4 ms·

What if we don't have a human observe? What if all data is only ever interpreted by canines and bovines (dogs and cows)? Will the wave function still collapse?

What if we don't have a human observe? What if all data is only ever interpreted by canines and bovines (dogs and cows)? Will the wave function still collapse? How would you isolate an experiment from the potentially-wave-function-collapsing influence of human consciousness, and yet still produce a usable contribution to science?

jules 11y ago
Wave function collapse is not a global thing. It can collapse for one observer but not for another, if two observers are completely isolated. So even if some other human observes it, then the wave function does not necessarily collapse for you. So whether the observer is a human or a cat or a computer or even a rock does not matter.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I'm not sure why this was down voted - it's a perfectly valid question. There are serious philosophical issues with the idea of an observer, conscious or otherwise, as a useful concept. Entanglement isn't really the issue, because it doesn't solve the problem. What does it mean to be entangled with a complex state in a state of some form of consciousness? How much consciousness is needed to make a difference? Why should adult human consciousness be the benchmark, and not semi-consciousness, or distraction, or unconsciousness, or toddler-level pre-verbal awareness, or jellyfish consciousness, or LSD-induced hallucination? If consciousness is necessary, why doesn't reality stop working when we fall asleep? Why do plants live in a consistent physical reality even though they don't know what a Hamiltonian is? If physics had code smells, this idea of consciousness might not pass the sniff test. Of course it's possible it's still the right answer. But if it is, it's interesting there's no useful explanation of anything in the concept yet. Nor is there any formalism to support it. (Obviously there's a formalism for wave function collapse. But so far as I know, there's nothing in the math that says "And these variables are where the observer works his/her/its magic.") Really it's just something that might be true, maybe, because we have no idea what's going on and it's as good a guess as any other.
deciplex 11y ago
There is nothing special about human brains, whether they are conscious or not. Think of "observation" in this sense as "making your brain part of the experiment". The only way for your brain to know the results of the experiment is for photons to go in different directions depending on the result of the experiment (well, there are other ways, but usually it's by seeing). The photon is in the state it's in because of the result, which means that, after that the photon enters your eye, your brain is also in the state it's in because of the result. But you could say the same of a dog brain, or a cow brain, or PC with a webcam for that matter. "Consciousness" has nothing to do with it.
sebastianconcpt 11y ago
I agree that this is a profound and perfectly valid question. Sir Roger Penrose said many times that our current models of Physics are not including Consciousness and that is a big issue. He and Hameroff are working in an interesting line of research that is trying heretically to do just that, model Consciousness pushing the current statu quo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR Here is a interview of Hameroff talking about why Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon (as the experiments with paramesiums shows) and is far more than computation: http://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM http://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM

jules 11y ago

Wave function collapse is not a global thing. It can collapse for one observer but not for another, if two observers are completely isolated. So even if some other human observes it, then the wave function does not necessarily collapse for you. So whether the observer is a human or a cat or a computer or even a rock does not matter.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I'm not sure why this was down voted - it's a perfectly valid question. There are serious philosophical issues with the idea of an observer, conscious or otherwise, as a useful concept. Entanglement isn't really the issue, because it doesn't solve the problem. What does it mean to be entangled with a complex state in a state of some form of consciousness? How much consciousness is needed to make a difference? Why should adult human consciousness be the benchmark, and not semi-consciousness, or distraction, or unconsciousness, or toddler-level pre-verbal awareness, or jellyfish consciousness, or LSD-induced hallucination? If consciousness is necessary, why doesn't reality stop working when we fall asleep? Why do plants live in a consistent physical reality even though they don't know what a Hamiltonian is? If physics had code smells, this idea of consciousness might not pass the sniff test. Of course it's possible it's still the right answer. But if it is, it's interesting there's no useful explanation of anything in the concept yet. Nor is there any formalism to support it. (Obviously there's a formalism for wave function collapse. But so far as I know, there's nothing in the math that says "And these variables are where the observer works his/her/its magic.") Really it's just something that might be true, maybe, because we have no idea what's going on and it's as good a guess as any other.

deciplex 11y ago

There is nothing special about human brains, whether they are conscious or not. Think of "observation" in this sense as "making your brain part of the experiment". The only way for your brain to know the results of the experiment is for photons to go in different directions depending on the result of the experiment (well, there are other ways, but usually it's by seeing). The photon is in the state it's in because of the result, which means that, after that the photon enters your eye, your brain is also in the state it's in because of the result. But you could say the same of a dog brain, or a cow brain, or PC with a webcam for that matter. "Consciousness" has nothing to do with it.

sebastianconcpt 11y ago

I agree that this is a profound and perfectly valid question. Sir Roger Penrose said many times that our current models of Physics are not including Consciousness and that is a big issue. He and Hameroff are working in an interesting line of research that is trying heretically to do just that, model Consciousness pushing the current statu quo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR Here is a interview of Hameroff talking about why Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon (as the experiments with paramesiums shows) and is far more than computation: http://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM http://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM