- #1

- 75

- 8

## Main Question or Discussion Point

What are the experiments that disprove the idea that consciousness causes wavefunction collapse?

- I
- Thread starter Trollfaz
- Start date

- #1

- 75

- 8

What are the experiments that disprove the idea that consciousness causes wavefunction collapse?

- #2

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

There are no such experiments (despite the fact that a paper coauthored by my brother (who is a psychologist by education) claims the opposite).What are the experiments that disprove the idea that consciousness causes wavefunction collapse?

- #3

- 75

- 8

Is there any proof for the consciousness causes collapses idea?

- #4

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

Nope!

- #5

- 721

- 164

Cheers

- #6

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,710

- 1,736

Does consciousness cause wave function collapse in Bohmian Mechanics?There are no such experiments (despite the fact that a paper coauthored by my brother (who is a psychologist by education) claims the opposite).

- #7

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,294

- 2,182

Of course not. Its very much like solipsism - inherently unprovable. Even the reason for its introduction, which leads to all sorts of weird effects - is no longer is relevant. Its very backwater these days - like Lorentz Ether Theory is to relativity. You cant disprove it, but modern presentations of SR based on symmetry make it totally irrelevant.Is there any proof for the consciousness causes collapses idea?

Thanks

Bill

- #8

- 75

- 8

- #9

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

No, why do you ask?Does consciousness cause wave function collapse in Bohmian Mechanics?

- #10

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

Yes, but scientists didn't check whether detector detected anything when nobody was looking at it.

- #11

- 13,825

- 5,633

- #12

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

Yes, but if you look later, you only know what is there later. You cannot know what was there before. You can only assume that it was there before, but you cannot prove that assumption by scientific method. You can "prove" it by using some philosophy, but philosophy is not science, right?

- #13

- 13,825

- 5,633

Now you got me ;-).

- #14

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,710

- 1,736

In Bohmian Mechanics, the wave function of the universe does not collapse. Yet Bohmian Mechanics says that predictions obtained with collapse are correct. Since objectively the wave function of the universe does not collapse, I thought wave function collapse in Bohmian Mechanics is subjective (ie. requires consciousness).No, why do you ask?

- #15

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

This is very much like saying that validity of Bayes formula for conditional probability requires consciousness. Would you say that Bayes formula requires consciousness?In Bohmian Mechanics, the wave function of the universe does not collapse. Yet Bohmian Mechanics says that predictions obtained with collapse are correct. Since objectively the wave function of the universe does not collapse, I thought wave function collapse in Bohmian Mechanics is subjective (ie. requires consciousness).

- #16

- 13,825

- 5,633

- #17

Demystifier

Science Advisor

- 10,590

- 3,329

How that works? I would also like to know that general powerful technique of argumentation based on Bayes.

- #18

- 13,825

- 5,633

Well, you can, e.g., create a whole new philosophy "of it all" called "quantum Bayesianism".

- #19

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,710

- 1,736

I'm not sure. My instinct is to say it depends.This is very much like saying that validity of Bayes formula for conditional probability requires consciousness. Would you say that Bayes formula requires consciousness?

If interpreted in a frequentist sense, then Bayes's theorem does not require consciousness.

If interpreted in a subjective Bayesian sense, then Bayes's theorem does require consciousness.

I don't believe the objective Bayesian approach makes any sense.

- #20

- 380

- 249

Surely no need to "create" since the name at least is already in use? E.g.Well, you can, e.g., create a whole new philosophy "of it all" called "quantum Bayesianism".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-bayesian/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0608190.pdf

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ericc/SQF2014/slides/Ruediger Schack.pdf

etc.

I know about this only because it is one of many interpretations discussed in Michael Raymer's July 2017 book from Oxford U. Press,

And certainly @atyy is correct when he says "If interpreted in a subjective Bayesian sense, then Bayes's theorem does require consciousness"; here's a syllogism from the last link above, a slide show put together by Schack:

A quantum state determines probabilities through the Born rule.

Probabilities are personal judgements of the agent who assigns them.

HENCE: A quantum state is a personal judgement of the agent who assigns it.

Probabilities are personal judgements of the agent who assigns them.

HENCE: A quantum state is a personal judgement of the agent who assigns it.

Last edited:

- #21

- 5,428

- 290

Sounds wise. How does the personal judgement of the agent affect a future interaction or measurement of the state. Is there still a state if there is no agent ?Surely no need to "create" since the name at least is already in use? E.g.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-bayesian/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0608190.pdf

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ericc/SQF2014/slides/Ruediger Schack.pdf

etc.

I know about this only because it is one of many interpretations discussed in Michael Raymer's July 2017 book from Oxford U. Press,Quantum Physics: What Everyone Needs to Know.

And certainly @atyy is correct when he says "If interpreted in a subjective Bayesian sense, then Bayes's theorem does require consciousness"; here's a syllogism from the last link above, a slide show put together by Schack:

A quantum state determines probabilities through the Born rule.

Probabilities are personal judgements of the agent who assigns them.

HENCE: A quantum state is a personal judgement of the agent who assigns it.

- #22

- 75

- 8

- #23

- 13,825

- 5,633

- #24

- 75

- 8

- #25

- 8,401

- 2,576

I would say that Bayesian probability is probability done right, but luckily for frequentists, the difference between a correct Bayesian analysis and in incorrect frequentist analysis disappears in the limit of many trials.

Suppose I flip a coin once and I get heads. So the relative frequency for heads is 1. Does that mean that the probability is 1? Of course not! I don't have enough data to say that. So I flip the coin 10 times, and I get 4 heads and 6 tails. Does that mean that the probability of heads is 40%? No, those 10 coin flips could have been a fluke. So I flip the coin 100 times or 1000 times. How many flips does it take before I know that the pattern isn't a fluke? The answer is: there is never a time that I know for certain that it isn't a fluke.

Bayesian reasoning is reasoning in the presence of uncertainty, when there is a limited amount of data. But we're ALWAYS in that situation.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 33

- Views
- 9K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 939

- Replies
- 129

- Views
- 9K

- Replies
- 79

- Views
- 7K

- Replies
- 35

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 43

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 789