3 ms·

This all fell from Eugene Wigner's ideas, https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/wigners_friend/ https://www.informationphilosopher.com/so

by x0n 7y ago

This all fell from Eugene Wigner's ideas, https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/wigners_friend/ https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments... -- and he was convinced (quite rightly in my opinion) that "consciousness" causes wave function collapse. The only mistake there perhaps is thinking that consciousness is unique to humans (or any "living" thing.) Consciousness itself has traditionally been defined as a product of the brain; I think at some point we'll figure out that the formation of the brain is more likely the result of consciousness. This implies that everything is "conscious" (i.e. any quanta), and that consciousness is better defined as something that is capable of updating its state as a result of observation, rather than something uniquely human. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory - a more recent view on the nature of reality, moves in theses lines and is something I myself subscribe to. Ultimately I believe that reality is subjective from the ground up, that there is no such thing as objective reality. This is hard to comprehend since we are hard wired to state things objectively. It's a form of the "many worlds" view, except you must remember that the idea that there "are" many worlds is an objective statement, and in a universe that is entirely subjective from the observer's point of view, this utterance is not compatible with that view. It's a form of solipsism, yes, but a strict one nonetheless.

wavepruner 7y ago
Agreed, although I do believe there is an objective reality, but that it is impossible for any one consciousness to know it. So for practical human purposes it does not exist.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jackhack 7y ago
I don't think it solves anything, it just "moves the cheese" by referencing (requiring?) an undefinable "consciousness". In the spirit of Gestalt, let's break this down a bit further to try to find the fine line. A person is a conscious being. What if said person is asleep or intoxicated and observes the The Double-Slit Experiment? What if person is sedated ("unconscious")? What if there is damage to the optic center of the brain limiting perception? What about those who believe they can see but are quite blind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrom...) ? And what about those who can see but falsely believe they cannot?(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-blindness-is-in-the-mind/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-blindness-is...) Does this still impart consciousness upon the system? What if one's optic nerve is severed but the eye is otherwise functional? Is a dissected eyeball sufficient to cause wave collapse. If not, what additional elements of the mind are required? How much additional processing is enough? Must it be an advanced, self-aware mind with a complex eye as found in a mammal or a cephalopod? What about a single-celled organelle in plankton which can observe light and react? (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/plankton-s-eye-made-up-of-organelles-study-suggests-1.3136018 https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/plankton-s-eye-made-up-of...) I think you're proposing that this is sufficient. And what is special about just the visible spectrum of energy? What about radio waves? Does my Sony Walkman or a cat-whisker radio collapse the quanta? What about Infrared? etc? Do the leaves of a houseplant perform this act? What about physical vibration? Does a seismometer or accelerometer perform this quantum task? >>consciousness is better defined as something that is capable of updating its state as a result of observation This is extraordinarily broad. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle would then seem to illustrate that every subatomic particle is conscious. This seems a most unsatisfactory conclusion.
- x0n 7y ago
  I'll not address your points individually, but instead deal with your final notes. Yes, I believe that every quantum entity may observe and cause wave function collapse _in their subjective view of the universe_. It's easy to believe everything is objectively real whether observed or not because our local views - when compared - are highly correlated/decohered. If you find yourself talking about what it means to observe by breaking down how the eye works, then you're aligned with Wigner's thoughts on it. I am not; an observation in my world is akin to an interaction with. It does not mean "awareness" in the sense that a brain might acknowledge something detected by the eye.

by x0n 7y ago

wavepruner 7y ago

Agreed, although I do believe there is an objective reality, but that it is impossible for any one consciousness to know it. So for practical human purposes it does not exist.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jackhack 7y ago

I don't think it solves anything, it just "moves the cheese" by referencing (requiring?) an undefinable "consciousness". In the spirit of Gestalt, let's break this down a bit further to try to find the fine line. A person is a conscious being. What if said person is asleep or intoxicated and observes the The Double-Slit Experiment? What if person is sedated ("unconscious")? What if there is damage to the optic center of the brain limiting perception? What about those who believe they can see but are quite blind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton%E2%80%93Babinski_syndrom...) ? And what about those who can see but falsely believe they cannot?(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-blindness-is-in-the-mind/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-blindness-is...) Does this still impart consciousness upon the system? What if one's optic nerve is severed but the eye is otherwise functional? Is a dissected eyeball sufficient to cause wave collapse. If not, what additional elements of the mind are required? How much additional processing is enough? Must it be an advanced, self-aware mind with a complex eye as found in a mammal or a cephalopod? What about a single-celled organelle in plankton which can observe light and react? (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/plankton-s-eye-made-up-of-organelles-study-suggests-1.3136018 https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/plankton-s-eye-made-up-of...) I think you're proposing that this is sufficient. And what is special about just the visible spectrum of energy? What about radio waves? Does my Sony Walkman or a cat-whisker radio collapse the quanta? What about Infrared? etc? Do the leaves of a houseplant perform this act? What about physical vibration? Does a seismometer or accelerometer perform this quantum task? >>consciousness is better defined as something that is capable of updating its state as a result of observation This is extraordinarily broad. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle would then seem to illustrate that every subatomic particle is conscious. This seems a most unsatisfactory conclusion.

x0n 7y ago
I'll not address your points individually, but instead deal with your final notes. Yes, I believe that every quantum entity may observe and cause wave function collapse _in their subjective view of the universe_. It's easy to believe everything is objectively real whether observed or not because our local views - when compared - are highly correlated/decohered. If you find yourself talking about what it means to observe by breaking down how the eye works, then you're aligned with Wigner's thoughts on it. I am not; an observation in my world is akin to an interaction with. It does not mean "awareness" in the sense that a brain might acknowledge something detected by the eye.