Consciousness and events
C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists. What I do not see, or what I am not aware of, therefore does not exist.
Schrödinger had ideas along similar lines.
?A cat is locked in a steel chamber, together with the following infernal device that must be shielded from direct interference by the cat: in a small vial is a tiny amount of a radioactive substance, so little that within an hour one atom may decaybut equally likely, none will. If an atom decays, a Geiger counter detects it and triggers a relay that releases a hammer, which shatters a flask of hydrocyanic acid. If this system has been left to itself for an hour, one would say the cat is still alive if no atom has decayed. The first atom to decay would have poisoned the cat. The wave function of the entire system would express this by showing the living and dead cat as coexisting in a mixed state. The striking feature of such cases is that an indeterminacy originally confined to the atomic level becomes translated into a macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. (Translation of Schrödingers original text. Source: Wikipedia)
But the idea that direct observation decides the outcome seems incorrect to me. ?Direct observation determines the result, yesbut observation itself does not decide. It merely perceives. Consciousness then forms an opinion and makes decisions based on what is perceived, but in this case, it lags behind the facts (dead or alive).
The double slit experiment shows that light (and even matter) behaves both as a wave and as a particle. ?When you send light or electrons through two slits, an interference pattern appears on the screen behindas if they pass through both slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. This reveals their wave-like nature.?But as soon as you observe which slit they pass through, the interference pattern disappearsand they behave like particles. This suggests that observation influences behavior, which is one of the strangest insights of quantum mechanics.
According to quantum mechanics, everything exists in a superposition until it is observed. ?Superposition means that different physical quantities (such as waves, forces, or electrical signals) can exist simultaneously and influence each other without losing their individual properties.?So, in my view, this means that what I do not see or am not aware of exists in a superpositiona vast range of possibilities. It only truly exists the moment I see it and become aware of it.
It seems, then, that before something is observed, everything existsbut only as possibility (superposition). ?We live in a vast field of potential outcomes that only become definite once we observe them.
And this puzzles me....
Schrödinger had ideas along similar lines.
?A cat is locked in a steel chamber, together with the following infernal device that must be shielded from direct interference by the cat: in a small vial is a tiny amount of a radioactive substance, so little that within an hour one atom may decaybut equally likely, none will. If an atom decays, a Geiger counter detects it and triggers a relay that releases a hammer, which shatters a flask of hydrocyanic acid. If this system has been left to itself for an hour, one would say the cat is still alive if no atom has decayed. The first atom to decay would have poisoned the cat. The wave function of the entire system would express this by showing the living and dead cat as coexisting in a mixed state. The striking feature of such cases is that an indeterminacy originally confined to the atomic level becomes translated into a macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. (Translation of Schrödingers original text. Source: Wikipedia)
But the idea that direct observation decides the outcome seems incorrect to me. ?Direct observation determines the result, yesbut observation itself does not decide. It merely perceives. Consciousness then forms an opinion and makes decisions based on what is perceived, but in this case, it lags behind the facts (dead or alive).
The double slit experiment shows that light (and even matter) behaves both as a wave and as a particle. ?When you send light or electrons through two slits, an interference pattern appears on the screen behindas if they pass through both slits simultaneously and interfere with themselves. This reveals their wave-like nature.?But as soon as you observe which slit they pass through, the interference pattern disappearsand they behave like particles. This suggests that observation influences behavior, which is one of the strangest insights of quantum mechanics.
According to quantum mechanics, everything exists in a superposition until it is observed. ?Superposition means that different physical quantities (such as waves, forces, or electrical signals) can exist simultaneously and influence each other without losing their individual properties.?So, in my view, this means that what I do not see or am not aware of exists in a superpositiona vast range of possibilities. It only truly exists the moment I see it and become aware of it.
It seems, then, that before something is observed, everything existsbut only as possibility (superposition). ?We live in a vast field of potential outcomes that only become definite once we observe them.
And this puzzles me....
Comments (108)
By the way, I don't know if it was C G Jung who said that. Bishop Berkeley, who is often discussed on this forum, certainly said esse est percipe (to be is to be perceived) but he was a long time before Jung. But you're right in saying that quantum physics has opened these cans of worms again, of that there is no question,
I just discussed the same topic in another thread. I think you'll find it interesting, so I'll just copy my answer
My fascination with the processual approach to ontology is a kind of response to speculative ontology (object-oriented ontology and so on). I believe that the "subject" today needs philosophical defense more than ever before. If you're familiar with the works of us contemporaries, I think you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Harman, for instance, argues that the "hammerness" of a hammer is always withdrawn. "Hammerness" is the real being of the hammer as a unified object, which can't be reduced to its relationships with other things (e.g., a hand, a nail, or our thinking). We can't know it completely because:
Objects have "real qualities" that aren't exhausted by their "sensual" manifestations.
Any kind of knowledge is a relation that only reveals aspects of the object, but not its holistic essence.
This withdrawal occurs in three dimensions: the object transcends any attempts to grasp it; it retreats into the background during use; and as a tool, it's always on the verge of breaking, yet remains partially inaccessible.
Harman emphasizes that this isn't skepticism (objects are real) but rather realism: objects exist independently, but their depth is infinite and inaccessible. This distinguishes OOO from relational ontologies, where everything is reduced to connections.
What I Propose:
The modality (or the name can be changed to your liking) of a hammer is its "shadowy depth" (like Harman's), objective and inaccessible in isolation. But when the hammer is used, "hammerness" as a property emerges as an eventdynamic and contextual. This explains why we can't know hammerness statically: it doesn't exist "in the hammer" as a substance, but is born at the boundary of interaction, much like how for Harman, an object is only partially revealed in relationships.
For Harman, the hammer is revealed in its usewe see only one aspect. I propose to refine this: "hammerness" as a property is revealed in an act of participation, an act of encounter, and depends on the participants in the interaction (the hand, the nail, the task, the lighting). For another participant (e.g., a child playing with the hammer) or context (the hammer as a weapon), a different property is revealed, but the hammer's modality remains the same. This helps explain why complete knowledge is impossible: properties infinitely vary in processes, but they never exhaust the modality.
