Debunking Copenhagen: Quantum Consciousness

[ThisOneIsTaken]

Observer doesn't mean someone conscious, it means that the act of taking measurements interferes with what is being measured, just as you can't taste the soup without altering how much of it is in the plate, to make a really dumbed down example. Was reading an actual article on the matter so fucking hard?

[TheTheKRIT]

your not disproving anything, your actually just reinforcing it.

[KTK401]

This is the worst attempt at refuting the Copenhagen Interpretation I have ever seen!!!!

[itsbrake]

Consciousness changes everything, and you clearly don't really take that into consideration. It's like you are considering conciousness as a rigid, scientific factor, which it most certainly is not. and I apologize, but do you really not having anything better with your time and energy than to "debunk" the quantum mind?

[KTK401]

@itsbrake He obviously hasn't read "The Emperor's New Mind"or "Shadows of The Mind"!

[itsbrake]

@GMSkel he obviously does not understand. He has knowledge, in that he has read books and wiki-hopped all over the net, so he is aware of certain concepts, yet he fails to comprehend them. It seems his logic is primarily dictated by semantics

[boomboom7391]

when you start with a false premise i can not continue viewing anything afterwards

the copenhagen view does not require a conscious observer

fail

[jonesgerard]

No, the conscious observer is not in SuperPosition,

consciousness is the collapse of SP.

[atthehops]

@jonesgerard The Copenhagen view of quantum theory was developed primarily by Bohr and Hesienberg. While it does mention an 'observer' it can be presumed that the observing would not have to not done by a conscious being, it could be performed by a measurement device.

[77GSlinger]

Why do you think we call it quantum quackery???

[sdzechs2]

no comments ? :(

[davidrodgersNJ]

I can't escape the impression that this "debunking" is nothing more than an expression that the Copenhagen interpretation conflicts with pre-conceived ideas. It reminds me of the attempted "debunking" of quantum physics itself (e.g. "God does not play dice.")

My opinion is that an interpretation cannot be tossed out on the grounds that it doesn't fit well with what we think we know.

[AI2flesh]

heheh the cat book. lol i have to admit you are good. i left it years ago, became too weird. in a way, then i started fitness instead, well what can i say still development :)

[JohananRaatz]

You are made of information not matter: watch?v=-ciWYGvpGII

[GMSkel]

If we are self-aware, why is it so difficult to understand that something as complex yet so simple as the universe itself is self-aware?

Even plants and vegetation are self-aware.

Gravity is self-awareness. Two objects in space revolve and rotate around each other.

A meteor causes a crater on the moon. Aware of one another, the meteor breaks up. The moon's surface reacts. Do you not understand?

Matter is self-aware, aware of the laws that bind it to this universe.

[MobileThinker]

@GMSkel wow...i think that is one of the most ignorant comments i have ever seen on a video...almost scary at how ignorant it is.

[Speakingmute]

The Copenhagen Interpretation is a strictly instrumentalist approach to quantum theory - Bohr and Heisenberg claimed that QM was only a method for conducting measurements and predicting results since we could only ever directly observe and manipulate macroscopic phenomena. Von Neumann suggested consciousness was involved, and Wigner, Wheeler, and Stapp ran with it - but this position is one of scientific realism, and hence precluded by actual Copenhagenism.

[nsecchi]

This argument sounds like it originated in a poolroom by two drunks.

[doodleguy1981]

The observer observes himself. You can't put a beginning or end on infinity. Infinity is all inclusive... and yes that includes paradoxes.....

[w2aiq]

consciousness itself is the "special" property

[Naugrimo]

where is that video where a young female student asks Stuart Hameroff tough questions

[yallways]

Whatever. Go back to flipping burgers... Your lunch break's over.

[AEVautomatic]

wtf why dont you go after the knights code of stars are magic gods theory. Go after the it after it was finished...

[AEVautomatic]

oh ya what a difficulty. Philosophy is much more precise representation of reality than observations of reality on a subotomic level. Are you a moron? If science observes something to be a fact then phil is meaningless.

[AEVautomatic]

umm its significant because if its not interacted with there is zero evidence it exists. You have to interact with matter in some way to get any data from it.

[AEVautomatic]

if you dont have interaction with something then there is no evidence it exists. Its like believing in magical fairies.

[david18861886]

does this not tie in with the dual slit experiment?

[MrBonnanbuidhe]

I cannot see why dualism is a problem. Yes, you are made from the same stuff as everything else but you are a particular arrangement of matter of which consciousness is an emergent property. So the question of dualism does not arise.

[MrBonnanbuidhe]

I do not understand why you speak of a conscious observer has no special properties because he is made up of the same stuff...........

