Talk:Consciousness causes collapse/Archive 1

message: Its my take that there is nothing overt about this theory which alludes to or stresses "oneness" necessarily, and I see the tradition of western idealism much closer or more of a forerunner to it than eastern religious beliefs. Unless there is some direct citation I think the mention is out of place. e.g. There is still "separation" to a point even if subatomically things become indifferentiated, this doesn't go on to denote a greater oneness for all intents & purposes nor even represent a unity of things. Nagelfar 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --CSTAR 05:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. So if in the next few months no citation is given and no further argument is posited here, one of us will remove it. Nagelfar 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it suffices to wait a week and if no citation appears, delete it.--CSTAR 22:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Nagelfar 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. I put the flag on the passage in question yesterday. DV8 2XL 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The closest philosophical tradition may be Spinoza's. I think the point is that quantum collapse raises age-old philosophical debates about undefined but often indispensable terms, and it raises the question of whether it answers any of these questions. It doesn't - it just begs the question of what "oneness," "mind," "extension" etc. were meant to signify in the first place. Quantum objects are on a different level of description to philosophical concepts or religious/mystical terms. Confusing these different modes of thinking is probably a mistake, at least as far as any correspondences can be drawn (e.g. collapse = consciousness), but this is the cultural context referred to by the article. The problem here is where to draw the line between cultural artefact (where the article would deal with the collapse idea as it relates to all three types of thinking, as a cultural factor) and valid scientific connection (where the article would outline the quantum science, in which "consciousness" is obviously a stopgap term). Perhaps all you need is to separate the two? Babo.beretovac 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism & Taoism, eastern referencing 

