neutrons or strong force, etc.) where there is a similar decoherence into dead cat and live cat instead of dead/live cat inside the atoms or molecules? Also we are not inside atoms and observing any of them, so this proves consciousness is not involved in the collapse:) But then inside atoms.. is there a dead cat or live cat equivalent in any of the particles or systems?

Decoherence usually requires interaction with something macroscopic and an environment.

Decoherence simply refutes Von-Neumann's argument. That's all. It in no way disproves or proves the involvement of consciousness.

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

Decoherence usually requires interaction with something macroscopic and an environment.

Decoherence simply refutes Von-Neumann's argument. That's all. It in no way disproves or proves the involvement of consciousness.

Thanks
Bill

Here's how decoherence may disprove the involvement of consciousness. Pluto decoheres into position basis even before the first cell originated on earth. So why don't you or others say it refuted this consciousness cause collapse thing?

 

[weirdoguy]

Since when Pluto is a quantum object?

 

[fanieh]

Since when Pluto is a quantum object?

I mean the different atoms and molecules making up Pluto. Without decoherence with CMBR, etc. and position basis chosen, Pluto won't have position.

Remember decoherence isn't supposed to produce definite outcome. Yet before first cells on Earth existed. Pluto also has outcome. So consciousness isn't required for collapse. (but I don't understand why Bill or Nugatory seems not to agree... what is wrong with my argument?)

 

[bhobba]

For some reason, many people don't like non-locality.

That's true.

Never understood it myself.

Some just never seem to accept personal reactions are just that. Yet you will get them to admit anything consistent with experimental evidence may be true - that's the essence of science.

For the record I don't believe in it (ie non locality - I don't even believe the concept is relevant to correlated systems), but that means diddly squat. I know it, others haven't quite woken up to it.

Thanks
Bill

 

[A. Neumaier]

Since when Pluto is a quantum object?

Since it was named Pluto. Every planet (or former planet) is a multiparticle system, hence describable by quantum mechanics. For big objects such as planets, the classical approximation is very good, though.

 

[Demystifier]

Never understood it myself.

For the record I don't believe in it (ie non locality - I don't even believe the concept is relevant to correlated systems),

I don't get it. You don't understand why many people don't like non-locality, but you don't believe non-locality?

 

[bhobba]

I don't get it. You don't understand why many people don't like non-locality, but you don't believe non-locality?

By don't like or like I mean its a valid or invalid view. It's not scientific to reject it.

Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Here's how decoherence may disprove the involvement of consciousness. Pluto decoheres into position basis even before the first cell originated on earth. So why don't you or others say it refuted this consciousness cause collapse thing?

Because as Von-Neumann proved the cut can be placed anywhere - even much later in time when consciousness appeared.

Its a weird view for that and all sorts of reasons - but disproving it - that's another matter.

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

Because as Von-Neumann proved the cut can be placed anywhere - even much later in time when consciousness appeared.

Its a weird view for that and all sorts of reasons - but disproving it - that's another matter.

Thanks
Bill

Von-Neumann cut can even be applied from Big Bang to present? So we collapsed the universe and even created the constants of nature in the Big Bang to make the present condition? Actually I read a book describing this. I laughed at it thinking physicsforums folks can easily debunk it. It's hard?

But if true.. why where we not the center of the universe? Why are we located in just the edge of the Milky Way out of billions of Milky Ways. So won't this silliness be enough to refute it?

 

[bhobba]

Von-Neumann cut can even be applied from Big Bang to present?

Applying QM to the whole universe is - how to put it - problematical in some interpretations. It would seem consciousness causes collapse may be one of those - but I am not expert enough on it to comment with any authority. Penrose is a supporter of it and has theories about the early universe so you may glean something from his books. I have read some of them, but can't recall him ever discussing it, but it may be there somewhere.

Why are we located in just the edge of the Milky Way out of billions of Milky Ways. So won't this silliness be enough to refute it?

Your logic escapes me.

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

Applying QM to the whole universe is - how to put it - problematical in some interpretations. I would seem consciousness causes collapse may be one of those - but I am not expert enough on it to comment with any authority.

Why are we located in just the edge of the Milky Way out of billions of Milky Ways. So won't this silliness be enough to refute it?

Your logic escapes me.

Thanks
Bill[/QUOTE]

If time is not linear and our consciousness co created the universe and Big Bang. Why are we located in the edge of the Milky Way and not near the center or elsewhere. Our location is random. There are other more beautiful galaxies than our galaxy.

