Does consciousness cause Wave-Function collapse?

[rkastner]

That's easy to understand from the minimal statistical interpretation. A baseball is well described as a classical system, because you are only interested in very coarse-grained observables and not on the microscopic details. You don't follow the quantum state of ##\mathcal{O}(10^{24})## molecules in detail, because this is not possible in practice and fortunately far from being necessary to understand the "relevant" "classical" degrees of freedom (the center of mass/momentum motion and the rotation if you are satisfied with the "rigid-body approximation"). For those very rough effective degrees of freedom it is enough to consider the expectectation values which follow with high accuracy the classical description in terms of Newtonian mechanics.

Thanks. But does it account for the separation of degrees of freedom of the universe into recognizable objects such as baseballs, with recognizable centers-of-mass? Or does it take distinguishable (i.e. non quantum-correlated) objects as primitive?

 

[Rajkovic]

I don't even know why Craig is saying woo woo here. There is no need of conscious observers in quantum mechanics. Or are you trying to prove that God exist and is observing the Universe? lol

 

[craigi]

I don't even know why Craig is saying woo woo here. There is no need of conscious observers in quantum mechanics. And perception is not reality.

I'm not. I don't believe that there any any mystical properties to quantum mechanics. I see little merit in the consciousness causes collpase interpretations. If you read my posts again, that should be clear.

The problem that I see here, is that if you become dogmatic about your world view, just the word 'consciousness' can panic you, even if it used in a way that is completely correct and well accepted.

Remember that as scientists, we oppose dogma, that does not mean that we replace one dogma with another of own.

There is no need of conscious observers in quantum mechanics

It is correct, that we can interpret QM without consciousness, but it's also true that we can interpret QM in way where consciousness plays an integral role.

We should be clear about our goal when choosing an interpretation. If we're just worried that we'll arrive at a conclusion that upsets us, then the problem has nothing to do with physics anymore.

 

[carllooper]

We can interpret "consciousness" as another word for an observation, in the sense that I might say, when I observe an apple on the table, that I'm conscious of that apple on the table. And in this way we can neutralise any metaphysical connotations associated with the term "consciousness". Indeed we can speak of machine consciousness as another way to contain the term.

We're then back on more firmer ground and asking whether whatever-we-call-it plays a role in wave function collapse. And of course, whether there is such a thing as wave function collapse.

By convention, an observation (or consciousness) is an effect, rather than a cause. I see a shimmer on the horizon as an effect of refraction of light in hot air, or as a function of an oasis in which the light is reflecting off ripples in the water, neither of which is a function of me in particular seeing it (by convention), but as a function of it (oasis or hot air) being there regardless.

So it's very difficult to reverse this and say that my observation plays some sort of necessary role in what is there (be it oasis or hot air).

Convention dictates that we phrase it the other way.

To speak of an observer determining wave function collapse is similar to the suggestion that a voter determines the outcome of an election. Or rather: that one could determine the outcome of an election from an individual vote.

Voters play a role. They participate in the election. But it's not their particular vote, on it's own, that determines the outcome of the election. It is their vote and everyone else's vote that determines the outcome (and determines that their vote can not do anything else but conform to the probability of their vote, given the election results). But more importantly, the outcome of an election is a representation of a more important reality: the will of the people, rather than the will of any particular person, or despot.

In a sense, it is this reality (the will of the people), which determines everyone's individual vote. The election (and one's own particular participation in it) is just a way of making that reality visible. By convention we assume that the reality is there whether an election is held or not. There's nothing to be lost by such an assumption. It works.

But we also run into trouble if we try to determine a mechanism for this - how an individual vote can be a function of the election (or rather: a function of what an election represents). We speak of wave function collapse in the sense that the election result is not to be found in any individual vote. The election result "collapses" (so to speak) when we try to isolate it any individual vote. This collapse is not a mechanism as such - but a way of speaking.

C

 

[atyy]

We can interpret "consciousness" as another word for an observation, in the sense that I might say, when I observe an apple on the table, that I'm conscious of that apple on the table. And in this way we can neutralise any metaphysical connotations associated with the term "consciousness". Indeed we can speak of machine consciousness as another way to contain the term.

We're then back on more firmer ground and asking whether whatever-we-call-it plays a role in wave function collapse. And of course, whether there is such a thing as wave function collapse.

By convention, an observation (or consciousness) is an effect, rather than a cause. I see a shimmer on the horizon as an effect of refraction of light in hot air, or as a function of an oasis in which the light is reflecting off ripples in the water, neither of which is a function of me in particular seeing it (by convention), but as a function of it (oasis or hot air) being there regardless.

But if the measurement outcome is not observed, then the wave function does not necessarily collapse (although there is nothing wrong with collapsing it then, but one could just use decoherence without collapse).

