Is Consciousness involved in wave function collapse?

[BruceW]

The physics is perfectly happy just leaving the quantum in a mixed state, if all we have is a lifeless computer.

True, but this doesn't justify that we should allow an 'actual outcome' to happen for conscious beings and not for a classical computer. I say we should allow it for both, to avoid giving a special role to conscious beings.
And I'm pretty sure this is the view of the scientific community.

No. Measuring apparatuses are physical constructs, and so, should obey the laws of physics. Unitary evolution is one of the laws they should obey. Ergo, measuring devices should not "cause a non unitary process to occur."

So you say they must obey the laws of physics, but cannot cause a non unitary process to occur? So is a non unitary process not a law of physics?

Just out of interest, do other people have consciousness, or are they just physical constructs? Because I can only say that I have consciousness, I can't vouch for anyone else.
You can see why I would avoid at all costs a physical theory that places special importance on conscious beings.

 

[Ken G]

True, but this doesn't justify that we should allow an 'actual outcome' to happen for conscious beings and not for a classical computer.

Yes it does, this is the key to it all-- the physics itself does not seem to support any concept of an "actual outcome", there just is no such concept in the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. This is the whole problem. So we must ask, if our formalism does not even introduce a given concept, then where does it come from? You say it comes from the lifeless computer, but I showed that it does not-- the lifeless computer can be treated perfectly well with the mixed-state formalism of quantum mechanics mathematics. It doesn't come from there, it comes from us. If you don't like the term "consciousness" because it seems too nebulous, then substitute it with "the scientist asking the question." Either way, we know what we are talking about because we are it.

I say we should allow it for both, to avoid giving a special role to conscious beings.
And I'm pretty sure this is the view of the scientific community.

Only if they haven't considered the issues raised in this thread, and as G01 pointed out above, many really haven't. That's why I'm raising the issue.

So you say they must obey the laws of physics, but cannot cause a non unitary process to occur? So is a non unitary process not a law of physics?

Correct. The formalism of quantum mechanics have no place for any non-unitary processes. They appear only as projections from unitary processes. There's no mystery in the formalism of quantum mechanics, the mystery is why that's not what we experience. Something has to give-- in a nutshell, CI says it's the formalism that must give, many-worlds says it's our experience that has to give. Classic empiricism vs. rationalism, that story has played out for millennia.

Just out of interest, do other people have consciousness, or are they just physical constructs? Because I can only say that I have consciousness, I can't vouch for anyone else.

If you want to explore the nature of consciousness, that should really be a different thread. I have asserted only a single property for it, which we all experience: the ability to register a single outcome to an experiment.

 

[Varon]

I can't let this go. If one puts a camera in planet pluto. It can still record the surrounding. If what you said was true. Pluto should be in mixed state, and the camera being non-conscious, should be entangled to the mixed state. So this ensemble of mixed state are still not collapsed to definite outcome (because there was no conscious observer present there). Therefore the camera shouldn't even be recording any collapsed state but mixed state. But we know the camera recorded collapsed state. Hence this simple example refutes what you said above.

Of course one can say the photons from the cosmos inpinging on pluto is enough to cause decoherence. But note decoherence can only produce mixed state. Just the same, you have the problem of why the video camera is recording collapsed state and not mixed state.

 

[Ken G]

I can't let this go. If one puts a camera in planet pluto. It can still record the surrounding. If what you said was true. Pluto should be in mixed state, and the camera being non-conscious, should be entangled to the mixed state.

First of all, it is perfectly normal to treat Pluto in a mixed state. That is called "Thermodynamics." But we are talking about quantum mechanics here, and in quantum mechanics, it is certainly true that the mixed states might involve easily distinquishable states for Pluto. If a camera is pointed at Pluto, and no one ever looks at the film, there is no way to distinguish what actually happens from a mixed state of all different things happening, all different films getting created. The way we distinguish those is just one way: we look at the film. Now, to avoid "tree in the woods" issues, science allows itself one luxury: we can talk about hypotheticals. We can say "imagine we look at the film, then we see just one thing." This is a useful device of scientific language. We cannot test that this is also true if we don't look at the film, but it's a nice language, so that's fine-- we want to be able to use some flavor of realism, as long as it doesn't lead to wrong physics (which it often can). I mentioned the role of hypotheticals in my very first post. The point about hypotheticals is they still involve consciousnesses-- hypothetical consciousness. It still takes one to know one, real or hypothetical-- this is all just part of how we do science, and how we create a language for telling scientific stories. But if you want testing, you better believe you are going to need a consciousness.

