Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 15 February 2008

Physics Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Skepticism NA‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Philosophy: Mind Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of mind

Archives

Archive 1 Nov 2005 - Oct 2007

Objective proof of Consciousness Causes Collapse?

Disclaimer: I am not advocating a change to the article at this time. Also, though I am admittedly intrigued by some aspects of the Eastern religions, I am a generally non-spiritual atheist.

I have recently asked a question on the double slit experiment page about a variation of the experiment (as described by an unnamed presumed-professor here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OWQildwjKQ I'm working on getting a print source.) It goes like this:

Photons are sent through two slits as described in the above article, and produce the wave interference pattern as described. Detectors for each slot are installed, and the pattern changes to the one-or-the-other pattern (also as described in the above article.) Now, they turn off the data-gathering aspect of the detectors (i.e. no one can see the results) BUT THEY LEAVE THE DETECTORS THEMSELVES ON. From the photon's point of view, absolutely nothing has changed. The detectors are functioning exactly as they did when data was being collected.

And yet the behavior of the photons reverts back to the way it was when there were no detectors--the wave interference pattern re-emerges.

Now, if I accept that this experiment has taken place as stated (I have yet to find a perfectly clear, reputable source, but I have seen multiple lesser sources), I just have to ask the question:

Is this not at least tentative proof that consciousness has something to do with it? The detectors themselves "knew" which path the photon took, yet that wasn't enough to cause the wave function to collapse. If you say that there is no fundamental difference between various pieces of matter, then the then data *was* collected--the detectors themselves did "know" the path of the photon, but to us (the humans who like to think of ourselves as different and special from the non-conscious matter in the universe)... to us it was unreadable and irretrievable data, and such data didn't have an effect. Only when data was collected with the possibility of conscious human interception and interpretation was the photon's behavior altered.

...Right? Am I missing something here? How is this NOT an experiment that supports this (admittedly far-out and quasi-mystical) idea of consciousness-causes-collapse? What other mechanism has been proposed for the seemingly arbitrary collapse of waveforms whenever there's a human around to observe it, and arbitrary lack of collapse when there isn't?

Again, let me stress my lack of bias here. I am not using this experiment to prop up my own philosophical views. Hell, I don't even really believe in free will (but I must admit, this alleged experiment has me re-evaluating a lot of my beliefs.)

I simply can't see any other way to interpret it. Copenhagen, many-worlds, decoherence... I have read all of these interpretations (admittedly not in depth) and I can find no explanation for the conscious-observer aspect of this phenomena. When the detectors themselves were the only things "perceiving", the waveform remained intact. When we looked through the "eyes" of the detectors, the waveform collapsed... --Lode Runner 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THe guys name is Ross Rhodes and he appears not to have a science qualification.

I am not at all sure he is accurately relating a real experiment.

Even so: for something to be available to consciousness it first has to macroscopic and reasonably permanent. Why shouldn't size and permanence (thermodynamic irreversablity) be important? 1Z 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch about the guy not being a scientist. This is not the only place I've heard this experiment described (I first heard it mentioned offhand in a forum somewhere, but it really caught my attention when Scott Adams mentioned it in his book), but it's entirely possible it's an urban legend. If so, I think it needs to be explicitly debunked--on this page, on The Dilbert Future page, and the double slit experiment as well. Haven't had a chance to do more than 20 minutes of Googling so far.

As for size and permanence, I have no idea why the universe should be the way it is; I merely say that if the experiment indeed took place as I have described, I can find no way of explaining it away without making consciousness "special". The skeptic and atheist in me balks at that, but I must admit the philosopher in me finds it rather awesome. Besides, quantum mechanics has already well established that size does matter (again, I can't say why this should or should not be so), and I don't consider thermodynamics to be much more than a very good--yet still merely statistical--rule of thumb. It's not a fundamental rule of the universe. (Entropy CAN decrease, even on a universe-wide scale--it's simply vanishingly improbable.) --Lode Runner 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"for something to be available to consciousness it first has to macroscopic" - Can't people detect single photons under some conditions? Wanderer57 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

'I merely say that if the experiment indeed took place as I have described, I can find no way of explaining it away without making consciousness "special"'.

I can find tow ways; 1) size collapses the WF. 2) permanence collapses the WF.

These are already used in some interpretations, BTW. 1Z 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're living in a simulation then observation (consciousness) collapsing the wave function makes perfect sense from a system resource perspective. Otherwise why would the universe care if something is observing or measuring it? Lordvolton 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If we were living in a simulation, why would it include distant galaxies? 1Z 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't be a very good simulation without it? Distant galaxies are as computationally intensive as the subatomic particles in your body. They don't really need to exist so long as when you look into the microscope or telescope they appear. And, of course, if you take a trip the moon it needs to be rendered (for lack of a better term) too. For the record, the visible universe does have a limit in the same way that the invisible universe seems to have an arbitrary limit before a black hole appears, which could be an elegant design decision for those folks who refuse to get lost in a simulated world and constantly attempt to figure out how and why they got there. People just like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordvolton (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lordvolton, you seem to be the only one to truly grasp the argument, the significance, and the repercussions of the possibility of CCC. Nhall0608 22:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Creators Choice as to what we see when we look to the stars. It also helps explain the cosmic radiation needed to explain many weather phenomena. Also, the programmer of the simulation may have decided to put other conscious beings elsewhere. User:nhall0608:nhall0608

1Z: Ok, I see what you're getting at now. However, the slot-specific photon detectors are macroscopic and yet they were not sufficient to collapse the waveform UNLESS there was the possibility of a human viewing their report... or so this experiment/urban legend claims. That was the entire point of me bringing it up--the only thing that appears to separate human observers from the detectors is that nebulous quality "consciousness."

Not entirely sure I understand your permanence argument--I'm assuming you're saying that quantum events happen simultaneously if and only if there can be no permanent record of it. Interesting theory, if that's what you're getting at, but I'll have to ponder it some more... Regardless, I will tentatively say that to my mind "permanence" and "records" are almost as nebulous concepts as "consciousness", and repeat my objection about thermodynamics being a statistical consequence, not a fundamental law. --Lode Runner 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

if collapse is a physical process it depends on physical parameters. They don't necessarily have to make any epistemic sense, it might just be some kind of brute fact. Irreversability is much better understood than consciousness (in fact, just about everything is). I do not see what the point

about it as being merely statistical. Some interpretations are happy to accept that measurement/collapse is not fundamental. 1Z 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You appeared to be invoking the "laws" of thermodynamics as a justification; I was merely denying that such laws have the fundamental importance that so many people seem to place in them.

Also, it's worth noting that in Scott Adams' version of the experiment (but not the video's version--they do differ slightly) the data is recorded, then immediately and automatically erased before any attempt at reading can be made. Not sure if that has any effect on your argument or not (and yes, we really do need the details on this alleged experiment) but it bears mentioning--in Adam's version, the erasure doesn't take place until after the photon has impacted the photosensitive material. Unfortunately, if this experiment IS just an urban myth, it's going to be hard for a mere Google-equipped mortal like myself to prove it.

Do you agree, though, that if this experiment took place as I've outlined, size is no longer a factor in waveform collapse? Just want to make sure we're on the same page here. It's entirely possible I'm harboring some fatal misunderstandings.--Lode Runner 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is still not clear why it is necessary for some physical law or process invoked as an alternative to consc. in bringing about collapse would need to be fundamental.

Try checking out quantum eraser. It is not clear why you don't try reading what physicists have to say on the subject, rather than cartoonists and lawyers.

"size is no longer a factor in waveform collapse?" No, I have no idea why you would think that follows.1Z 13:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's "necessary", and I'm not dismissing your permanence-causes-collapse interpretation. I am not entirely swayed by it, but I understand where you're coming from and I freely admit my own lack of expertise in the subject. My thermodynamic comments stem from years of hearing people claim that XYZ is false (e.g. evolution) because it "violates the LAWS of thermodynamics." I was merely denying the existence of such fundamental laws. I'm sorry for the preemptive strike (since I realize you didn't explicitly claim this), and sorry you got the impression that I was dismissing you outright. I am far from making any definitive statement about permanence-causes-collapse, and am at the moment considering what the quantum eraser (especially the delayed variant) implies.

