Quantum Mechanics, Nothing to do with Consciousness

"Whatever is stopping interference patterns, it looks like detectors, not consciousness."

That is not the case, as shows delayed quantum eraser experiments. Detector does not stop interference if detected information is deleted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

I think there are two quite separate issues here.

1. Does consciousness play a role in quantum effects? (This idea is pretty clearly in the "woo" category, although there are physicists who seem to take it seriously, and dismissing it as monstrously improbable given that all evidence to date is that the basic principles of the universe operate at a level much lower than that of consciousness seems quite safe.)

2. Do quantum effects play a role in consciousness? (This idea -- which of course needs some elaboration since in some sense everything is quantum effects, deep down -- isn't altogether crazy, though specific theories along these lines have been very handwavy and from what little I know not at all plausible, and personally I would be very surprised if anything of the sort turned out to be right.)

I think OP is entirely concerned with #1, but doesn't make it explicit that #2 is not in view (and e.g. if I am understanding Volodymyr Frolov's comment correctly, #2 is what he's addressing, so at the very least it's possible to think that the article is about #2 as well as #1). Might be worth clarifying.

This does not pass an idealogical turing test.

I don't see anything here about the science side that the strong proponents of quantum woo would have a problem with. I do see a mischaracterisation of the woo side.

What if there was unsolvable mystery? What would it be like, being you, existing in a universe with unsolvable mystery?

Clearly, thought some idiot, consciousness causes the quantum wave function to collapse, the universe doesn't like us knowing which slit the photon goes through.

In my honest opinion, if I held an opposing view I'd probably shut off mentally at this point and click on another article. Calling John Von Neumann an idiot is always a bit far, but furthermore, I never like it when a critique turns into name calling.

There have been no quantum mechanics experiments that show consciousness to have any relevance to particle physics. The laws of physics do not say what is or is not conscious, in much the same way that they don't say what is or is not a work of art.

I'd say this is far from obvious and would require a bit more philosophical legwork than what was actually presented. Many believe that qualia (individual instances of conscious, or subjective experience) are indivisible atoms of the universe, the ontological fire in our equations. Debunking that is going to take some careful nuance and distinction, rather than dismissal.

But how do you know that there was or wasn't an interference pattern? Did some conscious being observe the results? Oh, but it was after the fact? The quantum erasure experiment proves that time doesn't matter to wave function collapse. There is nothing more "woo" about consciousness causing the collapse vs a many worlds interpretation or any other interpretation of quantum physics. The "woo" label is personal feelings and not science. It's academic slander.

If you take the multiverse explanation there is one possibility. In the multiverse view, the observer also proliferates along with the rest of reality as the present diverges into multiple futures and so the "collapse" is really just a clarification - the observer finding more precisely among possible observers which one they are. If this is the case, consciousness is part of the wave function and thus certain thoughts might influence the future wave function as holding particular thoughts bar certain futures from happening. This already occurs indirectly as the scientist consciously decides to run a slit experiment instead of something else, which has definite impact as thought cascades into action. More directly Universities and research groups are doing studies along these lines with random number generators and consciousness. http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ It is less mysterious as it sounds once you realize consciousness is a derived property of molecular/electro chemical structure or "shape" of the quantum fields and as such part of the quantum waveform.

Schrodinger's equation is absolute and the wave function never collapses. When a measurement is made the particle is actually measured in every location that it mathematically could possibly be in. When a conscious being makes a measurement it is also measuring the particle at every location the particle could mathematically be at simultaneously, but a conscious being can only comprehend the particle in one place at a time as if there were separate universes.

