4 ms·

You need to be careful with this line of reasoning if you mean what I think you mean. I've found that when speaking with laypeople about quantum decoherence, a

You need to be careful with this line of reasoning if you mean what I think you mean. I've found that when speaking with laypeople about quantum decoherence, a very common misconception comes from the use of the word 'observer' (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ ). If you say "A quantum system can be in a superposition until its wave function is collapsed when it's observed.", a layperson can easily interpret that to mean that a sentient being needs to look at and take note of the system for it to count as being observed, when in fact all that is required is that an external particle interact with the system and carry away some information (energy). There's nothing special about humans (and their ability to observe) in this context.

calinet6 12y ago
Yes. Observer in my post above specifically refers to a sentient being; observer in quantum computing specifically does not. However given the context, the two are (very) roughly similar. One could (again, very roughly) think of the universe as a giant quantum computer solving for the variables that lead to sentience. The observers are inside the system in that case, but it's the same idea: create every possible state and select for the solution that solves the problem. Only an analogy, of course.