[**\[Stapp:** Mark, y]{.underline}ou ask me to comment on this
conversation. It has clearly been going on for a while, and I do not
wish to go back over the whole exchange. So my comments will not reflect
a full appreciation of the background.**\]**

**[Henry Stapp's Non-local Model and the Transactional
Interpretation]{.underline}.**

**Mark**: (Me).

Jim you say that the delayed choice experiment is measured\
mechanically and that the human observer plays no role. However, if you\
use the measuring device without making an observation, the wave\
function will not collapse (at least in this particular experiment).\
Whether observation by itself causes collapse is certainly\
questionable, but it at least appears to play a part in the process. We\
have no evidence at all of wave function collapse in the traditional\
experiment, when both slits are open, until an observation is performed.

**\[Stapp:** Very relevant here are the quantum eraser experiments. A
detector is

placed behind one slit of the double-slit set-up. It is such that if the
(primary) particle

passes through that slit then the state of a detector­\_particle is
changed from

its initial state to an orthogonal state. Then the basic quantum rules
entail that the interference pattern will disappear. Hence it might seem
that this interaction with the device has produced a collapse of the
kind that orthodox QM associates with an observation (by an observer),
even though in this case no psychological happening has occurred. But if
one follows the Schroedinger evolution of the [whole]{.underline} system
then the evolution is unitary, and there is no collapse. If one follows

instead the evolution of the reduced density matrix of the (primary)
particle there will still be no elimination of the contribution of the
part of the state associated with other slit, but only a reductions from
a superposition to a (statistical) mixture. The fact the no true
collapse has occurred is confirmed if, in the two-slit case, one brings
the two parts of the state of the detector­\_particle back together in
such a way that its constructively and destructively interfering parts
can be separately observed. In that case the interference pattern of the
primary particles will re-emerge in the subset of the events in which
(say) the constructive interference of the detector_particle states is
observed. All of this is in precise accord with the orthodox (collapse)
theory, in which collapses are taken to occur definitely only in
association with an increment in "our knowledge", where "our" refers to
a communicating community of psycho-physical observer/agents. The
"correct" orthodox predictions of QM are *defined* by this orthodox
collapse model, in which collapses occur only in association with
increments in "our knowledge".**\]**

**Jim:**

Mark,\
\
Are you paying attention? True believers in wave collapse somehow\
invent this crazy interpretation. Sure, the Copenhagen interpretation\
that presumes a wave collapse, usually gets correct answers. But all\
the interpretations get the right answer.

**\[Stapp:** The orthodox collapse interpretation was invented by the
founders

of quantum theory, who were perhaps true believers because that
interpretation

was the only rationally coherent way that they knew to get *unequivocal
and empirically correct*

predictions about connections between our phenomenal observations under
all of the conditions that we are able to set up. This approach gives
what is *defined* to be the predictions of QM.**\]**

You have been fooled and fallen hook line and sinker by these true\
believers and no matter how many times the facts are stated you seem\
to choose the false interpretation. I have no clue how you and others\
can simply ignore the simple facts and continue to say the observer\
plays a role in an experiment where the observer played no role at all\
until all the data was collected and coincidence data correlated long\
after the experiment was conducted.

**\[Stapp:** Quantum theory is designed to predict correlations between
observations. These predictions are about correlations between
experiences, and these predictions cannot be checked until all the
relevant data has been assembled. More important, however, is the role
of the observer in his choice of which of the alternative possible
experiments he will perform. I will elaborate upon this point
below.**\]**\
\
None of the recorded data changes no matter what correlations you look\
at. Looking at one set of correlation you see a wave collapse,\
looking at another set you see no wave collapse. The data is ALL\
registered before any human looks at and data.

**\[Stapp: "**ALL the data is registered before any human being looks at
... data." **??**

According to QM we cannot simultaneously set in place two

experiments that measure incompatible observables. And all observers

will perceive essentially the same classically described facts
pertaining to the

particular experiment that has been chosen. It is "our (collective)
knowledge" that

enters into quantum theoretical description of the entire situation.

