Wave Particle Duality, the Observer and Retrocausality

Wave Particle Duality, the Observer and Retrocausality

Ashok Narasimhan, Menas C. Kafatos

We approach wave particle duality, the role of the observer and implications on Retrocausality, by starting with the results of a well verified quantum experiment. We analyze how some current theoretical approaches interpret these results. We then provide an alternative theoretical framework that is consistent with the observations and in many ways simpler than usual attempts to account for retrocausality, involving a non-local conscious Observer.

Two relevant videos. PBS Spacetime Does Consciousness Influence Quantum Mechanics?

And this Is Consciousness Required to Create Reality

Two relevant videos. PBS Spacetime Does Consciousness Influence Quantum Mechanics? [/url]

And this [url=https://youtu.be/h75DGO3GrF4]Is Consciousness Required to Create Reality

Are they relevant? They don't seem to even mention the paper? In any case ->

Bernardo Kastrup has given an Idealist interpretation of the first.

...Indeed, Spacetime were clear (at just after the 12-minute mark) that their criticisms don't apply to what they called a "global consciousness." Significantly, they've also spent most of the episode thoroughly explaining 'von Neumann chains' and the 'Wigner's friend' thought experiment: two of the reasons to suspect a link between consciousness and quantum mechanics. Even more importantly, they did not attempt to refute the rationale behind either notion. In a strong sense, thus, they've actually made a persuasive case for the role of consciousness. At the 12:24-minute mark, they've even explicitly stated that "conscious observation may play a role" in the transition from quantum states to classical reality, although that role isn't compatible with the notion that we can personally and deliberately choose our own reality.

The only point about which I am mildly critical of the episode is this: Spacetime came through too strongly in favor of a completely objective external reality. Recent evidence shows that, at some level, this isn't true. That said, and as Spacetime illustrates with their modified version of the 'Wigner's friend' thought experiment at the 11:05-minute mark, we clearly seem to inhabit the same world, consistently experienced by each of us. So it cannot be the case that we are each creating our own reality independently of everybody else; at least not at all levels.

I also regret a bit that they too strongly associate the link between consciousness and quantum physics with mysticism, as opposed to a natural process. Consciousness, after all, is natural; it's an undeniable aspect of nature, the prime datum of existence. Having said that, insofar as what they mean by 'mysticism' is related to the notion that the executive ego can wish a preferred reality into existence, I am okay even with that...

I don't know who Arvin Ash is but Mesas Kastafos is a physicist. His blog can be found here and concerns questions of QM & Consciousness.

Him, Henry Stapp (PhD physics), and Bernardo Kastrup (PhD Computer Engineering) wrote this article for Scientific American in 2018 ->

Some claim that the modern notion of “decoherence” rules out consciousness as the agency of measurement. According to this claim, when a quantum system in a superposition state is probed, information about the overlapping possibilities in the superposition “leaks out” and becomes dispersed in the surrounding environment. This allegedly explains in a fairly mechanical manner why the superposition becomes indiscernible after measurement.
 
The problem, however, is that decoherence cannot explain how the state of the surrounding environment becomes definite to begin with, so it doesn’t solve the measurement problem or rule out the role of consciousness. Indeed, as Wojciech Zurek—one of the fathers of decoherence—admitted,
…an exhaustive answer to [the question of why we perceive a definite world] would undoubtedly have to involve a model of ‘consciousness,’ since what we are really asking concerns our [observers’] impression that ‘we are conscious’ of just one of the alternatives.

In any case it seems Ash doesn't present a definitive case, merely references two papers as key to his arguments. He first mentions the work of Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University as supportive of MWI. But the data is open to multiple interpretations including the Idealist one Kastrup gives above.

From the very conductors of the experiment:

Quantum physics: our study suggests objective reality doesn’t exist

This experiment therefore shows that, at least for local models of quantum mechanics, we need to rethink our notion of objectivity. The facts we experience in our macroscopic world appear to remain safe, but a major question arises over how existing interpretations of quantum mechanics can accommodate subjective facts.

