The Self as a Highly Functional Illusion

[Atla]

Every experiment, huh? I say none of them supports it. Not a single one.

So prove me wrong. Cite a specific experiment and tell us exactly at what point and in what way the peculiar quantum effects on display are "centered on us". Shouldn't be that hard, but strangely, after repeated requests you just can't do it.

(Don't worry--I always knew this would happen! It is literally the way your type always responds to the request, every time.)

I said multiple times that we only seem to be able to directly observe "collapsed" behaviour. In every experiment ever, with which you seem to agree btw. You know you've already lost this 'debate' so you need to resort to strawmen and lies.

I assumed you knew something about the brain and how quantum effects are almost impossible to maintain in warm, wet environments, where everything quickly and instantly decoheres into classical states. You know, warm, wet environments like the human body? I guess I should assume from now on that you know next to nothing about either topic?

Take vision. When a photon, presumably in superposition, interacts with the crystallins of a human eye lens--not the human brain and mind, we haven't even come close to getting there yet--those crystallins effectively become detectors, the wave function collapses, and we now have a classical photon with a fixed location and momentum, which can then go on to stimulate a rod or cone further inside the eye--classical chemical processes well understood. (Anything can function as a "detector". Even a mote of dust.) And all the processes downline into the brain are also classical.

Mind you, this entire narrative assumes certain interpretations of quantum physics that not everyone agrees on (for instance, some physicists object to the quantum/classical distinction and even the idea that wave functions are "real" things which collapse). I'm just playing along with the narrative you gave, insofar as it makes sense and matches up with serious versions of the science. The only part of your narrative which absolutely does not match up with any serious science is the nonsense about all this being "centered on us".

More evasion. The whole point is that you should be able to come up with an explanation for WHY "warm, wet environments like the human body" are usually classical in the first place, in other words why classical behaviour seems to be centered on us. There is nothing in QM that prohibits superposition at room temperature for example.

[Faustus5]

I said multiple times that we only seem to be able to directly observe "collapsed" behaviour. In every experiment ever, with which you seem to agree btw.

In no sense whatsoever does this mean that collapse is in any way "centered on us". Classical states would and did surround nature before a single conscious being ever existed.

The whole point is that you should be able to come up with an explanation for WHY "warm, wet environments like the human body" are usually classical in the first place, in other words why classical behaviour seems to be centered on us. There is nothing in QM that prohibits superposition at room temperature for example.

Again, enough of this bizarre nonsense that anything you cite in any way supports the ridiculous notion that collapse "centers on us". Face it, this proposition is b.s. on stilts completely unsupported by any science known to the human race. You are pulling this stuff out of your butt.

As for being able to explain why almost all environments in nature are in classical states, or what causes decoherence/collapse, whatever you want to call it: if I had an answer to that I'd be shining my Nobel prize. No one knows the answer to this. And as I mentioned earlier, there isn't even agreement that collapse actually happens or that the classical/quantum distinction is valid and meaningful.

Quantum physics has a lot of unsolved problems and mysteries. But none of them in any way have anything to do with us or our minds. Not a one.

[Atla]

I said multiple times that we only seem to be able to directly observe "collapsed" behaviour. In every experiment ever, with which you seem to agree btw.

In no sense whatsoever does this mean that collapse is in any way "centered on us". Classical states would and did surround nature before a single conscious being ever existed.

The whole point is that you should be able to come up with an explanation for WHY "warm, wet environments like the human body" are usually classical in the first place, in other words why classical behaviour seems to be centered on us. There is nothing in QM that prohibits superposition at room temperature for example.

Again, enough of this bizarre nonsense that anything you cite in any way supports the ridiculous notion that collapse "centers on us". Face it, this proposition is b.s. on stilts completely unsupported by any science known to the human race. You are pulling this stuff out of your butt.

As for being able to explain why almost all environments in nature are in classical states, or what causes decoherence/collapse, whatever you want to call it: if I had an answer to that I'd be shining my Nobel prize. No one knows the answer to this. And as I mentioned earlier, there isn't even agreement that collapse actually happens or that the classical/quantum distinction is valid and meaningful.

Quantum physics has a lot of unsolved problems and mysteries. But none of them in any way have anything to do with us or our minds. Not a one.

