TPF : Consciousness Causes Collapse

[Gnomon]

Not that I am at all an advocate for "consciousness causes collapse," but sometimes exploring theories you don't like tells you important things about the ones you do like. In any event, in comparison to infinite parallel universes and infinite copies of ourselves, it doesn't seem that wild. If the Fine Tuning Problem is bad enough to make people embrace multiple worlds, maybe consciousness causes collapse is due for a resurgence? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't doubt that a scientific observation of quantum superposition results in a change of some kind. But the notion that a single mind's act of perception, can cause a physical change in a material object in the real world, not only sounds like Magic, but also faces the Solipsism paradox.

So I would propose that we look at the "collapse" as a mental change in a single mind, in the Ideal realm. By that I mean the Potential for a particle was "out there" all along. But the observer, in his own mind, by an act of recognition, can cause a particular Form (the particle's physical properties) to suddenly appear within a random background. In other words, the statistical Potential was Actualized, in a manner similar to Pattern Perception*1.

A good example of unrecognized Potential is order-within-randomness optical puzzles, such as the spotty scene below*2. What you see depends in part on what you expect to see. But once a meaningful pattern has been recognized within a random pattern, it calls to mind a concept that was already existing in your memory. So, if you are looking for a particular familiar pattern, it will be easier to see. If I tell you to look for the "?", your mind will overlay a template of instances of "?" that you already know. I gave you a hint above.

So, if the scientist is looking for a localized particle of matter, a pattern matching his mental preconception might suddenly appear from within a background of fuzzy superposition : an act of recognition (to know again). This possible explanation for the "collapse" conundrum just occurred to me. So, it bears further consideration. Is it plausible that quantum "collapse" is merely a change of mind : a shifted perspective to see what was already there?

PS___The Strong Anthropic Principle is an alternative explanation for the Fine Tuning observation.


*1. Pattern recognition :
Recognizing patterns allows us to predict and expect what is coming. The process of pattern recognition involves matching the information received with the information already stored in the brain. Making the connection between memories and information perceived is a step of pattern recognition called identification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_r ... sychology)


*2. ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT
original.gif

[Gnomon]

Again, there is no literal 'wave function collapse'. It's a metaphorical expression for the reduction of possibilities to a certainty. The mystery is the implication that prior to measurement, the target object cannot be said to definitely exist. And if the purported 'building blocks of reality' can't be said to exist, then you have to ask 'what is real?' which is the name of one of the books mentioned about this subject. — Wayfarer

Yes. I think Bohr's magical/statistical metaphor was taken literally by those who wanted a more mechanical/physical explanation for the non-classical "Quantum Weirdness" that perturbed the pioneers of sub-atomic physics. Apparently the literalists intended to make Bohr's implicit mind-over-matter notion seem absurd. For them, unreal Mind & real Matter are like oil & water.

A century later, the role of the observer is simply ignored by those for whom the mind doesn't matter. Yet, those less opposed to Mental-Physics, now use statistical Quantum Bayesian calculations to measure experimental results in terms of "degrees of belief". It accepts that mental Belief may not have a physical effect on matter (ontological Being), but it certainly has a metaphysical effect on interpretation (epistemological Knowing).


The Observer Effect :
Abstract: The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

Wheeler's Observer Effect :
The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%2 ... experiment
Note -- prior to the experimental observation, the Phenomenon is statistically unknowable, and even after the test, it's still statistically uncertain, perhaps because the object is Virtual, not Actual.
"the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with the observer or equipment used during observation". https://chem.libretexts.org/Uncertainty_Principle

[Gnomon]

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.

Moreover, In the anthology by a variety of scientists & philosophers : Information and the Nature of Reality, physicist Paul Davies said, "if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". Then, theoretical physicist Henry Stapp noted : "Thus the replacement of classical mechanics by quantum mechanics opens the door to religious possibilities that formerly were rationally excluded".

What Stapp called "religious" possibilities was also an open door to philosophical interpretations of such metaphysical phenomena as Consciousness. Yet, Physicalists typically equate mind-probing philosophy with the supernatural nonsense of religion*2. Hence, they see no realistic understanding in such exegesis, beyond the obvious fact that basic Consciousness is an entry-level requirement for both pragmatic Science and impractical Philosophy.

*1. Observer Effect :
The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

*2. Quantum Philosophy :
Frustrated by the re-introduction of flighty philosophy into practical Physics, some experimental scientists decided to avoid dealing with the mental/emotional aspects of fundamental physics, in favor of abstract mathematical/logical factors, hence to just "shut up and calculate". But the book referenced above reveals a variety of important roles for consciousness (and information) in the real physical world. Several of the authors are physicists & biologists, who do more with their minds than just calculate.

[Gnomon]

Its the 'and its [properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness

Yes. That's the part of the Consciousness Causes Collapse metaphor that sounds like mind-over-matter magic. But, if we remember that Properties (attributes) are attributed*1 to a particle by the mind of the observer, the focus turns back onto the Attributor. So, the sudden change may be in the mind, not the matter, as different attributes*2 come to mind when possible properties are actualized by the experiment. That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. So, the quantum Magic may actually be a case of Mind over Mind insight (e.g. pattern recognition).



*1. Attribute (verb) : to regard as resulting from a specified cause
Note --- Qualities (e.g. redness) are mental, not physical. To Regard is to imagine as an opinion. Causation is an inference from material change, not an observation.

*2. Attribute (noun) : a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
Note --- to attribute is to pass a mental quality or value onto an object of attention. Tribute goes from payer to payee.