Anyway. Is it really valid to say the Neumann Cut can be located from Big Bang to Present where we collapsed the Big Bang? I avoided discussing this with the believers before assuming they were totally wrong and crazy but now is it possible this is a valid quantum interpretation too? So I won't laugh at them who discuss this next time.

 

[bhobba]

If time is not linear and our consciousness co created the universe and Big Bang

Time is not linear - what you even mean by that beats me.

Before commenting it might be wise to look at an actual consciousness causes collapse proposal eg Penrose:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#4.5

Modern versions can be quite sophisticated.

Thanks
Bill

 

[fanieh]

Time is not linear - what you even mean by that beats me.

Before commenting it might be wise to look at an actual consciousness causes collapse proposal eg Penrose:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#4.5

Modern versions can be quite sophisticated.

Thanks
Bill

Oh I was talking about John Wheeler Participatory Anthropic Principle
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

"Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well"

I used to think they were all crazy... ignorant about Decoherence. But it seemed this whole idea about consciousness collapsing wave function is valid after all.

 

[Karolus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann–Wigner_interpretation

also schrodinger believed it, and maybe bohr too?

this is such a stupid concept, it's obviously false. but clearly i must be missing out on something, people like them aren't going to believe in things that's "obviously false".

has anyone sat down in a dark room with the electron double slit set up, and concentrated his consciousness on the electron beam and see if it did anything?

more that consciousness, is the measurement that collapses the wave function. As a measure requires the existence of someone who performs the measure, so then the question of whether consciousness is to collapse the wave function becomes relevant and neither stupid nor "obviously false". Why Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac, Heisenberg and others, who evidently were not stupid, they discussed the problem
Still today the problem remains, even if the quantum mechanics, based on the concept of observable, is one of the most scientific theories of success and accuracy of results.

 

[bhobba]

As a measure requires the existence of someone who performs the measure, so then the question of whether consciousness is to collapse the wave function becomes relevant and neither stupid nor "obviously false".

Your knowledge of what a measurement in QM is, is severely lacking.

Why Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac, Heisenberg and others, who evidently were not stupid, they discussed the problem Still today the problem remains, even if the quantum mechanics, based on the concept of observable, is one of the most scientific theories of success and accuracy of results.

And of what those people believed, especially Dirac (he disliked complementary for example believing as I do its pretty vacuous - the math was the key to him). The central issue with Copenhagen, which was not ascribed to by Dirac, is how can a theory about outcomes that appear in a an assumed classical world explain that world. The answer requires a purely quantum theory of 'outcomes' which has largely been completed but a few problems remain. It also include a precise definition - namely once decoherence has occurred.

Notice I used the word outcomes rather than measurement which reflects more what is meant in QM by measurement - but even that is not quite subtle enough. The modern definition based on decoherence is exact and unambiguous.

Thanks
Bill

 

[maline]

By Bell theorem, realism leads to non-locality. For some reason, many people don't like non-locality. That's why they consider non-realism and the role of consciousness

This partially explains the tendency towards non-realism (whatever that means), perhaps including Wheeler's conception. It does not apply to Von Neumann's "consciousness causes collapse"- that is a fully realistic model, in which consciousness plays a causative (and nonlocal) role.

Before commenting it might be wise to look at an actual consciousness causes collapse proposal eg Penrose:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/#4.5

Penrose is not a supporter of "consciousness causes collapse". He has his different ideas, in which a realist collapse is caused by quantum gravity effects. He proposed that these effects are used in the brain to produce consciousness and understanding- not the other way round.

 

[DrChinese]

As a measure requires the existence of someone who performs the measure, so then the question of whether consciousness is to collapse the wave function becomes relevant ...

There are experiments in which there are conscious observers, and collapse; and there are others also with conscious observers, but NO collapse. So apparently that (consciousness) is not the variable at play.

 

[TJung]

others also with conscious observers, but NO collapse. So apparently that (consciousness) is not the variable at play.

Could you provide that?
Thanks.

TJung

 

[rootone]

What about if the measurement is done with NO conscious observer, but is instead recorded by automation and left alone for a while?
Then some time later the recording is examined independently by several observers who had nothing to do with the experiment ...
Will all these observers agree on what was recorded?
It seems improbable that they would have differing opinions of the recording, in which case consciousness is irrelavent

 

[TJung]

What about if the measurement is done with NO conscious observer, but is instead recorded by automation and left alone for a while?
Then some time later the recording is examined independently by several observers who had nothing to do with the experiment ...
Will all these observers agree on what was recorded?

Isn't this how all experiments are done? A apparatus records the results and shows to the observer (human being) in a screen. Does it matters if it took 10ns or 24h to the observer watch the results?