For Harman, the subject is a passive object, equal to others and withdrawn from access. The subject is unremarkable and unnecessary (why do we need it if everything is an object, and the method is objective). In my opinion, on the contrary, the subject (the observer or the "I") is a fully existent being with its own modalities (objective structures, such as the visual system or consciousness). It doesn't disappear or become fully flattened: the subject actively participates in the act of Participation, where properties are revealed. For example, in the case of a red apple, the subject (observer) is one of the participants in the interaction (along with the apple and light), and their modalities (cognitive structures) determine how the event of the property emerges. This overcomes Harman's radicalism, returning a role to the subject in reality, but without idealism: the subject doesn't create properties; it co-participates in their actualization
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-theorys-measurement-problem-may-be-a-poison-pill-for-objective-reality/
Examples of measurements without consciousness:
Each collapses the wave function. None involve consciousness.
See https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02342-y
Suppose each thing is always a 'superposition of possibilities' but that measuring a thing tracks, or records, only one possibility at a time when the measurement apparatus also a thing is classical (i.e. local, decoherent). :chin:
However there are those here who, for their own reasons, will pretend that the issue is settled, and in favour of consciousness being needed to collapse the wave form.
In the Nature survey cited above, only 9% of physicists will agree with them.
Now will come a series of arguments aimed at discounting the view of collapse as measurement, beginning with
Quoting Wayfarer
Note that this is a seperate point - the simple truism that we can only know how things are by looking at how things are. It ignores the difference between somethings being true and being known to be true. A common bit of antirealist rhetoric.
Why make the leap to calling it magic? Why not just say: "I don't know, but I will try to find out..."
:roll:
Welcome to the forum. Given my obsession with metaphysics, I will point out that Jungs formulation is metaphysics and not science. On the other hand, it is my understanding that Schrodingers cat was a thought experiment intended to show the absurdity of some interpretations of quantum mechanics, not as a serious explanation for an actual phenomenon.
In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges, or to use a word I recently learned, the explanations you described are incommensurable.
You interpret that as Feynman saying that engineering is like casting magic spells?
:up: :up:
Quoting wonderer1
:smirk:
If you stopped there, we would have little disagreement.
But in a few posts you will be leaping beyond the obvious truth that we only know stuff with our mind, to the mind created world; to mind not just being an outcome of the way things are, but the reason that things are this way.
Now you may be right; but the evidence available does not support your certainty. And there are conceptual difficulties you have yet to overcome.
It's you who goes past Feynman's aphorism.
That doesn't validate a leap into proclaiming what is mere speculation.
Sure.
The graph isn't embarrassing, as indeed is pointed out repeatedly in the comments. The results from this small survey are not too far form the results in the bigger Nature survey I cited above. (thirty odd compared to 1,100). The Copenhagen interpretation hold steady in both.
To be fair, neither survey included your option, "It's magic".
Back to this. Was he right?
Did the world cease to exist last night while you slept?
What would happen if you were to pretend that it had? If you insisted that events that others claim occurred while you slept did not occur, becasue nothing existed while you were asleep?
How would others treat you?
Would any advantage accrue to you from this exercise? Any at all?
It depends on how you interpret what he was saying alongside what it appears he actually meant.
Obviously.
So, did the clock on your wall keep moving while you slept, or was there a leap from when you closed your eyes to when you opened them again, no time passing - nothing exists, just things leaping ahead as if time had passed?
Indeed, there would be no period of unconsciousness, since time is a part of the world that supposedly ceases to exist "while you are unconscious"...
There could never be a period in which you are not conscious.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic ~ Arthur C Clarke. If you dont think modern information technology is magic, you have a very limited imagination.
I have no answers. I am generally some breed of physicalist when it comes to some questions of consciousness and not so much for others. It depends on the framing.
If you are asking form a physicalistic perspective then the room exists when I leave. If you are asking from a phenomenological perspective the question is far more complicated.
Thank you. That's what I'd hoped. To my eye this shows the incoherence of such talk. So mucht he worse for phenomenology.
The actual quote was:
[quote=Source; https://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10550.pdf] Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected and considered by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.[/quote]
It absolutely can, people can just be either unfairly dismissive or ignorant.
Quoting Jan
Physicist and philosopher Karen Barad favors Niels Bohrs explanation of the double slit experiment over Einstein or Heisenberg. Bohr does not see scientific knowledge as describing pre-existing objects with independent properties. Instead, the outcome of the double-slit experiment shows that what is observed depends on the experimental arrangement. The electron (or photon) does not have an inherent wave or particle nature independent of how we measure it. Whether we see an interference pattern (wave-like) or two distinct bands (particle-like) is a function of the measurement setup, not a revelation of some hidden essence of the electron.
Barad takes Bohrs explanation further, claiming that reality is not made of independent objects with inherent attributes.Instead, reality consists of phenomena produced through intra-actions.The double-slit experiment demonstrates this. There is no independent electron with a wave-or-particle nature, only the phenomenon of electron plus apparatus. For Barad, the very concepts of wave and particle are not properties of nature-in-itself, but arise only within specific experimental arrangements. The experiment demonstrates the inseparability of observer, apparatus, and observed.
Jung seems to be saying that I personally create the reality I see. But I don't consciously or intentionally create my environment, I just passively (instinctively) accept it as a given, and interpret the incoming bits of energy as information signals from a non-self Reality. So, Epistemological Idealism doesn't make sense to me. The other varieties of Idealism : Subjective ; Objective ; Absolute ; Constitutive ; and Transcendental ; appear to be grasping at straws.
Only the Transcendental makes some Ontological sense --- in view of the Big Bang theory --- but then we have the problem of postulating an imaginary out-of-this-world Source of the incoming Information (Ideas) we interpret as Real. I don't flatly reject the God hypothesis, even though I have no personal experience to confirm it. Therefore, as an amateur philosopher, while I entertain the hypothetical notion of Idealism, for practical purposes I assume that there is a real material world out there, which is not a creation of my feeble imagination. :smile:
Perhaps we ought to distinguish between meaning or signification with existence and then the puzzle is weakened.