As usual you try to belittle me instead of owning your dishonesty. Nothing in QM says that "almost all environments in nature are in classical states". You just "pulled this stuff out of your butt". An environment is an arbitrary part of the universe that we choose to study.

What we DO know is that OUR environment seems to be collapsed for some reason. The question is, is there something unusual going on here, or isn't there? If yes, then what?

But pulling another "b.s. out of your butt" like: "classical states would and did surround nature before a single conscious being ever existed", well how do you know? Were you there millions, billions of years ago, to check? And those environments are nature, they don't surround nature.

[Atla]

...

1. "there can't be any middle ground between: mind creates the universe and no mistery to QM at all" evasion.. check
2. "but it's the environment" evasion.. check
3. "but we can't know, therefore I'm right" evasion.. check

Looks like we still have a few more to go:

4. "but it's the interaction" evasion
5. "but it's the scale" evasion
6. "but it's the decoherence" evasion
7. "I believe we still know too little, and science shouldn't make claims about the world anyway" evasion

yawn

[Steve3007]

How long are you guys going to keep slagging each other off over the interpretation of the concept of wave function collapse?

[Steve3007]

I wonder if anyone has ever had an actual fist fight about the subject.

[Atla]

How long are you guys going to keep slagging each other off over the interpretation of the concept of wave function collapse?

Sorry will ask for your approval next time. We weren't even talking about that specifically btw.

[Faustus5]

Nothing in QM says that "almost all environments in nature are in classical states". You just "pulled this stuff out of your butt".

No, I did not. This goes to show even further how little educated you are on the subject of quantum physics.

As a pragmatic matter, we know from constant observation that quantum states are incredibly difficult to maintain and will collapse in an instant the moment the superposition comes in contact with another quantum object or more likely, anything already classical. This is why quantum computing has proven so challenging, because engineers are having a nearly impossible time keeping significantly large systems in quantum states for enough time to be of any use. Normally they collapse into classical states in tiny, tiny fractions of a second.

I am simply extending the practical, uncontroversial knowledge of how physics works in the observed world. You're just being both obstinate and ignorant in thinking I'm making wild, incredible claims.

What we DO know is that OUR environment seems to be collapsed for some reason. The question is, is there something unusual going on here, or isn't there? If yes, then what?

No, there is nothing unusual going on, because we know from over a hundred years of studying quantum physics that classical states are the norm and will come about through the slightest interaction between different systems/objects. You want it to have some magical component related to us because you are emotionally attached to New Age woo. There's literally nothing else going on here.

But pulling another "b.s. out of your butt" like: "classical states would and did surround nature before a single conscious being ever existed", well how do you know? Were you there millions, billions of years ago, to check? .

Again, to a normal person acquainted with the science and not entertaining completely unscientific fantasies, my assertion is an utterly unremarkable and uncontroversial extension of what we already know and observe today as explained above.

[Consul]

Quantum physics has a lot of unsolved problems and mysteries. But none of them in any way have anything to do with us or our minds. Not a one.

A new paper by David Chalmers & Kelvin McQueen: "Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function" (PDF)

(I'm just mentioning the paper without affirming its content!)

"Abstract: Does consciousness collapse the quantum wave function? This idea was taken seriously by John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner but is now widely dismissed. We develop the idea by combining a mathematical theory of consciousness (integrated information theory) with an account of quantum collapse dynamics (continuous spontaneous localization). Simple versions of the theory are falsified by the quantum Zeno effect, but more complex versions remain compatible with empirical evidence. In principle,versions of the theory can be tested by experiments with quantum computers. The upshot is not that consciousness-collapse interpretations are clearly correct, but that there is a research program here worth exploring."

[Atla]

Nothing in QM says that "almost all environments in nature are in classical states". You just "pulled this stuff out of your butt".

No, I did not. This goes to show even further how little educated you are on the subject of quantum physics.

As a pragmatic matter, we know from constant observation that quantum states are incredibly difficult to maintain and will collapse in an instant the moment the superposition comes in contact with another quantum object or more likely, anything already classical. This is why quantum computing has proven so challenging, because engineers are having a nearly impossible time keeping significantly large systems in quantum states for enough time to be of any use. Normally they collapse into classical states in tiny, tiny fractions of a second.