To be fair, it appears as though enough sources (pseudoscientific as they may be) have suggested CCC that it merited its own article. If the mainstream view was that the quantum eraser implied permanence causes collapse (and I'm not entirely convinced that it does), why don't we have such an article yet? Why doesn't irreversibility mention quantum phenomena? Is the mainstream view simply to avoid or treat as irrelevant/unanswerable the question of the "cause" of waveform collapse? (I'm not being derogatory; this is a serious question.)

What I do not understand is your size-causes-collapse explanation. In the experiment I have described, the humans watching the detectors are macroscopic. The detectors, while being unwatched and disconnected from the recorders, are still macroscopic. Why, then, do you attribute the difference in behavior between these two observers to size?

Re: your suggestion that I ignore "cartoonists and lawyers"--I think it's extremely important to decide whether or not this experiment took place as they described. If it didn't, then this is an urban legend that should be explicitly denied (they aren't the only two sources I've heard it from, but they are the only ones I can find offhand with names.) If it did, I want to know what mainstream scientists believe it implies and, specifically, I want to know if we can add it here, as a phenomena that some people point to as suggestive of CCC. I don't believe that ignoring it is a reasonable thing to do at all. Erroneous information should be debunked, not ignored. Unfortunately, I do not have access to scientific journals or the preeminent physicists themselves, so if this thing is an urban legend (or even simply obscure) I probably won't find out anything on my own. If I haven't received any more replies in a week or so, I'll take it upon my self to contact someone who could.

In fact, now that I think about it I do believe there is a forum I could ask... --Lode Runner 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Permanence Causes Collapse is a term that I've never heard mentioned before. Size Causes Collapse is something that can be derived from decoherence. So why not just call it decoherence? If you want to be mystified even more read up on the delayed choice quantum eraser. There is nothing special about consciousness that causes wave functions to collapse, as claimed by proponents of CCC. In fact no one really knows what causes wave function collapse. Niels Bohr even claimed that the question was out of bounds because at that time there was no way to explain it. There are currently several theories as to how wave functions collapse some of these are:

1. "Wave Function as knowledge". Wave functions don't really exist, they just represent our ignorance of what a particle is really doing. As soon as you perform a measurement on a particle you know what its doing and the wave function goes away because it's not needed.
2. Many-worlds interpretation
3. Bohm interpretation
4. Spontaneous Localization. Which claims that after a certain amount of time wave functions spontaneously collapse on their own.
5. Decoherence.

For better insight on these theories and the delayed choice quantum eraser read the book The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. Dr. Morbius 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no collapse as such in decoherentism. 1Z 15:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Dr. Morbius 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantum_decoherence#In_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics 1Z 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know about decoherence but "decoherentism" is a very rarely used word (8 hits on google) and I wanted to make sure I understood what you were talking about. Dr. Morbius 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's "necessary", and I'm not dismissing your permanence-causes-collapse interpretation.

That is not my interpretation. I am pointing out how hard it is to test CCC; you have to find a way of separating the effects of consciousness per se from the physical circumstances surrounding conscious actions and perceptions.1Z 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My thermodynamic comments stem from years of hearing people claim that XYZ is false (e.g. evolution) because it "violates the LAWS of thermodynamics."

That is mistaken because evolution doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, not because there aren't any.1Z 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What I do not understand is your size-causes-collapse explanation. In the experiment I have described, the humans watching the detectors are macroscopic. The detectors, while being unwatched and disconnected from the recorders, are still macroscopic. Why, then, do you attribute the difference in behavior between these two observers to size?

Well, they are not equally macroscopic are they? 1Z 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think about it I do believe there is a forum I could ask... --Lode Runner 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Physics Forums, usenet:sci.physics, etc. 1Z 23:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Russell - panpsychism

The link "counsciousness is fundamental" incorrectly links to panpsychism, which does not state that consciousness, but mind is fundamental and therefore stays within the mind-matter dualism of western philosophy. In Vedanta there is a huge difference between consciousness (cit) and mind (manas), where mind is a part of objective world (prakṛti), together with matter and few other entities, whereas consciousness is really fundamental, separated not only from matter, but also from mind, thoughts, emotions... NikNovi 21:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we know that Russell is appealing to Vedanta?l 1Z 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, in any case "panpsychism" is wrong. I don't have a definite answer to your question, but considering what Peter Russell did in his past (meditation, ...), I would say there is a high probability, that he does.

Another question would be why is Peter Russell at all mentioned on this page? Did he ever refer to quantum mechanics? NikNovi 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody brought up his name higher up on this page. Dr. Morbius 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does refer to QM in some of his talks, including the one that is sourced. -- itistoday (Talk) 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have watched the video source. My conclusion would be that Peter Russell should not be mentioned on this page, at least not based on that video. He does refer a few times to QM, but he never mentions, not even hints, the interpretation this page describes, namely that 'Counsciousness causes collapse' of the wavefunction.

Also after viewing that video, it is obvious that he refers to Vedanta: he mentions upaniṣads, the upaniṣadic formula 'ātman is brahman', citta/mindstuff or more correctly, everything that can be contents of the cit/consciousness (not just thoughts and emotions as usually assumed, but also other entities), and also mentions first two sūtras from Yogasūtras of the Yoga philosophy, which is a practical side of Vedanta (these two sūtras insist that stilling of the citta/contents of the consiousness is required to know the one's true nature). But he also tries to expand the vedantic model and join it with the modern physics, light etc., so this is not really Vedanta, though it has Vedanta as a basis on which he builds his own original ideas. Maybe it could be termed as a sort of pseudo-Vedanta, or Russell's Vedanta, or something like that (for instance he ignores the gradation of objective world that is usually assumed in Vedanta and jumps from the physical world (quantum physics, strings) directly to the Absolute).

In this view the phrasing that Peter Russell's views are a 'response' to the problems of this interpretation of QM are also wrong. NikNovi 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What type of consciousness are we talking about

It seems that this article should specify the difference between Phenomenal Consciousness and Access Consciousness and state that this interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is refering to Phenomenal Consciousness. I think this would help clear up some of the confusion some readers might have about CCC. Nhall0608 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

CCC is an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

It seems that this article we bounce around from using the words theory, hypothesis, and interpretation to describe CCC. I want to set the record strait that CCC is strictly an Interpretation of quantum mechanics. A hypothesis would imply there are currently experiments suggested that could verify one way or another the validity of CCC, and a theory would imply it has been able to be tested significantly for accuracy. Interpretation implies it is one of many possible explanations for the phenomena we observe to occur. Nhall0608 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've tagged the general statement about pseudoscience as needing a source, per WP:RS: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." TimidGuy (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So sourced. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you provide a page number so that I can check to see if they make a statement about consensus of the scientific community? If they don't make such a claim, then I think the opinion should be, according to the guideline, identified with the authors. TimidGuy (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I just searched inside the book on Amazon, and it makes no mention of the word "pseudoscience." TimidGuy (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest getting checking the book out for yourself. It clearly explains that "quantum pseudoscience" concomitant with this topic is a big problem and against current scientific understanding. You can read more from the authors here. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've ordered it. Sounds like a fascinating book -- really appreciate your bringing to it my attention. But the Amazon feature that lets a person search the entire text of the book shows that it doesn't use the word "pseudoscience." And we'd really need to have a general statement from them regarding the scientific community, or else we need to attribute any claim regarding the scientific understanding to the specific authors. TimidGuy (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. The link I sent you is very clear about their opinions on the matter as a summary of certain parts of the book. We can cite that link directly if you would like. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't say anything about "Consciousness causes collapse." I just think we have to be very careful regarding our generalizations. It's one thing to object to the extreme conjectures offered in Bleep and cite this or Physics Today, but another to dismiss "Consciousness causes collapse" as pseudoscience and cite this link. In my view, in order to add this sentence to the lead, there must be a statement by an expert that says that the notion of Wigner and von Neuman that consciousness causes collapse is regarded by the scientific community as pseudoscience. If no such statement exists, then the sentence needs to be rewritten, I would think. TimidGuy (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand that the idea of "consciousness causes collapse" is precisely the idea that is being discussed. The misinterpretation of Wigner and von Neuman by New Age pseudoscientists is irrelevant. Neither Wigner nor von Neuman, for example, used the term "consciousness causes collapse" either. So by your logic we would have to excise it from the article. Either you allow some leeway with those who understand the idea being presented is stating something about wavefunction selection or you demand a strict use of the term in which case the article gets deleted. Make your decision and we'll go down that route. Cheers, ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I'm dense. I just don't see how that web page justifies the sentence you inserted. Do they claim a consensus? And what specifically is the consensus regarding? Help me out. TimidGuy (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that people who argue for a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics as a causal mechanism are derided as being pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Criterion for claims of 'consensus' and improperly or insufficiently cited sources

There appears to be a debate here (approaching the trouble threshold) around the placement of the statement "generally derided as pseudoscience" in the article's introduction.