Unless one wants to throw away all the evidence we have of non-conscious activity prior to our existence, which helps explain (in part) why we are here at all.
So, did the clock on your wall keep moving while you slept, or was there a leap from when you closed your eyes to when you opened them again, no time passing - nothing exists, just things leaping ahead as if time had passed?
Thats interesting
I am busy creating a kind of an imaginary model. I hope I can fit this in
I hope to show it some day.
Hence solipsism.
[quote=Clock time contra lived time; https://aeon.co/essays/who-really-won-when-bergson-and-einstein-debated-time ]To examine the measurements involved in clock time, (Henri) Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state the current time is what we call now. Each successive now of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks dont measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time.
Bergson appreciated that we need the exactitude of clock time for natural science. For example, to measure the path that an object in motion follows in space over a specific time interval, we need to be able measure time precisely. What he objected to was the surreptitious substitution of clock time for duration in our metaphysics of time. His crucial point in Time and Free Will was that measurement presupposes duration, but duration ultimately eludes measurement.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
At least your version of it does.
Even accepting Bergson's distinction between time and duration - and I don't see that we need do so - the problem remains that things cease to exist when we are "unconscious". That problem is not resolved.
Substitute "the world" with "your world."
Actual quote from Jung is:
Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.
Quoting Jan
I can't agree with this assessment.
Jung was a psychologist, not a physicist. He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness.
This is not a statement about reality generally. It is a statement about what constitutes our personal reality. The "practically speaking" qualification makes it all the more difficult to suggest he was making any claim about the world generally.
Why do we exist in a universe fine tuned for conscious life? Because only such life collapses potentiality into actuality. All possibilities exist, but only those with life become actual. Problem solved. If the degree of collapse corresponds to the degree of consciousness, perhaps there is even something like an iron law leading towards de Chardin's Omega Point. Makes as much sense as the multiverse.
At least, prima facie, I am not sure why "everything possible actually happens, it is just impossible to ever observe that this is so," is considered [I]more[/I] plausible than this. I can see why some might find both absurd, but the preference for one over the other seems hard to explain as anything other than an aesthetic preference.
So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically.
Matter exists. Planets exist. If you have an atypical definition of "the world", I suppose we can just go about redefining any word vague enough if we so please. What of it?
Quoting Hanover
I think "our idea of the world" would be best suited in place of "our world". The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, doesn't exist, or may come to exist. It should go without saying "my opinion" or "what I think to be a fact because it seems like it" are very different concepts that do not necessarily have anything to do with the physical matter and constitutional makeup of the universe, let alone how other people may view such.
I just don't see the basic elementary idea of "one's opinion" or "worldview" coming anywhere near traversing such depths of the metaphysical or anything remotely profound. Sure, most people fail to realize that. But as far as academia is concerned, this is, or at least I would hope should be, common knowledge.
No. That suggests Jung was some sort of Berkelian idealist. He was not making any metaphysical claim at all. He was only indicating our psyche is mediated by our perceptions and so our consciousness of reality defines who we are. Quoting Outlander
He's not suggesting otherwise. To the extent the external world is mediated and not directly knowable, that would evoke Kantian references of the noumenal, but not suggestions of reality blipping in and out of existence as we blink.
Does a measurement require an observer?
Yes, and they must be conscious: 9%
Yes, but consciousness is not relevant (and an 'observer' can include
interaction with a macroscopic environment): 56%
No: 28%
Not sure: 8%
The supposition that there is a consensus amongst physicists that consciousness is an inherent feature of the physical universe is a fabrication. 84% of physicists reject the idea that consciousness is necessary for measurement.
Physicists are not trained in theories of consciousness. Theres probably precious little agreement amongst them about what the word even refers to. (Good article, BTW.)
Yep. If consciousness were central to physics in the way you suppose, wouldn't physicist be the "go-to" for explaining consciousness?
I think I could say that the act of observation seems inextricably connected with an experimental result in quantum physics, and this is what has given rise to the well-known interpretive problems. As observers are conscious, some will say that it is inferred from that fact that consciousness is involved, although there is still debate about whether registration by an instrument that is not observed amounts to a measurement. But one can always say that any such registration must itself be validated by observation before it has been brought to completion.
Consciousness isn't an inherent feature of the physical universe, but a description of the physical universe without reference to consciousness is incoherent. The measurement (meaning the measuring devices' reaction to the physical event) occurs without consciousness, but what are we even talking about when we talk about events that exist in a universe that have never been provided attributes described by the senses?
But there seems to be largely agreement that measurement does not require consciousness because there is simply nothing in quantum theory to suggest this. It only arises as something you might consider when speculating about interpretation, and if your preferred interpretation does not have a profound measurement problem, there is no longer a reason for you to want to bring consciousness into it, on top of the fact that quantum theory does not suggest consciousness is required in any way.
Someone raised the question above : "what is a measurement?" The English word "measure" comes from Latin "mensura', and mensura derives from the root "mens-" meaning Mind*1. So, one sense of measurement is "to extract information into a mind". To "take the measure of something" is to convert the perceived object into a mental representation of the object : an idea or concept. Hence, metaphorically, some physical properties of the object are replicated in meta-physical (mental) images (ideas). Therefore, a particle of matter can impact another particle, but only a Mind can measure the meaning of that collision in terms of values & properties. A yardstick cannot measure anything in the absence of an interpreting mind.
