Interpretations of QP: How Can Consciousness Be Eliminated from Any System?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete Hammand
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interpretations
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the interpretations of Quantum Physics (QP) and the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics (QM). Participants debate whether consciousness is essential for the collapse of the wave function, with references to the Copenhagen interpretation, which does not necessitate a conscious observer. The conversation highlights the historical context of these interpretations and critiques the dismissal of consciousness in modern QM, emphasizing that all valid interpretations yield the same experimental results. Key texts mentioned include "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" by David Albert and "Conscious Mind in the Physical World" by Euan Squires.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Physics (QP) and Quantum Mechanics (QM)
  • Familiarity with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
  • Knowledge of wave function collapse and its implications
  • Awareness of quantum decoherence and its role in modern interpretations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of quantum decoherence in quantum mechanics
  • Explore the historical context of the Copenhagen interpretation
  • Study the philosophical debates surrounding consciousness in quantum mechanics
  • Read "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" by David Albert for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, philosophers of science, and anyone interested in the intersection of consciousness and quantum mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

  • #31
Pete Hammand said:
Hello everybody, I am new to these forums, and am curious to hear from people who know QP what in their opinion, is the best interpretation?
The best "interpretation" is to just view quantum mechanics as a generalization of probability theory. Classical probability theories assign sizes to elements of a sigma algebra. Sigma algebras are lattices. Quantum theories assign sizes to elements of a lattice that isn't a sigma algebra. Because of this, QM isn't probability theory in the classical sense, but a generalization of it.

I put "interpretation" in quotes, because this isn't an interpretation in the usual sense. It's not an attempt to explain "what's really happening". It's just the realization that we don't need to do that, and that even if there is such an explanation, there's no reason to think that it's present inside QM.

Pete Hammand said:
For example, is it a possibility that the conscious observer is indeed crucial to reality, and is the missing link in QP??
Consciousness isn't crucial to reality, but is crucial to science. A statement about the real world must be falsifiable to be considered a theory. To be falsifiable, it must make predictions about results of experiments. A result is one of several possible final states (of an indicator component of a measuring device) that can be easily distinguished by a conscious human. This is why you can't completely eliminate consciousness from discussions of QM. It's not because consciousness requires special physics. It's because QM is science, and science involves consciousness.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LittleSchwinger, vanhees71 and bhobba

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
  • · Replies 309 ·
11
Replies
309
Views
16K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K