Does wave collapse in quantum physics require consciousness?[A theory]

[DuckTapeFileMan]

It is said that observation collapses wave functions for atomic particles.

Is consciousness necessary for observation to take place?
Can a camera without film "observe you"


Theory

That activity at the subatomic level can be symbolically represented at the macroscopic level.

For example a street scene or a flock of birds in the sky or a beach with waves crashing on it.

This "representation" could be on the other side of the world but could then be observed via a conscious being(even a fly) and so collapse the uncertainty wave function activity on the other side of the world.

In this theory the macro-scopic world becomes a theater for the subatomic world.
This sets up an interaction between the microscopic(sub-atomic)and the macroscopic worlds.

In this theory the pre-conscious universe had no wittnesses and so these wave functions couldn't collapse, instead of collapsing many other Universes were created.
When the first conscious(meaning biological being with freewill) came into being then wave functions were able to be collapse and there was a relationship between the microscopic and the macroscopic.

In this theory any part of the subatomic Universe may be acted out in any other part of the Universe, how ever far away. This may be at odds with Einstein's speed of light restriction, you may think, but this acting out is brought to the you via entanglement which doesn't involve relativity(IIRC or as far as I am aware).

[/theory]

I am not saying that this is true but I put it down as a possibility.
I really can't believe that there is more than one of any individual although I can believe that there is more than one universe.

 

[drkitten]

It is said that observation collapses wave functions for atomic particles.

Is consciousness necessary for observation to take place?

No.

 

[Ashles]

When the first conscious(meaning biological being with freewill)

What would you consider the earliest example of this?

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Re: Re: Does wave collapse in quantum physics require consciousness?[A theory]

What would you consider the earliest example of this?

I don't mean freewill in terms of intelligence.

I consider all animals have a level of freewill because their brains are neural networks.

So even a fly will fit this requirement.

 

[Dredred]

Re: Re: Re: Does wave collapse in quantum physics require consciousness?[A theory]

I don't mean freewill in terms of intelligence.

I consider all animals have a level of freewill because their brains are neural networks.

So even a fly will fit this requirement.

If you include animals that react purely instinctively, without thought, such as flies, wouldn't all matter have to be included as well, because matter also automatically interacts to its environment (e.g. temperature, pressure)?

I don't know much about this, somebody please correct me, but i remember reading a system's wavefunction collapses once it reaches a certain (very small) size, something like a couple of thousand molecules (?).. So even Schrodingers cat couldn't have existed as wavefunction.

Edited to add:
I'm now reading another thread , and i see what i said has already been said much better, and DuckTapeFileMan's theory had already been proven wrong before he started this thread. So this thead is redundant, and i shouldn't have bothered to reply.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: Does wave collapse in quantum physics require consciousness?[A theory]

I don't mean freewill in terms of intelligence.

I consider all animals have a level of freewill because their brains are neural networks.

So even a fly will fit this requirement.

So what about organisms without neural networks?

What about plants?

You seem to be saying that flies are conscious, so are plants also conscious? Plants also react to stimuli.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Does wave collapse in quantum physics require consciousness?[A theory]

So what about organisms without neural networks?

What about plants?

You seem to be saying that flies are conscious, so are plants also conscious? Plants also react to stimuli.

that is a good question.

and although I don't believe that plants have freewill or real consciousness I have read that DNA may act as a quantum computer and have some of the attributes of chemistry in the brain.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

but on second thoughts I think that the organisum has to have some sort of awarness of itself, the bases of the survival instinct.

 

[Dredred]

but on second thoughts I think that the organisum has to have some sort of awarness of itself, the bases of the survival instinct.

Why are you still going on about this? From the link Ashles posted in the other thread :

A speck of dust could act as an observer to a photon, for example; you don't need a consciousness.

If you know that, you know your theory is wrong, or am I missing something?

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Why are you still going on about this? From the link Ashles posted in the other thread :

If you know that, you know your theory is wrong, or am I missing something?

Thanks for the link, I hadn't noticed.

Although I recant on my belief that the cat analogy is a real phenomina I still think that particles interaction with the world and hence with concious beings causes wave funtions to collapse. Or at least that is how I am following through with my theory.


Even the link you provided states

No one really knows the answer; all we know for sure is that the quantum-mechanical "observation" usually happens somewhere near the point where objects start heavily interacting with their environment

this is my point. There has to be an "interacting with the environment", and that is where conscious beings live.

 

[Dredred]

this is my point. There has to be an "interacting with the environment", and that is where conscious beings live.

Yes, but every object interacts with its environment, there is no consciousness needed for that. So this part of your theory can't be right:

When the first conscious(meaning biological being with freewill) came into being then wave functions were able to be collapse and there was a relationship between the microscopic and the macroscopic.

 

[Ashles]

this is my point. There has to be an "interacting with the environment", and that is where conscious beings live.

No, you are misreading that sentence. It refers to interacting with the environment in the sense of existing at a level that could cause any serious interaction with the environment i.e. a speck of dust or air. It is not referring to life or conscious movement or thought.

A tiny grain of flour would be heavily interacting with the environment.

You can make up your own theory if you wish, but you shouldn't misrepresent the theories of others.
That link is not referring to interaction as implying life or consciousness in any way.


