Claimed Consciousness in QM

[Steve001]

There's always talk among a certain group of people that a conscious observer is required in QM. I've looked around the interwebs for a easy to understand counter argument to this claim, but have not much success.
Is there one ?

[deemsta]

Well, it's not specified anywhere in the mathematics...

[WhatRoughBeast]

Dunno about the "easy to understand" part, but the term you're looking for is "decoherence".

Classic QM multi-state problems like Schrodinger's Cat have as their basis the ability to completely isolate the interior of the box from the rest of the universe, so the two possible states, alive or dead, cannot be resolved until the cat is "observed". But just opening the box and allowing the contents to interact with the rest of the universe will cause the states to decohere, and only one state will remain. No conscious observer required. (As long as you don't subscribe to the multi-worlds school of thought.)

[Molinaro]

There's always talk among a certain group of people that a conscious observer is required in QM. I've looked around the interwebs for a easy to understand counter argument to this claim, but have not much success.
Is there one ?

It's based on a misunderstanding of the use of the word "observer" in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. The word conscious does not appear anywhere in any interpretation of QM.

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.

[Dancing David]

...

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.
This should be a sticky on this forum!

[Steve001]

Thanks for the replies, but either I or some other poster have stated these very points with no affect. there are article like this http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/16/creating-schr-dingers-virus-in-the-la Romero-Isart and colleagues believe that studying organisms in this way could have profound implications. "We expect these proposed experiments to be a first step to experimentally address fundamental questions," they write in their paper, "such as the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, and the book: The Quantum Enigma by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner

It is vexing.

[Steve001]

This should be a sticky on this forum!

The Heisenberg quote can be turned to consciousness crowds favor. They would argue that Werner didn't specifically say consciousness has no role.

[epepke]

The Heisenberg quote can be turned to consciousness crowds favor. They would argue that Werner didn't specifically say consciousness has no role.


Yeah, and also, Heisenberg was just this guy, you know? The "transition from the possible to the actual" is neither an inherent feature of QM, just some interpretations. He maybe thought it couldn't be omitted, but he was full of quantum foam. Sure you can, but you probably have to accept something else you don't want.

[Dancing David]

The Heisenberg quote can be turned to consciousness crowds favor. They would argue that Werner didn't specifically say consciousness has no role.


Some people will believe what they want...

[Steve001]

One respondent linked this. We'll see if makes the other poster waver from their argument.
Abstract
It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the
collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a
possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several
predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental
results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human
consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing
evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics
may play in the observer’s consciousness
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.2404v2.pdf

[Farsight]

It is vexing.It is woo, Steve. People peddle stuff like this because it attracts interest, because other people like woo and mysticism. It's usually celebrity "physicists" with a book to plug or ill-informed media hacks. But sadly, sometimes it isn't.

[Dancing David]

One respondent linked this. We'll see if makes the other poster waver from their argument.
That depends if they can read.


In conclusion, the available evidence does not indicate that the observer’s explicit phenomenal representation about the outcome of a measurement plays a role
in collapsing the wave function. We also suggest that
the observer does not serve a more fundamental function in quantum mechanics than that in the classical theory. Thus, the idea that by mere observation the experimenter creates physical reality is not viable