I would offer the following guidance:

• The threshold for inclusion at Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.
• NPOV and (pejorative) claims such as "generally derided as pseudoscisnce" imply consensus and must be very well sourced and cited.
• The threshold for inclusion at Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. For all I know, the statement could be true, but it's not (yet) verifiable.
• Claims of "consensus" by scientists are generally considered to be "exceptional claims" (especially when using NPOV pejorative language), requiring the editor to assume the "burden of proof" in the form of exceptional sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".
• The source provided most recently was easily checked and searched and it's author's clearly and flatly refuted the attribution as claimed throughout the introduction (explicitly on page 5.), so the source cited is no source at all for the statement, unless an explicit reference within the text is found.

I further note that the proponent(s) of this POV have declined invitations to provide a page number to support this attribution of consensus to these authors. I will attempt to help out here.

Here is page five of the text cited, flatly contradicting the attribution. Also, the word "derided" appears in the text only five times, in reference to Einstein's having "derided spooky action at a distance", etc. These instances of 'derision' are generally followed by text showing how foolish this derision has (historically) turned out to be. The source work cited appears to work against the attribution rather than for it, as the authors ENCOURAGE a more serious confrontation of the topis. The closest thing to a statement supporting the attribution of "generally derided" is on page 190 of the text, and even THAT illustrates that attribution to these authors is far off the mark.

Indeed, a key criticism the authors make of "the scientific community" is that these "mysteries" are generally avoided rather than confronted, describing physists who refuse to examine the "enigma" as being unwilling to confromt the "skeletons in their closets". A quick perusal of the nineteen reviews of the book at Amazon.com turns up no reference at all to the attribution that is imputed by the editor as "generally derided as psuedoscience". It's a really great book, IMHO.

SO...I am once again moving (to a subsequent section) the claim "generally derided in the scientific community as being pseudoscience", and modifying it thusly, and looking forward to the improvement of this article in terms of well stated and impeccably sourced information on what the consensus is and who is making the claim.

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point which is that the idea that consciousness causes collapse is basic pseudoscience as described by the authors. If you cannot understand that the authors are saying this, you are basically missing the entire point of their book which is to explain the basics of quantum mechanics and point out that consciousness, as it were, only comes into play if people try to impose metaphysical interpretations on observation. That is iteratively irrelevant to this page which is discussing an idea that the collapse of a wavefunction is caused by consciousness, something which the authors straightforwardly dismiss as nonsense. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reading the book currently and would dispute your attribution flatly. The "point" here is that as an editor you need to support your claim that CCC is "generally derided in the scientific community as being pseudoscience". Even if the book DID say that (it does not), a single example of this viewpoint does not support your claim of "generally derided". Now, asking again, if you can provide (in accordance with WP:RS a VERIFIABLE citation (page number) to support a claim of scientific consensus on this matter, I will heartily embrace it. Personally, I think that the presentation of CCC by pseudoscientific pop-physics sensationalist works like "What the Bleep" and the rest of that genre hurts the more reasoned treatments of the topic, such as Quantum Enigma. But I think you make the compounding mistake of equating ALL treatment of CCC with the "Bleep" treatment, and the book we're talking about risks getting lost in that "noise". Let's work together to state the opinions as factually and nuetrally as possible and avoid the "emotionalism" that the authors of Quantum Enigma warn against, ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum enigma does not adopt this idea at all. Do you see "consciousness causes collapse" endorsed anywhere on the pages? I certainly don't. It is indeed true that the WTBDWK nonsense is exactly what this interpretation is. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't Straw Man my argument. We are not discussing whether or not CCC is "endorsed" by Quantum Enigma, and I certainly made no such assertion, and that is wholly off-topic and presents a logically fallacious argument. We are discussing the edit, which asserts that the whole topic of CCC "in general" is "derided" and we are discussing YOUR assertion that the source in question is a properly cited source that describes and documents this consensus. You appear unable to direct us to a page reference, while I have provided several page references. Remember, I am not challenging the truth of your statement, I am challenging it's verifiability. There is one and only one point here -- "The threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've provided enough information to show you that this kooky idiocy is not supported in the scientific community in general. It's not my job to educate you in the finer points of critical reading. I even used a book about the subject which refutes the idea on many pages that consciousness is a cause of wavefunction collapse. That's all we need to do. I'm not going to hold your hand through figuring out when the authors are talking about physics and when they're talking about pseudoscience: if you are interested in this the book is useful. Otherwise, read David Bacon's blog or some other source from legitimate physicists who are of similar mindsets (and even go as far as to criticize the book Quantum enigma for entertaining the ideas too much similar to the way NASA was derided for thinking of sponsoring a book on responses to idiots who believed in the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'Not supported' is very different to 'explicitly rejected'. 1Z (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "derided or ignored"? Much the same as spontaneous human combustion, crystal power, demagnetized water, and such. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That might work, however, I don't know of any quantum physicist who would just "ignore" someone who tried to make a CCC claim in their presence. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based on published sources, not dinner party conversation. There just isn't that much explicit condemnation/refutation of CCC out there. I know because I've looked for it.1Z (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peterdjones. Well put, and exactly the reason I made the edit in the first place.

I think the fact that a published refutation of the work "Quantum Enigma" is found (in this very article) to be on the "CCC is pseudoscience" side of the discussion should put this matter to rest. The very source that is being pushed as a reference showing "consensus" view is clearly shown (as my page references also demonstrated) to be on the other side of (or "straddling") the argument. Absent a page reference and without another reliable source for a "consensus" view, we need to "fix" the introduction accordingly.

• See "Critique of Quantum Enigma Physics encounters Consciousness", Martín López Corredoira at http://en.wikipedia.org/Consciousness_causes_collapse#Articles_and_links_against_quantum_consciousness

Now, once again...as it seems here that no editor may edit here without first demonstrating unquestioned allegiance to one "side" or the other (a sad state of affairs), let me say again: I am as much against the pop-sensationalizing of the topic and psuedoscientific propaganda industry as anyone else. I think that much of what is here is really a well-reasoned argument against the "What the Bleep" treatment of Quantum Physics. Now, the truth is that the CCC hypothesis/interpretation is a much larger topic than the pseudoscience presentations in popular culture represent. My goal is that this page should be a rigorously encyclopedic treatment of the larger topic, and the only reason I made the edits in the first place is toward this end. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is a larger topic. From what I understand, it is mostly a misunderstanding of Copenhagen. That it is listed as a separate interpretation doesn't seem correct to me and the only source we have that claims this to be (in a fashion) this way is an obscure PhD dissertation from a philosophy department. Hardly something to base an article on. We need more sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "CCC" interpretation has been around a very long time, predating the modern pop-science treatments by 40 or 50 years, right? If so, then CCC is, by definition, a "larger topic". Are you convinced now, or am I missing something?riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help justify the existence of this article

Are there any reliable sources which actually believe this bullshit? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. But I'd want to distinguish bullshit (patently false) from incorrect (possibly very complicated). I have in mind writing up a defense of homeopathy that might be more persuasive than you'd expect (but homeopathy is, in fact, bunk). Anyway, the reason I stopped by, is that if people want to say:

...it was John von Neumann who became the first person to hint that quantum theory may imply an active role for consciousness in the process of reality creation...

