3 ms·

What they're trying to do is address Copenhagen indeterminacy by assuming that the collapse of the wavefunction involves the ontologically similar definition of

What they're trying to do is address Copenhagen indeterminacy by assuming that the collapse of the wavefunction involves the ontologically similar definition of mental states. How does a mental state cause a collapse of the wavefunction at all? — This is the Quantum Measurement problem. [EDIT:] A better question, then, is when does a mental state cause a collapse, assuming that it can, or should be able to ontologically speaking. Does a materialist framework answer this question? Statistically speaking collapse of the wavefunction and quantum decoherence have the same signature, such that we never know when observation (mental states) causes collapse. To investigate consciousness as matter is to assert the ontological underpinnings of mental states as part of the internal causal nexus of the quantum system. I'm still collecting my thoughts on this subject here: https://gomockingbird.com/mockingbird/#xl6a68x/NLd6c9 https://gomockingbird.com/mockingbird/#xl6a68x/NLd6c9 The gist is that observation (including our tools used for observation, along with indexical subjective states) itself has to be treated as a quantum system, not as a classical system[0]. And matter can be described by quantum mechanics. [0]: http://quantum-ethics.org/ http://quantum-ethics.org/

AnimalMuppet 13y ago
A mental state doesn't cause the collapse of the wavefunction. (For example, in the Schroedinger's Cat setup, not only is the cat a perfectly good observer, but so is the detector.) Rather, the collapse of the wavefunction may cause a change in someone's mental state - or it may cause a change in nobody's mental state, if it is unobserved by any human. A quantum mechanical "observer" does not need to be a human, or even an animal.
- pknight 13y ago
  While we can have mechanical detectors in experiment setups that are part of these experiments, the fact is that there is no way to conclusively say that the presence of consciousness does not play a role in the collapse of the wave function. All experiments we do are done by conscious humans, there is always a conscious observer part of the experiment. That is kind of the conundrum for which after 100+ years there still is no definitive answer brought forward by science. You should also realize that you are positing something equally crazy by implying causation the other way around, meaning that the collapse of the wave function somehow can cause changes to the mental state of a conscious person at breathtakingly large distances.
- Torgo 13y ago
  I was under the impression that the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments demonstrated that mechanical detectors do not cause waveform collapse, the output of the detector still had to be observed by a human before that occurred.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  I think the question of whether or not mental states cause the collapse of the wavefunction is open to interpretation[0]. All observers consistute an ontologically distinct mental reality[1], which by postulation is describable in terms of matter, and so a fortiori describable by quantum mechanics. Generally speaking, this means that the notion of "subjectivity" at the fundamental level of this supposed (quantum) ontology is statistically insignificant. The idea here is indeed that for formal consistency, all entities, mental or otherwise, must be described in quantum mechanical terms such that the description of mental states structurally composes Hilbert space as Hilbertian subspaces. Essentially, as per my diagram mentioned earlier, mental states occupy a position in the table such that if all mental states are accounted for in the description of Hilbert space, a pre-theoretical "rhythm" of statistically described decoherence is established. Nowhere do I presuppose that mental states are necessarily human, but only that the structure of consciousness is amenable to the structure of material reality. Biological reality itself is an implementation, or supervenes on, a fundamental material reality. There is no ontological commitment here to hominids as such in that hominids alone experience consciousness. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse#... [1]: "The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things." E2P7. Ethica. Baruch Spinoza.

AnimalMuppet 13y ago

A mental state doesn't cause the collapse of the wavefunction. (For example, in the Schroedinger's Cat setup, not only is the cat a perfectly good observer, but so is the detector.) Rather, the collapse of the wavefunction may cause a change in someone's mental state - or it may cause a change in nobody's mental state, if it is unobserved by any human. A quantum mechanical "observer" does not need to be a human, or even an animal.

pknight 13y ago
While we can have mechanical detectors in experiment setups that are part of these experiments, the fact is that there is no way to conclusively say that the presence of consciousness does not play a role in the collapse of the wave function. All experiments we do are done by conscious humans, there is always a conscious observer part of the experiment. That is kind of the conundrum for which after 100+ years there still is no definitive answer brought forward by science. You should also realize that you are positing something equally crazy by implying causation the other way around, meaning that the collapse of the wave function somehow can cause changes to the mental state of a conscious person at breathtakingly large distances.
Torgo 13y ago
I was under the impression that the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiments demonstrated that mechanical detectors do not cause waveform collapse, the output of the detector still had to be observed by a human before that occurred.
thenerdfiles 13y ago
I think the question of whether or not mental states cause the collapse of the wavefunction is open to interpretation[0]. All observers consistute an ontologically distinct mental reality[1], which by postulation is describable in terms of matter, and so a fortiori describable by quantum mechanics. Generally speaking, this means that the notion of "subjectivity" at the fundamental level of this supposed (quantum) ontology is statistically insignificant. The idea here is indeed that for formal consistency, all entities, mental or otherwise, must be described in quantum mechanical terms such that the description of mental states structurally composes Hilbert space as Hilbertian subspaces. Essentially, as per my diagram mentioned earlier, mental states occupy a position in the table such that if all mental states are accounted for in the description of Hilbert space, a pre-theoretical "rhythm" of statistically described decoherence is established. Nowhere do I presuppose that mental states are necessarily human, but only that the structure of consciousness is amenable to the structure of material reality. Biological reality itself is an implementation, or supervenes on, a fundamental material reality. There is no ontological commitment here to hominids as such in that hominids alone experience consciousness. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse#... [1]: "The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things." E2P7. Ethica. Baruch Spinoza.