The Quantum Measurement Problem*2 seems to be similar to Bergson's Clock. Mechanisms move one tick at a time, but humans measure Time as duration : the space between ticks. Hence, for 10 billion solar years, the expanding universe ticked along, with no one to measure that change in terms of duration (Time) or expansion (space) or importance (events). Do animals have a mental concept of Time, over & above the circadian rhythms of their bodies? Humans seem to feel time as flowing, but measure it in discrete increments : ticks of a mechanical clock or sub-atomic quanta. So, time is not a physical thing, but merely an on-going process of observed events that we experience as continuous, but measure as quantified. :smile:
*1. The measuring mind : The Latin word for "mind" is mens, not "mensura". "Mensura" is a separate Latin word meaning "measure".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+word+for+%22mind%22+mensura
*2. The quantum measurement problem is a foundational question in quantum mechanics concerning the apparent contradiction between a quantum system's deterministic evolution (as described by the Schrödinger equation) and the probabilistic "collapse" of its state into a single outcome upon measurement.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+measurement+problem
*3. Time is widely understood as a continuous flow of existence and events, progressing irreversibly from past to future, and is a fundamental aspect of reality as described by both physics and philosophy. While a continuous and divisible flow is the dominant view, particularly in how we experience it, the nature of time at the most fundamental, quantum level is still an area of debate, with some physicists suggesting a discrete model might be necessary to fully reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Is+Time+a+series+of+isolated+events%2C+or+a+continuous+flow+of+change%3F
Quoting Wayfarer
Solipsism is self-centered. Each observer of the environment is a Self (knowing mind), and has a self-centered perspective. But, for scientific purposes, we compare our selfish worldviews in order to average-out the differences, and to discover the most common description or interpretation of the thing observed : Objective instead of Subjective*4.
In the Embarassing Graph article linked above, "The embarrassing thing is that we dont have agreement". Even so, the most "popular" interpretation of spooky Quantum Physics is the one that is most like Magic : Probabilistic Copenhagen (42%) : events happen that can't be explained in classical deterministic mechanical terms. Second most popular is mind-centered Information-Theoretical (24%). And farther down the list is belief-centered Quantum-Bayesianism (6%). So, most scientists seem to agree that something funny*5 (non-mechanical) is going on, that can seem magical or mundane, depending on the observer's worldview .
A scientist's sensory perceptions and machine data are empirical, but their measurements and interpretations are theory-laden. That's why we can argue in opposite directions from the same evidence. Likewise, physical events are real & empirical, but conscious ideas about those events are ideal & hypothetical (speculative). :nerd:
*4. Scientific objectivity is the principle that scientific claims, methods, and results should be free from personal biases, value judgments, community bias, and personal interests, aiming to accurately reflect the facts of the world. It involves focusing on evidence and proven facts, minimizing irrational emotions, and striving for neutrality and accuracy in research. While an ideal, achieving perfect objectivity is challenging, as scientists are influenced by their perspectives, culture, and the broader scientific community.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientific+objectivity
*5. The "magic" in the Copenhagen Interpretation refers to the seemingly inexplicable process of wave function collapse, where a quantum system's indeterminate probabilities resolve into a single, definite outcome upon measurement. Critics, including Schrödinger, found this abrupt, probabilistic change, which lacks a clear physical mechanism, to be "magical" and a weakness of the interpretation. For them, it introduces randomness and a lack of determinism that is contrary to classical physics, forcing an acceptance of an unanalyzable cause for the wave function's collapse.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+magic
We differentiate between what is believed, understood, thought and so on, and what is true. We do this becasue sometimes what we take to be true is unfortunately not true. We are mistaken, or we are in error, or we are deluded.
It's common for folk with idealist tendencies to confuse what they believe, understand, think etc. with what is true. Folk who think the world is inherently mental phenomena are going to have difficulty differentiating between mental phenomena and the world.
So they might say things such as that "the act of observation seems inextricably connected with an experimental result", and in a way of course this is true - to understand an experimental result requires a mind, after all. To understand that the rock falls requires a mind.
But it would be a mistake to think that therefore the rock could not fall unless there is a mind present - that the rock's fall is inherently a mental phenomena.
That we cannot talk about the way the world is without thereby conceptualising it with our minds does not imply that there is no such world without our so conceptualising it.
There is the ontological truth, that the rock falls. There is the epistemic truth, that a mind holds it to be true that the rock falls. This distinction is what permits us to be mistaken as to how things are.
You've misread your own reference. sure, m?ns (mind) is from PIE *men- (to think), but mens?ra (to measure) is form from PIE *meh?- (to measure).
Measure dervives from Meh, not Mens.
While there may be broad agreement that consciousness isn't necessarily special in quantum mechanics, this doesn't resolve the deeper puzzle. Even if consciousness plays no unique role, the measurement problem remains: something distinguishes measurement interactions from non-measurement interactions, and standard quantum theory doesn't specify what that 'something' is. We still need to explain why certain physical interactions produce definite outcomes while others maintain superposition.
Second, your comment that "if your preferred interpretation does not have..." is circular. You're essentially saying that if we choose an interpretation that claims to solve the measurement problem, then there's no problem! But the measurement problem is precisely why interpretations were needed in the first place. The various interpretations exist precisely because the theory leaves this fundamental question unanswered.
Third, saying that "quantum theory does not suggest consciousness is required" misses the point. The measurement problem doesn't arise because the theory positively suggests consciousness is involved - it arises because the theory is silent about what actually happens during measurement. Quantum mechanics works perfectly for making predictions, but it doesn't tell us what's really occurring when superpositions become definite outcomes, or what was really the case prior to measurement except by way of probabilities.
The hard question remains: given that quantum systems evolve unitarily according to the Schrödinger equation, why do we observe definite measurement results rather than experiencing superpositions? This puzzle can't be dissolved simply by adopting interpretations that claim it doesn't exist.
Quoting Banno
Would you say that grammar in Wittgensteins sense is the product of a mental phenomenon? If a word like truth only gets its sense from how it is used grammatically in public discourse, do we then say that such discourse is grounded in the interaction among minds? But then what do we do about the grammatical possibilities of mind?
Not according to the Copenhagen interpretation. We have the calculations, they work with extreme accuracy, and nothing more is needed from an explanation. The Copenhagen interpretation denies that we need to explain the mechanism of collapse, that there's some deeper level of reality beneath the quantum description and that the measurement problem requires a solution.
And again, if any interpretation is a consensus amongst physicist, it's the Copenhagen interpretation.
Quoting Wayfarer
Hang on - that word, "really", ought set one's teeth on edge. The fact is that Quantum Mechanics does tell us what will occur as the result of a superposition, with extraordinary accuracy.
Your sentiment for a deeper mystical account is not an argument. Least of all is some form of idealism required.