Under the simplest conditions the choice of the experiment to be
performed is fixed by human actions apparently controlled by human
thoughts. So the experimenter, with his quantum mechanically described
brain, enters crucially into the determination of the course of
events**,**

And the data that is collected and recorded depends upon the choice made
by the experimenter.

Hence his actions, and the thoughts that seemingly influence his
actions, enter importantly into the determination of the kind of data
that will be collected.

The experimenter might, however, arrange for the choice of experiment to
be determined by the detection of a particle emitted in a radio-active
decay. Then the situation is essentially the same as the one occurring
in the quantum eraser experiment, which involved the mechanical
detection of a particle.

The quantum eraser experiments show that the mere change of the physical

state of a detecting system is not sufficient to fix the factualities
that we experience:

it is not sufficient to cause a collapse. The contributions associated
with both slits were still present, and recoverable in principle. Big
pointers are simply conglomerates of tiny parts. They have,
collectively, strong interactions with "the environment", but it was
essentially the interactions with the environment that were considered
in the quantum eraser experiment, and were shown unable to account for
the occurrence of definite facts: they produced only transitions to
statistical mixtures in reduced density matrices, not any true collapse
to a state corresponding to just one or the other of the classically
describable possibilities. And these density matrices do not contain all
the information contained I the full quantum state of the universe. So
it is not evident on the basis of empirical data, or mechanistic theory,
exactly when the facts became fixed and settled. Von Neumann's analysis
of the process of measurement showed that one could shift the boundary
at which the transition from "potentiality" to "actuality" occurred from
devices to brains, or vice versa, with only negligible effects on human
observations, provided the device at which the contemplated collapse
occurs is macroscopic, and is consequently strongly coupled to its
environment.

The most "economical" solution compatible with the empirical facts is
thus simply to allow collapses only in association with increments of
"our knowledge". That is essentially the orthodox pragmatic solution.
This solution is explicitly pragmatic and epistemological, not
ontological.

Seeking an ontological solution was discouraged by the official
Copenhagen position. Considering ontology seems to add little in the way
of practical application, or testability, but opens the door to
seemingly endless debate about these un-testable ontological
conjectures.

These debates seem unproductive within science. But they are not
irrelevant to ethical/philosophical concerns. Yet these ethical matters
center the dynamical properties of human beings, and hence of their
quantum brains, not on the quantum dynamics of ordinary measuring
devices. Collapses can occur or not occur at ordinary measuring devices
without any major impact upon either empirical data or ethical
considerations, at least to first order. It is the impact of our
conscious choices upon our bodies and brains that is of primary ethical
concern, not the question of whether or not a collapse occurred already
at the device, and was merely brought into our consciousness, and hence
into the realm of our scientific discourse, by a subsequent collapse
associated with quantum brain dynamics. Von Neumann's analysis of the
measurement process shows that any additional collapse at the device has
virtually no empirical effect: it is the collapse associated with the
increment in human knowledge that is the one that links theory to
experience, and hence is what is most pertinent to scientific discourse.

The delayed-choice experiment does not add anything more. The
Schroedinger evolution of the quantum universe, in which the devices are
conglomerates of atomic constituents, strongly coupled to the
environment, does not lead to any collapse that singles out definite
observable facts.**\]**

I suppose you must think I am wrong about this since I keep repeating\
it with zero acknowledgement on your part. You keep saying the\
observer participated in the choice at the time of the experiment\
contrary to the facts of the experiment.

**\[Stapp:** I do not see how one can assert, point-blank, that the
observers

do not participate when they choose to perform some particular
experiment, or choose

to witness an outcome. A basic fact of QM is that the Schroedinger
evolution does not account for

the choice of which measurement will be performed: there is a causal gap
that needs to be filled

by some theory of the choice of von Neumann's process 1. This process 1
is the collapse event that defines which question is put to nature. It
is far from clear how we human beings, with our quantum mechanically
described brains, make these choices of which question to put to
nature\-\-- of which experiment to perform\-\--and it is even more
puzzling how a purely mechanically conceived device, or aspect of the
quantum mechanically described universe, could make such a choice, which
somehow injects a classical aspect into the quantum mechanically
described universe. It is this puzzle that led to the pragmatically
adequate Copenhagen interpretation, which essentially treats us as
conscious agents able to have intentions to perform classically
describable actions. \[Such a conception of us is rationally
reconcilable with quantum mechanics\--

cf, arXix:0805.0116 arXiv:0803.1625 and arxiv:0803:1633 \-\-- but it not
clear how a simple quantum mechanical device could specify and
implement, within the framework of quantum mechanics, comparable
physical capabilities.\] **\]**