Are you not overlooking the fact that a conscious observer is made up of a particular arrangement of such stuff and his property of consciousness is an emergent ( I believe) property of that particular arrangement. There need be no question of dualism as you seem to suggest

[AlgeKalipso]

Isn't it frightening that simple but compelling semantic confusions can set off intelligent people's mind into terrible infilling spirals of metaphysical confusion? Today it is the Compehagen interpretation, the 2012 ampocalypsis, and the technological singularity of the 2046 (don't get me wrong, a computational singularity MIGHT happen in the future, but it is unrealistic to think it will within our own century). Either way, the phenomenon of self confusion is marvellous - but Quantum Cuak?

[14bebop14]

the conscious observer initiates time : O DUHHH

[canefan17]

I'd love to hear what Berkeley thinks of the wind.

[SpacedTime]

One thing about Berkeley's idea that things are only there when you are observing them naturally suggests that they are not there when you are not observing them.

When I put some clothes into the tumble dryer and close the door, I am no longer observing them, but I know they are still there because each time I open the door they are a little dryer so I know they never left. But then this only re-raises the question that has plagued mankind for decades: where the hell do all my odd socks go?

[canefan17]

@SpacedTime

lmfao

[globe199]

user LordImmolation. i recommend you pick up a copy of "A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works", the Edwin Curley Translation .. As I'm sure you know Spinoza was the driving force behind Einstein's view on Metaphysics. I think you would thoroughly enjoy it.

[39knights]

I can't see how this debunks it. There is far more Dark Matter and Dark Energy than Light Matter and Light Energy; with some observed interaction (ie. virtual particles). The quantum world could easily have it's own distinct periodic table and constant laws paralleled with those of our world. It's not a far stretch to say the human brain evolved some mechanism to exploit this "third party objective view" to gain advantage for survival. Explains alot for me, lot more than determinism.

[Orsbore]

If one considers the possibility that the quantum field of the universe is deterministic, then all the paradoxes disappear. Conscious thought would be a manifestation of deterministic energy, therefore there would be no such thing as a conscious decision about when or where to make any observation. The quantum state of the universe outside of the observer would be an inseparable part of the act of observing. With this view, the universe controls the observer, not vise versa.

[cyberdaemon]

In one of the Michael Shermer video he told that Carl Sagan used to smoke pot and one of hes discoveries was something to do with "quantum pot" :D Like "quantum pot theory".That would be cool :P

[cyberdaemon]

From cats point of view , people out of box are dead and alive at the same time.Because cat is probably conscious too and observes the universe.

[northcombe9]

There is a misconception here. Penrose does not propose the normal wave function as the basis of understanding. This comes from 'objective reduction' that occurs when a quantum remains isolated from the environment.

[hume12345]

as was remarked in the video, the concept is logically flawed and gives omnipotence to the observer. if a child had suggested this after looking through a spectrometer, we would surely dismiss it. but because it schrodinger, he gets a pass.

[creationofself]

Do things exist when no observing agent is present? Clearly, logically it does not exist as something perceivable. It can not - obviously. There is no way around it. Quantum theory is not needed to ponder this. Yet I find the question of who is the observer some what stimulating. I'm confident we can arrive at several explanations depending on the approach, one of which is that the observer doesnt require a separate observer.

[exitladder]

I have that book. I spend more time thinking about its rich content than reading it alone. You made a great analysis. I never thought that before because i get carried away by its preceding theories.

[zensho1]

If we are here because we are being observed by God, then waves should not exist, because God is 'All Observant'. But, humans know that waves do exist (e.g. in the two slit experiment without a detector'.

It follows that an 'All Observant God' does not exist.

Atheism has been proved by the two-slit experiment.

[GMSkel]

@zensho1

The waves still exist. And we know those waves are there. They can be measured. Who is observing the waves?

Maybe it's consciousness beyond our own consciousness.

[jbnumba1]

I don't understand how you think consciousness arose..? If life spawned from random matter connections, how did experience come into being? How do you explain the experience of color? How can matter make the experience of green or smooth or any other subjective experience?

[exitladder]

I suggest you to study thermodynamics specially entropy. If you can imagine earth as a low entropy open system, then you would understand that the continous flow of energy made life to flourish on all corners and depth of the earth. Evolution is the right word for this. Consciousness therefore is the product of low entropy system you can find in planets. but it should be mixed up with the allowed environment / ingriedients like the earth.

[BBZM]

I do not study Physics or quantum physics or anything related.

Just finished school and while looking for a job I found this extremely interesting book on quantum superposition, the self, quarks, holism, dualism, reductionism etc.etc can you give your opinion in some lines, the book is called : God and the new physics, Paul Davies, and what do think of his ideas?

[notonewhit]

BTW: It's Bishop "Bark-lee" not "Birk-lee".