then they had better quote von Neuman. It is patently irresponisble to cite an emminent scientist for what's widely considered to be bad science, unless you can quote it. There is plenty of stuff that can be quoted: lots of emminent scientists have been, and are, theists; in the 19th century there was considerble public respect for Intelligent Design, and lots of people, including good scientists, are confused by quantuum mechanics (such as the difference between measurement, and conscious observation). But if you are going to point to von Neuman as a precursor you had better be right because I'll be back with a clue-bat. Pete St.John (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

all that said, this is a good place to note the distinction between mine and SA's PoV. I'm happy for the article to exist because sure: QM is confusing, many results mess with my own intuition, it's not unreasonable for people to draw conclusions other than what physicists draw. That is, it's an issue, even if the science is incorrect. Any statements of scientific fact should be correct, attributions should be correct, but it's OK for the article to exist because readers care about it (and are confused by it). So the fact that quantuum physicists disagree with the conclusion about causality should be noted, and preferably explained. But the fact that people are concerned about it is a fact, too. A social, pedagogical fact, not a science fact (per se). But the encyclopedia covers lots of stuff. So we should have an article about Squaring the Circle (which should explain why you can't, and what the source of confusion is). The problem here, of course, is that presumably Creation Scientists (an oxymoron) want to prove that physics proves that God Exists (since God is the only Conscious Observer predating human observers), but the article should exist despite that; even because of that; just not for that reason. The confusions matter, the arguement matters, even if the topic is promoted by fools. Pete St.John (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good points. I made a similar point below before I read this. TimidGuy (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried google; there aren't that many hits (~6k) and I couldn't find a single reliable one in the first few screens. Can anyone find a reliable web source for this stuff? Are there, for example, *any* genuine published physics papers about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are few google scholar results, however the mentions appear to be trivial. Also, there is a trivial mention in "Beyond the Bleep" Should this be redirected to quantum mysticism? Addhoc (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic reason why this idea is hooey

Take the classic double slit experiment. Fire electrons through it. Look at the diffraction pattern on the collecting screen. Now put a detector at one of the holes and watch the wavefunctions collapse to deterministic particles (no interference allowed). If someone truly beleived that consciousness causes collapse, if we set up this experiment and no one watched the detector then the diffraction pattern would return even while the detector was turned on. Since this is clearly not the case, it is not the consciousness in-and-of-itself that causes the collapse.

One can argue, iteratively, that consciousness is encountered in setting up situations where wavefunction collapse occurs. This is what is discussed in Quantum Enigma. But attributing conscious observation directly to wavefunction collapse misses the point of how eigenseletion happens.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CCC proponents -- not that I personally agree woith them -- obviously don't accept that as being a disproof at all, you are being one-sided.1Z (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always loved thinking about the double slit experiment, and how counterintuitive it is. Whether or not CCC is hooey, it seems to have been a part of the history of the conjectures regarding understand the collapse of the wave function. It would be nice if we could represent that. I thought the material about von Neuman and Wigner was interesting. Wouldn't it be fair to have an article about this and say what they were thinking, as well as give the opposing view? Right now the article pretty much feels gutted. Eager to know what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious. Why is the double slit experiment counterintuitive? Tparameter (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

CCC is a misinterpretation of Copenhagen at best for the reasons I outline above. People get all hot-and-bothered about the idea of an observer effecting an observation because the ideal situation (at least if you are a diehard fan of the scientific method) is one where this doesn't occur. Wavefunction collapse by its very nature requires that the observer does not see the totality of the superposition because it is mathematically impossible. What we have then is a logical inconsistency with people's naive impressions of what is possible in the universe. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

TimidGuy, if the stuff about von Neuman is interesting, please find a quote. I'm not a physicist, so I don't want to get involved in this page, but if hokum is attributed to a famous mathematician (other sciences claim him too) then it has to be quoted or I'll delete it. But I'll wait, I'm not trying to rush anyone. Somebody show me the quote. I have no objection to quoting von Neuman in any article, just interpreting him to promote hokum, without a direct quote. Pete St.John (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was mostly Wigner who broached this idea and made it part of physics lore. It's the "skeleton in the closet" Neal is referring to below. I don't really have time to look into it. Hopefully user Wnd will, since he seems to know more about this than I do. TimidGuy (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wigner only broached it to point out what he thought (erroneously) was the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation. To claim that he thought that consciousness causes collapse is really ridiculous and doesn't conform to the sources. It's like saying that scientists who believe in redshift quantization believe that the Earth is at the center of the universe. They don't believe that at all; in fact, they believe the opposite and argue that such an implication is so absurd the expanding universe has to be abandoned. Wigner wanted to abandon Copenhagen. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I make that claim? TimidGuy (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Much of this nonsense could be avoided if editors would agree to focus on the article and not its subject. Gnixon (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Need better source for pseudoscience

A search of Physics Encounters Consciousness By Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner at Google Books shows only one instance of the word "pseudoscience", on page 204 which is a list of "Suggested Reading". Perhaps I am mistaken, but scanning the book and reading the intro, it appears that the idea that "consciousness causes collapse" is an idea seriously pondered by physicists and the book even calls it "the skeleton in our closet". The book explores the idea from several viewpoints and doesn't call it pseudoscience, unless Google Book's search functionality is not working. Looks like a good book though. I think I'll be picking up a copy too.

Adapting the idea for mystical arguments is probably considered pseudoscience, however. This book doesn't use that word, but I'm sure some other one does. --Nealparr 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. Certainly physicists at one time or another have had to think about "consciousness causes collapse" just as people have to consider at some point the geocentric solar system. Just because physicists thought about this in introductory classes doesn't mean that the idea isn't as pseudoscientific as modern geocentrism. Again, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees here. That consciousness is metaphysically (that is, philosophically) interesting to think about in terms of quantum mechanics is obvious from Bruce and Fred's book. That consciousness causes collapse is not entertained in the sense that this article describes the idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not going to get into an argument about it : ) Smarter folks than I have been arguing back and forth about it for some time now and if they figure it out, great, but it's not going to be me figuring it out. I'm just coming off the Fringe Noticeboard where a request for help was posted, looked up the source in dispute, and reported my findings. If some other source is put in it's place that uses the word, won't hear a peep from me. --Nealparr 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I'll revel in your silence. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have nothing to offer. Wanna talk about UFO folklore, I'm all on it : ) I know that stuff is pseudoscience. It's easier. --Nealparr 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to consider

To a one, all Wikipedians are invited to edit any article. None of us have to have expertise to be invited to edit, because we let the sources be our guide. With that incredible freedom, though, it is incumbent upon us to take an additional measure of responsibility. We have to evaluate how confident we are in our sources and in our interpretation of the sources. For a topic as technically difficult to understand as quantum mechanics, the mathematical basis of which most adults have never been been exposed, we must be particularly careful. ScienceApologist and some others here are experts, not only in science, but in physics. Do you need to respect his understanding of physics simply because he is a physicist? No, none of us do; that is the premise of Misplaced Pages. We don't have to give his views on this special weight - but I think that we should be extraordinarily cautious on this topic. To that extent, I think that we should want to hear what he has to say about this subject, and give him the benefit of our doubt. Antelan 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with that, except when it comes to the tone of statements made in the article. ScienceApologist has admitted his biases: he's not only considers himself an expert on science, he says he is strongly against what he feels are misrepresentations of science. Ergo I assume the information provided is probably technically correct, but double check that the tone in which they are delivered matches the source. Example: Pseudoscience is used as a dismissive term. The source used by ScienceApologist to back up the statement that this topic is pseudoscience was a book by Bruce Rosenblum & Fred Kuttner that actually tries to clear up what they feel are legitimate misconceptions, rather than dismiss them outright. In other words, while the tone the source used feels it is a problem worth addressing, ScienceApologist appears to feel it is a problem worth dismissing. The two views aren't compatible, though both present the same technical arguments. However, I always want to hear what he has to say, and hardly ever double-check tone-free facts. --Nealparr 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist may be an expert, but he is not approaching this topic from a scientific point of view, he is approaching it from a materialistic standpoint, which is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. His conclusions on this topic are formed not by rigorous math and science, but by the fact that this concept was introduced to him in the context of other material that pushes his buttons. If he/she cared to workout the problem mathematically rigorously, ScienceApologist would find out quickly that his above assertion that the results of the double slit experiment with a detector but no one looking, proves CCC false, is erroneous. This lack of scientific rigor leads me to conclude, that even if ScienceApologist is an expert, his thoughts on the matter are compromised by the boundaries his philosophical standpoint puts on the science. It is unfortunate that he/she felt it necessary to gut this article to appease himself, but with that being said, it did need to be redone anyway, and this time with more rigor, and removing any of the articles reliability on new age references that piggy back on the idea and pollute its integrity. Nhall0608 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone refuting me. ScienceApologist (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Voices of support among a broad base of other editors is evidence of consensus, absence of refutation is not. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If someone has an issue with my statement, let them explain themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm refuting you ScienceApologist. There is not a consensus in the scientific community that CCC is false, there is a consensus to ignore the questions that arise from the measurement question and to remove the phenomenon of phenomenal consciousness from being questioned by science. There is a consensus that 'the bleep' is hooey. But you keep attacking CCC as being equivalent to that junk. If you really cared to understand the interpretation CCC, then read Quantum Enigma, then tell me that CCC is hooey and that there is a consensus it is pseudoscience. 67.173.233.79 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't deal with my specific point (#Basic reason why this idea is hooey) You assume I haven'r read the very book I first cited. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Rewrite

The recent rewrite is deplorable. Well-cited material has been removed with no justification and exagerated claims made. Neither of the sources given for the claims of "pseudocience" succeed in indicating the opinion of the scientific establishment as a whole. I am inclined to revert wholesale.1Z (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. Nhall0608 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the comments above but suggest a quick edit-by-edit review.