message: As far as Wigner is concerned, his friend's consciousness is jut part of the big black box full of mysteries, with no grounds to arbitrarily distinguish from, or raise above the kitty's consciousness, or even the decaying atom's consciouness - after all the kitty and his friend are just simply a DNA molecule-consequence, a functioning system just like a decaying atom is a functioning system. To him his friend's state is still described by a wavefunction, at least until he himself looks at his friend, even though, as it appears to his friend, the wavefunction collapsed long time ago, when his friend looked. Each time a "looking" happens, the wavefunction collapses. Basically the wavefunction collapses at each and every conscious observer, not just the first one, which is the substance of Wigner's argument, that wavefunction collapse and consciousness are inseparable concepts, or experiencing reality and consciousness are inseparable. 
Extra dissertation on this relativity of mental frames of reference:
You could say it's all dependent on the observer's frame of reference, and you can talk about relativity theory of wavefunction collapses, or relativity theory of consciousness, or what real is at all. The hindus say there is only mind, that's the only thing that's real, and everything else is maya, illusion. You cannot be certain about anything else around you, not even your friend's consciousness that resembles what you sense as your own conscisouness, but have you ever dreamed about other people, was their consciousness real, or was it just a figment of your imagination, something in your head, a dream? Your life could be just a dream just like Zhuangzi wonders about being a butterfly. Or, just like Descartes concluded, during his quest to cleanse his mind from all the superstitions and untruths it was filled with, to come up with a system of certainty about the world, to come up with a kind of rigorous Euclid's Elements for philosophy, he arrived to one truth "I think therefore I am" but he got no further. Rationalism could only get him so far, giving some kind of certainty that a mind exists, but nothing about anything else. In response to this rationalism attempt, David Hume came with the wrecking ball of empiricism stating that knowledge comes through the senses, and Descartes quest to know the world we live in just by looking inside his own mind was futile, he would forever get stuck at the "I think therefore I am" part, and get no further truths about the world. Basically, knowing the world is like knowing Zhuangzi's butterfly, knowing the dream, knowing the maya, and we only have the limited certainty that empiricism and trust placed into the easily tricked senses give, which is has a lower grade of credit rating/trust than Descartes' single truth, but it's all we got when dealing with the dream, we have nothing better. Lower grade of truth, because there is no ultimate certainty, in a sense Descartes' awareness of self could be just a dream too, the mind dreaming the dream could be itself unreal, just a dream, in a sense you could have dreams dreaming dreams, in a neverending progression, or consciousnesses aware of consciousnesses, in neverending progression,  Wigner's consciouness becoming aware of his friend's consciousness becoming aware of the kitty's consciousness becoming aware of the decaying atoms consciousness or "thing" (for lack of a better word) becoming aware of the nucleon's "thing", existence... etc. When a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound, if nobody's there to hear it? Does the tree even exist without a consciousness? We are used to the world, to Nature existing independent of our awareness, as infant's become aware when a blue square is hidden behind a box, we still hold it in our mind, that it exists even if we can't see it, and reality hasn't failed us yet, because we keep seeing it reemerge. It's just how the dream is structured, and we become complacent in this mentality of independent existence, until we meet up with quantum mechanics and Schroedinger's kitten, and we cannot be certain which way it's true. Is there an independent reality or is everything just a part of your dream? Are we part of Nature, or is Nature just part of us? How about a compromise, a little bit of both? Basically I'm trying to present the one side by Wigner about wavefunction collapse and consciousness being inseparable in the best possible light, but just like you, I don't personally like this whole idea, I'd like to see the world in the usual, more comfortable, less paradoxical, existing "independent of us" way. Perhaps there is a way to describe it the comfy way too, just like there are ways of Taylor expansions or Fourier series for the exact same functions in mathematics, or, geometry can be viewed through Euclidian or non-Euclidian spectacles, reality yields to different views, different interpretations, we just need to find the familiar Taylor series expansion way of looking at quantum mechanics instead of the Fourier wave way of currently seeing things. Of course there is no arbitrary reason to say that either Fourier or Taylor series are better for a function, they are equivalent "in and of themselves", it's all relative, we just prefer using one or the other method depending on the situation, depending on how many terms we need to carry. Perhaps there is a way, keep your fingers crossed, otherwise we're stuck with this seemingly paradoxical (absurd means laughable in greek) way to describe reality, which isn't paradoxical, just like Fourier series are not paradoxical, they are just not something we're used to, so we laugh at it. Hope you found some good humor(absurdity) in all this, because what's life worth without good humor. This indifferent Nature finds many ways to entertain us, or in Einstein worldview, the not so indifferent Nature, or God, who doesn't play with dice, who's subtle, but not malicious, finds many ways to entertain us. These two views are, of course, equivalent ways of looking at the same thing, depending on what you feel comfortable with, ultimately neither is right, nor wrong, everything has two sides, everything has yin yang, just like the quantum wavefunction has many sides before you collapse it. When you collapse it, the wavefunction either just loses the other side after the collapse, or the other side progresses on as in the many worlds interpretation, the two interpretations, you guessed it, neither being right nor wrong, but equivalent. :) Sillybilly 04:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse occurs at the very first conscious observer? Come on now..  

message: User:Sillybilly/scratchpad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillybilly (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that this section be deleted altogether, or else reformulated as a synopsis of an established viewpoint (with accompanying citations). It is needlessly speculative, not to mention incoherent. Vel 09:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Immortality 