Bohr wasn't saying "don't ask deeper questions" or "physics should only describe observations." His complementarity principle was a sophisticated attempt to understand what quantum mechanics reveals about the nature of physical reality itself. Bohr argued that quantum phenomena demonstrate fundamental limits to classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" - not because we can't measure precisely enough, but because reality itself doesn't conform to these classical categories.
I have to mention the family Coat of Arms that was bestowed on Neils Bohr by the Danish Crown in recognition of his services to science. Bohr designed it himself, and it included the taoist Ying-Yang symbol, representing his discovery of complementarity, which he regarded as his most important philosophical insight.
The positivist reading - which you're advocating here - treats Bohr as an anti-realist who wanted to avoid metaphysics entirely. But Bohr was actually making a profound metaphysical claim: that the classical subject-object distinction breaks down at the quantum level, and that phenomena only exist in relation to experimental contexts. This isn't avoiding the measurement problem - it's proposing that the problem reveals something fundamental about the nature of physical reality.
Bohr's "no deeper level" claim wasn't anti-explanatory positivism but rather the view that quantum mechanics reveals the deepest level - that reality is inherently relational and contextual rather than consisting of objects with intrinsic properties.
You're conflating the copenhagen view with the later "shut up and calculate" attitude - just leave those questions aside and do the work. Bohr was deeply concerned with interpretation and meaning - he just thought quantum mechanics was telling us something revolutionary about the nature of reality itself.
John Wheeler: The dependence of what is observed upon the choice of experimental arrangement made Einstein unhappy, It conflicts with the view that the universe exists out there independent of all acts of observation. In contrast Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us. In struggling to make clear to Einstein the central point as he saw it, Bohr found himself forced to introduce the word phenomenon. In todays words, Bohrs point and the central point of quantum theory can be put into a single, simple sentence. No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon.
Werner Heisenberg: What we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.
Neils Bohr: Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world.
Quoting Banno
[quote=George Berkeley] I do not argue against the existence of any one thing that we can apprehend, either by sense or reflection. That the things I see with my eyes and touch with my hands do exist, really exist, I make not the least question. The only thing whose existence we deny is that which philosophers call matter or corporeal substance.[/quote]
So - let's solve that problem! Demonstrate to Bishop Berkeley that matter is composed of absolute and indivisible particles that exist entirely independently of anyone's observation or say-so. Get to it!
See the reply to Joshs, above.
This:
Quoting Wayfarer
sits exactly in agreement with the view I've expressed, and contrary to your need for further metaphysics.
You are the one who wants to say more than is justified by the evidence.
This is where you back away from your own Mind-created world.
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Banno
You see, that line could be taken from 'the mind-created world'. But it seems in conflict with:
Quoting Banno
The whole argument between Bohr and Einstein in respect of quantum physics, was Bohr's declaration that physics does not describe the world as it is, but only as it appears to us. This is what Einstein (and now, Penrose), could not accept. And point which is surely Kantian in spirit.
I have, here:
Quoting Banno
You would jump from "measurement involves interaction between observer and observed" to "consciousness creates reality". There's a bit of a logical gap there. Bohr's anti-realism does not imply idealism nor that consciousness creates that reality.
I don't use the phrase 'consciousness creates reality' and you won't find it in the mind-created world OP, as it would be misreading the point.
What I will say is that measurement is a conscious act. You might say that an instrument can record data in the absence of an observer, but until that data is actually observed, it is not yet a measurement. Consciousness creates reality only in the sense that it constitutes our experience of the world. To talk of things outside or apart from that experience assumes a false perspective, as if we could stand outside experience itself. This is something I think Wittgenstein also understood.
Quoting Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271
Well, I endorse an interpretation that has a measurment problem so this is solved for me, personally.
Quoting Wayfarer
No, the measurement problem is a result of the fact that when quantum theory was first created, people's first and perhaps natural inclination (considering the predecessors to quantum theory) was to interpret the wavefunction as the physical particle itself. If you choose to do this, you are going to come up with a measurement problem. But its also clear that you can produce coherent interpretations and formulations of quantum mechanics where you don't interpret the wavefunction as an object. Nonetheless, this habit has stuck even though it is not a necessary one. The need for interpretation does not come from the measurement problem; the measurement problem comes from assuming a certain kind of interpretation.
Quoting Wayfarer
It absolutely can. There exists more than one interpretation where you have point particles in definite configurations that reproduce all the predictions.
Hey, good for you!
Quoting Apustimelogist
But surely this was linked to the fact that science was in search of a or the 'fundamental particle', the basic componentry of the atom. So it is natural that this would amount to a search for a physical particle. The fact that this ended up with the uncertainty principle just is the measurement problem. And most of what i know about it comes from three books on the subject:
Kumar, Manjit. 2008. Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality. London: Icon Books.
Lindley, David. 2007. Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science. New York: Anchor Books.
Becker, Adam. 2018. What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics. New York: Basic Books.
Why the sub-titles? What was 'the great debate about'? Why 'the struggle for the soul of science?' 'Oh, nothing really' is not an answer.
When, in the guts of the chip on which you are typing, a quantum tunnel sets off a current in a transistor, you are not aware of it. No one is. And yet the measurement has been made. You claim is false.
Your only out is to define measurement in terms of consciousness and then slide the goal post of measurement back to physical interaction.
You have a too narrow an interpretation of consciousness. You think it something inside your head, looking out. But the chip, the theory, and all of the componentry of that experiment, are products of the mind.
The failure of that argument is I hope obvious to those reading on - whomever they are. You've expanded "consciousness" to include everything humans ever thought about or created, thus rendering the term useless. If you define everything as consciousness, then trivially, consciousness is all that exists. The ultimate ad hoc justification for a defeated hypothesis.
Just explain to me what about this statement was incorrect? And the fact that data is not information until it is interpreted? I'm simply stating that you can't see the world from some position external to your own being-in-the-world. You will find plenty of analogies for that idea in Wittgenstein, whom you know far better than I.
But you can interpret the wavefunction in other ways coherently. From my perspective, fact that people decided to try to interpret it as the physical particle is misplaced. They could have decided to interpret it differently from the beginning and no measurement problem would have existed. The measurement problem is not an inherent part of quantum theory, it is a property of certain interpretations. The only reason it seems so widespread is a knee-jerk inclination of how to view it. The uncertainty principle can be interpreted purely statistically.