As Kris simply stated the only reasonable conclusion is that there is\
no collapse of the wave function at all except in our state of\
knowledge

**\[Stapp:** Yes: Wave function collapses are tied to increment in
knowledge.**\]**

since both conditions, collapse, and no collapse, exist at\
the same time according to the data. nothing that happened changes\
after the fact because we look at one set of correlations the other.\
We can both get copies of the data. You can look at one set of\
correlations while I look at the other at the same time. One of us\
will see wave like properties and the other particle like properties\
of the same photons. If the wave function collapse was an actual thing\
this would not be possible.

**\[Stapp:** According to QM we cannot simultaneously set in place two

experiments that measure incompatible observables. And all observers

will perceive essentially the same classically described facts. It is

"our (collective) knowledge" that enters into quantum theoretical

description of the entire situation.**\]**

I suggest you look at the experiment itself rather than the bogus\
interpretation of true believers in the Copenhagen interpretation.\
\
I do not think people like over complicating things, but complicate\
things because they hate to be wrong. They will jump through hoops\
and develop the most complicated and improbable notions to preserve\
what they already believe. People do not understand the quantum\
simply because it seems to contradict the notions of legacy physics.\
\
All that we experience is caused by momentum exchanges mediated only\
by photons at the bottom layer. Every momentum exchange is caused by\
there being a tuned transmitter and receiver relatively. Despite the\
facts, we like to think the cause is the transmitter and the effect is\
at the receiver. But the event requires both equally. The event has\
two causes, it is not cause and effect. But this simple fact is not\
recognized in the popular interpretations despite the fact that it is\
implied by every interpretation just because it is contrary to our\
ordinary sensibility of the notion of a cause and effect. Only Mead\'s\
Collective Electrodynamics, based on Cramers transactional\
interpretation which is rooted in Wheelers emitter-absorber\
interpretation explicitly recognises this basic fact.\
\
It seems ironic that to preserve the wrong notion of singular local\
causality the Copenhagen interpretation presumes the last cause, the\
observer, is the primary cause in denial of the fact that every\
element in the quantum system is an equal cause. Previously the\
observer had been considered independent of the system being\
considered. This is not possible with quantum systems as only\
participants receive any information about the system. However, in\
assigning a special role to the last participant we actually defeat\
the notion of local cause and effect as the effect precedes the cause.\
It is amazing how people can believe in such inconsistent nonsense.\
It is not that they want to over complicate things, it is due to blind\
adherence to a line of reasoning that is without error such that the\
conclusions, no matter how bizarre must be true rather than thinking\
outside the box and accepting a simple answer.\
\
It is highly frustrating that people seem to simply ignore the facts\
when they do not fit in to their legacy beliefs. I constantly feel\
that no matter what I say, no matter how precisely it is worded is\
totally ignored and not even registered in the mind unless it fits\
with what people already believe. I feel Copernicus\'s and Galileo\'s\
pain.\
\
I expect the simple facts of the quantum will be common sense someday.\
It is not true that the quantum is not understandable. It is just\
not understandable in the context of legacy physics. Instead we need\
to understand how the principles of legacy physics emerge from our\
statistical perception of the quantum. It is not our perspective that\
causes the quantum, it is the quantum that determines our perspective.\
\
Jim

**Kris**:

Mark,\
\
Here\'s a related simple question that has a simple answer.\
\
\"Does a tree that falls when no-one is around still make a noise?\"\
\
Of course it does!\
\
Kris

**Mark:**

Hi Jim/Kris.

 

First of all Jim, I DID and DO acknowledge your point of view and I
stated this very clearly when you answered my query regarding the video
by Ross Rhodes. To say that I show \"zero acknowledgement\" is simply
not true.  I have made it clear previously that John Cramer has said
that the Stapp theory of observer collapse is perfectly consistent with
the Transactional Interpretation. Now this does not automatically mean
that it is correct, it may not be, but please do not attack me by
stating that somehow I am not paying attention!!! And YOU have not been
paying attention to everything or you would have known that I have
stated this before.