Some physicists see these new developments as bolstering interpretations that allow more than one outcome to occur for an observation, for example the existence of parallel universes in which each outcome happens. Others see it as compelling evidence for intrinsically observer-dependent theories such as Quantum Bayesianism, in which an agent’s actions and experiences are central concerns of the theory. But yet others take this as a strong pointer that perhaps quantum mechanics will break down above certain complexity scales

In fact Kastrup has given an Idealist interpretations of the experiment ->

The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard

...So now, at last, Massimiliano Proietti and collaborators at Heriot-Watt University, in the U.K., seem to have confirmed RQM; as predicted by quantum mechanics, there may well be no objective physical world...

The second paper is one by Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, published in in 2011. I get that this paper is inline with your materialist evangelical faith but whether this is actually the case is up for grabs:

Comment on the paper Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness by Yu and Nikolic (2011)

Catherine M Reason

This is a brief comment on the paper "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness" by Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic [1]. Yu and Nikolic argue that the "consciousness causes collapse hypothesis" interpretation of quantum mechanics, or CCCH, can be falsified by a particular experimental setup. This claim is incorrect and the cause of the error appears to be a confusion over where and when a collapse can be assumed to occur.

See also ->

Can we Falsify the Consciousness-Causes-Collapse Hypothesis in Quantum Mechanics?

J. Acacio de Barros, Gary Oas

In this paper we examine some proposals to disprove the hypothesis that the interaction between mind and matter causes the collapse of the wave function, showing that such proposals are fundamentally flawed. We then describe a general experimental setup retaining the key features of the ones examined, and show that even a more general case is inadequate to disprove the mind-matter collapse hypothesis. Finally, we use our setup provided to argue that, under some reasonable assumptions about consciousness, such hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Finally Kastrup/Stapp/Kastafos also make a good point about these kinds of experiments in the aforementioned 2018 Scientific American article - how do you know the collapse doesn't happen when you-as-conscious-agent make the observation rather than before? ->

However, the output of the detectors only becomes known when it is consciously observed by a person. The hypothesis of a measurement before this conscious observation lacks compelling theoretical or empirical grounding. After all, as discussed above, QM offers no reason why the whole system—electrons, slits and detectors combined—wouldn’t be in an entangled superposition before someone looks at the detectors’ output.

Are they relevant? They don't seem to even mention the paper? In any case ->

Bernardo Kastrup has given an Idealist interpretation of the first.


I don't know who Arvin Ash is but Mesas Kastafos is a physicist. His blog can be found here and concerns questions of QM & Consciousness.

Him, Henry Stapp (PhD physics), and Bernardo Kastrup (PhD Computer Engineering) wrote this article for Scientific American in 2018 ->


In any case it seems Ash doesn't present a definitive case, merely references two papers as key to his arguments. He first mentions the work of Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University as supportive of MWI. But the data is open to multiple interpretations including the Idealist one Kastrup gives above.

From the very conductors of the experiment:

Quantum physics: our study suggests objective reality doesn’t exist


In fact Kastrup has given an Idealist interpretations of the experiment ->

The Universe as Cosmic Dashboard


The second paper is one by Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, published in in 2011. I get that this paper is inline with your materialist evangelical faith but whether this is actually the case is up for grabs:

Comment on the paper Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness by Yu and Nikolic (2011)

Catherine M Reason


See also ->

Can we Falsify the Consciousness-Causes-Collapse Hypothesis in Quantum Mechanics?

J. Acacio de Barros, Gary Oas



Finally Kastrup/Stapp/Kastafos also make a good point about these kinds of experiments in the aforementioned 2018 Scientific American article - how do you know the collapse doesn't happen when you-as-conscious-agent make the observation rather than before? ->

Yes both vids are relevant. The first explains the basis that consciousness is required. What the fathers of  QM thought of the idea and other aspects of when the wave function collapse. Arvin video is an easier to follow vid. Whether you know Arvin or not is not relevant.

Yes both vids are relevant. The first explains the basis that consciousness is required. What the fathers of  QM thought of the idea and other aspects of when the wave function collapse. Arvin video is an easier to follow vid. Whether you know Arvin or not is not relevant.

