Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?

[davidm]

Do you?

Is that directed to me? Do I what?

You do realize that many worlds and collapse are mutually exclusive? Yes or no? You do realize that if you dismiss both you then dismiss the most successful theory ever mooted? Yes or no?

[henry quirk]

There's one universe.

Cats in the universe, if dead, are dead.

Case closed, 'nuff said, that's all she wrote.

[davidm]

There's one universe.

Cats in the universe, if dead, are dead.

Case closed, 'nuff said, that's all she wrote.

Let's ask again, as we focus in how you don't know shit.

You called both many worlds, and quantum collapse, "hooey."

Do you, or do not, understand how MW and collapse are mutually exclusive?

Do you, or do you not, understand that these are the only two metatheories of QM? That is, if you reject both, you reject QM?

Do you, or do you not, understand these things?

I'm betting that, like most people here, you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. But you love to hear the sound of your own voice.

[henry quirk]

"You called both many worlds, and quantum collapse, "hooey.""

No, I called one bunkum, and the other hooey.

Keep up, Dave.

[davidm]

"You called both many worlds, and quantum collapse, "hooey.""

No, I called one bunkum, and the other hooey.

Keep up, Dave.

Actually, it's buncombe, not "bunkum," but that's OK. We know you're not too bright.

So MW is "bunkum" [sic] and wavefunction collapse is "hooey"? So -- again -- you are saying the most successful theory ever mooted is false?

Have you grasped the fact yet that MW and collapse are mutually exclusive?

[seeds]

My question is have you ever tried to visualize the absurdity of every micro and macro detail of a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets (including a copy of you and every other living thing on this planet), instantly coming into existence...

(basically “out of nowhere” and fully-formed)

...just to accommodate an ever-so-slight variance of where a single photon may have landed on a phosphorescent screen in an alternate universe?

That isn't how it works. See here.

There is absolutely nothing in that article that makes the Many Worlds Interpretation any less ridiculous.

Here is an excerpt from the article where it speaks of how “...different versions of you see each of the different versions of the particle...” (underline/bolding mine):

Although the details change, the total amount of energy stays constant from all perspectives. Both from inside the system (left) where all the energy is concentrated on one of the possible paths, as well as when seen from outside (right) in which the particle and its associated energy can be distributed among the different paths.

If you’re “caught up” with the particle in question, maybe by observing it / interacting with it, you find that it only takes one path (More accurately, each of the different versions of you see each of the different versions of the particle taking one path). You’ll see the particle start out, “choose” between the upper and lower paths (a random choice), and continue on. From your perspective the total energy never changes. You may have a sneaking suspicion that there are other quantum worlds, but you never (none of your versions ever) actually see a problem. To have a problem you’d need to be able to see more than one of the particle’s “worlds”.

davidm, in your push-back of my complaints, are you insinuating that the Many Worlds Interpretation does not imply that a version of you in one world could destroy the earth’s moon while the earth’s moon in the world of another version of you would be unaffected?

If not, then therein lies the MWI’s suggestion that completely separate versions of you (along with everything we understand this particular universe to be) seem to be “springing into existence” (duplicated), regardless of a theory concerning the conservation of the overall energy of the alleged Multiverse.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

______

(Continued from prior post)

In regards to the particular issue of the conservation of energy being violated in the process of duplicating a universe, according to Wiki, the MWI response to that is:

There are two responses to this objection. First, the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved within each universe. Hence, even if "new matter" were being generated to create new universes, this would not violate conservation of energy. Second, conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved.

So from that perspective, the article you cited makes some sense.

Again, according to Wiki:

There is a wide range of claims that are considered "many-worlds" interpretations. It was often claimed by those who do not believe in MWI that Everett himself was not entirely clear as to what he believed; however, MWI adherents (such as Dewitt, Tegmark, Deutsch and others) believe they fully understand Everett's meaning as implying the literal existence of the other worlds. Additionally, recent biographical sources make it clear that Everett believed in the literal reality of the other quantum worlds. Everett's son reported that Hugh Everett "never wavered in his belief over his many-worlds theory". Also Everett was reported to believe "his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality.

And finally, to quote myself from an alternate forum:

The way I see it, Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the embodiment of “materialism” to the ultimate degree.