Yes, I do agree with what this articles says. There is no way to link QM an experimental science to the traditional notion of consciousness. In a way, it may also have a clue of their relation to the ultimate question, whether there is any reality beyond what QM finds as on date by it's distinctive scientific method. I am more in an enigma when I think about Einstein's ability or his thought processes as a phenomenal scientist to be to grasp the nature of a reality to the extent to which he did. Similarly, the minds of great mathematicians who sees mathematical truths in and through their minds. It reminds me Hegel who stated that what is real is rational and vice versa.
Ancient Greek philosophers talk about the law of conformity or the like thing knows the like. Lastly, nature, if at all it exists or at least in the ways in which science finds it, it seems that, it inadvertantly or else is somehow seeking to itself with the mechanism of the great scientists' brains. Since brain is physical or corporeal, as a part or an evolute of nature, it's efforts for self-knowledge is a mystery. This is the reformulated view of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the Indian philosopher in his book "An Idealist View of Life". Consciousness or mind seems to be always in the background or as it is said to be the brain's functional expression or as an epiphenomenon or as an emergent entity etc by experts in the relevant fields during the relentless endeavours of scientists in attempting to have a scientific decoding of the truth, if any behind what it is. I believe that, if time is real, then, since our very act of thinking scientific or otherwise is always temporal, the eventual knownness of the possible truth in it's entirity will be co-terminus with end of the world as a whole. If time persists in it's relative fashion, and if the cosmic Dynamics has to go on, then, it's temporality may ensure that, for the show to go on, truth on whatever in it's form will forever lie in the ever receding horizon of the knowledge or else.

Right, in all these issues surrounding the concept of consciousness tackled by cognitive & neuropsychological sciences etc while trying to explain away it, & reduce it to some quantifiable physical properties, no matter to what extent they have been done using standard scientific tools, methods & peer group's verifications to conclude in some objective truth claims, what has been missing or taken for granted is that, those scientists themselves can never circumvent or ignore their acts of seeing or observing or carrying out all those theoretical operations which presuppose the subjective phenomenon as the given. This was long realized in India by Sankara in the 8th century when he declared that, what is presupposed by all mental acts (including today's sciences) can never be grasped by those which presuppose it (pure consciousness or cin-maatra). He never claimed that it can be known by the finite human mind & senses etc but, he stated that no human experience can occur without their underlying ground which reveals them.

Consciousness, like literature, is a high level view that's hard to pin down precisely, and is largely a matter of how we choose to define it.

It is worth noting that Consciousness is a phenomenon which needs an explanation we don't have just yet. But it is still going to be the same phenomenon no matter how we choose to define it; the same way as it doesn't matter how we chose to define wind or lightning for instance, it is still the same feature of nature. The only reasonable definition we can give it right now is to point our finger to it and say: "this is Consciousness".

My quick take on it, via the Weak Anthropic Principle: consciousness is likely to be linked to QM, because we find ourselves in a QM-based world. If it's not *required*, odds are that QM-based realities are amenable
to containing conscious entities.

What if... And I'm too lazy right now to cite sources right now (I know, shame)... Assume that consciousness and matter are two sides of the same coin - that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. As we've studied smaller and smaller pieces of matter, down to the subatomic (down to pure math - in which, I'd argue, we are working in the realm of metaphysics), we are now starting to see the fundamental inseparability of consciousness and matter. Where we've grown accustomed to the medium-sized goods of everyday experience, we might imagine, that at this level something akin to quantum decoherence takes place.

And for the woo... Consciousness and QM share a lot of unique properties. Although we are a long way from having such a rigid math to describe the former, there are plenty of instances of consciousness transcending space (nonlocal). Consciousness regularly time travels, consciousness/our perspective certainly changes the way we see the world around us.

Considering the weak anthropic principle, we require QM and QM tells us something about who and what we are. Just as learning about anything in nature is self reflective, QM (because we are looking so small and so removed from our everyday reality) might be offering us a glimpse, conceptually and mathematically, into the code of consciousness, so to speak. Think: Kant and a priori synthetic knowledge. QM is in our foundation, much like Kant argued space and causality are part of our foundation.

I think that this post is partly misleading.

We need to distinguish between two things: esoteric influences from consiousness on the behaviour of matter and the problem that the formulation of quantum mechanics how it is actually used in the labs presupposes an observer by having concepts like "measurement" as primitives. The first is clearly woo and I don't know any serious physicist who has defended it. The second is an ongoing matter of scientific investigation.

The Sequences make it seem like the Many Worlds interpretation has solved this problem but that's not true. First, the viability of the technical work of the Many Worlds people is debated and second, the observer-centric Copenhagen interpretation has evolved into more solid versions like Quantum Bayesianism. Besides the interesting name it also has a catchy phrase: "Quantum mechanics is a user's manual."

tl;dr: The position that quantum mechanics involves consiousness because its fundamental objects are not ontic but epistemic still plays an important role.

That's probably true but it still doesn't explain what happened to me in Europe.