Wave Particle Duality, the Observer and Retrocausality

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 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.






=-=-=

Henry Stapp - Quantum Mind



=-=-=

Nature: The Mental Universe

Richard Conn Henry




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

There will always be persons that prefer a mystical interpretation and  I dare say a narcissistic desire for QM to conform to their needs. Anytime I read that human consciousness is able to influence reality I know smoke is being blown. QM does not care what some humans need. . By the way, my replies are not a promotion of materialism. Frankly,  I could not care less about materialism or any ism. Couple of questions.

 If there’s more than one conscious observer, then who’s observation determines reality?

How does consciousness affect the physical world (what is the mechanism)?

There will always be persons that prefer a mystical interpretation and  I dare say a narcissistic desire for QM to conform to their needs. Anytime I read that human consciousness is able to influence reality I know smoke is being blown. QM does not care what some humans need. .

Sometimes I think you just have to be trolling, playing the fool to show being a "skeptic" is not a sign of superior intelligence.

The paper in the first post is about how human consciousness observer (little o) doesn't collapse the wave function, rather the collapse is due to a global non-local consciousness Observer (big O).

Which is the same point Bernardo makes in his response to the Spacetime video, that humans cannot utilize QM to choose their own reality.

Even humans causing the collapse of the wave function does not automatically mean they get to create their own reality.

By the way, my replies are not a promotion of materialism. Frankly,  I could not care less about materialism or any ism.

Right you just happen to argue against any position that says consciousness is not reducible to the phenomena under physics...

Couple of questions.

 If there’s more than one conscious observer, then who’s observation determines reality?

See above...you have to be playing the fool...right?

How does consciousness affect the physical world (what is the mechanism)?

What about the world is physical?

Sometimes I think you just have to be trolling, playing the fool to show being a "skeptic" is not a sign of superior intelligence.

The paper in the first post is about how human consciousness observer (little o) doesn't collapse the wave function, rather the collapse is due to a global non-local consciousness Observer (big O).

Which is the same point Bernardo makes in his response to the Spacetime video, that humans cannot utilize QM to choose their own reality.

Even humans causing the collapse of the wave function does not automatically mean they get to create their own reality.


Right you just happen to argue against any position that says consciousness is not reducible to the phenomena under physics...


See above...you have to be playing the fool...right?


What about the world is physical?

I argue against any position that argues human consciousness is primary, that includes globally. You're right I argue for the mind being epiphenominal. There's constant research pointing that is so. Good for Kastrup. Many people do believe that collapse of the wave function means they can control reality. Promotion of that belief include for examples the movie "What the Bleep do We Know" Radin's double slit experiments, The Law of Attraction....  all of these appealing ideas have their foundation from Bohr and Heisenberg.  "What about the world is physical?" You know damn well what the answer is.  Getting back to Kastrup. He's right but I notice you seemingly leave the door open  

Which is the same point Bernardo makes in his response to the Spacetime video, that humans cannot utilize QM to choose their own reality.

Even humans causing the collapse of the wave function does not automatically mean they get to create their own reality. 

I argue against any position that argues human consciousness is primary, that includes globally.

Stamping your feet and insisting everyone disagrees is choosing to be "mystical" is not really arguing. You clearly didn't try to read the original paper posted, then you posted a PBS video that even accepts the possibility of global consciousness.

Ash's video doesn't seem to have anything valuable to say beyond the two papers, and that argument's already been countered by me.

So you have no argument regarding the original purpose of this thread, other than your usual tantrum where everyone who disagrees with you is a "narcissist" or "mystical".

Stamping your feet and insisting everyone disagrees is choosing to be "mystical" is not really arguing. You clearly didn't try to read the original paper posted, then you posted a PBS video that even accepts the possibility of global consciousness.

Ash's video doesn't seem to have anything valuable to say beyond the two papers, and that argument's already been countered by me.

So you have no argument regarding the original purpose of this thread, other than your usual tantrum where everyone who disagrees with you is a "narcissist" or "mystical".

Matt spent about 7 seconds of lip service to global consciousness and about 17 minutes explaining why consciousness of any sort has no place in physics. Of course human observer dependent reality is self centered. In other words no one considers whether our pets are the ones that create reality. No one's having a tantrum. I was irritated that you attempted  twist this question into a question  " How does consciousness affect the physical world (what is the mechanism)?" of philosophy. You know very well what the question is asking. So, all things considered, exploring if human consciousness is required is narcissistic.

Matt spent about 7 seconds of lip service to global consciousness and about 17 minutes explaining why consciousness of any sort has no place in physics. Of course human observer dependent reality is self centered. In other words no one considers whether our pets are the ones that create reality. No one's having a tantrum. I was irritated that you attempted  twist this question into a question  " How does consciousness affect the physical world (what is the mechanism)?" of philosophy. You know very well what the question is asking. So, all things considered, exploring if human consciousness is required is narcissistic.

It's not the amount of time, it's the distinction being made between local and global observers that the paper I first posted about agrees with. I think you just need to rewatch the video, this time paying specific attention to the timestamps Kastrup mentions in his review...a review I included in my first reply to you which you likely didn't read just as you didn't read the paper in the OP ->

...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.

So again, Matt O'Dowd's presentation doesn't seem to definitively rule out human observers collapsing the wave function - rather his argument is that QM doesn't open the way for humans to craft their own reality. But, to say it yet again, this question of human observers wasn't even the point of the original paper which argues human observers do not collapse the wave function.

Of course why we have to accept Matt as the final authority, and whether there are physicists who would argue for humans being able to influence reality, is a separate question you can make another thread for.

And yes I do think your behavior in this thread has been one big tantrum, starting from not bothering to read the paper in the first post. Then, after yet again being shown that you're in error, you started going off about how any physicist who disagrees with you is both a narcissists & choosing an incorrect "mystical" view.

It's sadly predictable behavior coming from you at this point.

Finally your question about mechanism was itself inherently philosophical, since you are making a distinction between "consciousness" and the "physical". The "default view", if there is one, is that my experience of reality is a part of reality so there's no separation between whatever you're saying consciousness and the physical are. I mean what's the mechanism by which one part of this "physical" you speak of interacts with other "physical" stuff?

I argue against any position that argues human consciousness is primary, that includes globally. You're right I argue for the mind being epiphenominal. There's constant research pointing that is so.

Just a cut in unrelated to the rest. There's evidence pointing to the fact that mind may be epiphenominal, but then there is evidence going against it. Like how beliefs can have tangible effects on the mind, things like meditation ect. Not even related to any parapsychological, just general findings showing that consciousness is not merely a byproduct but an active part.

Not to mention other objections from things like evolutionary theory, if the mind plays no role why wasnt it removed a long time ago? Philosophical critiques, we can TALK about the mind in the first place, which means that the mind can influence us, there's a feedback. In an epiphenominal approach, there's no possibility for feedback at all.

For other stuff about consciousness influencing things, maybe look at Radin's more recent work? Is very interesting.

If nothing else, Steve is still a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Bless that confidence.

If nothing else, Steve is still a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Bless that confidence.

Are you certain you understand the correct circumstance for using the Dunning- Kruger effect?  I can assure you I have not once over estimated my abilities. However, your reply suggests you might. 
Did it ever ask yourself why I engage?  I'll tell you why. I come here to see if the things you are certain are true actually are. So far, in 40 plus years I've not seen anything that would seriously cause me to change my perspective. You all may be right but the evidence I required is much more stringent.

 If there’s more than one conscious observer, then who’s observation determines reality?

How does consciousness affect the physical world (what is the mechanism)?

Who is the Master who makes the grass green?