Quoting Banno
Youre sounding like a phenomenologist. All you need to do is drop the successful. After all, is t that just one more piece of grammar?
But don't you see how momentous that decision would be? The admission that the fundamental particles of physics are not themselves physical? That you choose not to see this, is not any kind of argument.
Quoting Joshs
Yes, I noticed that. I'm sure it was a slip. ;-)
Do we conclude that everything is a product of mind - but then you say "I don't use the phrase 'consciousness creates reality'"; but you do "posits mind as foundational to the nature of existence" and "quantum mechanics really is magic".
You are expressing a sentiment rather than providing an argument - it's your account that is incoherent, not my response.
And in frustration at your lack of clarity my responses become increasingly uncharitable.
Perhaps we might proceed by looking for points of agreement. We both reject reductionism and scientism and those metaphysics that deny a place for mind at all. We both see science as not addressing the question of what to do.
Must you think in terms of 'isms"?
That success is our agreement.
Where is the support for this pretence?
See the problem?
Right. I am basically arguing against the popular view, or myth, of mankind as the 'accidental outcome of the collocation of atoms' (Bertrand Russell), a 'mere blip in the vastness of space-time' (Hawkings), and so on. Within that view, the mind is indeed the product of impersonal material forces, basically an accident. But that extends into popular culture as well. Some of the responses to the original post express that: what is real is what existed long before us and will continue after our extinction. Humans appear within that as mere epiphenomena. These are the roots of nihilism but they appear perfectly natural to a great many people nowadays. That is what I call the 'outside view': taking the attitude grounded in science as being normative, as if we see ourselves as objects from 'outside'. It is not realising that all of science itself is a human activity that relies on the human perspective, as phenomenology realises.
Here are your objections to idealism, and my response to them:
Quoting Banno
Novelty emerges from new external data interacting with our fixed frameworks. In the Kantian view, while the mind supplies the framework for experience, it must work in tandem with the manifold of sensory impressions. The unexpected quality of new data is what we call novelty. It doesnt imply that the mind conjured it from nothingit simply had to update its organization in response to an input that wasnt fully anticipated.
Error occurs when our interpretations fail to match that data. When someone holds a belief that is incorrect, it is because there's a mismatch between their mental constructs and what is going on. Although our experience is structured by the mind, it still emanates from the external world. A belief is in error when that mental structure misrepresents or fails to adequately capture the sensible data. This can sometimes result in cognitive dissonance and there are a multitude of opportunities for that in today's world.
Consensus arises because we all operate with fundamentally similar mental structures. This preserves the objectivity of the external world while acknowledging the active role our minds play in organizing experience.
Remember my argument is that what we regard as mind-independent has an ineluctably subjective element or ground, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis (that is the Kantian aspect). Not that the world is 'all in the mind' in the simplistic sense in which you are inclined to interpret it. I'm arguing against 'objectivism' in the sense propogated by scientific materialism which is very influential in today's culture.
anyway enough out of me for now, I have mundane duties to attend to, bye.
You seem to supose that unless humans have some special cosmic status or mind is foundational to reality, then human life becomes meaningless. That's textbook Naturalistic Fallacy.
Your reply to the novelty argument admits that there is something "external" to mind, conceding the point.
Your reply to the error argument either reduces truth to mere consistency or it also concedes that there is again more than just mind. If it reduces truth to mere consensus then it remains that there is no possibility for error - the truth is just what we agree to, and so this melds with the argument from consistency.
Your reply to the consensus argument is dependent on consistent "mental structures", which are the very things in question - how is it that we agree that we are discussing philosophy on an internet forum, unless we are indeed discussing philosophy on an internet forum, and there are things such as keyboards and screens and undersea cables and language in addition to our discussion.
The trick is to move past the realism/idealism dichotomy to see how we are embedded in a world that puts restrictions on what we (the plural is very much intended) can say and do.
There remains the problem of how idealism avoids solipsism. We know about other minds as a result of our interaction with them, which it precisely the same way in which we know about the world. IF you throw away a world outside of mind, you throw away along with it your access to other minds.
Well, yes, but that is not idealism.
It's not conceding the point. In the very first paragraphs of the mind-created world I spell it out: 'First is the criticism that idealism says that the world is all in the mind the implication being that, were there no mind to be aware of an object, then the object would cease to exist. Even very eminent philosophers have (mis)understood idealism in this way.' I will include you in that august company. I never claimed to reduce the world to the individual's mind, nor to show that the mind is a constituent of the natural world, but to show that any claims about the nature of the world contain an ineliminably subjective element, which itself is not revealed in the empirical data.
Quoting Banno
I say that the point is that cognitive science, and the Charles Pinter's book Mind and the Cosmic Order, have validated some essential insights from philosophical idealism.
Yeah, it is. You are now agreeing that there is more than just mind - that the mind does not created the world, but perhaps structures it. That's a step down from the mind-created world.
Quoting Wayfarer
Claims are made by minds, so of course claims involve minds. What is not justified here is the further step that says mind is a requirement for there to be a world at all.
But you can say the wavefunction is just mathematical object that is describing the behavior of physical particles without being identical to them. You can use an evolving probability density function to describe the behavior of a single particle undergoing diffusion, the evolving probability density function is not the particle itself.
Quoting C G Jung
Yes, the difference between truth and belief. So we've gone back two pages.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Youre right that it would be a mistake to claim the rock literally cant fall unless a mind is present. But the point is subtler: in order to say the rock falls when no one is around, youve already had to call it out, to mark it as that rock. Youre implicitly comparing the object with your idea of it. But from where can you make that comparison, if not within experience?
Kant explains the dilemma: to check whether cognition agrees with the object, youd need access to the object apart from cognition which is impossible, since you only ever have the object as cognized.
[quote=Kant, 1801. The Jasche Logic, in Lectures on Logic]Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognizing it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object.[/quote]
So yes, there may well be a world beyond our conceptualisation, but its not the world we can ever talk about. Which is what I mean by trying to 'stand outside experience'.