[Gnomon]

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. That an observation (or perturbation) precedes the so-called "collapse" is not in question. But "correlation does not prove causation". In my quoted definition above, "The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it". The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Does witnessing an event (the role of observation) cause the event, or does the physical disturbance by experimental apparatus cause the noted change?

The Copenhagen Interpretation seemed to imply that it was the consciousness of the observer that triggered a phenomenal change in the target particle field. And it's the causal power of consciousness that the OP is using to postulate another effect on a completely different philosophical question : the cosmological Fine-Tuning Problem. In several of my posts above, I proposed a different way to interpret the phenomenon of "collapse". I doubt that human awareness has magical mind-over-matter powers. But an awareness event (perception) does seem to cause a change in how a phenomenon is conceived : statistical Potential becomes observed Actual.



Does observation cause collapse? :
In Bohm interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer introduces into the measured system some perturbation, which is inevitable when performing the measurement.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-function

The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neuma ... rpretation

[Gnomon]

That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon
We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true! — universeness

You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate.

When the experts disagree*1 on the role of the observer in causing "collapse", how could a non-expert prove a forum postulation, except by pointing to an expert whose professional opinion agrees with the reasoning & conclusion. I'm not aware of any expert who has even addressed the question of "collapse" in terms of perception to conception transition.

*1. Why does observation collapse the wave function? :
This is actually an unresolved question in QM. There are many interpretations of QM. Some attempt to define what constitutes measurement and what causes collapse. In some interpretation, wavefunctions never collapse. In some others, wavefunctions are not a good enough description for quantum systems. The canonical interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, simply dodges this question.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-function

[Gnomon]

I'll say it again one more time and leave it at that. No... I won't say it again, I'll just copy my previous comment here:
The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect. — T Clark — T Clark

I don't want to sound obtuse, but "role of observation"*1 and "observer effect"*2 are different in what sense? Does, or does not, experimental observation (looking + perturbing) have an empirical effect on the object of the experiment? As I said, I don't think "just looking" can cause a change in matter. But a quantum-scale scientific observation involves more than just passively seeing what happens. So here, I'll try to answer my own question.

In the science of Ethology, animal behavior, the scientist is often -- but not always -- careful not to interfere with the activities of the animals they observe & record. Yet, in observing sub-atomic particles a drastic intervention is necessary in order to split the atom into its constituent parts. In such cases, the observation always follows perturbation.

That's why I conclude that The crux of the controversy seems to lie in the difference between "observation" and "perturbation". Hence, "looking" = no effect ; "perturbing" = observer effect. The Copenhagen controversy was apparently an over-reaction to the magical-mind-over-matter notion that "looking is causing". So, I agree with you that an atom-smasher observation (physics) is completely different from the erroneous magical "Observer Effect" (metaphysics) as imagined by critics.

However, it's possible that Bohr was making a physics assertion with metaphysical implications, as later expressed by Wheeler as "It from Bit". And we could debate that quip for decades.


*1. What is an observation in science? :
That's what it means to observe during a scientific experiment. It means to notice what's going on through your senses, but, more specifically, we can define observation as the act of knowing and recording something. This has to do with both the act of knowing what's going on, and then recording what happened.
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/observations/
Note -- In the case of subatomic observations, the human senses are augmented by artificial instruments of enormous physical power. So it's not a mere "observation" in the usual sense, but more like "looking" at a bug with a sledge hammer.

*2. Observer effect (physics) :
In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
Note : a metaphysical "Observer Effect" might be something like the spooky feeling of being watched by someone you can't see.
The psychic staring effect (sometimes called scopaesthesia) is a supposed phenomenon in which humans detect being stared at by extrasensory means.

OBSERVATION MADE WITH 13 tera-electronvolts OF ATOM-SMASHING POWER
(TeV = trillions of electron volts)
P82jaXuduPP9ThXdoj28SV-970-80.jpg.webp

[Gnomon]

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence. — universeness

Do you require empirical evidence for a "philosophical thesis*1"? Most philosophical assertions are supported by argumentation, that you can accept or reject for personal reasons, but can't disprove empirically --- only by authority.

A more complete argument was given above to TClark*2. There, I referenced an anthology by several scientists & philosophers presenting their expert opinions on the role of Mind/Information in the world. They offer some empirical results into evidence, but that does not carry the same weight as the "official" philosophical position (collective opinion) of modern Science, which at this moment is Materialism or Physicalism*3. But the certainty of that pre-quantum (classical) position seems to be crumbling under the weight of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (waves are not material), plus the spooky implications of the Observer Effect (see OP), and the failure of Science to find a fundamental Atom of matter (12 kinds of quarks so far).

My personal philosophical position departs from mainstream science, and if you are a believer in Scientism, then that lack of authority will determine your antithesis to my thesis. That's OK for a forum post, but you can't disprove it empirically.

PS___What scientific "claim" do you think I'm making? We may be fruitlessly arguing about completely different ideas.

*1. Gnomon to Schopenhauer1 :
"My philosophical thesis suggests that human Consciousness is a high evolutionary stage of causal Energy, combined with directional Enformy*1".

*2. Gnomon to TClark :
Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.

*3. Gnomon blog :
Pinter’s book also has a chapter discussing the Mind vs Matter debate in modern philosophy. Regarding the materialistic bias of modern Science and Philosophy, He says “the most widely shared opinion today is that mental phenomena are subject to physical law, and can be fully explained by the principles of physics”. Ironically, that presumption is more of a hopeful belief than a settled science.