Here are the four major edits (identified by edit summary) that removed substantial material...a start.

1) Criteria for consciousness - this paragraph is WP:OR and so was removed....

• Appears well sourced and not OR, and previous editors concurred. Suggest check sources and revert.

Major source was John Stuart Bell, an expert on quantum mechanics and its interpretation. 1Z (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

2) Counterarguments - objections from physicists...

• Edit summary does not describe reason for removal of material, nor does it even mention removal of material. Suggest revert.

3) Proponents - not relevant to this idea. Consciousness causes collapse is not von Neumann's idea.

• Edit summary looks like a Straw_Man mis-characterization of the material that was removed. Suggest revert.

4) Proponents - rm - none of this is sourced to what it says

• Looks (to me) like edit summary is inaccurate. Suggest ck sources and revert.

I think #2 and #3 can be immediately reverted, and #1 and #4 should also be reverted after some quick source checking. I don't have time now...anybody else? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI and for completeness (and as we're going through this yet again, the January rewrite in question begins here and the mess continues for the next few days. WNDL42 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

von Neumann

This sentence is seriously faulty, as I'll explain:

With the publication of Die Mathematischen Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics), it was John von Neumann who became the first person to hint that quantum theory may imply an active role for consciousness in the process of reality creation...

The sentence is itself effectively unfalsifiable; I would have to read all of the (German) text and prove somehow that none of it hints at such an interpretation. It is not possible for a reader to do that; therefore it is not a citable reference. Please provide the quote so that editors can judge whether it can reasonable be construed as a "hint". For example (these are not real quotes of course):

a) I think QM may justify a theory of X causing reality. Hint: X rhymes with "Bonciousness"

I'd take that as reasonably interpreted as a hint.

b) Measurement causes waveform collapse.

One could argue (wrongly) that "only observers can measure" and "all observers have consciousness" therefore "(b) implies CCC" therefore "the author of (b) made the same leap of deduction so he endorses CCC (at least in hint form)". That would be wrong, and we would probably not endorse that as interpretable as the sentence in the article.

So please reword this; for example, maybe "Wigner interpreted von Neuman to mean ..." or maybe, who knows, von Neuman actually said "I think human consciousness is necessary..." but I really doubt it. Prove me wrong. Show the quote. Pete St.John (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK Von Neumann's involvement in CCC is admitted by both sides of the debate.

I have dredged up:

"A second category includes approaches that use the status quo of present-day quantum theory to describe neurophysiological and/or neuropsychological processes. Among these approaches, the one with the longest history was initiated by von Neumann in the 1930s, later taken up by Wigner, and currently championed by Stapp. It can be roughly characterized as the proposal to consider intentional conscious acts as intrinsically correlated with physical state reductions".

SEP 1Z (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There his "Abstract Ego" comment,too. 1Z (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. This is helpful. Seems like we could use this as a source. It's a tertiary source but it's a bylined article, which the guidelines suggest is acceptable. I think I'll add it. TimidGuy (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't use this, its backwards. This is using QM to explain conciousness William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. What was I thinking? TimidGuy (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I could see nothing in the proponents section to support the idea that any of them support CCC. The one quote from Wigner is vague, but could just about justify including him only, but none of the others William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the von Neuman source to determine that collapse of the wave function wasn't part of his argument? Seems like that would be necessary. TimidGuy (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, seems like it might be better just to focus on Wigner. TimidGuy (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did. The beginning is It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness - which is leading in the direction of QM explaining conciousness, which has nothing to do with CCC, which is the other way round. Section 4.2 further says: In Chapter VI, von Neumann (1955) discussed the conceptual distinction between observed and observing system. In this context, he applied (1) and (2) to the general situation of a measured object system (I), a measuring instrument (II), and (the brain of) a human observer (III). His conclusion was that it makes no difference for the result of measurements on (I) whether the boundary between observed and observing system is posited between I and (II & III) or between (I & II) and III. As a consequence, it is inessential whether a detector or the human brain is ultimately referred to as the “observer”. So I see nothing there supporting von N as proposing CCC - quite the reverse William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit sorry to see the whole section go; it's plausible to me that somebody citable is a proponent, and maybe even interprets von Neuman that way. I'm glad that von Neuman is out, though, thanks; the line "can be interpreted to maybe hint" would be pretty lame. And last, that seems like a very useful clarification: that von Neuman was talking about consciousness as correlated (causality in both directions, in fact) with brain physiology (but I don't see the point of going so low as the level of QM). I'm not sure I understand that. Anyway I hope that some good Wigner material can be restored/introduced. Pete St.John (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Its entirely plausible, but it was just a list of names with no evidence to back them up. I tried looking at a few of the bios on wiki, but found nothing to support. I think maybe the quote above should go in; its a very succinct analysis (which always convinced me; I cannot understand the hubris that makes a human conciousness necessary, it seems little other than a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "observer". But I digress) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wigners friend

Consciousness causes collapse is not needed to explain the Wigner's friend thought experiment... - I don't understand this. Nothing is needed to explain it, because its a thought experiment. It doesn't have a result to explain William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Try resolve. Thought experiments are problems. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Use resolve instead. It makes no difference. Nothing is needed to resove the experiment either William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Wndl42's edit comment on his recent revision of the lead referred to a talk page discussion I can't identify. Anyway, I think he did a very good job. Should we add references to the first paragraph or just leave that for the article? Gnixon (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I think (hope) the opening here meets all concerns, and I wrote it so as not to require any source(s), as that might be an additional source of contention...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, re: "talk page discussion I can't identify", it's no wonder. The painful and torturous discussion begins here and continues through the next three sections. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A resource list

It helps to understand the below, to realize that in many cases the non-physicists misunderstand the physics and the physicists in many cases misunderstand the philosophical issues. There is a great deal of talking past each other. In physics, it is clear that consciousness does not cause wave collapse, in fact it is not clear that there is a wave collapse from a strictly physics point of view. In philosophy, it remains a debated concept as lacking an objective empirical definition of consciousness is no barrier to speculation. An interesting but philosophically-challenged proposed experiment below to identify where in human perception the wave collapse occurs illustrates some of the reasons that Dr.Blood concludes that this can not be counted as a valid physics interpretation.