ETA:
Let me clarify what may be the key point: the very language you are using when you say "the camera only films one thing whether anyone looks or not" comes from the fact that you have looked at camera films. There is not a single shred of quantum mechanics theory that tells you this is true, you are speaking from experience now, and that experience involves you and your consciousness. If you could ever make the same case you are making, but from the equations of physics instead of your own conscious experience, then you'd have a point-- but you cannot, and that's the issue here. That you cannot show your claim using the theory of quantum mechanics, that is "the measurement problem."

 

[Varon]

First of all, it is perfectly normal to treat Pluto in a mixed state. That is called "Thermodynamics." But we are talking about quantum mechanics here, and in quantum mechanics, it is certainly true that the mixed states might involve easily distinquishable states for Pluto. If a camera is pointed at Pluto, and no one ever looks at the film, there is no way to distinguish what actually happens from a mixed state of all different things happening, all different films getting created. The way we distinguish those is just one way: we look at the film. Now, to avoid "tree in the woods" issues, science allows itself one luxury: we can talk about hypotheticals. We can say "imagine we look at the film, then we see just one thing." This is a useful device of scientific language. We cannot test that this is also true if we don't look at the film, but it's a nice language, so that's fine-- we want to be able to use some flavor of realism, as long as it doesn't lead to wrong physics (which it often can). I mentioned the role of hypotheticals in my very first post. The point about hypotheticals is they still involve consciousnesses-- hypothetical consciousness. It still takes one to know one, real or hypothetical-- this is all just part of how we do science, and how we create a language for telling scientific stories. But if you want testing, you better believe you are going to need a consciousness.

ETA:
Let me clarify what may be the key point: the very language you are using when you say "the camera only films one thing whether anyone looks or not" comes from the fact that you have looked at camera films. There is not a single shred of quantum mechanics theory that tells you this is true, you are speaking from experience now, and that experience involves you and your consciousness. If you could ever make the same case you are making, but from the equations of physics instead of your own conscious experience, then you'd have a point-- but you cannot, and that's the issue here. That you cannot show your claim using the theory of quantum mechanics, that is "the measurement problem."

I think this is Copenhagen desperate attempt to resist against objectivity that it has to resort to such extreme measures as saying that if one has not learned before that there was camera films, it won't know that it produce unique outcomes. This is not a science problem This is a psychology problem. But if our desperation has to resort to this. There is nothing we can do. Also this may just be a temporarity state of our culture. Someday when new generations replace the old, they would deal more with objectivity which presently we are clueless about.

 

[Ken G]

I think this is Copenhagen desperate attempt to resist against objectivity that it has to resort to such extreme measures as saying that if one has not learned before that there was camera films, it won't know that it produce unique outcomes.

It's not the least bit "desperate", it is the defining character of the CI: the simple recognition that science is done by scientists. It's so obviously true, I wonder why it creates so much angst? Are we really that afraid to look at ourselves in the mirror? For shame, calling that simple undeniable truth "desperate."

 

[BruceW]

So we must ask, if our formalism does not even introduce a given concept, then where does it come from? You say it comes from the lifeless computer, but I showed that it does not-- the lifeless computer can be treated perfectly well with the mixed-state formalism of quantum mechanics mathematics. It doesn't come from there, it comes from us.

A lifeless computer can also be treated perfectly well by saying it does cause non unitary process to occur. I would say it comes from there, not us.
You might think I'm taking an unnecessary extravagance by saying that a non unitary process can happen for a lifeless computer, but the reason I'm doing this is because I dislike the idea of consciousness even more strongly.
I feel glad to say that I think I understand your view now. (Although I still think that mine is correct)

 

[Ken G]

A lifeless computer can also be treated perfectly well by saying it does cause non unitary process to occur.

