-3
$\begingroup$

Let's start by defining consciousness collapse interpretation as the claim that, when we a person performs a measurement of a quantum system, a definite outcome is realised only when the person witnesses the outcome of the experiment in their experience of the world.

Now, there are two arguments which seem to support this claim :

1. The Schrodinger equation : We suppose that the measurement device itself is a system of particles that obey quantum mechanics. Then a consequence of the Schrodinger equation is that the measurement device goes into a superposition after the measurement. Then if we model the experimenter's brain as a quantum system, it subsequently also goes into a superposition upon interaction with the previous system. And lastly, the experimenter gets a subjective experience in which a definite outcome is observed, which is something we empirically know from our experience.

This argument seems to imply that a definite outcome is obtained at the moment of subjective experience.

Remark This argument leads to two interpretations : Relational Collapse and Many Worlds, depending on whether or not we believe that other outcomes are also realised in other worlds.

I don't want counter-arguments that distinguish between Many Worlds and Relational Interpretation. I only need counter-arguments against the above description in point 1., that is common to both Relational-Interpretation and Many Worlds.

2. The time- direction of quantisation: To quantise a field theory, we need to pick spacetime foliations or choose a time direction. This is true even for quantum Euclidean field theories, in which there is no distinction between space and time at the classical level, but there needs to be a distinguished time direction in the quantum theory. This is the direction in which the wavefunction undergoes unitary evolution.

Now, from empirical evidence, we know that the direction of unitary evolution that quantisation picks is the same as the direction in which we experience time in our subjective experience. This seems to give circumstantial evidence about a link between quantum mechanics and consciousness.

What are the experimental facts/logical arguments that help eliminate these arguments about a link between quantum mechanics and subjective experience?

P.S. I need experimental facts/logical arguments against the claim that, from the perspective of a human experimenter, the collapse happens at the moment of experience. I don't want arguments against the claim that only human experience can trigger collapse, as there are interpretations (MWI/Relational) in which this is a special instance of more general notions of collapse.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ 'This seems to give circumstantial evidence ' Correlation is not causation. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Oct 12 at 9:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ 'a definite outcome is realised only when the person witnesses the outcome of the experiment' This argument is perfectly circular, extraordinarly superficial and untestable. For how could you know what came out of the experiments that no conscious being observed? Is it enough to just think about these or is there an unobserved part of the universe still in a precollapse state? Oops there it goes. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Oct 12 at 9:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Does an extragalactic amoebe count as a conscient observer? It is this kind of question that pops up in such a debate. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Oct 12 at 10:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Schrödinger equation does not support the concept of collapse. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Oct 12 at 10:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RyderRude 'I want experimental facts/logical arguments against arguments 1 in general' Argument 1 is simply not valid. Our brain does not 'go into superposition'. It is not a coherent system. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Oct 12 at 20:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

The obvious answer is that the Universe evolved according to the laws of physics long before any humans were around to influence interactions between its constituent parts by observing their outcomes.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I need experimental facts/logical arguments against the claim that, from the perspective of a human experimenter, the collapse happens at the moment of experience. I don't want arguments against the claim that only human experience can trigger collapse, as there are interpretations (MWI/Relational) in which this is a special instance of more general notions of collapse. $\endgroup$
    – Ryder Rude
    Commented Oct 12 at 9:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well think for two minutes! $\endgroup$
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Oct 12 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ Imagine an experiment the result of which either triggers an explosion in chile or in Birkenhead. Are you saying neither explosion happens until some physicist is aware of the result??? $\endgroup$
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Oct 12 at 9:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, I'm not advocating that this is true. I have other arguments that oppose this. I just just need to disprove for these two arguments which support it. $\endgroup$
    – Ryder Rude
    Commented Oct 12 at 9:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The arguments are nonsense. Why do you need evidence to refute them? The direction of time is ‘picked out’ by my watch, the movement of a glacier, a tv program and every other physical process we know of, so is that circumstantial evidence for them all being linked linked to consciousness? $\endgroup$
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Oct 12 at 10:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.