Well I addressed all that in my last post, but my question was what do the videos have to do with argument summarized in the original post by the paper's abstract? -->

That a non-local Observer can provide an alternative explanation to seeming retrocausality.

Well I addressed all that in my last post, but my question was what do the videos have to do with argument summarized in the original post by the paper's abstract? -->

That a non-local Observer can provide an alternative explanation to seeming retrocausality.

Consciousness is not required and the vids explain why.

A consciousness is not required and the vids explain why.

The videos are about consciousness collapsing the wave function - I already provided reasons to look at the alternative for both videos in my initial reply.

But I am specifically talking about the paper in my first post - what specific refutation is provided in the video of the argument there, wherein a non-local Observer is posited as an alternative to seeming retrocausality? 

In fact the PBS video even agrees that there remains the possibility of a global consciousness, the Idealist Bernardo Kastrup even gave timestamps and I quoted him in my initial response to you.

So it seems the Kafataos/Narasimhan paper is actually in line with the PBS video, as it makes an argument for that global consciousness.

Arvin Ash has made several videos on consciousness now, including one on panpsychism and one on quantum consciousness. He seems open-minded to them but clickbaits-he made a comment in one of his videos claiming there's 'no evidence' for the radio theory, which makes his open-minded approach comes across as rather insincere. His clickbait thumbnails and titles don't help either, and many of his videos on consciousness are suspiciously short. 

To sidetrack a bit, take his video on OBEs/NDEs for example:

It's only 6 minutes long and everything he says can be read in the description:

• He cites the Blanke study claiming that OBEs are caused by disturbances of the temporo-parietal cortex, though I'm fairly certain that doesn't explain NDEs and or the veridical components. 
  
• He cites the 'remembrance of birth' theory, which near-death.com has debunked to my knowledge. That theory isn't taken that seriously anymore. 
  
• He claims that endorphins may be responsible, which seems to go against what Parnia and Fenwick say. 
  
• He references the DMT theory unsuprisingly and doesn't mention that it's just speculation. 
  
• He claims Blackmore's 'dying brain hypothesis' is the most 'widespread' explanation, again not mentioning the many criticisms made of it. 
  

Most of the comments on that video were highly critical of him, and this is the same for all of his videos on consciousness. He also doesn't seem to understand how cardiac arrest works and veridical cases: 

In all cases, people still had consciousness during the time they had NDEs. What makes you think that they had no perceptions during this period. Their ears, noses, other senses still worked. Is it inconceivable that their ears heard things that their brains recorded as memories?

Pretty sure there are examples of cases where that simply isn't true. Just because their body parts still 'work' doesn't mean much, especially for NDEs under anaesthesia. And how does he know this? He doesn't cite any examples of veridical NDEs to back this up. Peak-In-Darien experiences also refute this...

He also makes a massive scientific and philosophical fallacy of claiming that 'science says' such and such about the afterlife, which really makes me question his credibility. He even admits himself he is biased. If the vast majority of his own fans are pointing out basic errors in his logic and research then I'm not inclined to take him seriously. He does nothing but preach his own worldview like it's fact and misinterprets studies. 

PBS Spacetime seems more credible imo.

Edit: Seems he's already made a video proving my point of his misunderstanding of basic philosophy of science and mind, in a video that he posted first on his website then posted to YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5H9Q9e1N5Dc

He claims to have degrees in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics and has spent 2 years at medical school. I find that very difficult to believe given how so many of his videos seem to be full of errors or opinion spoken as fact.

With his video on panpsychism, he says this:

The concept of Panpsychism has been around for thousands of years. It is an essential aspect of many religions, from the Old Testament's omnipresent God to the Brahman of Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, in Buddhism, nothing exists except consciousness.

I am fairly certain he is mistaking panpsychism for idealism here, which is quite the grievous mistake to make on his part.

The videos are about consciousness collapsing the wave function - I already provided reasons to look at the alternative for both videos in my initial reply.

But I am specifically talking about the paper in my first post - what specific refutation is provided in the video of the argument there, wherein a non-local Observer is posited as an alternative to seeming retrocausality? 

In fact the PBS video even agrees that there remains the possibility of a global consciousness, the Idealist Bernardo Kastrup even gave timestamps and I quoted him in my initial response to you.