But why would you ever do that, what would compel you to say that? That is the question I'm asking you. It's very important to answer it: why would you ever add that to the beautiful theory of quantum mechanics, if it doesn't fit in the theory? Even the CI school must answer that question, if they wish to hold that a lifeless robot can achieve complete wavefunction collapse in a universe free of any consciousnesses.

ETA: The key point is, quantum mechanics is a language, and we have made choices about the terms in that language. Had there been no consciousnesses, the need for the language would be very different, and the language would be very different. Mixed states would cover everything, there would never be language about a "particular outcome." The mathematics would be flawless, as smooth as butter-- as long as everything is projected from unitary uber-states (and here I mean projected onto subsystems, not projected onto eigenstates and renormalized-- that's the nonunitary part). Once a mindless robot has processed the situation into an analysis in terms of decohered mixed substates, and assessed the probabilities, what further processing would ever be needed? Why is there any need to go any farther?

You might think I'm taking an unnecessary extravagance by saying that a non unitary process can happen for a lifeless computer, but the reason I'm doing this is because I dislike the idea of consciousness even more strongly.

I understand your hesitation, it is only kicking and screaming that the scientist is forced to come to terms with their own involvement in their science. We got away with ignoring that for thousands of years, but the measurement problem was our comeuppance. We just have to deal with it, or else adopt the Bohmian interpretation, which adds an unwieldy and untestable scaffolding on top of the simple mathematics of quantum mechanics expressly to avoid coming to terms with this issue.

ETA: Here's a very concise way to frame my point. In a universe without consciousnesses, what's the problem with the many-worlds interpretation? Why wouldn't that just be called "quantum mechanics" period? If you object to many-worlds (as I do), and you articulate your objection, you may see where consciousness is cropping up. Where comes this bias for there to be just one world even when projected onto its parts? I say that bias is the defining character of conscious experience, and I don't see anywhere else it could come from.

 

[Varon]

It's not the least bit "desperate", it is the defining character of the CI: the simple recognition that science is done by scientists. It's so obviously true, I wonder why it creates so much angst? Are we really that afraid to look at ourselves in the mirror? For shame, calling that simple undeniable truth "desperate."

Earlier you said that machines as measuring tool can only produce mixed state.. this meaning the full system is still in pure state. And you said it is only human that cause the single outcome. Are you claiming that human consciousness can produce the born rule? Then this is the same as saying that consciousness can collapse the wave function.. because the born rule is synonym to wave function collapse.

 

[BruceW]

Ken G - we both have different opinions on what makes a beautiful theory. This is why our views differ.

 

[Varon]

Another thing. Before humans existed on the planet. We had plants, sea creatures, dinosaurs, birds, chimpanzees. Now for evolution to occur at all, the biochemical parts have to be in definite state and outcome. This is because things in mixed state can't evolve into complex things. Therefore the fact that evolution can occur without humans prove that definite outcome occurred in the particles and chemical systems enough to evolve and produce humans. Therefore, human consciousness is not sufficient to to produce definite outcome. I know the arguments that quantum theory only produce ensembles.. why individual outcome occurs is due to humans as the saying goes. But in evolution before humans, the particles and chemical system have individual outcome because mixed state don't offer many degrees of freedom.

 

[Ken G]

Earlier you said that machines as measuring tool can only produce mixed state..

Actually, what I said is that machines would never need to develop a concept of anything but a mixed state. A "mixed state" is not a real thing, it is an element of a theory.

this meaning the full system is still in pure state.

Yes, that is how the theory of quantum mechanics would frame the situation.

And you said it is only human that cause the single outcome.

I'm saying that it is only our experience of reality that causes us to find any fault with the description of formal quantum mechanics mathematics, yes.

Are you claiming that human consciousness can produce the born rule? Then this is the same as saying that consciousness can collapse the wave function.. because the born rule is synonym to wave function collapse.