Anyway, I am still waiting to hear what, in your theory, you think the first type of creature to diplay a wave form collapsing degree of consciousness might be.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Yes, but every object interacts with its environment, there is no consciousness needed for that.

what about chaos theory.

If a butterfly can cause or change the route of a huricane why not a particle effecting matters at a macroscopic level on the other side of the world or the Universe for that matter?

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Anyway, I am still waiting to hear what, in your theory, you think the first type of creature to diplay a wave form collapsing degree of consciousness might be.

I suppose it is a "I think therefore I am" moment.

Newscientist magazine ran an article call "I fly" whereby it talked about very basic lifeforms having an identity.




I don't think that I am misrepresenting any ideas, I just placed an emphasis and interpretation of part of the article.

surely I am allowed to do that?



[edit]ooh and I didn't mean interaction with conscious beings directly[/edit]

 

[Dredred]

I suppose it is a "I think therefore I am" moment.

Newscientist magazine ran an article call "I fly" whereby it talked about very basic lifeforms having an identity.

So you are claiming that a fly can think?

 

[Ashles]

I suppose it is a "I think therefore I am" moment.

Newscientist magazine ran an article call "I fly" whereby it talked about very basic lifeforms having an identity.

We can't really discuss that unless you have more information.

What do you mean by an identity? A plant has an identity in that I can identify one plant from another.

If you are talking about a concept of self then I have never heard such a suggestion about insects. You would need to provide some details no the subject for it to be taken seriously as part of your theory.

I don't think that I am misrepresenting any ideas, I just placed an emphasis and interpretation of part of the article.

surely I am allowed to do that?

But your interpretation is incorrect. It is not what was being described by the article.

If I read your theory above and state "Oh you mean conscious animals like man", would that be fair?

It's not what you meant or what you stated, but I am intepreting your theory as I like.

Or how about I read Darwin's theory of natural selection, but choose to interpret it that he meant aliens directed genetic mutation over time.

Is that acceptable? Of course not.

If you have a new theory, explain that theory, but don't incorrectly interpret the theories of others. Especially when you completely change what that theory states.


And as for chaos theory... what exactly are you implying the connection is here?

 

[jmercer]

what about chaos theory.

If a butterfly can cause or change the route of a huricane why not a particle effecting matters at a macroscopic level on the other side of the world or the Universe for that matter?

That's not what chaos theory states or implies.

Regarding collapsing wave forms - when was the last time you observed a collapsing wave form? Would you know it if you did? Additionally, it's direct observation that will do the trick. You can't have a fly on this side of the globe collapsing a wave form on the other side.

Look, it's very simple. Quantum behavior happens at a quantum level for a reason - it's the only place it can occur. Forget about quantum laws mirroring macro events. Aside from the fact that it can't, there's also the reality that you're cherry-picking your quantum behavior, by strictly citing wave-form collapse. What about entanglement? What about uncertainty (beyond the obvious Brownian motion, which is an indirect visible side-effect and not a primary effect.) I could keep citing this stuff, but it would simply be redundant.

Quantum effects shape the fundamental structure of matter and energy in our universe, and therefore have a subtle impact that can be observed... but other than that, there's not only no reason to believe it manifests on a macro basis, but within the theory itself, it's pretty clear that quantum effects cannot appear at the macro level. What can appear are physical changes in the properties of matter and energy when quantum rules are exploited... such as with superconductors, etc.

What you are doing with your theory is attempting to rewrite Quantum theory - but without those pesky math models that support your contentions.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Ashles
And as for chaos theory... what exactly are you implying the connection is here?

I'm just saying that small things can have an effect a long way away and that those effects maybe disproportionate to the thing that made them. That is all.



I really don't think that I said that the interaction of a dust particle was directly with a conscious being, that would be stupid I agree.

 

[jmercer]

I'm just saying that small things can have an effect a long way away and that those effects maybe disproportionate to the thing that made them. That is all.

Unfortunately - as romantic and popular the notion is - no.

 

[Ashles]

I'm just saying that small things can have an effect a long way away and that those effects maybe disproportionate to the thing that made them. That is all.

Good. That's not chaos theory of course, but it's nice that you have another new theory.

What it is:

Formally, chaos theory is defined as the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. Complex implies just that, nonlinear implies recursion and higher mathematical algorithms, and dynamic implies nonconstant and nonperiodic. Thus chaos theory is, very generally, the study of forever changing complex systems based on mathematical concepts of recursion, whether in the form of a recursive process or a set of differential equations modeling a physical system.

It is a way of study complex systems. But this isn't applicable to what you are talking about because firstly we have to know how the particle would affect higher orders of magnitude - this is described by Quantum Physics.

Chaos theory doesn't suddenly supercede QM simply because a butterfly might cause long range effects, due to the complexity of the weather system.

The parallels don't work.

If the butterfly was on a different planet the example falls down because it is not interacting with earth's weather.

Similarly if a sub atomic particle only interacts with higher scales of matter in a certain way (according to QM) then any models describing the higher level interactions have to follow the nature of this interaction.

Chaos theory is not applicable to the nature of a subatomic particle affecting higher scale events in the way you are implying.

I really don't think that I said that the interaction of a dust particle was directly with a conscious being, that would be stupid I agree.

And that's why it is pointless to misrepresent other people's theories.