It not only ignores the amazing phenomenon of “life,” but also coldly and systematically reduces an individual human being down to something with no more purpose or relevance than a single electron or a photon of light.

According to Everett, your singularly unique and living consciousness is nothing more than an artifact inherent in the quantum wave that can be replicated in its entirety (in infinite copies), faster than you can duplicate your résumé at Kinkos.

From a purely philosophical analysis of the plausibility of such a blatantly materialistic interpretation of reality, I obviously disagree with Everett's notions.

On the one hand I realize that the “consciousness causes the collapse of the wavefunction” theory is a sketchy proposition and could very well be wrong.

However, on the other hand, I cannot help but think that anyone who actually believes that a logical alternative to the collapse problem is a theory that calls for the manifestation of infinite copies of oneself, has lost all contact with reason and rationality.
_______

[henry quirk]

"Actually, it's buncombe, not "bunkum,""

Actually bunkum is a perfectly acceptable variant, Dave.

I prefer 'bunkum' cuz 'buncombe' looks like sumthin' a hairdresser would use.


To recap: one world with a dead cat in it. Not multiple worlds, not a cat of 'uncertain' status.

[henry quirk]

"lost all contact with reason and rationality"

Well, Dave did admit, in another thread, he has a little problem with the bottle, so...*shrug*

[davidm]

There is absolutely nothing in that article that makes the Many Worlds Interpretation any less ridiculous.

Except that it refutes what you claimed to be your main objection -- that somehow whole new universes come into existence at every quantum junction. This "splitting" is false. As Tegmark writes:

• What Everett does NOT postulate:
At certain magic instances, the the world undergoes
some sort of metaphysical “split” into two branches
that subsequently never interact.

\

davidm, in your push-back of my complaints, are you insinuating that the Many Worlds Interpretation does not imply that a version of you in one world could destroy the earth’s moon while the earth’s moon in the world of another version of you would be unaffected?

No idea what the above means. How can I destroy the moon? With billions of nuclear weapons maybe?

[davidm]

"lost all contact with reason and rationality"

Well, Dave did admit, in another thread, he has a little problem with the bottle, so...*shrug*

Where did I "admit" that?

Also, you can't answer the questions, can you?

Do you, or do you not, understand that Many Worlds and wavefunction collapse, both of which you denied, are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive meta-theories of QM?

You just don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's obvious.

[davidm]

And finally, to quote myself from an alternate forum:

The way I see it, Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the embodiment of “materialism” to the ultimate degree.

It not only ignores the amazing phenomenon of “life,” but also coldly and systematically reduces an individual human being down to something with no more purpose or relevance than a single electron or a photon of light.

According to Everett, your singularly unique and living consciousness is nothing more than an artifact inherent in the quantum wave that can be replicated in its entirety (in infinite copies), faster than you can duplicate your résumé at Kinkos.

From a purely philosophical analysis of the plausibility of such a blatantly materialistic interpretation of reality, I obviously disagree with Everett's notions.

'

Even assuming that any of the above is right (for example, how does MW ignore "the amazing phenomenon of 'life'"? What in the world does that even mean?) the empty and fallacious appeal to consequences is noted.

[davidm]

"lost all contact with reason and rationality"

Well, Dave did admit, in another thread, he has a little problem with the bottle, so...*shrug*

Are you prepared to justify this claim, asshole?

We have now two examples of people here falsely claiming that I said something, which I did not say. The first was Immanuel Can actually putting false quotes into my mouth.

Do moderators do anything here?

[thedoc]

*shrug*

Translation - "who cares". Quote Henry,

[KJM]

I assume you believe the universe existed before conscious beings evolved on one planet, but that doesn't mean the material world didn't follow the laws of physics. [...] Which observer determines reality when we both observe?

Please see "Objection 2" just above the "new ripple effect" image, as well as the "response to objection 2" in the "responses to objections" section.

What is consciousness

Please see the first two paragraphs under the Responses To The Objections section, as well as the IIT entry that is linked to there.

and what is the mechanism which allows it to affect the physical world?

The mechanism is collapse! Perhaps you're asking for some mathematical formula that describes the mechanism, which goes beyond the scope of Philosophy Now. For that, see here.

That's why I am criticizing it.

Criticizing a text requires engaging with the text.
Best wishes.