I have no idea "what collapses the wave function" (in the sense of the single outcome, not the decoherence), indeed I believe, as I said, that this question will never be answered by science, because it is too deeply embroiled in our own role in our science. That's a very "CI" perspective. What I said about consciousness is that its presence is what we can trace the very issue to in the first place.

 

[Varon]

Actually, what I said is that machines would never need to develop a concept of anything but a mixed state. A "mixed state" is not a real thing, it is an element of a theory.
Yes, that is how the theory of quantum mechanics would frame the situation.
I'm saying that it is only our experience of reality that causes us to find any fault with the description of formal quantum mechanics mathematics, yes.
I have no idea "what collapses the wave function" (in the sense of the single outcome, not the decoherence), indeed I believe, as I said, that this question will never be answered by science, because it is too deeply embroiled in our own role in our science. That's a very "CI" perspective. What I said about consciousness is that its presence is what we can trace the very issue to in the first place.

What? You kept saying that consciousness is what produce definite outcome from the ensemble in the mathematics of quantum theory. Now since definite outcome can only result from collapse of the wave function. Therefore from the logic, it goes that consciousness is what collapses the wave function.

 

[Ken G]

Ken G - we both have different opinions on what makes a beautiful theory. This is why our views differ.

Well, the axiomatic structure of quantum mechanics is widely viewed as one of the most beautiful in all of science, and indeed this is pretty much singlehandedly the motivation for string theory and the search for a graviton model. But I will grant you that just what entails "beauty" is subjective. All the same, my point holds-- if all we had were mindless robots, they would never have any reason to even dream up the concept of a single outcome of an experiment. They could be built to test, process, and solve the equations of formal quantum mechanics, pass every test with flying colors, achieve survival advantages, all without ever imagining that there is any such thing as a "single outcome" to a decoherence episode. It must have something to do with the necessity of modeling itself as part of "what is happening." I don't know exactly what point we would call it "consciousness", that's why I didn't try to parse the differences between consciousness, intelligence, and perception.

 

[BruceW]

I feel my view is less committal, in that I don't suppose that the consciousness of a being decides whether it can or can't cause a non unitary process to occur.

 

[Ken G]

But you still haven't answered my question from above. I feel answering that question is crucial: why would a lifeless robot that did not model itself as part of its processing effort, so that did not build into the analysis a sense of "its own unique experience", ever have a reason to concoct a concept of a single outcome of a decoherence episode, where by decoherence episode I mean in the von Neumann sense of coupling a quantum system to a macro pointer to bring the quantum system into the robotic analysis?

Imagine you are programming a computer to solve a quantum mechanics problem. You evolve the wavefunction, and model whatever decoherence occurs in that evolution. You're done-- why would you ever include a final step where you choose a random number and assert "this is what happened", if there is no perception of what happened? The program could test its predictions with an apparatus that also generated nothing but mixed states, as quantum mechanics predicts it would.

 

[Varon]

Ken, I wonder how to use the concept of "Preferred Basis" in the debate. I know that preferred basis is chosen by the measuring device. Are you saying that without human consciousness the device can't choose one set of values of the basis on its own? Let's make an actual example so we can understand what you mean that only human consciousness can produce definite outcome.

Let's say the human civilization left a double slit device in pluto before the whole civilization perished. The double slit now runs on its own from either solar or nuclear fuel. The detector in the doublet slit is enough to define the preferred basis and even to produce definite values or outcome right? Or else no photons or electrons won't be detected in the screen.

Now your argument is that without a human seeing the detector values. The facts can't be known. But let's say a lifeless robot or android produced prior to the demise of the human race goes to pluto to retrieve the double slit device and read the detector. Then it can know the definite outcome. All this without the occurence of humans which are long dead.

How do you use Copenhagen to argue that the lifeless robot won't read the screen definite output?

 

[Fredrik]

Can I ask something? Does a wave function collapse upon interaction with anything? Like when a photon strikes an electron out in outer space and ionizes an atom.