 

I have posted the link previously for this, but just so that you cannot
also accuse me of being a liar on top of everything else, I have
provided a 'Google' link to the same page. If you access result 2 (out
of 4): \'TIQM Appendices\' and click \'cached\' then scroll down to the
bottom of the page you\'ll see it!!!!! And no, I am not saying that
Cramer himself agrees with this, he doesn\'t! But he admits that Stapps
model is \'fully consistent\' with his \'TI\': [http://www.google.
co.uk/search? hl=en&q=john+cramer+ %22Stapp% 27s+Nonlocal+
Model%22+&meta](http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=john+cramer+"Stapp's+Nonlocal+Model"+&meta)=

(Also \'result 4\' is actually my post entitled \'Neuroquantology\'
where I included the link for this the first time around. It\'s a pity
that you didn\'t pay attention yourself then)!!!

 

You talk about true believers of \'wave collapse\' well I have [also
previously]{.underline} addressed the issue of \'wave function
collapse\' and stated that when we look at the detector screen after the
experiment has ended, it neither appears to be collapsed or in an
\'in-between state.\' That is why I struggle to accept the view that:
\"since both conditions, collapse, and no collapse, exist at the same
time according to the data\".

 

Once observed, the wave function shows itself as having collapsed to
anybody looking at this and not just to the person who made the initial
observation.  Why does it do this only at those times when we look at
what is going on? Why cannot we just trust the measuring device to do
this for us?  What is so special about just looking at the system, if it
is not relevant to anything? I.e. when we look at the detector screen
after the experiment has ended, it neither appears to be collapsed or in
an in-between state. Once observed, it shows itself as having collapsed
on the detector screen to anybody looking at this and not just to the
person who made the initial observation.  All I am saying is that it
*appears* that observation does something to the system.  There is no
need to shoot me down in flames!

 

If there are loads of these believers in true wave-function collapse
(presumably you mean \'Copenhagenists\' ) coming out the woodwork all
over the place, supposedly brainwashing such naive plebs like me, well
where are they?  Please may you give me a list of who these so called
folks are, because in my experience most physicists don\'t like or
believe this anymore. I am, however, actually entitled to have
an opinion myself on such things, even if this is unpopular.  And for
the record, the Transactional Interpretation builds on the Copenhagen
Interpretation and actually states that it is half correct. Please see
below: [http://www.npl. washington. edu/tiqm/
TI_20.html](http://www.npl.washington.edu/tiqm/TI_20.html)   [http://www.npl.
washington. edu/ti/TI\_
24.html](http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/TI_24.html)

 

 

With regards to your point Kris, the old analogy regarding the tree
falling in the forest when there is nobody around to see or hear this is
very old, just like the one which states \"Does the Moon exist when
nobody looks at it.\"  However, I don\'t suggest that thoughts create
reality, if that was so, every child would be with Santa Claus on
Christmas Eve, and the entire planet would all be very happy right now.
I am only saying that the act of observing *seems* to affect the quantum
state in the two-slit experiment. That is all I am saying basically, and
although I\'m interested in Stapps theory running alongside the
Transactional Interpretation, this is a possibility in my opinion and
simply nothing more than that.

 

I am not just being awkward here folks, it is what I see as happening.
But please do not have a go at me for merely expressing an opinion,
especially when it is consistent with the well-known Transactional
Interpretation. It is not as if nobody could see where I am coming from.
If John Cramer who championed the Afshar experiment as falsifying both
the Copenhagen Interpretation and the MWI (despite some
others disagreeing with him), can still admit that Henry Stapp is making
a consistent argument, then that should suffice as at least a possible
contender for the correct and complete theory. You don\'t have to
believe it, but kindly refrain from insulting those that do, (or are
open-minded to this). Thank you!!!

 

**\[Stapp:** The question of the connection between what I call the
orthodox interpretation and Cramer's transactional interpretation was
supposed to be the focus of my commentary.