That's the consequence of your interpretation of Jung. You can't say 'world always means world-for-us', because other people are as much a part of the world as are trees and rocks. What you might be able to do is say "world-for-me", which would indeed be to collapse truth into belief.
And of course the notion of there being a stone on Mars is mind-dependent - it's a notion, after all; but again that is about a propositional attitude - a notion - and not about the rock.
Consciousness is a precondition of being spoken about, doubted, a notion, a proposition, and so on. But that is a very different thing to a conscious mind being needed for there to be a rock.
This is repetitive. We are always already embedded in the world. That does not mean that the world in some way needs consciousness.
A good (though imperfect) way to think about it is a water surface: Is it a wave or individual droplets? The question isn't really answerable until you measure it. The moment you put an object into it, a droplet sticks to ityou've made a measurement. The previous superposition of possibilities (wave/droplet) has 'collapsed' into a single, concrete result (one droplet).
The crucial point that goes beyond the water analogy is that the mathematics describing this 'fuzziness' (the Schrödinger equation) is ultimately a probability calculation. It's a tool for our knowledge about the system (epistemic), not necessarily an exact description of a physical vibrating process. What happens 'in reality' before we measure is the subject of various interpretations of quantum mechanics. The most common one (the Copenhagen Interpretation) indeed says that the measurement itself brings about a definite state.
What you're saying perchance isn't just that pseudo idealists (those with idealist tendencies) confuse the mental as the only real, but it's that's true idealists are confused because they think the mental is the only real.
In other words, true idealists are being true to their worldview. It's not as if they're realists but have illogically assessed the consequences of representationalism to mean there is no ontological truth (as a pseudo idealist might).
As in, Berkeley is logically consistent and Kant allows a distinction between the unknowable noumena (the ontologically real) and the phenomena (the mentally known). Those folks aren't muddling epistemology with ontology.
I didn't misread the reference, I just focused on the parts that were pertinent to my post :
Mensura = to measure ; Mens- = mind*1*2
A yardstick can provide a comparison, but only a Mind can measure the meaning : to interpret.
Hence, In the quantum context, I infer that "to measure" is to extract information (meaning) into a Mind (observer). Which sheds light on the Quantum Measurement Problem, regarding the cause of the "collapse" of holistic entanglement into particular particles. A machine can obtain mathematical (probability) information about an experiment. But only the conscious experimenter can interpret its Meaning. Collapse (disintegration) happens when energy is extracted by the machine. like a cue ball hitting the neatly-stacked billiard balls. But the Event is only known when the bits of energy/information are interpreted into meaning.
Since scientists are now equating Information with Energy*3, I imagine (philosophical conjecture) that what is extracted from an entangled (interactive) system is a quantum of potential Energy (photon or gluon), which may serve as a keystone, holding the system together. By contrast, Entropy pulls the plug on a system to break it down into isolated parts. Shannon noted that Information is negatively measured in terms of meaningless Entropy*4.
Probability & Potential are not a real things ; they are ideas that are meaningful only to conscious minds. Only when they become Actual does a meaningful Event happen. Consciousness & Events go together like things that are similar. :smile:
*1. The English phrase "to measure" ultimately derives from the Latin verb metiri ("to measure"), which comes from the Proto-Indo-European root me- ("to measure"). The word entered English via the Old French verb mesurer, which was derived from the Latin noun mensura ("a measurement"), the past participle of metiri.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22to+measure%22+etymology
*2. In Latin, "mens" refers to "mind," "intellect," or "plan," as seen in the legal term mens rea (guilty mind) and the English words "mental" or "dementia". It is a feminine noun belonging to the third declension, with the genitive form mentis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22
*3. Is information matter or energy? :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are. Operationally--just as energy is defined in terms of its capacity to perform work--so is information defined in terms of its capacity to organize a system.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/
*4.In information theory, entropy (H) is a measure of the average uncertainty or randomness associated with a random variable or process. It quantifies the expected amount of information needed to describe the outcome of a random event, with higher entropy indicating greater uncertainty and more information required to specify the outcome. The unit of entropy is the bit, and it is calculated as the weighted average of the information content of each possible outcome, where the information content of an outcome is inversely related to its probability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+entropy
:up:
Philosophical Metaphors & Analogies :
Berkeley solved the observer problem by reference to an omniscient onlooker, who sees everything everywhere all the time. Hence, from the omnipotential superposition of all possible states (infinite Possibilities) --- the statistical state of Potential --- God selects what is Actual & Real, . But that is not an empirical scientific space-time model of reality. It's magic!
For us non-omnipotent observers, everything appears to be Real & Definite on the macro scale. But when scientists intrude on the micro-scale of quantum phenomena, everything turns to mush. The observers expect to see material Particles, but instead they see a fog of Superposition. And yet, the Act of observation seems to condense the fog into discrete drops*1. The mental Act seems to have physical impact.
How the probing mind could have physical effects is the Observation Problem. Schrodinger's equation (wavefunction) calculates the statistical probabilities of quantum particle paths. During superposition, the probability is near infinite (indefinite). After probing particles*2 are shot into the fog though, the probability collapses (condenses) from undefined to 100% (definite). But was it the energetic impact of the probing particle, or the extracted knowledge of position & velocity that "shocks the fog" into raindrops of reality?
Before & After states are not physical things, but mathematical concepts. In any case, the curiosity (desire) to know that "fog veiled" information seems be the proximate Cause of the transformation from Potential to Actual. No curiosity, no probe, no collapse. So, which is it : mind or matter that dispelled the statistical fog? I doubt that Idealists & Realists will ever agree on the relation between Ideal Consciousness and Real Events. :smile:
*1. "Fog shock condensation" refers to the formation of visible fog or a condensation cloud resulting from rapid pressure and temperature changes in a gas or liquid, often caused by a shock wave, and is a phenomenon seen in high-speed flight and other extreme conditions where super-saturated vapor cools and condenses into liquid droplets.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fog+shock+condensation
*2. A "quantum observation probe"is a specialized tool or technique used to gather information about a quantum system. Unlike classical probes, which can measure a system without affecting its properties, a quantum probe must contend with the fundamental quantum observer effect, where the act of measurement inevitably disturbs the system being observed. Researchers are developing methods to minimize this disturbance and enable new applications in quantum technology.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+observation+probe
The root is mete, not mens.