(Notonewhit's nit-pick)

[notonewhit]

The notion that "the universe is self-contained by definition" is open to question. Upshot of QM may imply that reality is never fully constituted, it is incomplete, not-all; by virtue of allowing no exception it cannot be totalized.

Scientific experiments obtain local observations that have no unified ontological account and thus manifest paradoxes against the backdrop of standard notions expected in objective science. "Nobody really understands quantum physics"(-Richard Feynman)

[seanmPWH]

Why the a priori rejection of dualism?

Your dismissal of a God observer seems arbitrary. I'm not trying to start a fight, just making observations. I find your first argument strong, that's the one about the special qualities ascribed unto the observer.

I've always had a problem with the Copenhagen interpretation for the same reasons Godel & Einstein had, i.e. the superposition state was treated as "unreal" until observation, I believe M-Theory has put the reality in & justified Einstein.

[LordImmolation]

My a priori dismissal of dualism can be found in some other videos; I do not think dualism is a feasible ontology for a whole host of reasons. Occam's razor, the interaction problem, etc.

[JohananRaatz]

@LordImmolation Ok, I agree with your a priori dismissal of dualism, however if you do not subscribe to dualism than how can you not agree with quantum mind theory? It's the only possible thing that can explain consciousness. So if you dismiss it you are basically out of realistic options.

[JohananRaatz]

@LordImmolation What about neutral monism or protophenomenalism? Doesn't that seem to make more sense in regards to the mind/body problem than eliminativism and/or hard AI?

[KTK401]

@JohananRaatz Hey Johanan! Nice to see you here!!!

[MCtheMD]

(contd) The main difference between QM and Wittgenstein's model is that the possible states exist concurrently, even if it is the case that they contradict. We can only see what the case is by looking at it, but the consequence of that is that we change the system (cf Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).

As you say, schrödinger intended this TE to show up inconsistencies in QM theory when expanded to macro-physical levels.

Hope this helps!

M.

[MCtheMD]

Looks like my first bit got lost - I was reminding people that QM deals with probabilities, and that by observing a system, you 'collapse the wavefunction', thus reducing the probabilities of eigenstates that describe the system.

This is more like Wittgenstein's general form for Truth Functions (cf Tractatus, §6), only the contradictory possibilities exist concurrently in QM, before they are reduced to what is the case. (contd)

[MCtheMD]

Addendum - apologies for the below, I shouldn't have cited the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but instead the 'Observer Effect' or 'Heisenberg's Microscope'. The Uncertainty principle denotes a function whereby we cannot know absolutely the change in values for two 'Uncertain pairs'. The 'microscope' is more applicable, where the act of looking changes the state because of the means by which we look.

Sapere Aude,

M.

[YogiToad]

Well, I don't see any contradiction in either theory, since you seemed to overlook or dismissed the other option, that there is only one observer.

[avatar6889]

i second that? im not sure but i fink its something to do with being in 2places at once.....

[an1ki83]

can anyone help me and discribe what superposition is??? not fully there

[yamaha893]

like being in many 'ghost' or 'potential' positions at once. each potential has a less than 1 probablility until observed, then the probability becomes 1 and it is actualized, or realized ....or something?

[truxor2]

Define "observer". Maybe you are the final/ultimate observer?

[PrimeEvolutionary]

Hi LI. I love the way you think. :-) Your question about being locked in the room alone while making a decision. Well the answer is yes, there is an observer there, "You" are your own observer. You are probably thinking "no, I am busy making a decision, I'm not watching myself", but in fact you are not the thoughts and voices in your head making the decision, "YOU" are the one hearing the thoughts and voices in your head. Understand? Everywhere you go, you bring that observer with you.

[FUCKYOURGODINTHEASS]

I'd be interested in your opinion of Nassim Haramien's unified theory. Check out his crossing the event horizon videos on google vids if you haven't already.

[bandpractice]

Is there really any point for anyone to try to interpret quantum mechanics as anything but a highly accurate yet clearly incomplete theory? I think any philosophies based on it will inevitably fail because it is an incomplete theory of our universe. And when they say "observing" something changes it, the real key there is the light shined on it which "breaks down the wave function" or something quantum mechanically ridiculous...right?

[roblowe777]

Part 2 This is as believable as superposition in the first place - but just taking it one logical step further. Very interested in your views on this matter - Thanks, Rob

[roblowe777]

Part 1: Superposition is one of my favorite topics ever. I am writing a book about the universe, quantum weirdness, quantum systems and wave particle duality. Do you think it is pssible for the whole universe to be in a constant state of universal ultra-superposition - this could mean that there is actually only one particle throughout the whole universe and traverses it all instantly as required to make everything.... continued ...

