Pseudoskeptism and acceptable versus unacceptable science [split from "infant consciousness"]

Again, it might be my lack of scientific understanding (and when mathematical formulas appear in a forum post my eyes glaze over) but I was under the impression that Copenhagen highlighted the measurement problem. It is further my understanding that measurement is conscious observation (notwithstanding the arguments that lab equipment does the measurement - that's just kicking the can down the road IMHO).

All the measurement problems go away if you apply some extra rules under Consistent Histories, like choosing a single framework and sticking to it, and not mixing and matching operators that don't commute, I don't remember the rest. But you can read about it here...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-co...histories/

On the second point, as you say, I don't think measurement is just conscious observation... I think what's generally accepted is more nuanced than that, which is that at the back end, if you intend to learn anything about the results of your experiments, you'll need to observe them. And at the front end, the experimenter still gets to choose what to observe.

I did a thought experiment I called 'woman in a box' that convinced me that things just work out pretty much the way we expect them to work out classically, without a conscious observer. https://thinkingdeeper.wordpress.com/201...xperiment/

That said, QM and Spacetime seem like they are both about to be generalised into something much more simple and primitive over the the next few decades. I wouldn't waste time arguing about the old stuff - the new stuff is truly beautiful - and I predict it's gonna win out. It's very deep, but very simple.