Measurement, not mind.
And again, your own sources say this.
Nor does science equate information with energy. Bits are not joules.
My equation of Information with Energy was philosophical, not physical. Of course, meaningful Information is not measured in abstract joules. But energy is manifested in various ways : thermal, nuclear, chemical, sound, electricity, gravitation, kinetic, and potential. What they all have in common is ratios & inter-relationships*1.
Besides, Shannon defined Information in terms of Entropy, which is the inverse of Energy. But Energy is just one of many forms of what I call Generic (causal) Information : the power to Transform. Form = structure ; configuration. To Enform = bring together parts or combine to create (something). Hence, causal. Bits of Energy = quanta. Bits of Information = 1 or 0. Per OP, Most notable Events are physical transformations that are informational to conscious observers.
The intrinsic relationship between Energy and Information is not commonly known. But that emerging knowledge is on the leading edge of Physical science and Information science. And the latter is typically of more interest to Philosophy. A 2023 German science textbook*2 makes the relationship explicit. So, cutting edge Science does equate Information with Energy. Yet again, my interest in the Information/Energy relationship is not scientific (joules), but philosophical (intention)*3. :smile:
*1. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
*2. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6
*3. Active Information, Meaning & Form :
Information is Physical and Metaphysical
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html
Yes. Made-up by professional scientists, per the (obviously un-read) links in previous post. The technical details equating Information & Energy are over my head. But the general concept makes philosophical sense, in view of the Hard Problem of Consciousness : the otherwise unexplained emergence of Animation & Awareness. Perhaps, in a cosmos full of causal events, some natural force somehow transformed Energy & Matter into Life & Mind. Do you have a better theory for the advent of homo sapiens from eons of Thermodynamics? :joke:
Information as a basic property of the universe :
The second reason is that physicists invented accounting devices such as potential energy and entropy to explain the apparent disappearance of energy yet maintain the law of the conservation of energy. The proposed theory would consider that what is conserved is the sum of information and energy. The mathematical relationship between information and entropy is provided by the equation: I = (Io)e-S/k while the conversion of energy into information involves the relationship: 1 J/degree K = 10(23) bits (approximately) Acceptance of the theory would require paradigm shifts in a number of interrelated areas.
____T. Stonier, biotechnology, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Stonier-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/
Note --- Physicists typically don't concern themselves with Life & Mind. Exception : Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life?
Quoting Gnomon
Fixed that for you.
Shanon's equations and the work following do not equate energy and information. Wishful thinking on your part. The grain of truth is that processing information has thermodynamic consequences.
Your footnotes are veneer.
Point particles with intrinsic properties is itself an incoherent idea. Therefore you wrongly classify your interpretation as coherent. "Point particles" is just a mathematical facilitation, which physicists know does not represent anything real, due to that incoherency. Therefore it does not avoid the so-called measurement problem, it's just a fiction which simplifies some calculations.
Shannon's work also does not equate Information with Meaning. He was a pragmatic engineer, not a philosopher or physicist. :smile:
More "veneer" for you to dig through.
Post-Shannon Information Theory
extends Claude Shannon's foundational work by addressing complex communication scenarios and information types that go beyond the classical framework. It focuses on goals like message identification, efficient use of shared resources such as common randomness, and the transmission of gestalt information. New theories are needed to understand information in diverse forms, including biological, social, and embodied contexts, which Shannon's theory was not designed to capture.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=post+shannon+information+theory
Well I don't think there is any picture or theories of any kind of physics or metaphysics where a point particle wouldn't be a kind of idealization or fiction to simplify conceptualizations of the world. The fact that fields are fundamental doesn't necessarily make particles inconsistent with them; but I do take the point that quantum field theory does seem to suggest to people that some point particle properties just cannot exist in QFT (e.g. a photon cannot be localized in space like a you would expect of a point-particle). But I believe this only conflicts with point particles if you conflate a particle with the quantum state - its the quantum state which cannot be localized. This would not be the case in stochastic mechanics or Bohmian mechanics where neither particles nor field configurations would be identical to a quantum state, so there would be no inherent contradictions even if particles are generalized by a field description.
Or, presumably, in a box with a cat. So much for Schroedinger and his diabolical cat experiment - as in
Quoting Jan
The problem with your @Banno, claim above is that various experiments seem to have produced at least somewhat macro superpositions. I grant that it hasn't yet reached the scale of a geiger counter, let alone a cat, but it's a lot more than a single radioactive atom.
Still. I'd like to see your evidence if you are claiming what you seem to be claiming above as established fact, that would resolve the question of Schroedinger's cat into a matter of fact that we merely do not know until we open the box. I can't find any hint in your link, which seems to think it is not so resolved.
SO is the wave function collapsed or not?
Either consciousness is not what collapses the wave function; or the wave function is already collapsed by the cat; or there are multiple wave functions for different observers.
In each of these cases, there are grave problems for those accounts that rely on consciousness. Consciousness-based interpretations don't actually solve the measurement problem - they just push it around.
Quoting Banno
I'm not sure. Either I have never been in such a superposition, or I have but was not aware. Either way it is not clear to me that it cannot be or that my consciousness would in that case not function to collapse the superposition from within. Obviously in such cases, only the supercats that collapse into life will live to tell the tale, and those that collapse into death will not. Which is a bit problematic for the collapse. If the superposition of the cat is real. then the cat is aware that it is alive and simultaneously not aware that it is dead. Now Wigner's friend in a gas mask might collapse the cat into one state or the other, but I am not clever enough to elucidate how that relates to Schroedinger - I assume from Schroedinger's view, Wigner's friend is still entangled with the cat, and therefore getting ready simultaneously to report the cats sad demise and it's joyous survival.
The cat is obviously immortal.
The alternative view is that the universal wave-function doesnt collapse and so both universes are real, leading to the many-worlds interpretation.
Or superposition is epistemic, not ontological, leading to de Broglie-Bohm theory.