• http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/quantum.html readable overview
• http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-311/aflb311m387.pdf Experimental evidence that conciousness is not required to collapse the wave function.
• http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~luca/Topics/qm/collapse.html physics class notes and web links on "Wave Function Collapse in Quantum Mechanics"
• http://www.quantummechanicsandreality.com/Interpretations/iic5_consc_collapse.htm Casey Blood Ph.D.'s book on Quantum Mechanics says "Conclusion. Without a more specific model of conscious perception and collapse, I do not think collapse by conscious perception can be counted as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics." and provides a long list of reasons for this.
• http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0509042 article Does consciousness really collapse the wave function? A possible objective biophysical resolution of the measurement problem says "An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement problem. An experiment to be conducted in the near future may enable us to simultaneously resolve the measurement problem and also determine if the linear nature of quantum mechanics is violated by the perceptual process."
• http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1998/SimConEx.98.html article Simulation, Consciousness, Existence by Hans Moravec, 1998 is an interesting overview and concludes with hopeful delusions of life after death and includes this "Common sense screams that measurements are real when they register in the experimenter's consciousness. This thinking has led some philosophically inclined physicists to suggest that consciousness itself is the mysterious wave-collapsing process that quantum theory fails to identify. But even consciousness is insufficient to cause collapse in the thought experiment known as ``Wigner's Friend. Like the more famous ``Schrödinger's Cat, Wigner's friend is sealed in a perfectly isolating enclosure with a physics experiment that has two possible outcomes. The friend observes the experiment and notes the outcome mentally. Outside the leakproof enclosure, Wigner can only describe his friend's mental state as the superposition of the alternatives. In principle these alternatives should interfere, so that when the enclosure is opened one or another outcome may be favored, depending on the precise time of opening. Wigner might then conclude that his own consciousness triggered the collapse when the enclosure was opened, but his friend's earlier observation had left it uncollapsed. Assuming that effects behave quantum mechanically until some point when their wave functions become so entangled with the world that they are beyond hope of reversal, at which point they behave commonsensically, eliminates philosophical problems for most laboratory physicists. It creates problems for cosmologists, whose scope is the entire universe, for it implies the world is peppered with collapsed wave functions surrounding observing devices. These collapses have no theory and cannot be experimentally quantified and thus make it impossible to set up equations for the universe overall. Instead, cosmologists assume the entire universe behaves as a giant wave function that evolves according to quantum theory and never collapses. But how can a ``universal wave function, in which every particle forever spreads like a wave, be reconciled with individual experiences of finding particles in particular positions? In a 1957 Ph.D. thesis, Hugh Everett gave a new answer to that question."
• http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-noe.htm article Consciousness and Modern Science discusses the book New Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science which includes claims relevant to this article such as "This position has recently been put forward by physicist Amit Goswami, who states that physical objects, such as the moon, do not exist in space-time unless a conscious observer is looking at them, and that human beings are the center of the universe since they bring it into being and give it meaning. He remarks: "If this sounds as if we are re-establishing an anthropocentric view of the universe, so be it (The Self-Aware Universe, pp. 59-60, 141). One can sympathize with Roger Sperry when he writes: I take a realist position that assumes a world exists out there regardless of whether I or anyone else happens to perceive it. The laborious excavation of a giant ammonite or a large dinosaur femur from its cretaceous matrix leaves little patience with a philosophy that these and their world did not exist until our observation. -- p. 113"

WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not "controversial"

It's not a "controversial" interpretation: it's just wrong in the sense that it is based on a misconception about the Copenhagen Interpretation. Indopedia calls it "problematic". I included that wording. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

YOu didn't include a reference.1Z (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be referenced? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

everything that isn't common knowledge. 1Z (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's going to be a bit difficult to reference. Let's see: how's this? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm game, let's go with SA's suggestion above that we use the convergence test cited above to advance the discussion. Let's start with SA providing the series we'll test for convergence...this sounds like a really interesting approach, let's dig in!!! WNDL42 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to call this interpretation of Quantum Mechanics discredited you will have to show a result it predicts that experiment shows false. So far science has failed to do that. Science has failed to even propose an experiment that would have results that deviate from current models of QM. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing discrediting with falsifying. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not argue with you if you stated in the intro that it is 'discredited as a scientific theory in the physics community as it is currently un-falsifiable' 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then here's a suggestion:

"Consciousness causes collapse" is the name given to a generally disputed interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which observation by a conscious observer is causally associated with wave function collapse. The idea is discredited in the physics community, and since it relies on the poorly defined concept of consciousness, it is not strictly falsifiable. Treatments of the topic outside of the mainstream scientific community and in popular culture have been widely criticized as pseudoscience.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The general definition of consciousness is poorly defined. The specific definition of consciousness as used CCC phenomenal experiences, is very well defined as simply experience. And the question of what actually has experiences is a critical question with a magnitude of philosophical and moral implications. Though CCC may eventually prove incorrect, currently it is a possible route in which these phenomena may someday be better understood. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, give me a citation to a quantum physicist that agrees with what you just wrote. Remember, no original research! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The general definition is indeed poorly defined. But in this context I think there are a number of references in Quantum Enigma and elsewhere to "consciousness" being much more broadly defined than you say. I will try to find a reference, but I would paraphrase it with an analogy.

Let's say I am holding a glass bottle in my hand. According to John Wheeler's interpretative work with the Holograpic principle, we can see the bottle as composed of information rather than matter and energy (see also Bekenstein's Generalized Second Law). Now, I as an individual "conscious" entity do not have enough consciousness to "change" the "fact" (modify the information structure representation of the bottle with my mind) that that bottle exists in it's current configuration of matter and energy. This is because there exists a sum total "conscious consensus" that it does exist in it's present form, a "consensus" that developed beginning with the "evolution" (to take Wheeler's lexicon) of the information structure that represents the bottle. This sum-total conscious perception of everything from the grains of sand of which the bottle was made, through the entire history of glass-making, etc. etc. renders me individually unable to simply "reconfigure" that information structure on my own. This is metaphorically similar to the Gaia theory of the earth (an in larger context, the entire universe) as a "conscious" entity. According to this theory, anything and everything above a certain threshold has "some" consciousness, and we can see consciousness as analogous to "heat" -- everything that is not exactly at absolute zero has some heat in it. Now, a grain of sand may have "consciousness" that is so infinitessimally small as to be utterly irrelevant in the presence of (for example) an ant, but a "Wheeler-Gaia-evolutionary" outlook pre-supposes that in the "near vacuum" of consciousness that existed prior to the evolution of life in the universe, that there was enough consciousness to form an "Organizing Principle" (Jesus would call it a "mustard seed") around which everthing would ultimately evolve. Ok, so there's it in a nutshell, I will get back to this topic soon or so with some references. WNDL42 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but this is a lot of original research and synthesis of unrelated ideas. You need to find a reliable citation that ties it all together as you describe it or there is no going forward with this analysis. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and my paraphrasing would resemble WP:OR to the uninitiated. Where would you like me to focus? While the following quote is admittedly tangential, it's relevant..."The hypothesis I developed was based on a set of conjectures put forward by Martin Rees, John Wheeler, Freeman Dyson, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, and Ray Kurzweil. Their futuristic visions suggested collectively that the ongoing process of biological and technological evolution was sufficiently robust, powerful, and open-ended that, in the very distant future, a cosmologically extended biosphere could conceivably exert a global influence on the physical state of the entire cosmos. Think of this idea as the Gaia principle extended universe-wide." Is this a start? WNDL42 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's too much to start with. Take it down a notch. You need to find someone who is a verifiable and reliable expert who asserts (as you do) that the idea of consciousness associated with this article is defined in terms of a "Gaia-principle extended universe-wide". ScienceApologist (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(need to unindent) WNDL42 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see where we may be talking past one another. Maybe this is better..."He ponders the question whether we humans actually create the laws by our observations, in the way that a magician creates illusion -- that what we observe around us is no more real than what we observe at a magic show." WNDL42 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the thing you think is easier, then you'll have to find someone who is a verifiable and reliable expert who asserts that the speculation of "humans actually creating the laws of the universe by our observations" is connected to the idea of consciousness causing collapse in quantum mechanics. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about how to define consciousness for the purposes of this article, and the easily verifyable assertion that we are presently using a too-strict definition of "consciousness". Did I miss something? In that context I think I've made the point I intended to make, as the two previous WP:RS quotes are clearly connected via explicit attribution, and thereby supports the larger "Gaia-inclusive" definition of consciousness. Are you saying that the current definition (which IMO is a too-easy-to-kill, indeed somewhat silly Straw Man caracature of the "consciousness" that Wheeler etc. are talking about) isnonetheless the definition that should be maintained? If so, for what purpose? Or are you saying that "humans...by our observations...create" is not an obvious reference to "conscious observers", or are you saying something else and I'm just missing the question? This is feeling pretty circular, please clarify. WNDL42 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have yet to provide reliable sources which connect your definition of consciousness to the subject of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask a different way. I see no point in providing additional references beyond what I have if you're going to continue avoiding a discussion of the definition of the word "consciousness" for an article (just coincidently) titled "consciousness causes collapse". How can we have an article on a purported causal association between "a" and "b" if we have no agreement (nor even a discussion) on how to define (a)????? Before we go to work on connecting the above cited "larger definition(s)" of consciousness to this article, will you work toward a consensus on whether any form of "larger definition" is appropriate here in the first place?? WNDL42 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an article on purported causal connections. The article is about an idea entitled "consciousness causes collapse". We must only use sources that are explicitly discussing the article's subject to define consciousness. Anything else is an improper synthesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This is not an article on a purported connection of "causality" between consciousness and collapse of the wave function? I thought that was why "causes" is in the middle between "consciousness" and "collapse". Hmmmm...please paraphrase then, in your own words, what IS the topic of this article, if not "the purported causality association between consciousness and collapse". Wow, I'm really confused. WNDL42 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is on a topic called "Consciousness causes collapse". It is basically a claim that wave function collapse happens due to observation and observation is somehow connected to consciousness. How observation is connected to consciousness is irrelevant to this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This is not an article on a purported connection of "causality" between consciousness and collapse of the wave function? I thought that was why "causes" is in the middle between "consciousness" and "collapse". Hmmmm...please paraphrase then, in your own words, what IS the topic of this article, if not "the purported causality association between consciousness and collapse". Wow, I'm really confused. WNDL42 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is on a topic called "Consciousness causes collapse". It is basically a claim that wave function collapse happens due to observation and observation is somehow connected to consciousness. How observation is connected to consciousness is irrelevant to this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Circular.