I'm not a fan of the term "collapse" because it can mean different things. It can refer to an interaction that sends the off-diagonal components of a density matrix to exactly 0 instead of just making them really small. (This would contradict QM, but it seems to be what most people mean). It can refer to an interaction that makes those off-diagonal components really small. (This is decoherence). It can even refer to the selection of a subensemble on which we intend to perform experiments.

Assuming that we're talking about what interactions that should be thought of as "measurements" (i.e. collapse=decoherence), there is no fundamental difference between measurements and other interactions, but there is a practical difference. Consider a Stern-Gerlach experiment. A silver atom is sent through an inhomogeneous magnetic field. The atom first interacts with the field, and the interaction correlates spin states with momentum states. Then the atom interacts with a photographic plate. This interaction leaves behind a record of what just happened in the form of a tiny dot on the plate. That dot is the reason why this interaction is considered a measurement, while the first one isn't. (The position of the dot is interpreted as the result of a momentum measurement, which indirectly tells us the value of the spin). But even an interaction that leaves persistent records behind can in principle be reversed. (This reversal would delete all the records). That's why I'm saying that there's only a practical difference between measurements and other interactions, and not a fundamental one.

In principle, you could have an excellent reason to think that the measurement has been performed (i.e. that collapse has occurred), moments before everything that has happened to a larger system that includes you is reversed. Obviously, this would delete all your memories of ever having performed the experiment. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you could just ask your friend what the result was, because if he has a record of the result, in his brain or elsewhere, then it only means that the interaction that we considered a measurement hasn't been completely reversed.

Did you delete the question while I was answering it? I can't find the post I quoted.

 

[Ken G]

Ken, I wonder how to use the concept of "Preferred Basis" in the debate. I know that preferred basis is chosen by the measuring device. Are you saying that without human consciousness the device can't choose one set of values of the basis on its own?

No, the "preferred basis" of a measurement is something quite physical, it has to do with the type of decoherence that the measuring device creates. In our world, we say the photon made a spot on the wall, but in quantum language, the wall acted like a wall expressly because it set up the kind of decoherence that turns a photon wavefunction into a mixed state of probabilities of various spots on the wall. That's what a "detecting wall" is to a photon. So the preferred basis, here a "spot" basis, is determined by the physical interaction itself-- other bases would not see a decoherence between their eigenstates.

Let's say the human civilization left a double slit device in pluto before the whole civilization perished. The double slit now runs on its own from either solar or nuclear fuel. The detector in the doublet slit is enough to define the preferred basis and even to produce definite values or outcome right?

The detector is still physically capable of creating the decoherence that creates a mixed state for the photon. That's not a definite outcome, it's a probability distribution of definite outcomes. It's also the only predictive element of quantum mechanics.

But let's say a lifeless robot or android produced prior to the demise of the human race goes to pluto to retrieve the double slit device and read the detector. Then it can know the definite outcome.

Why do you think it can know the definite outcome? Formal quantum mechanics certainly doesn't say it can. You are basing that claim on your personal experience-- but that has to do with your own perceptions, not the action of a robot as described in quantum mechanics. So you tell a story that is consistent with your conscious experience, and you fudge the quantum mechanics theory to make it agree (standard CI practice). Nothing wrong with that, but recognize the reason you are doing it is your own conscious experience has to make sense of that physical scenario. We have no idea what the robot will experience, because robots don't experience anything.

How do you use Copenhagen to argue that the lifeless robot won't read the screen definite output?

In its purest form, Copenhagen says that physics is a tool used by a physicist, not a robot.

 

[Varon]

No, the "preferred basis" of a measurement is something quite physical, it has to do with the type of decoherence that the measuring device creates. In our world, we say the photon made a spot on the wall, but in quantum language, the wall acted like a wall expressly because it set up the kind of decoherence that turns a photon wavefunction into a mixed state of probabilities of various spots on the wall. That's what a "detecting wall" is to a photon. So the preferred basis, here a "spot" basis, is determined by the physical interaction itself-- other bases would not see a decoherence between their eigenstates.
The detector is still physically capable of creating the decoherence that creates a mixed state for the photon. That's not a definite outcome, it's a probability distribution of definite outcomes. It's also the only predictive element of quantum mechanics.