message: This article has little or no scientific value and is meaningless outside the scope of quantum mechanics. Few of its references have any scientific backing and are full of new age nonsense. This article smells like someone trying to spread some philosophical viewpoint. It should be part of Quantum Mechanics under the "Philosophical Consequences" section or part of the Interpretation of quantum mechanics article where readers can compare this article with scientifically accepted views of quantum mechanics. It certainly shouldn't exist as an independent article. Dr. Morbius 03:25-04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a large article, it would be unwieldy to merge it under a section in the main QM article, and it's already in the category of QM interpretations. -- itistoday (Talk) 21:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are completely right. This theory is unfalsifiable due to the fact that I couldn't perform a laboratory experiment that tests consciousness in the absence of quantum mechanical effects. Not only that but decoherence alone would render this theory completely untenable. Dr. Morbius 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Erm, and yet, it does raise the most important question of what it means to actually measure something.  One can not simply close one's eyes and expect the philosophical questions to disappear.  Until all the paradoxes of quantum mechanics are resolved, it is necessary to keep an open mind to the possibilities.  Regardless of whether you personally believe in the idea or not, it remains an important philosophical concept.  If we pretend this is not so, we should also throw out such meaningless self-referential philosophical statemants as "I think therefore I am".  CCC forms part of the discussion of the nature of the universe, regardless of its ultimate validity or usefullness.  Wikipedia is here to provide factual information.  That CCC has been discussed in physics and that conclusions have been drawn about it is all true.  That is why the article exists. Dndn1011 11:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article may raise the question of what it means to actually measure something.  But if so it does (in my opinion) in such a way that the question is barely recognizable and the discussion pretty much incomprehensible.  Is this "area of thought" philosophy or physics?     Wanderer57 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's philosophy of physics. There are better discussions under measurement in quantum mechanics, wave function collapse, etc. It is hard to make the article clearer or more rigourous when the basic thesis is vague. It is hard to just ignore the subject when it has the backing of some notable figures and a lot of popular currency. 1Z 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for noting the other articles.  I'll take a look.  Wanderer57 14:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here's my observation...this article is incomprehensible to the average human being. Would anyone who actually grasps this concept please start the article off with a description of the phenomenon in plain English? I've heard about it before, but would like an easy to understand explanation of the concept. Save the technical gibberish for later in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.201 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article even exist? 

message: What, on the other hand, is not OK, is that prominent physicists do genuinely seem to have a hard time separating belief, wishful thinking, and subconscious religious needs.
If paragons like von Neumann, Wigner, Dyson, and Penrose can't separate "consciousness" from Physics, and if Einstein couldn't separate religion from Cosmology ("God doesn't play dice") -- all I can say is, we have a long way to go before we can hope to understand the Universe.
To recap: the contents of the article describe a point of disgrace in Science, but the article itself is good, accurate, and of sufficient quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwrede (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! You must be forgetting the uncertainty principle, and because of it philosophy such as described in this article will always have a place in science, because it's all on the same playing field as any other theory that scientists can come up with to describe "everything", after all, how can you objectively describe something when in all instances it is impossible for you to separate yourself or your scientific instruments from the environment around them? If you feel that "consciousness causes collapse" is unscientific, which it very well probably is, then you'll have to admit that TOEs such as String Theory are unscientific as well since it is impossible to test them. -- itistoday (Talk) 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Separataion of consciousness from Physics" is a bit ambiguous. What do you mean by that? Of course they are separate. Like chemistry and physics are. If you are implying that consciousness is pseudo-science and not a legit scientific study, then you probably havent been reading papers in the scientific community lately. But then again, it's a good thing that this denial continues in my opinion, because it leaves more room for others like us to establish themselves as pioneer hopefuls in this new emerging field. Who knows which one of us might become the new Max Planck of this new emerging field, while many others waste away their talents on demoted classical worldviews of the 20th century? There are already tons of hard core scientific textbooks being written. It's turning into a goldrush of science. And my hunch is that the next Max Planck wont even be a physicist, but he'll rather probably be a cognitive/neuro scientist of sorts. They are the only ones that have the guts to confidently  openly challenge 20th century science. Totally awesome. Old school physicists will meanwhile continue to go down the endless roads of superstrings, Brane theory, and all similar talent sinks.--Zereshk 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is OK. 