 

[bhobba]

Simply put, the anthropic principle is the requirement that a conscious observer must be present for an observation of the physical universe to be made.

First I have heard of that one. But if that's it then its simply a load of un-testable philosophical waffle - but I don't think its what is meant by it. Since conscious observers exist in our universe there is no way to test if observations can't be made in a universe where they don't exist. But none of our physical theories demand that - QM, string theory, classical mechanics - none.

My understanding of it is the following definition I dug up - its 'the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.'

It says nothing about a conscious observer being present for an observation to be made.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

I think the whole thing is mostly a problem of terminology.

Indeed.

Many threads have alluded to the confusion the word observation in QM engenders. It historical so its very hard to get rid of.

In QM loosely speaking it means when some kind of mark is left here in the macro world - but that is loose. Technically it when decoherence has occurred.

Thanks
Bill

 

[craigi]

We can interpret "consciousness" as another word for an observation, in the sense that I might say, when I observe an apple on the table, that I'm conscious of that apple on the table. And in this way we can neutralise any metaphysical connotations associated with the term "consciousness". Indeed we can speak of machine consciousness as another way to contain the term.

We're then back on more firmer ground and asking whether whatever-we-call-it plays a role in wave function collapse. And of course, whether there is such a thing as wave function collapse.

By convention, an observation (or consciousness) is an effect, rather than a cause. I see a shimmer on the horizon as an effect of refraction of light in hot air, or as a function of an oasis in which the light is reflecting off ripples in the water, neither of which is a function of me in particular seeing it (by convention), but as a function of it (oasis or hot air) being there regardless.

So it's very difficult to reverse this and say that my observation plays some sort of necessary role in what is there (be it oasis or hot air).

Convention dictates that we phrase it the other way.

To speak of an observer determining wave function collapse is similar to the suggestion that a voter determines the outcome of an election. Or rather: that one could determine the outcome of an election from an individual vote.

Voters play a role. They participate in the election. But it's not their particular vote, on it's own, that determines the outcome of the election. It is their vote and everyone else's vote that determines the outcome (and determines that their vote can not do anything else but conform to the probability of their vote, given the election results). But more importantly, the outcome of an election is a representation of a more important reality: the will of the people, rather than the will of any particular person, or despot.

In a sense, it is this reality (the will of the people), which determines everyone's individual vote. The election (and one's own particular participation in it) is just a way of making that reality visible. By convention we assume that the reality is there whether an election is held or not. There's nothing to be lost by such an assumption. It works.

But we also run into trouble if we try to determine a mechanism for this - how an individual vote can be a function of the election (or rather: a function of what an election represents). We speak of wave function collapse in the sense that the election result is not to be found in any individual vote. The election result "collapses" (so to speak) when we try to isolate it any individual vote. This collapse is not a mechanism as such - but a way of speaking.

C

Tegmark approaches a formal definition of an observer here.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

I think everyone in this thread should read it. He acknowledges the traditional resistance to considering consciousness amongst physicists and discusses why this important in physics and specifically quantum mechanics. It might not change your world view, but it will at least, demonstrate the challenges to an entrenched position.

Abstract:
We examine the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter, "perceptronium", with distinctive information processing abilities. We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: the information, integration, independence, dynamics and utility principles. If such principles can identify conscious entities, then they can help solve the quantum factorization problem: why do conscious observers like us perceive the particular Hilbert space factorization corresponding to classical space (rather than Fourier space, say), and more generally, why do we perceive the world around us as a dynamic hierarchy of objects that are strongly integrated and relatively independent? Tensor factorization of matrices is found to play a central role, and our technical results include a theorem about Hamiltonian separability (defined using Hilbert-Schmidt superoperators) being maximized in the energy eigenbasis. Our approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's integrated information framework for neural-network-based consciousness to arbitrary quantum systems, and we find interesting links to error-correcting codes, condensed matter criticality, and the Quantum Darwinism program, as well as an interesting connection between the emergence of consciousness and the emergence of time.

 

[julcab12]

MWI

Great question. I address this in specific terms in my new book. The interaction that leads to collapse is one in which there is a response from an absorber. There are other interactions (virtual particle exchanges) that do not lead to collapse. Nowhere in this account does one need to talk about an 'observer,' although observers can participate in collapsing interactions by being composed of absorbers themselves. It's just that collapse is not limited to an 'observer'.

Virtual particles are not observables -- construction on the internal part of the feyman diagram so i don't know if it is considered an interaction. But it make sense that observer can have a misleading role in the collapse. Any act on the system whether natural, physical or conscious(whatever that means) can have an effect. It just happen we're here to observed it in our own perspective. Or am i missing something?

 

[Dale]

And with that we will consider this horse well and truly dead and stop beating it.