Can we all agree "consciousness" is not required to collapse wave function?

[HomesliceMMA]

I see this written or talked about so often. Pop-sci for sure. But, whatever the wave function is, and whatever might collapse it, can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it? I.E., the moon was there before "conscious" beings, on this planet or elsewhere, viewed it? Is at least that much true, or at least as far as we know sounds true?

Thanks.

 

[Nugatory]

can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it?

The quick answer, appropriate for a B-level thread :

Yes.
The “consciousness causes collapse” idea was abandoned many decades ago with the discovery of quantum decoherence (and I’ve already recommended Lindley’s book “Where does the weirdness go?” as a decent layman-friendly explanation of this).

Oddly, this answer works in a B-level thread even though the wave function and collapse aren’t what you think they are - there’s a huge oversimplification going on here. But we aren’t going to be able to dig into that without using a fair amount of math, stuff that would usually go into an I-level thread and the first few chapters of an undergraduate textbook.

 

[HomesliceMMA]

The quick answer, appropriate for a B-level thread :

Yes.
The “consciousness causes collapse” idea was abandoned many decades ago with the discovery of quantum decoherence (and I’ve already recommended Lindley’s book “Where does the weirdness go?” as a decent layman-friendly explanation of this).

Oddly, this answer works in a B-level thread even though the wave function and collapse aren’t what you think they are - there’s a huge oversimplification going on here. But we aren’t going to be able to dig into that without using a fair amount of math, stuff that would usually go into an I-level thread and the first few chapters of an undergraduate textbook.

I just ordered "Where does the weirdness go?" off Amazon, thanks! Will review.

But you said yes, consciousness is not needed for the wave function to collapse, but then you qualified it with a "this is for B level threads only". This is a very simple question - is the viewing of item at issue by a conscious being needed for the wave function with respect to that item to collapse, or not? No matter whether this thread were a B level difficulty or something else. :)

Thanks!

 

[Nugatory]

This is a very simple question - is the viewing of item at issue by a conscious being needed for the wave function with respect to that item to collapse, or not?

The problem is that the wave function isn’t what you think it is, so the simple “yes” answer is likely to lead further misunderstanding when you dig a bit deeper.

Ask “Do we agree that the presence or absence of a conscious being is irrelevant?” and you can have an unequivocal “yes” answer.

 

[HomesliceMMA]

The problem is that the wave function isn’t what you think it is, so the simple “yes” answer is likely to lead further misunderstanding when you dig a bit deeper.

Ask “Do we agree that the presence or absence of a conscious being is irrelevant?” and you can have an unequivocal “yes” answer.

But I asked this:

But, whatever the wave function is, and whatever might collapse it, can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it? I.E., the moon was there before "conscious" beings, on this planet or elsewhere, viewed it?

Isn't that the exact same question as what you said I should ask, in substance? Or are you just disagreeing with the "collapse of wave function" part?

 

[Nugatory]

Isn't that the exact same question as what you said I should ask, in substance?

No, because your question also assumes that collapse is something that happens or doesn’t happen and I don’t want to say “yes” to that except in a B-level thread. It’s an OK mental model in a math-free discussion of an idealized thought experiment, but there’s a lot more going on here.

 

[Dale]

In other words, the tricky part of the question is not “conscious” but “collapse”. Because you put that in the question it doesn’t have a non-equivocal answer

This is a very simple question

Claiming this does not make it so.

You have received the best answer possible. An affirmative with an honest acknowledgment that there are subtleties that you do not recognize. It is precisely this lack of recognition of the subtleties that leads you to claim that it is a simple question, when it is not.

Would you prefer a dishonest answer that pretends like there is no complexity that will arise with a more in-depth analysis?

 

[Vanadium 50]

1. Conscience? I don't think Jimminy Cricket has anything to do with anything.
2. Do we think the laws of physics changed about the time humans came on the scene? Really?

 

[StevieTNZ]

I can't agree with the answer to "can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it" as yes.

A good book on the matter is https://academic.oup.com/book/3705. Another such book is https://global.oup.com/academic/pro...uantum-mechanics-9780197501665?cc=gm&lang=en&
You may also want to review https://www.amazon.com/dp/0750300450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Decoherence does not resolve the measurement problem. Superpositions still, in principle, exist, despite the system interacting with the complex environment.

 

[PeterDonis]

whatever the wave function is, and whatever might collapse it, can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it? I.E., the moon was there before "conscious" beings, on this planet or elsewhere, viewed it?

No, we can't agree on that, because different interpretations of QM give different answers. Discussion of a topic like this really belongs in the interpretations subforum. Without adopting any specific interpretation, all we have to go on in this forum is the basic math of QM, which doesn't even give an answer to this question at all.

 

[PeterDonis]

The “consciousness causes collapse” idea was abandoned many decades ago with the discovery of quantum decoherence

Even with this, though, there are still some, like David Mermin, who continue to seriously claim that the moon is not there when nobody looks. He is basing that on his particular favored interpretation of QM, so discussion of it really belongs in the interpretations subforum, but claims like that are still out there in the literature.