It can be clarified by introducing what I have called "process time".
(See my contribution to

David R. Griffin's volume "The ultimate significance of time" SUNY,
1985) The sequence of \*Collapse Events\* defines the state of the
universe on an "advancing sequence of space-like

surfaces "sigma". A space-like surface is a continuous 3-dimentional
surface in (4-dimensional)

space-time each point of which is space-like separated from every other
point on that surface.

An *advancing sequence* of such surfaces is such the each point on any
one of these surfaces

either coincides with some point on the preceding surface or lies in the
future (light-cone) of some point on that surface. From any one of these
surface one can extent the wave function infinitely into the future and
past by the (local deterministic) Schroedinger equation. If the elements
of this sequence of space-like surfaces are labelled by the (positive
and negative) integers, then these

integers/indices can be taken to be the labels of the points in a
discrete "Process Time".

The quantum dynamical evolution (with a sequence of quantum collapse
events) can be viewed

as evolution in Process Time. Each moment of Process Time covers an
entire space-time continuum. And the state of the universe at any single
moment of Process Time satisfies the Schroedinger equation at points in
spacetime..

If one considers an EPR-Bohm-Bell correlation experiment, then during
some interval

in Process Time the initial (singlet) state of the two particles will be
created.

Over an interval in Process Time this singlet state will grow out in an
expanding V-shaped region of spacetime, toward the two far-apart
detection regions. At some Process Time a detection will occur. At that
moment in Process Time the state of the universe in the space-time past
of the associated space-like surface will suddenly change, relative to
what it was at the earlier moments in Process Time. In the V-shaped
region of spacetime the state will suddenly jump from a singlet state of
the two diverging particles to a state in which, for example, one
particle is polarized in one specific direction, specified by the
orientation of the device in one of the two regions, and the particle
traveling along the other wing of the V is polarized in the opposite
direction. The correlation between the parts in the two wings will be
fixed instantly (in Process Time) over the entire V-shaped region in
spacetime. The effective transfer of information about the choice of
polarization direction, which choice was seemingly made by the
agent/observer in one region, is made via the V-shaped region that
extends backward in time: the faster-than-light transfer of information
is made by an effective transfer first backward in time to the region
where the two particle interacted (or originated), and then forward
along the other wing of the V..

This description is, I think, the natural way of describing the orthodox
dynamics in which there are two different dynamical processes, the
unitary Schroedinger evolution, and the abrupt collapses. The
transactional interpretation adds some words about "hand shakes" and
"backward propagating waves". That way of speaking appeals to some
people. If it helps you, then use it. But it is supposed to not
contradict, or add extra empirical content, to what comes from the
Process Time picture., which I myself find cleaner, clearer, and easier
to understand. But this may be just a personal preference.

In the conversation recorded above there seems to be some suggestion
that the transactional interpretation will better accommodate collapses
that may occur in

detection devices. I think that is a misconception. The orthodox
interpretation

certainly *can* *accommodate* the possibility of collapses at devices.
No detailed

theory exists of exactly when and where, and under what circumstances
the collapses

occur. Von Neumann's theory of measurement allows for collapses to occur
at

devices, but shows that "for all practical purpose" (John Bell's FAPP)
it is impossible

to deduce any empirical consequences of these collapse that differ from
what follows

from assuming that the only collapses are those directly associated with
increments in

our knowledge. So for practical purposes there is not much motivation
and developing

a theory that specifies in detail exactly when, where, and under what
conditions a device

that is a macroscopic conglomerate of atomic constituents that are
strongly coupled to its environment ceases to act exactly like a
macroscopic conglomerate of atomic constituents that is strongly coupled
to its environment, and, instead, undergoes a mysterious collapse to
some classically describable part of itself. The problem more pertinent
to *science* is to devise a testable theory the interplay between our
knowledge and our brains, particularly in connection with our choices of
our actions. Of course, one would like eventually to have a theory of
collapses that covers also the cosmological era, and the problem of what
fixes the initial conditions of the universe. A more modest initial
ambition, which is more closely liked to empirical data, is merely to
understand the dynamics of our own bodies and brains, and, in
particular, the way in which "our knowledge" and a person's "conscious
intent" enter into the dynamics that person's body/brain.**\]**