[cardellacole1]

pure energy is energy that creates energy that creates energy which as you can see? is creative energy

[Zeitschen]

Berkeley requires you also to look at Kant's refutation. Kant suggests that a condition of having consciousness in the first place is that there is something permanent to compare it with in order to know that consciousness "moves" and that this permanence is out there somewhere.

Anyhow, hidden variables being ruled out by Bell means causality is broken, but so what, since Kant, causality, space & time are only of human Reason, something Einstein as a teenager learned from Kant.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The only collapse involved in Bohr or Heisenberg's ideas involved the methodological one from possibility to actuality. It is not that the wavefunction exists as an objective wave-particle fieldish-type thing prior to measurement; it is only in the equations that such a field exists. Once the measurement has been made, we can confirm that the particle is not located in parts of the probability field, and so it "collapses" (again, only the probabilities collapse, not an actual field in the world)

[LordImmolation]

Indeed there are many interpretations of the CI. But the one I was introduced to originally and indeed (as far as I can tell) the most popular interpretation is the role of the observer. And yes, it was a methodological collapse of a hypothetical wave function not a "real" wave. But "real" waves (i.e. light) also collapse upon observation(photons). And whether we see something as particle or wave depends entirely on the method of observation.

[0ThouArtThat0]

As far as Bohr was concerned, it wasn't that the wavefunction existed in an actual spread out superpositional state prior to measurement. He had no evidence for this, and so didn't speculate. He just said that we cannot know what exists before we measure. Heisenberg said something similar with his uncertainty principle. The idea of an actual collapse of the WF was added to QM later by von Neumann.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I know the Copenhagen interpretation involves more than just Bohr's opinions, but we should be careful saying that THE Copenhagen interpretation says this or that. There are many interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation! To my mind, all Bohr was trying to say was that in quantum mechanics, science had met its maker and scientists could not use the theory to derive positive knowledge about reality, other than the probabilistic knowledge gained from the wavefunction.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I've noticed that everyone has their own Copenhagen interpretation : ) I don't think Bohr thought of the wavefunction as existing objectively until an observer came along to collapse it. Rather, he saw the wavefunction as simply science's only way of measuring "something" that we can't say anything much more about, other than that it sometimes behaves like a particle and sometimes like a wave. He was rather agnostic about what was "really" going on, so far as I can tell.

[Zeitschen]

"I've noticed that everyone has their own Copenhagen interpretation"

I take it that your interpretation is that science is just to crude to be able to measure in the usual way at the atomic scale. But forgetting about the wave equation and just looking at the spooky behaviour which is measured you still need a way to comprehend it other than saying that the particle is intelligent, though that is an option for some.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I wouldn't say science is too crude. I would say that measurement is revealed not to be a passive process when you reach the quantum scale, that in fact any attempt to gain knowledge from reality is simultaneously an active construction of that knowledge. We cannot know without interfering, and so all knowing is also doing (and vice versa). You don't necessarily need QM to realize this, though.

[LordImmolation]

I concur! Observation is not a passive process, perception is action! Have you read any of Richard Gregory's works on this issue?

[EverettsVLOG]

1.) you say that the CI implies dualism, but it seems to me that you forced a dualistic interpretation upon it. For example, the CI could state that, my brain is conscious as opposed to a computer b/c my brain is physically performing some different/extra/modified function or process, X. So, X is necessary to collapse a wavefunction and for the unvierse to 'realize" a particular quantum outcome.

2.) i see no such regress in the CI, consciousness collapses the wavefunction (completely)

[LordImmolation]

My interpretation of the CI comes mostly from a few books and from various articles in new scientist there is obviously much dispute about this(as highlighted in the stanford link).

1)Some theorists stipulate that process X is ANY method of observation, but I don't think Heisenberg or those who followed his school did.

2)Again,some interpretations say that even the Cat is able to collapse it's own wave function.

The question of what special property observation has is intriguing....

[LordImmolation]

some draw the distinction between "micro and macro" but I find this equally unsatisfactory

[EverettsVLOG]

but ... uhh my Lord... it seems that you are picking the weakest possible formulation to argue against. would you admit that my formulation is not so easily ruled out?

The 'threshold' (micro/macro) idea seemed actually testable when i read about it.

[LordImmolation]

Yes your version is more difficult to refute, providing we know what process X is. But I can't comprehend some arbitrary "hard" threshold before which one type of physics apply and after which another. I see it more like as we go further up the "macro" scale, fluctuations become increasingly normalized and therefore more inline with determinism.

[EverettsVLOG]

I dont see how you cant "comprehend" the idea of a threshold.... and even if it were hard to imagine or counterintuitive, or not in line with how other things behave, that wouldnt really be an argument... its similar to saying usually theres causes for effects, therefore something caused the universe. to give you an IDEA of what i mean, when molecules boil, the physics "changes". I dont think any interpetations can be 'debunked'... they are far too flexible