Why do you think it can know the definite outcome? Formal quantum mechanics certainly doesn't say it can. You are basing that claim on your personal experience-- but that has to do with your own perceptions, not the action of a robot as described in quantum mechanics.

Can you be clear what you meant by "definite outcome". Is it the same as one set of basis values chosen (one of the eigenvalues chosen)? If it is. Then the definite outcome are simply those hits in the detector screen which the lifeless robot can simply detect with its robotic vision.

So you tell a story that is consistent with your conscious experience, and you fudge the quantum mechanics theory to make it agree (standard CI practice). Nothing wrong with that, but recognize the reason you are doing it is your own conscious experience has to make sense of that physical scenario. We have no idea what the robot will experience, because robots don't experience anything.

In its purest form, Copenhagen says that physics is a tool used by a physicist, not a robot.

 

[Ken G]

In principle, you could have an excellent reason to think that the measurement has been performed (i.e. that collapse has occurred), moments before everything that has happened to a larger system that includes you is reversed. Obviously, this would delete all your memories of ever having performed the experiment.

This is a hugely important issue, the question of whether or not that is really possible. It boils down to how seriously we take the formal theory of quantum mechanics. In particular, do we give primacy to the mathematical structure of that theory, which says exactly what you are saying is possible (in principle, sort of the way quantum tunneling of macroscopic objects is possible in principle), and say the person's experience is subordinate to that, such that it would indeed be possible to erase all their memories and leave the universe in a noncomittal stance as to what actually happened? Or do we say that formal quantum mechanics theory is a tool of that person, not its master, and so if they experience something, they cannot unexperience it, regardless of what the theory suggests? The former approach is more in the rationalistic spirit of many-worlds kinds of thinking (it amounts to re-enmeshing the divided worlds, something we rarely imagine but is certainly possible in principle), the second approach is more in the empiricist spirit of the CI.

I take no stance on either interpretation here (though I generally prefer CI), I merely point out that the whole reason we have to ask this question is because of that moment of conscious awareness that we are loathe to imagine can get "erased." If we flip a coin, and never look at it, and then something happens that unflips the coin, we can say that whether the coin came up heads or tails is something the universe has not taken a stance on. But if we look at the coin and register heads, can something happen later that makes the universe also take no stance on what the coin came up? This is why many flinch at accepting the many-worlds interpretation, it subordinates the very experiences we are using physics to try and understand to the physics that we are using to understand them. I don't say that makes many-worlds wrong, I just notice that the cause of our flinching is our conscious experience.

 

[Ken G]

Can you be clear what you meant by "definite outcome". Is it the same as one set of basis values chosen (one of the eigenvalues chosen)?

It is not the same as the set of eigenvalues, it is one eigenvalue.

Then the definite outcome are simply those hits in the detector screen which the lifeless robot can simply detect robotic vision.

Again, it is only your conscious experience of how vision works, your own personal perception of it, that leads you to say that. If all you had was the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but no conscious experience to draw on and no self-modeling in your analysis, you would never have any reason to think that your statement above was true. It just plain does not come from the mathematics of quantum mechanics, so where does that expectation come from?

 

[Varon]

It is not the same as the set of eigenvalues, it is one eigenvalue.

Again, it is only your conscious experience of how vision works, your own personal perception of it, that leads you to say that. If all you had was the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but no conscious experience to draw on and no self-modeling in your analysis, you would never have any reason to think that your statement above was true. It just plain does not come from the mathematics of quantum mechanics, so where does that expectation come from?

What? But everytime there is a hit detected in the screen in the double slit. It is definite outcome where one of the eigenvalue of positions is chosen. The robot with even a $2 vga camera vision can see the hit. What's the problem with this??

 

[Ken G]

What? But everytime there is a hit detected in the screen in the double slit. It is definite outcome where one of the eigenvalue of positions is chosen. The robot with even a $2 vga camera vision can see the hit. What's the problem with this??