I am simply extending the practical, uncontroversial knowledge of how physics works in the observed world. You're just being both obstinate and ignorant in thinking I'm making wild, incredible claims.

What we DO know is that OUR environment seems to be collapsed for some reason. The question is, is there something unusual going on here, or isn't there? If yes, then what?

No, there is nothing unusual going on, because we know from over a hundred years of studying quantum physics that classical states are the norm and will come about through the slightest interaction between different systems/objects. You want it to have some magical component related to us because you are emotionally attached to New Age woo. There's literally nothing else going on here.

But pulling another "b.s. out of your butt" like: "classical states would and did surround nature before a single conscious being ever existed", well how do you know? Were you there millions, billions of years ago, to check? .

Again, to a normal person acquainted with the science and not entertaining completely unscientific fantasies, my assertion is an utterly unremarkable and uncontroversial extension of what we already know and observe today as explained above.

Again you accuse me of New Age woo, while citing the science you don't understand. The whole point is that, when from our perspective, a system in superposition comes in contact with our already classical "environment", it will either very quickly decohere, or instantaneously collapse (which are very importantly two different processes, but this is beside the point here, let's not make it too difficult for you).

Now here's the measurement problem part:

will collapse in an instant the moment the superposition comes in contact with another quantum object

This one is almost certainly your own personal Deepak Chopra philosophy, not science. Interaction by itself has nothing to do with collapse, for at least 3-4 different reasons.

or more likely, anything already classical

Yes. Again, the original question is, why does classical behaviour seem to be centered on us? QM doesn't suggest that this should be the case, but it is.

[Steve3007]

(for instance, some physicists object to the quantum/classical distinction and even the idea that wave functions are "real" things which collapse)

I'm with those physicists, I think. The notion of a "classical environment" seems daft to me, at least with that wording. It seems like a category error. The notion of a "classical limit" makes more sense because of the definition of the abstract mathematical concept of a limit, as distinct from the definition of the real thing called an environment.

[Steve3007]

A new paper by David Chalmers & Kelvin McQueen: "Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function" (PDF)

I've started reading that paper and, so far at least, it seems interesting, useful and accessible.

[Consul]

A new paper by David Chalmers & Kelvin McQueen: "Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function" (PDF)

I've started reading that paper and, so far at least, it seems interesting, useful and accessible.

Here's an introduction to Quantum Approaches to Consciousness: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

[Atla]

Quantum physics has a lot of unsolved problems and mysteries. But none of them in any way have anything to do with us or our minds. Not a one.

A new paper by David Chalmers & Kelvin McQueen: "Consciousness and the Collapse of the Wave Function" (PDF)

(I'm just mentioning the paper without affirming its content!)

"Abstract: Does consciousness collapse the quantum wave function? This idea was taken seriously by John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner but is now widely dismissed. We develop the idea by combining a mathematical theory of consciousness (integrated information theory) with an account of quantum collapse dynamics (continuous spontaneous localization). Simple versions of the theory are falsified by the quantum Zeno effect, but more complex versions remain compatible with empirical evidence. In principle,versions of the theory can be tested by experiments with quantum computers. The upshot is not that consciousness-collapse interpretations are clearly correct, but that there is a research program here worth exploring."

This may come as a surprise to some here, but since I know what the default solution to the Hard problem is, I don't think that phenomenal consciousness has anything to do with the measurement problem. And reifying the concept of information is our go-to 21st century fallacy. Poor guy Chalmers is grasping at straws.

[Consul]

Mind you, this entire narrative assumes certain interpretations of quantum physics that not everyone agrees on (for instance, some physicists object to the quantum/classical distinction and even the idea that wave functions are "real" things which collapse). I'm just playing along with the narrative you gave, insofar as it makes sense and matches up with serious versions of the science. The only part of your narrative which absolutely does not match up with any serious science is the nonsense about all this being "centered on us".

As its name implies, a wave function is an abstract mathematical object rather than a concrete physical object; and mathematical functions cannot literally "collapse". Does a wave function represent anything physical? If yes, what physical entity does it represent?