Your assertions;

(a) "CCC article topic is Consciousness causes collapse"; (title, check)

(b) "CCC is a claim that collapse happens due to observation"; (causality, check)

(c) "CCC further asserts that Observation is somehow connected to consciousness" (connection, check)

Now, we're ok to this point, until you inexplicably conclude with...

(d) "How observation is connected to consciousness is irrelevant to this article." (huh?)

Your predicates flatly contradict your conclusion(d). Whew...need another unindent...to get back to the question raised here.

SA, it's a simple question, stated simply way above with "I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about how to define consciousness for the purposes of this article". Can we loop back through from there in an attempt to get to consensus on how to define consciousness for the purposes of this article? WNDL42 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the only appropriate definitions of consciousness that we should use would be ones that are defining it in the context of the subject of this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. WNDL42 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Major content changes without discussion Feb 10, please discuss here

This series of extensive revisions merits some discussion, I have reverted two of the changes, please discuss. WNDL42 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

POssibly true but unreferenced. 1Z (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See above. WAS provides a list of sources that indicates that this view is discredited. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that there is so much debate (a) indicates that the matter is not closed, and (b) suggests that you are a bit confused between "unfalsifyable" and "discredited". WNDL42 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's only debate in the warped idiocy of New Age thinkers versus science. Just because you try to teach the controversy doesn't mean that the controversy exists. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've recently been looking at Quantum Enigma. It seems like the issue isn't whether this view is discredited or not, but rather that historically the relationship of subjectivity and measurement has been a matter of interest, and that there remain perplexing questions about this. Seems like this article could reflect that rather than simply dismissing this issue. The authors of Quantum Enigma say that the Copenhagen Interpretation didn't really resolve anything but sort of swept it under the carpet. TimidGuy (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't address the fact that this "interpretation" of quantum mechanics is widely discredited, even as admitted by the authors of the book you cite. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the references I've seen say that CCC is un-falsifiable which is contrary to being discredited. It just states that at our current level of ignorance, we can not verify the issue one way or the other. You should note that if something is un-falsifiable, then its competing theories are un-provable. And I understand the position science takes on un-falsifiable vs. un-provable, but you are making the false leap that if something does not meet the requirements of a theory in science, that it must be false, which is the implication of the language you are using. We are not saying CCC is a theory, we are saying it is an interpretation, and it meets the requirements for that until you can experimentally counter it. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfalsifiable things are not scientific. Therefore, as an interpretation, "CCC" is about as relevant to quantum mechanics as God in the gaps. Is that also an interpretation of quantum mechanics, then? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

From the above sources:

"Consciousness causes collapse" is discredited as physics since in physics there is neither evidence that there is a collapse (it is a useful but not necessary supposition in evaluating equations), nor any physics definition of consciousness in terms of either equations or experiments. "Consciousness causes collapse" is controversial in both serious philosophy and popular opinion. Does that help? WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

- I agree with WAS 4.250, we should make it clear in the article that CCC is beyond current science to validate or dis-validate, that it primary significance is in the results it has on philosophy, morality, and understanding consciousness. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion from decades of reading:

Cognitive science has made strides in evaluating "claims to be conscious" as that is objectively verifiable whereas the consciousness itself is subjective and not available for the methods of science. Claims of consciousness can be made by a computer program, a claim in and of itself is of little use in investigating what we mean by consciousness which is a subjective phenomenon such that sleep can apparently turn it on and off. Cognitive science's modeling of consciousness suggests that it is an emergent property of information systems that maintain databases on their internal operations and use the same algorithms in evaluating data on its internal operations as it does on external input. But that still does not answer "Why does it feel like there is someone in here?" Unfortunately, that is a subjective thing and the best an objective process like science can do is to answer, "why are there beings that claim they feel that way?" and the answer cognitive science provides is "we are programmed to." Science can not tell us about what is only subjective and not objective. So some people think everything is conscious, but if it lacks the ability to perceive something it is conscious without that perception; if it lacks the ability to remember, then it is conscious without memory. But consciousness as we know it has no content without input and memory. So that leaves consciousness as we know it as an emergent property that only becomes real when an information system with input and memory and self evaluation comes into existence. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How about ""Consciousness causes collapse" is the name given to a controversial speculation that consciousness causes the collapse of quantum mechanical wave functions. " ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow...brilliant post(s) by WAS, thanks and welcome to the topic. It's refreshing to see the discussion elevated to this level, including precise and eloquent usage of the scientific lexicon. In any case, I think the use of "discredited" in the lead as proposed by SA is too strong, lacking surrounding context. I like the pre-existing "controversial", as modified in proposal by Martinphi. WNDL42 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for this edit either . It is a mis-conception, as interraction is the only thing necessary to cause collapse according to theory. But that is not a neutral tone. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, the above statement that interaction is the only thing necessary to cause collapse is mis-leading if not a completely false statement. Two different wave functions can combine to become one, hence interaction between two systems does not necessitate collapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are essentially correct, but I think Martinphi is speaking from within the context of a "Bohm-ish" interpretation. I believe he meant to preface with "according to the theory" as opposed to "according to theory", if I am not mistaken. WNDL42 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CCC is essentially an attempt to put mystical states into the concepts of physics. It is thus an interpretation, a speculation. Mystics say that there are states of consciousness which, while conscious, are not involved with the relationship of objects. Thus, the models WAS talks about are also controversial. But there isn't any experimental evidence I know of saying that CCC, partly for the same reason WAS says- consciousness is not a claim that can be tested. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The latest round of edits appear to be a repeat of this slaughter from last month. I'm inclined to agree with the earlier editor's opinions and suggest a wholesale revert to the last stable version and work the issues from there. WNDL42 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And now another round of content deletion this morning, here. WNDL42 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again: claims that CCC has been wholesale rejected, or officially deemed pseudoscientific cannot be supported. Claims that is controversial, or that is has been criticised can. 1Z (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that no quantum physicists actively researching in the area accept this interpretation or even deign to speak of consciousness as an observable show that you are wrong in this evaluation. How many courses in quantum mechanics have you taken? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)q

Science Apologist, are you suggesting that anything that science is not currently evaluating must be false? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that quantum physicists are those best equipped to provide interpretations of their work. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Peterd (aka 1Z), I agree with you (again)!! Anyway, I was attempting to address SA's concern by substuting "metaphysical" for "controversial", not because I think it's better that way but as a way of addressing the concern. Peterd reverted me and I support Peter's revert. WNDL42 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, If you have a cite for the fact that CCC is not the subejct of research, give it by all means. But you are drawing inferences, which is OR. 1Z (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Want me to prove a negative? Okay. How about you show me a cite for the fact that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not a subject of research. Yawn. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All WP claims must be supported by cites, negative and postivie. The problem of proving negatives can be avoided by phrasing claims in a less sweeping way. 1Z (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A nice reinterpretation of policy, but one that doesn't have any traction. The point is that we write plainly, without equivocation so that the reader has an easier time understanding. Note that describing pseudoscience is best done straightforwardly. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, your op-ed "describing pseudoscience" at your user page is self published WP:OR, represents your idividual POV, and is itself a "reinterpretation". Citing it here does not advance the discussion. Please talk to the point made by 1Z, the use of Straw Man mischaracterizations of his point are unhelpful.WNDL42 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sufficiently discussed why this particular garbage interpretation needs to be rightly framed as discredited. Since quantum physicists disagree that this is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics AND (as WAS pointed out) so do philosophers, we are basically describing a popular misconception rather than a scientific idea here. This needs to be made clear. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, SA...you haven't...(a), user WAS refuted your mis-interpretation of his postings in this edit, and (b) you have not explained or justified or demonstrated support for these massive content deletions. WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't speak for WAS, let him speak for himself. I have provided plenty of justification and explanation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the article is now locked in it's unfortunate present state as a result of this WNDL42 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's usually what happens. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, Are you going to join in with any consensus-building activity ? 1Z (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, I've seen this theory mostly mentioned in hypothetical situations, since it is a very natural consequence of Copenhagen and for me represents a proof that Copenhagen should be possible to reject on philosophical grounds. And now there is an edit war between a neutral version and a version that makes it look like this theory has proponents (!) and that science is some kind of football match. I doubt wikipedia is supposed to set forth such a childish world view. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I think that we could reposition the article thusly. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Status of non-consensus changes on WP