 

[Elroch]

I see this written or talked about so often. Pop-sci for sure. But, whatever the wave function is, and whatever might collapse it, can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it? I.E., the moon was there before "conscious" beings, on this planet or elsewhere, viewed it? Is at least that much true, or at least as far as we know sounds true?

Thanks.

The wave function (never mind its collapse) is part of some interpretations of quantum mechanics and not others. It does not (at least necessarily) have objective existence. [What it describes is, in the basic example, the uncertain state of a particle as a complex-weighted integral of position eigenstates - each eigenstate is a position delta function - (and Schroedinger's equation shows how this description evolves over time)].

Likewise, wave function collapse is a part of some (not all) interpretations and its details lack a claim to objective reality (you could hypothesise this, but as far as I know no-one has even proposed a way to test this, like all behaviour of the wave function other than its predictions.

The purpose of the above is to justify expressing the view that the question to which you draw attention is not truly a scientific question. It asks what causes a feature of an interpretation of QM rather than what causes some physical phenomenon. It's a distinction that is quite easy to miss.

Unfortunately, I fear the above may cause headaches, but my hope is to clarify an important distinction!

 

[hutchphd]

I see this written or talked about so often. Pop-sci for sure. But, whatever the wave function is, and whatever might collapse it, can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it? I.E., the moon was there before "conscious" beings, on this planet or elsewhere, viewed it? Is at least that much true, or at least as far as we know sounds true?

Thanks.

1. First we would need to rigorously define consciousness.
2. Then we would need to rigorously define "collapse the wave function"

This seems to me to lead to a solipsistic predicament, but we you could start with step 1

 

[Fractal matter]

I see this written or talked about so often. Pop-sci for sure. But, whatever the wave function is, and whatever might collapse it, can we agree consciousness is not required to collapse it? I.E., the moon was there before "conscious" beings, on this planet or elsewhere, viewed it? Is at least that much true, or at least as far as we know sounds true?

Thanks.

Consciousness is not needed in collapse. What happens after collapse is the acquisition of new information. That's my view.

 

[.Scott]

1. First we would need to rigorously define consciousness.
2. Then we would need to rigorously define "collapse the wave function"

This seems to me to lead to a solipsistic predicament, but we you could start with step 1

"Consciousness" was my first qualm with the question.
Clearly (at least to me), human consciousness is not required for the moon to exist.
Moreover, sentient consciousness in general is not required for the moon to exist.
However, I do differentiate between an extremely detailed mathematical model of the moon and the actual moon. And I treat "consciousness" as a physical property - not reliant on any sentient purpose.
So I am unclear, especially at the semantic level, on the connection between "consciousness" and "physical existence".

 

[StevieTNZ]

You make some excellent points, @Elroch.

 

[Mayhem]

I always construed that "an observer" is simply short hand for "information is being transmitted to and from the system", which translates to "observation is possible". It is this information which causes a collapse, so to speak.
Might be wrong.

 

[Vectronix]

I don’t think observation as defined by Mayhem is the same thing as being conscious of it. I believe in the unpopular wave-only interpretation anyway. :)

 

[vela]

1. First we would need to rigorously define consciousness.
2. Then we would need to rigorously define "collapse the wave function"

This seems to me to lead to a solipsistic predicament, but we you could start with step 1

My first year in grad school, Sidney Coleman visited our campus and gave a talk. He recounted when he was a student, the idea of the wave function collapsing troubled him. He thought long and hard about it, and after several weeks, he reached a conclusion: only he could collapse the wave function.

 

[Fra]

My first year in grad school, Sidney Coleman visited our campus and gave a talk. He recounted when he was a student, the idea of the wave function collapsing troubled him. He thought long and hard about it, and after several weeks, he reached a conclusion: only he could collapse the wave function.

While I enjoy the quotes of wise men. The only problem I have with this presumed ironic conclusion, is that it misses what I think it as key complication that is still unresolved, and it does so by mixing up human bias with observer bias.

The tension of the two opposing perspectives; the primart perspective of the inference (which is the observers own, which admittedly is sort of "solipsistic") and the perspective of the agreed consensus in the local community of observers (meaning the the class of all possible physically valid, possible observers).

The conceptual relevant problem here, which is tension between information acquired by primary measurements has an observer bias, and information compiled from negotiation in an equivalence classes of many measurements (maybe by DIFFERENT observers). This "tension" presumes the validity of existence of an equivalence transformation. If this does not exist, but rather is a physical process, then problems arise the "forcing" this constraint upon things. At least this is my understanding.

I think noone, not even "solipsists" would suggest that human bias should matter here. And that is what i read into the word consciousness, so I think the answer "Yes" given in the first thread is best given how the question was asked. Observer bias OTOH (observer not referring to a human then is implicit) is a more difficult topic, but then I haven't seen anyone use the word "conscioussness". That word it bad and shouldn't be used in the context.

/Fredrik

 

[Dale]

With that we will close the thread. It has wandered firmly into interpretations territory (it started on the border).

The OP is welcome to go to the interpretations forum to start a new thread if such a discussion is desired.