message: What exactly is this article supposed to be about? Is it supposed to claim that consciousness is a requirement for collapsing wave functions (as its name implies) or that consciousness is affected by quantum mechanical effects or that there is a connection between reality and consciousness (which really belongs under philosophy) etc. Which is it? You need to pick one and remove the irrelevant material. Dr. Morbius 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the first is relevant. The rest belongs on Quantum mind, but be careful of notability, OR, etc. 1Z 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article lacks focus 

message: In any case, if consciousness really does play a role in the choice of particular outcomes then it must be the consciousness of the measuring aparatus which contains the distinct outcome states and not the human experimentalist who reads the dials.
Whilst I am sympathetic to the overall tone of the recent addition, this seems a bit glib. The CCC proponent can always claim that measuring instruments have no distinct state until someone looks at them. How can you disprove that? 1Z 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The main objective for me is to take out the "observer" language from the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.206.51.226 (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have to disprove anything. It's up to the person making the claim to prove it. This entire article is nonsense and no part of it is provable. Dr. Morbius 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Science contains axioms, the main one being that our perceived reality is real. That we do not exist in The Matrix or in other words we are not just a brain in some laboratory hooked up to a computer dictating our reality. By definition, an axiom is not provable, and since science rests on a few fundamental axioms, it would seem by your logic that everything scientific is nonsense and should be removed from Wikipedia. Am I missing something? --nhall0608  —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're confusing the mathematical usage of axiom with the natural science theory usage. In natural science theories axioms are taken as self-evident truth not requiring proof. The statement "measuring instruments have no distinct state until someone looks at them" doesn't come anywhere near being an axiom or being self-evident therefore it requires proof. In fact the opposite statement "measuring instruments have a distinct state regardless of whether someone looks at them" comes much closer to being axiomatic or self-evident. Dr. Morbius 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "measuring instruments have a distinct state regardless of whether someone looks at them" is not self-evident after the discovery of the fact that this does not remain true on the quantum level. Meaning that the alternitive to CCC is not self-evident and requires the same proof.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What instruments do you know of that are small enough to be affected by quantum mechanics? I'm talking about the actual instrument itself, not the probe. So, scanning electron microscopes don't count and neither do scanning tunneling microscopes since both of these are very large devices. Besides I said "comes much closer to being axiomatic ..." not that it was axiomatic. The alternative to CCC does not require the same proof since I can observe it and see it happening. The CCC proponent will claim that observing the instrument caused its wave function to collapse but they can't prove it since they can't provide any evidence that the instrument was in a superposition of states before the observation took place. Considering that QM effects disappear for objects larger than a few atoms and taking decoherence into account any claim that QM can affect objects large enough to be experienced  by humans, without the aid of any devices, is a specious claim. Dr. Morbius 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If an instrument is set up specifically to detect quantum events, would it not by definition be affected by quantum mechanics? I believe this was the whole point of Schrödinger's cat experiment, which back fired on Schrödinger, that making a quantum effect trigger a sequence of events in the macro caused macro events (or instruments) to also have the same property as the quantum particle of multiple possible states until observed. Is the Schrödinger cat experiment considered by mainstream science to be self-evidently wrong? Nhall0608 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The instrument isn't "affected" by a quantum mechanical event. It's detecting the occurrence of a quantum mechanical event. Have you ever heard of anyone performing Schrodinger's Cat experiment? Even Steven Hawking commented about it when he said "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun,". It was never meant to be a serious experiment. But it's not surprising that proponents of pseudoscientific claims would misinterpret Schrodinger's Cat experiment and use it to defend their claims. They do that constantly with QM. The amount of pseudoscience that people claim is supported by QM is remarkable. Nonsense like what the bleep do we know is a prime example. Dr. Morbius 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how this statement can be true given the results of the experiment I've detailed below.  That experiment clearly shows that the instrument's own "consciousness" is not sufficient to collapse the waveform; apparently, only a human watching the instrument (or having the ability to do so) can do that. --Lode Runner 02:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decoherence 

message: I'm surprised that solipsism, i.e. the existence of only one consciousness - me, isn't mentioned as a possible part of the interpretion. 217.227.146.242 23:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should that bother you? You do not exist! Dndn1011 01:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "`You!' said the Caterpillar contemptuously. `Who are YOU?'"  Wanderer57 03:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solipsism 