Edit warring non-consensus POV changes into the article will not work. It hasn't worked in the past on other articles. Why would it work now? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Luckily, no one here was guilty of doing these things. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!! 1Z (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!!! ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 09:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

!!!!!!!! --ScienceApologist (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the phrase "consciousness causes collapse"

Does anyone know the origin of this phrase "consciousness causes collapse"? Do we have any sources that use specifically this phrase, identify its origin, and state what the specific conjecture is? I ask because I realized it means something very different to me than to some of the others participating here. Maybe a place to begin would be to pin down these things, with sources. TimidGuy (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an idea that is not generally believed by people in the know: but is given a treatment as an object lesson for misconceptions. In terms of an actual "interpretation" it's about as reasonable an interpretation as God in the gaps. Even now, there is a discussion at the QM template to relegate it to a pseudoscience section. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that much is clear from your earlier posts. : ) But it almost seems like a straw man because we can't say who formulated this phrase and what they meant by it. It could mean, in your interpretation, "Something unknowable, via an unknowable mechanism, affects collapse, which is itself debated." Or it could mean, in another interpretation, "Physicists have sometimes been perplexed by the relationship of subjectivity to the collapse of the wave function and have grappled with the issue in various ways trying to understand it." Unless we know the origin and what was meant by it, seems like we can't really meaningfully write about it -- or come to any sort of agreement regarding how to treat it in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts...Looking at the origin and evolution of this article, it almost appears like it was set up as a POV fork. FYI, the Google Scholar publications database index yields only six publications that use the phrase "consciousness causes collapse" explicitly, while the same search on yields 1,000 times more document references. WNDL42 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this article is AfD worthy? What do people think? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. That's been my goal since I discovered this article. If you check out the talk archive you'll see that I proposed that this article should really be part of the QM or Interpretation of QM articles. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of sources that use this phrase increasingly makes it seem like a straw man. And does raise the question about whether this is an appropriate article. I would think that an article could be written but could be of a more general nature: not positing such a clear connection between consciousness-whatever-that-is and collapse but talking about the issue of subjectivity that physicists have grappled with. Just an idea. It could make it less offensive to the skeptics and more open for a neutral presentation. Perhaps. TimidGuy (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I can imagine a section of Copenhagen Interpretation discussing this, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I like SA's idea that this topic is better handled under a more mainstream article on physics. WNDL42 (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a rare moment of agreement, might I suggest that we make this article into a redirect to Copenhagen Interpretation and remand all further discussion to that article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement generally, and I specifically support SA's initiative WRT copenhagen, but I absolutely DO think we should go the AFD route anyway...we should hear all voices and we can ensure a strong consensus there. Agreed? WNDL42 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. TimidGuy (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with SA's idea. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I made the edit request below. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd just like to remind you all, that if there is an idea around, someone will look here for it; and that's an opportunity to teach physics. If they find nothing they will google elsewhere (and maybe find some crackpot site). So I'd rather have an article "Conscious causes collapse" that just says "A misunderstanding of the Observer Effect applied to quantuum mechanics", with some links for people to learn about those things, than no article at all. Considering how anti-intuitive some of QM seems to be, I'd advocate patience for misunderstandings. (Btw, my gloss of CCC is haphazard, I'm lame at QM anyway. I don't mean to use that particular gloss.) Pete St.John (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How does removing this page effect all the links to this page? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article is deleted, someone would go through and remove all the links. If it becomes a redirect, it will redirect to the appropriate section of Interpretations of quantum mechanics or Copenhagen Interpretation, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is involved in changing the name instead of deleting. This is a topic that is significant enough that it deserves its own page. But I do see a problem in that there is no real single description used for the consept in the community. Perhaps renaming it to 'Consciousness collapses Wave Function' would be a better title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.76.206 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This subject lacks significance outside Quantum Mechanics and as such cannot be properly understood outside QM. By separating it from QM and attempting to treat it as an independent subject leads to pseudoscience like "What the bleep do we know" and "The Secret". There is enough quantum nonsense going around without providing another subject for crackpots to feed off. By keeping wave function collapse and the mechanisms leading to it firmly within QM and interpretations of QM then we can be sure that anyone who is interested in this subject will not be led astray by pseudoscience. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a distinguishable philosophical difference among editors. To me, that "there is enough quantum nonsense going around" is a reason to address it, here. Wherever there is confusion, we can shine a light; explaining (difficult, technical) QM in lay terms (as best we can-- I mean, as best the physicist contributors can :-) to eliminate the confusion. That's better than leaving nontechnical but curious readers to google some crackpot website that claims QM proves psychokenesis at astronomical ranges (or whatever). Pete St.John (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The wave function of QM is described in beautiful detail at Copenhagen interpretation and it gets serious attention (and serious scientific supervision) there, which has resulted in a first class article on the topic. In the three years of this article's existence, it has always been (relatively speaking) a piece of crap. This article, despite a lot of good faith efforts, will never go anywhere because it is, as it was in 2004, a POV "fork" where a lot of us can argue -- with relatively few "adults" around.

Yes, any possible "role" of whatever kind of "consciousness" someone might believe in IS important -- hell, I'm a "GaiaGuy" myself, but that's not the point. Bottom line, "Consciousness causes collapse" is a literal "Schroedinger's cat", it will remain silmultaneously in superpositions of "true and untrue" until the box is opened, and the problem is that until we can actually perform planck scale experiments...the box just can't be opened. WNDL42 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

(tag removed)Please add {{subst:AfD to the top of this article per the above consensus discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)}}

As we seem to have consensus (among the majority of involved editors) I've reduced protection to semi - so you can add the afd banner. If any edit warring resumes, I'll reprotect. Vsmith (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

recent edits, theory vs idea

Martinphi's recent edits include replacing "idea" (referring to CCC) with "theory". It should be understood that in the context of physics, CCC is not a theory. It is an idea held by some laypeople. It should be plain that CCC is flatly rejected by physicists. That's OK; democracy was flatly rejected by Stalin. Ideas can be addressed, considered from many points of view, but we do indeed confuse the reader if physics is made to appear divided, when it is not. (There is always one specialist somewhere who believes anything, but a plain professional consensus shouldn't be doubted.) Pete St.John (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that CCC does not constitute a "theory" but it is not just an idea just held by laypeople. It is a speculation about what QM might imply which is completely in line with everything we know about physics, otherwize it would not be currently unfalsifiable , it would be false. It has every bit as much merrit as the many worlds theory, which is currently just speculation. Same with string theory. 162.18.76.206 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what you mean is the reversion I did just recently. That was only meant to reverse the nonconsensus stuff by a blocked user. I may very well have gotten some other edits there, for which I apologize- just change the things you mention back. I think it is a speculation, not a theory. Not so sure it has as much merit as the many worlds theory, because many worlds is what the math says. However, the math says nothing about consciousness, am I right here? But I haven't heard a flat rejection, though perhaps there is one. Only I think that CCC is just not predicted by theory or supported by evidence or theory. Right? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class physics pages
• NA-importance physics pages
• Redirect-Class physics articles of NA-importance
• NA-Class Skepticism pages
• NA-importance Skepticism pages
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
• NA-importance Philosophy pages
• Redirect-Class philosophy of mind pages
• NA-importance philosophy of mind pages
• Philosophy of mind task force articles