So it seems the Kafataos/Narasimhan paper is actually in line with the PBS video, as it makes an argument for that global consciousness.

You misinterpreted his brief mentioning of global consciousness. The fact that in the whole video he talks how some of the fathers of QM changed their minds about the importance of consciousness in QM. How he describes why experimentation says it is not required and after all that was said, the only thing that stuck was a brief mention of global consciousness? Which by the way was merely lip service. The current understanding concurs that a conscious observer is not required.

You misinterpreted his brief mentioning of global consciousness. The fact that in the whole video he talks how some of the fathers of QM changed their minds about the importance of consciousness in QM. How he describes why experimentation says it is not required and after all that was said, the only thing that stuck was a brief mention of global consciousness? Which by the way was merely lip service. The current understanding concurs that a conscious observer is not required.

So basically you cannot address how the videos relate to the paper because you didn't even try to skim the paper in the OP.

You just spammed that PBS video like you've done before when someone mentions quantum mechanics and consciousness. It makes claims about the later thoughts of Heisenberg and Wigner, but doesn't provide references. Though even if they changed their minds, unless they were citing some new evidence this wouldn't automatically invalidate the idea of consciousness causing wave function collapse.

To reiterate my original reply to your videos ->

1. Bernardo mentions the time stamps when the PBS video makes the distinction between Global Consciousness (Objective Idealism) and the idea that quantum mechanics means you can create whatever reality you choose (Subjective Idealism at best). The paper I posted is reference the idea of a Global Consciousness, Observer O, as a way to explain quantum eraser experiments.

2. There definitely isn't a consensus on the role of the observer, one of the experiments Ash mentions even potentially supports the QBism position of observer-participancy championed by physicist Chris Fuchs:

On Participatory Realism

In the Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote, " 'I' is not the name of a person, nor 'here' of a place, .... But they are connected with names. ... [And] it is characteristic of physics not to use these words." This statement expresses the dominant way of thinking in physics: Physics is about the impersonal laws of nature; the "I" never makes an appearance in it. Since the advent of quantum theory, however, there has always been a nagging pressure to insert a first-person perspective into the heart of physics. In incarnations of lesser or greater strength, one may consider the "Copenhagen" views of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli, the observer-participator view of John Wheeler, the informational interpretation of Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner, the relational interpretation of Carlo Rovelli, and, most radically, the QBism of N. David Mermin, Ruediger Schack, and the present author, as acceding to the pressure. These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.

In addition to Bernardo's Idealist interpretation I also directly quote the people who actually ran that "Wigner's Friend" experiment in my first reply to you, along with two papers challenging the idea that the observer isn't needed. The last paper even challenges whether one can ever experimentally rule out the observer as playing a role.

In fact here are some more examples of physicists noting the potential role for consciousness ->

The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical ground

Adam Frank is professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester in New York.

Putting the perceiving subject back into physics would seem to undermine the whole materialist perspective. A theory of mind that depends on matter that depends on mind could not yield the solid ground so many materialists yearn for.

Some consciousness researchers see the hard problem as real but inherently unsolvable; others posit a range of options for its account. Those solutions include possibilities that overly project mind into matter. Consciousness might, for example, be an example of the emergence of a new entity in the Universe not contained in the laws of particles. There is also the more radical possibility that some rudimentary form of consciousness must be added to the list of things, such as mass or electric charge, that the world is built of. Regardless of the direction ‘more’ might take, the unresolved democracy of quantum interpretations means that our current understanding of matter alone is unlikely to explain the nature of mind. It seems just as likely that the opposite will be the case.

=-=-=

Henry Stapp - Quantum Mind

Stapp sees the physical world as a structure of tendencies or probabilities within the world of the mind. He thinks that the introduction of an irreducible element of chance into nature via the collapse of the wave function, as described in most forms of quantum theory, is unacceptable. The element of conscious choice is seen by him as removing chance from nature.

=-=-=

Nature: The Mental Universe

Richard Conn Henry

There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze.

The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.

There also some more that I posted from a previous time you trotted out this same PBS video as validation for your materialist faith.