The problem is that you have no evidence at all that it is true, independently of your conscious experience. There is nothing in the theory of quantum mechanics that suggests this would be true. So it's something you are intentionally tacking onto the theory, and why are you doing that? Because your personal conscious experience tells you to do that, no other reason. Certainly nothing that robots would have access to, they could be programmed to function just fine in the language of mixed states, and they could test the mixed states the same way all quantum mechanical predictions are tested: in the classical limit. Even as the robots are functioning, you are imagining "checking in on them", using your conscious experience-- either in practice or hypothetically to form the words you are using. You have to remove all your conscious experience from the claims you are making, if you are to claim they hold in the absence of conscious experience. This is of course very hard to do, so we don't do it-- but we can still recognize that we are not doing it.

 

[Varon]

The problem is that you have no evidence at all that it is true, independently of your conscious experience. There is nothing in the theory of quantum mechanics that suggests this would be true. So it's something you are intentionally tacking onto the theory, and why are you doing that? Because your personal conscious experience tells you to do that, no other reason. Certainly nothing that robots would have access to, they could be programmed to function just fine in the language of mixed states, and they could test the mixed states the same way all quantum mechanical predictions are tested: in the classical limit. Even as the robots are functioning, you are imagining "checking in on them", using your conscious experience-- either in practice or hypothetically to form the words you are using. You have to remove all your conscious experience from the claims you are making, if you are to claim they hold in the absence of conscious experience. This is of course very hard to do, so we don't do it-- but we can still recognize that we are not doing it.

Is the above argument the position of other Copenhagenists too, or is it your particular only? It's definitely a weird argument. I'll ponder on it.

 

[BruceW]

Ken G - For the case of the mindless robot in the world without any consciousness:
Us humans are classical objects that can cause a non unitary process. Therefore, I would deduce that other similar classical objects which do not have consciousness may also cause a non unitary process. I would not, like you, deduce that non-conscious beings cannot cause a non unitary process.
Therefore, in the world with no conscious beings, I would say that non unitary processes still happen.

 

[BruceW]

(That's for the Copenhagen interpretation). And for many-worlds theory, neither conscious nor non-conscious objects cause a non unitary process.
So neither of these theories make any distinction between conscious and non-conscious objects.

 

[Varon]

Ken G - For the case of the mindless robot in the world without any consciousness:
Us humans are classical objects that can cause a non unitary process. Therefore, I would deduce that other similar classical objects which do not have consciousness may also cause a non unitary process. I would not, like you, deduce that non-conscious beings cannot cause a non unitary process.
Therefore, in the world with no conscious beings, I would say that non unitary processes still happen.

If I understand it right. I think what Ken G was saying was that humans have self initiated volition to home in on the definite outcomes that machines or even equations in quantum mechanics don't have. It's like the following is the case:

LEVELS -------- CAPABILITY
microworld = superposition
lifeless robots = mixed state
humans = definite outcome

Now how come or what collapse the wave function. If Copenhagen was right. Wave function could be collapsed to definite outcome because of the existence of self-initiated volation. Without this possibility. Nature would only choose up to mixed state and no possibility of definite outcome. So it's like some kind of anthropic principle why nature has this capability to collapse wave function.

I guess this is all there is to it to Copenhagen, a temporary system of philosophy for lack of other data that can lock on the complete theory and correct interpretation.

 

[BruceW]

Going back to Fredrik's last post, he is right that the definition of a classical measuring apparatus is simply that it cannot practically be 'reversed' to the state it was in before the measurement.
I realize this is a rather vague definition. But I would rather say that all classical measuring devices cause a non unitary process, rather than say that conscious beings cause a non unitary process.

 

[Fredrik]

Varon (and BruceW), Ken G isn't saying that a human observing something is any different from a robot doing it. He's saying that the concept of measurement involves consciousness, not that the act of measurement does.

A human would never think of an interaction that leaves no record of the result as a "measurement". The reason is that he wouldn't have any way of knowing what the result was. If he knows that there's been a result, then a record has been created, because his knowledge is a record.