message: Just because I don't understand an article does not mean it is wrong.  However, being unclear does raise that suspicion.  This article tries to deal with what seems to be a horrendously difficult subject, and clarity is especially important.
To quote the historian Barbara W. Tuchman:  "You may say that it is a matter of semantics, but semantics make a good test. As a writer I can tell you that trouble in writing clearly invariably reflects troubled thinking, usually an incomplete grasp of the facts or of their meaning."  (This quote is from Tuchman's "Generalship", in her book "Practicing History".  An excerpt from Generalship is posted at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C22%5Cstory_22-5-2006_pg3_8
This is a roundabout way of saying I think this article needs to be better written.  I realize the Wikipedia reply to me is likely to be "go ahead and edit it".  I won't do that because I don't understand the subject.
As an example, I suggest the section "Criteria for consciousness" could use some work.  (I know this is going to sound picky. I'm just trying to explore if improving the writing would make the thing any clearer.)
For example, does the word "Here" at the beginning of the paragraph serve a purpose?  
Are the bits in parentheses necessary?  Is the "consciousness" of microbes and amoebas important to the discussion?  If so, these points should be taken out of parentheses.  If not, can they be left out altogether to simplify the thing a bit?
Can the sentence about measuring devices be split into two sentences or more? There is a lot in that one sentence. 
What would it mean to say a measuring device is conscious? 
How might a ruler (for example) be considered a "chain of observations"?  The language used here defies belief.
And finally, a sentence with the word "also" used twice is distracting.
Thank you.  Wanderer57 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is difficult to make nonsense understandable because it is, well ... nonsense. If it were explained clearly and accurately people would suddenly realize that this hypothesis is completely untestable and untenable. They overwhelm you with a mountain of garbage hoping that somewhere in there there might be something of value. That's why this article is full of references to people and institutions that lack credibility and to pseudoscience like What the bleep do we know and The Secret. Dr. Morbius 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If an article cannot be made "reasonably" clear, can it be deleted?   Wanderer57 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well ... you can try but the proponents (I wanted to use the word crackpots but that would be insulting) of this "hypothesis" will just put it back. Dr. Morbius 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Clearer Writing 

message: The first sentence of the article was:
"Consciousness causes collapse, also known as the 'spiritual interpretation'[citation needed], is the claim that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics."
It now reads: "Consciousness causes collapse is the claim that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics."  Since the citation for the alternate name  "spiritual interpretation" was still missing, I removed the name.  It is not referred to anywhere else in the article, and it is not a link, so I don't think it is a big loss.
Who coined the term "consciousness causes collapse"?  If this is the name it is usually referred to by, somebody must have started it.  Does anyone know who?
"the wavefunction collapse"  - this phrase links to another article which IMO is just as impenetrable as this one.  Is there any way to give a reasonably intelligent reader, who is not up on quantum mechanics, some inkling of what the implications would be if observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics, or if it turned out that observation by a conscious observer is not responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics.  
If it may be possible, will someone please try?  If it is not possible, I propose to add a note to the article "Because of the nature of the subject, this article is probably incomprehensible to anyone without an advanced degree in theoretical physics"  (or something to that effect.)  I think that would be much fairer to the readers of Wikipedia.  Thank you.  Wanderer57 06:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. 1Z 14:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  I'm not planning to do so unilaterally.  My point, here and in some other notes, is that the article has the serious problem of being nearly incomprehensible in places.  I would much like to see this addressed.  Wanderer57 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my post (below) deals with the same underlying issue.  What is the evidence to support the assertion that conscious observers cause the collapse of waveforms?  The experiment I detail below appears to be one such piece of evidence; however, it's possible that the experiment didn't take place as I've described (I've yet to find a detailed, written source) and it's also possible that there is another interpretation that I am missing here. --Lode Runner 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Lode runner: I'm hoping this article can be made clearer.  At this point, I think your post (below) is clearer than a lot of the article.  I'm sure you will advise if you find a reputable report on the experiment.  Thanks, Wanderer57 18:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May we go back to basics please?